Crossing borders: Oedipus in Asia and the resistance to Psychoanalysis.

 

 

Geoffrey Blowers

 

University of Hong Kong

 

 

Paper prepared for the International Symposium for the History of Psychoanalysis, "History and Function of Myth in Psychoanalysis: Relations between Mythology, Tragedy and Clinical Practice" Athens, 4-8th October 2006 under the auspices of the International Association for the History of Psychoanalysis (Paris) and the Hellenic Society of Psychoanalytical Psychotherapy.

 

 

 

Address for correspondence:

 

Geoffrey H. Blowers PhD

Associate Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences,

 

Department of Psychology

University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong, CHINA

 

Tel: (852)-2859-2378 (O) (852) - 2517-1885(H)

Fax: (852)-2858-3518

Internet: Αυτή η διεύθυνση ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου προστατεύεται από τους αυτοματισμούς αποστολέων ανεπιθύμητων μηνυμάτων. Χρειάζεται να ενεργοποιήσετε τη JavaScript για να μπορέσετε να τη δείτε.

 

 

 

 

 Abstract

 

This paper examines some attempts made in the 1920s and 1930s in India, Japan and China to introduce Freud’s psychoanalytic ideas and the resistances they met. Beginning with Ernest Jones’ famous retort to Malinowski’s enquiry about the Oedipus complex in natives of the Trobriand islands, it goes on to look at how, in the above mentioned countries, particular individuals had direct forms of communication with Freud and went on to offer specifically cultural variants on his theory of the Oedipus Complex. In all cases Freud remained cool to these ideas, even though, it is argued, they were done as part of a general indigenising process to make Freud’s ideas more palatable to and equated with indigenous beliefs of the cultures. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this account for the present and future possibilities of Psychoanalysis in Asia.

 

 

Crossing borders: Oedipus in Asia and the resistance to Psychoanalysis.

 

 

Enter Malinowski

 

When in a letter to Nature in 1923 headed "Psychoanalysis and Anthropology", Bronislaw Malonowski reported on the "original constitution" of the family structure as he had observed it "amongst present day savages" of the Trobriand Islands, he sought to revise rather than to refute psychoanalytic concepts in the light of his ethnographic evidence. He argued that in the matrilineal kinship system of the Trobrianders, the fierce and "tyrannical" father of Totem and Taboo was missing. The central tenets of a "repressive authority" and a "severing taboo" worked elsewhere "in a manner different from that of the patriarchal family" so that if the general theory of Freud was correct, "the repressed wish formation ought to receive a shape different from the Oedipus Complex."[1]

 

 

In several subsequent papers published a year later Malinowski developed these ideas by drawing upon his observations of the development of male Trobriander children. Without a prohibiting father, according to him, a child’s sexuality proceeded along with its social development, with the "cravings for its mother" expiring in "a natural spontaneous manner" but its genital sexuality generally was never "dislodged". The later intervention of the mother’s brother to enforce the taboo of physical contact with the boy’s sister holds in check his homicidal and incestuous wishes for her, this being, for Malinowski, evidence of a different nuclear complex. By drawing into sharper relief the relationship between biological and social development in different kinds of family structure, this led him to assert that adherents of orthodox psychoanalysis, rather than assuming the universality of the Oedipus complex, should study "every type of civilization, to establish the special complex that pertains to it".[2]

 

           Ernest Jones, representing the Freudian establishment, was quick to respond to this attempted revision to orthodoxy. Malinowski’s work was hotly debated in the Royal Anthropological Society in 1924 and Jones had been invited to deliver a lecture before it that year.[3] Jones assumed that Malinowski’s observations of savages’s ignorance of their paternity indicated denial on their part, the effect of which was to shift the "affect in a relationship where it might have unpleasant consequences and depositing it at a safer distance." Freud was reminded of this fourteen years later when, frail and ill and in exile in London, he received a letter from Malinowski addressed to Anna describing himself as a "devoted admirer of [Freud] and his work" to which Freud expressed pleasant surprise as he had been more aware of his "opposition and contradiction to [his] views."[4]

 

Jones’s reinstatement of the foundational role of the oedipal complex however was already at odds with others in the movement, notably Otto Rank, whom Malinowski had cited. As editor of Imago, he had republished both Malinowski’s and Jones’s articles. Rank, in The Trauma of Birth, raised the radical idea that all paternal conflicts with the father including oedipal ones were but a chimera to more "essential ones concerning birth".[5] His placing the mother at the centre of the child’s first dealings with the world foregrounded the important role she plays in nurturing and prioritized it over the potentially castrating role of the father. Freud initially accepted Rank’s work as a contribution, but did not feel it had much of a future, little realizing how his ambivalence to the work would be used by members of his secret committee to drive a wedge between the two.[6]

