{"title":"留白:比昂谈语文写作","authors":"J. Hecht","doi":"10.1353/aim.2023.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Wilfred Bion briefly discussed Chinese writing some dozen times, attributing to it various counter-intuitive features. A review of these passages suggests they were part of Bion's larger effort to evoke the challenges of bridging communication gaps with patients, where Bion held that the very means of communication itself was at issue. Chinese also helped evoke a sense of mystery in listeners who, like Bion, knew no Chinese. The main source of Bion's Sinology, an influential 1908 essay by Ernest Fenollosa, was broadly discredited by the 1950's, yet Bion propounded it in five countries through the 1970's. Psychoanalysis, not linguistics, was his subject as he used a mystifying intellectual fantasy (of a Chinese cognitive Other) to discuss incomprehension—a state of unknowing common to clinical impasse and to a philosophical mindset. That Bion induced (deliberately or not) a receptively confused mental state in listeners as he discussed written Chinese, is consistent with discerning observations of Bion's presentations by Leo Rangel and Donald Meltzer. Bion's claims about Chinese are largely false; more interestingly, they are largely incoherent, yet he used them again and again. That they have evaded critical scrutiny these fifty years may be due to the same effects they produced in performance.","PeriodicalId":44377,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN IMAGO","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drawing a Blank: Bion Speaking on Chinese Writing\",\"authors\":\"J. Hecht\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/aim.2023.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Wilfred Bion briefly discussed Chinese writing some dozen times, attributing to it various counter-intuitive features. A review of these passages suggests they were part of Bion's larger effort to evoke the challenges of bridging communication gaps with patients, where Bion held that the very means of communication itself was at issue. Chinese also helped evoke a sense of mystery in listeners who, like Bion, knew no Chinese. The main source of Bion's Sinology, an influential 1908 essay by Ernest Fenollosa, was broadly discredited by the 1950's, yet Bion propounded it in five countries through the 1970's. Psychoanalysis, not linguistics, was his subject as he used a mystifying intellectual fantasy (of a Chinese cognitive Other) to discuss incomprehension—a state of unknowing common to clinical impasse and to a philosophical mindset. That Bion induced (deliberately or not) a receptively confused mental state in listeners as he discussed written Chinese, is consistent with discerning observations of Bion's presentations by Leo Rangel and Donald Meltzer. Bion's claims about Chinese are largely false; more interestingly, they are largely incoherent, yet he used them again and again. That they have evaded critical scrutiny these fifty years may be due to the same effects they produced in performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2023.0008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN IMAGO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2023.0008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Wilfred Bion briefly discussed Chinese writing some dozen times, attributing to it various counter-intuitive features. A review of these passages suggests they were part of Bion's larger effort to evoke the challenges of bridging communication gaps with patients, where Bion held that the very means of communication itself was at issue. Chinese also helped evoke a sense of mystery in listeners who, like Bion, knew no Chinese. The main source of Bion's Sinology, an influential 1908 essay by Ernest Fenollosa, was broadly discredited by the 1950's, yet Bion propounded it in five countries through the 1970's. Psychoanalysis, not linguistics, was his subject as he used a mystifying intellectual fantasy (of a Chinese cognitive Other) to discuss incomprehension—a state of unknowing common to clinical impasse and to a philosophical mindset. That Bion induced (deliberately or not) a receptively confused mental state in listeners as he discussed written Chinese, is consistent with discerning observations of Bion's presentations by Leo Rangel and Donald Meltzer. Bion's claims about Chinese are largely false; more interestingly, they are largely incoherent, yet he used them again and again. That they have evaded critical scrutiny these fifty years may be due to the same effects they produced in performance.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1939 by Sigmund Freud and Hanns Sachs, AMERICAN IMAGO is the preeminent scholarly journal of psychoanalysis. Appearing quarterly, AMERICAN IMAGO publishes innovative articles on the history and theory of psychoanalysis as well as on the reciprocal relations between psychoanalysis and the broad range of disciplines that constitute the human sciences. Since 2001, the journal has been edited by Peter L. Rudnytsky, who has made each issue a "special issue" and introduced a topical book review section, with a guest editor for every Fall issue.