{"title":"恋物癖","authors":"Joe Moshenska","doi":"10.11126/stanford/9780804798501.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter opens with an ambiguous set of objects collected by a Dutch woman named Margrieta van Varick and described as “Indian Babies,” possibly brought with her from the Dutch East Indies to New England, and relates them to the practice of iconoclastic child’s play in Malaysia. It repositions iconoclastic child’s play in a fraught colonial context and asks how the play of other cultures is to be interpreted. Beginning with ethnographic and psychoanalytic discussions of child’s play by Lévi-Strauss, Winnicott, and others, it then moves to consider the category of the fetish as one that has long been intertwined with the status of children and their playing. It uses the contested status of this category--as an object both replete with, and devoid of, meaning--to reconsider the fetish as plaything both in sixteenth-century Guinea and in Adorno’s writing on artworks and children’s games.","PeriodicalId":111654,"journal":{"name":"Iconoclasm As Child's Play","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fetish\",\"authors\":\"Joe Moshenska\",\"doi\":\"10.11126/stanford/9780804798501.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter opens with an ambiguous set of objects collected by a Dutch woman named Margrieta van Varick and described as “Indian Babies,” possibly brought with her from the Dutch East Indies to New England, and relates them to the practice of iconoclastic child’s play in Malaysia. It repositions iconoclastic child’s play in a fraught colonial context and asks how the play of other cultures is to be interpreted. Beginning with ethnographic and psychoanalytic discussions of child’s play by Lévi-Strauss, Winnicott, and others, it then moves to consider the category of the fetish as one that has long been intertwined with the status of children and their playing. It uses the contested status of this category--as an object both replete with, and devoid of, meaning--to reconsider the fetish as plaything both in sixteenth-century Guinea and in Adorno’s writing on artworks and children’s games.\",\"PeriodicalId\":111654,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iconoclasm As Child's Play\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iconoclasm As Child's Play\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804798501.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iconoclasm As Child's Play","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804798501.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本章以一组模棱两可的物品开头,这些物品是由一位名叫玛格丽塔·范·瓦里克(Margrieta van Varick)的荷兰妇女收集的,被描述为“印度婴儿”,可能是她从荷属东印度群岛带到新英格兰的,并将它们与马来西亚反传统儿童游戏的做法联系起来。它在令人担忧的殖民背景下重新定位了反传统的儿童游戏,并询问如何解释其他文化的游戏。从lassivi - strauss, Winnicott和其他人对儿童游戏的人种学和精神分析讨论开始,然后转向考虑恋物的类别,因为它长期以来与儿童的地位和他们的游戏交织在一起。它利用这一类别的争议地位——作为一个既充满意义又缺乏意义的对象——来重新考虑在16世纪的几内亚和阿多诺关于艺术品和儿童游戏的写作中作为玩物的恋物。
This chapter opens with an ambiguous set of objects collected by a Dutch woman named Margrieta van Varick and described as “Indian Babies,” possibly brought with her from the Dutch East Indies to New England, and relates them to the practice of iconoclastic child’s play in Malaysia. It repositions iconoclastic child’s play in a fraught colonial context and asks how the play of other cultures is to be interpreted. Beginning with ethnographic and psychoanalytic discussions of child’s play by Lévi-Strauss, Winnicott, and others, it then moves to consider the category of the fetish as one that has long been intertwined with the status of children and their playing. It uses the contested status of this category--as an object both replete with, and devoid of, meaning--to reconsider the fetish as plaything both in sixteenth-century Guinea and in Adorno’s writing on artworks and children’s games.