 

Bengal beckons

 

But disagreements with Freud over the centrality of the Oedipus complex were not confined to Europeans. In 1920, Freud received the first of several letters from Girindrasekhar Bose, an Indian medical doctor who had turned to experimental psychology and done a doctoral thesis on the subject of repression, a copy of which he sent to Freud.[7] Suitably impressed that psychoanalysis had been recognized in a "far country," Freud wrote a short introduction for Bose when his thesis was published as a book. Following the formation of the Indian Psychoanalytic society and its affiliation to the IPA in 1922, he also asked Bose if he would like his name appended to the masthead of both the Zeitschrift für Psychanalyse and the English language IJP. [8] It was only later when Bose sent him copies of a number of his own papers that Freud had an opportunity to scrutinize (and criticize) his Indian colleague’s work for its deviating from orthodoxy.

 

Bose’s theory rested on two radical departures from Freud’s work. First was his theory of "the opposite wish" whereby whatever is consciously wished is harnessed to a wish for its opposite. This bipolarity comprises an active and a passive element, one of which is conscious, the other unconscious. A Bose put it, "the wish to strike somebody is accompanied by the unconscious wish to be struck."[9] During the course of free association to presenting symptoms, Bose claimed to observe a ‘see-saw’ mechanism at work in his patients whereby instead of disappearing completely even after wishes had been made conscious, symptoms persisted and further associations revealed an unconscious element of the opposite type. As analysis proceeded, conscious tendencies abated or slipped back into the unconscious and the opposite repressed tendency was made conscious. These alterations continued in a see saw fashion but over time the force of the opposite wishes weakened as the frequency of oscillation increased. Bose theorized the see sawing as proceeding at its own pace but was time consuming, so he also induced it by asking his analysands to put themselves in the place of the object and thus force a new set of associations.

 

It was partly on the basis of this theory that Bose also re-conceptualized the Oedipus complex. Arising out of his theory of the opposite tendency, the desire to be male is accompanied by a desire to be female seen, according to Bose, "to be more easily unearthed in Indian male patients than in European…The Oedipus mother is very often a combined parental image and this is a fact of great importance. I have reasons to believe that much of the motivation of the ‘maternal deity’ is traceable to this source."[10] The foregrounding of this figure has the effect of muting the threat of castration as exhibited in the oedipal father since the fear is diminished by an opposing desire to be female which implicitly accepts castration. According to Sudhir Kakar, the mention in Bose’s letter of a maternal deity would have to be understood within Hindu culture as a possible reference to Devi, the great goddess.[11] In one explication of this myth, Kakar elaborates what for him is the Indian variant of Oedipus, termed by him the Ganesha complex.[12]

 

Ganesha was one of the two sons of the goddess Devi (the other being Skanda), who, amongst her many incarnations is known as the conqueror of the demon Mahisasura whom she destroyed along with most of his army. She effected this feat through the medium of riding naked to battle and dancing, cutting off the heads of thousand and thousands as she wielded her sword. When Mahisasura tried to escape by transforming himself into an elephant, she cut off his trunk; when he transmuted to a buffalo whose thick hide made her swordplay impotent, she rode the buffalo to the point of it exhaustion then killed it by driving a spear through it neck. She is the phallic mother or as Kakar suggests, the half-male, half female, and incorporates through her son’s attachment to her his wish to be a man without having to separate from her. However her husband Shiva becomes a rival for his wife’s affection and in the mythical narrative kills his son who stands guard at her bedroom while she bathes. Ganesha represents that half of the boy who refuses individuation and liberation through maternal separation.

 

Freud’s written reply to Bose on receiving his theoretical and popular papers was neutral in tone. Christiane Hartnack is her book, Psychoanalysis in Colonial India[13] details several anecdotes which suggest however that Freud was far from happy about this revision even though in his penultimate letter to Bose he acknowledges that the bipolar nature of wishes shows up in three relatively neglected areas of bisexuality: masculinity/femininity, love/hate and activity/passivity.[14] Freud’s major criticism of Bose’s ideas was that they were too "morphological," a euphemism Freud seems to have employed to cover his disdain for what he took to be Bose’s lack of empirical support for his own theory. Nonetheless, in this same letter he invited Bose to write a paper detailing these central tenets for publication in the two international psychoanalytic journals, but this seems not to have occurred.

 

 

An overture from Japan

 

During the period of his exchanges with Bose in the 1920s and early 1930s Freud also entered into correspondence with a psychologist, two psychiatrists and a literatus from Japan. Each of them had read and been impressed by Freud’s work and three had traveled to see him on separate visits with a view to being analyzed by him. That story has been told elsewhere[15] but its significance for the current paper is that one of these early admirers of Freud, Kosawa Heisaku, traveled to Vienna in 1931, and although he could not afford an analysis with Freud who passed him on to Richard Sterba, he did present him with a paper he had written about his ideas on the Oedipus complex as it might pertain to Japanese culture.[16] Hoping for a considered assessment, Freud gave him only the briefest of replies: "Dear Doctor, I have received and read you essay. I’ll keep it with me since it seems as if you have no intention to use it otherwise." [17]

 

 

In Kosawa's version, Oedipus becomes the Ajase complex in his paper entitled "Two Kinds of Guilt".[18] His modification takes account in Japanese society of the mutual dependency that develops between mothers and their children. The myth of Ajase can be traced to two Buddhist texts. These are the Nirvana Sutra [The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life] introduced to Japan between 700 and 1000AD, and the Kyogyoshinsho, [The Collection of Passages expounding the True Teaching, Living, Faith and Realizing of the Pure Land] written by Shinran Shonin (1173-1262), a celebrated Japanese priest of the Kamakura period (1185-1333).          

 

The myth centres on Ajase’s lifelong dependency upon his mother to whom he initially targets his hostility and then becomes resolved to her undying affection. It tells of an Indian prince Ajatasatru (Ajase) and his mother, Idaike, a woman who fears that her fading beauty makes her no longer attractive to her husband, King Bimbashara, the protector of Buddha. This leads her to desire a child and, on the advice of a soothsayer, to become pregnant with the reincarnated soul of a hermit after his death. Impatient for this natural event to occur, she hastens it by murdering the hermit who curses her on his deathbed with the prophecy that he will return in the form of her son, the Prince, to murder her husband. Fearful of her unborn son's revenge (the hermit's curse) she attempts to kill him at birth by dropping him from her womb at a great height. He survives the fall but breaks his finger, and is later reminded of the origins of this event by Daibadatta, an enemy of Buddha.[19] Engulfed in feelings of rage he attempts to kill his mother, Idaike, but is overcome by such feelings of guilt that he falls seriously ill, and is only nursed back to health by her intervention. Idaike's charitable act resolves her own conflicts over her son who recovers to become a wise king.

 

Kosawa's use of the story exemplifies for him the fundamental issue of birth. According to his own later student, Okonogi, who would go on to develop the psychical consequences of this structure himself,[20] the originality of the Ajase complex lies in its themes of matricide and "prenatal rancor" (from the Buddhist concept of mishoon, or resentment towards one's origins), in contrast to the Oedipus Complex which emphasizes incestuous desire and patricide. The mother wishes both to have her child and kill it, her ambivalent feelings arising out of her desire to exercise power over its life and death and the paranoid fear of retaliation that a projection of this desire onto the child brings in its wake. On the other hand the ambivalent feelings of the child arise out of an idealization of the mother as a love object and the knowledge that she is capable of killing it. [21] There is also the question of the two kinds of guilt of the original paper's title.          

 

In the original story, Oedipus, upon realizing the horror of his         act(s) inflicts self-punishment by tearing out his eyes, an act motivated by the burden of his crime. According to Kosawa, Ajase's feelings of guilt change over the course of the story's development. After attempting to kill his mother he is frightened by punishment and falls ill. This resembles the "persecutory               guilt" of which members of the Kleinian school speak. After Ajase's mother pardons and nurses him, he feels remorse towards her, what Kleinians call "reparative guilt".[22] As Kosawa's paper dates from 1932, the question of whether his thinking was influenced by Melanie Klein's ideas or anticipated them remains an open one.          

 

Like Bose’s version, Kosawa's can be seen as a considered modification of the orthodox view of psychic development at that time, and another attempt at an Asian cultural variant on what, for Freud, was a universal mechanism. Freud's evasive comment on it suggests his possible displeasure at its contents. [23]

 

 

The Chinese case

 

Although Freud faced no similar problem of being presented with a reworked version of Oedipus from China, in 1929 nonetheless, he received a letter from the dissent Chinese intellectual Zhang Shizhao. Although the letter has disappeared, Freud’s extant brief reply suggested its contents. [24]

 

 

 

"Most esteemed Professor,

 

In whatever way you wish to carry out your intention, whether it is by paving the way for the development of psychoanalysis in your homeland - China - or by contributions to our journal Imago in which you would judge against your own language our conjectures about the nature of archaic modes of expression, I will be extremely pleased. What I quoted in my lectures from the Chinese, was taken from an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).

 

Very respectfully,

 

         Yours Freud"[25]

 

Zhang had worked a couple of years earlier on a translation of Freud's Selbsdarstellung. He was likely making overtures to Freud about the possibility of disseminating his works in China through translations, but the focus of the reply suggested he was curious about Freud's understanding of Chinese, and was intending to write an article for Imago testing his assumptions. As it happened, Zhang's article(s) for Imago never materialized. Meanwhile, he published his translation of the autobiography a year later.[26]

 

Intellectuals in China in the 1920s had shown considerable interest in psychoanalysis as judged by the number of translations of Freud’s works and those of his early followers into Chinese,[27] secondary articles on psychoanalysis,[28] and the use of Freudian ideas in Chinese literature.[29] Although this interest did not develop a therapeutic culture of depth psychology – much of the focus was on Freud’s theory of sublimation as a healthy outlet for unsuitable desires which could then be put in the service of others[30] -- the debates that unfolded in this period seriously challenged the idea that the oedipal myth stood as an exemplar of Chinese family structure. To the contrary, as contemporary scholarship has shown, the Confucian model stressing a lifelong filial devotion by sons in respect of their fathers required a different myth.[31] One likely candidate is to be found in the classical story of the Bend in Fen River [Fenhe Wan] also known as Xue Li’s Return Home [Xue Li Huan Jia], which became incorporated into Peking Opera.

 

The story concerns Xue Li or Xue Rengui, a soldier a fortune of the Tang period who became a high ranking military officer and whose skills at archery brought him to the attention of the Emperor who assigned him duty in a distant land. The crux of the tale hinges on his return home to his wife whom he has not seen since he left her pregnant 18 years before. As Xue approaches his home, he sees a young man standing on the bank of the river Fen skilfully shooting geese and challenges him to a test of his marksmanship. The young man accepts but Xue, instead of shooting geese, shoots the youth instead, claiming that he could have spared the boy but could not let another live who was superior. When he finally arrives home the exchange with his wife turns to doubts of her fidelity, exacerbated by seeing an unfamiliar pair of shoes under their bed. His wife chides him for his doubts saying the shoes belong to his son whose is out hunting. The dénouement comes with their horrifying discovery that Xue has killed their son.

 

The tale’s structure is almost the obverse of the oedipal myth. It is Xue, the father rather than the son who leave home to make his fortune (Oedipus was abandoned) and it is the father who kills the son. But like the oedipal myth, the killing is of one to whom the perpetrator is unaware of his familial relation, making them equally tragic. The doubts the father has about his wife’s fidelity reveal a tension in the father-son relationship that can be traced to the particularly intense mother-son tie exemplified in the 24 examples of a son’s devotion to his parents as described in the classic Confucian text of filial piety. This myth better serves as an exemplar of the Chinese family structure which stresses a lifelong devotion to parents and discourages a breaking away to a newfound individuality that typifies western European families.

 

Even without the myth being "discovered" by commentators of the early Chinese psychoanalytic scene, it is clear that when the first psychoanalyst began practicing in China, his neo-Freudian training coupled with his sensitivity to and pedagogical experience of the culture predisposed him to a cultural framework that had departed from Freudian orthodoxy.   Bingham Dai, a graduate of St. Johns University in Shanghai, underwent a training by Leon Saul and a supervision by Karen Horney while studying for a doctorate in sociology in Chicago. He had been recommended for this by Harry Stack Sullivan who approached him during Dai’s tenure at a Rockefeller seminar in 1932. He returned to China in 1935 to take up a position at Peking Union Medical College, teaching medical psychology to Chinese doctors, setting up a small analytic training group and seeing patients.

 

He worked at sensitising the doctors to forms of therapy based on a system of thought which departed from the Freudian frame of reference. Like his mentors, instead of seeing personality problems solely in terms of intra-psychic tensions, he sought to understand them in their social cultural contexts. While this orientation owed much to Sullivan’s influence, it had its origins for Dai in an earlier series of intellectual encounters which led him to reject the Christian teaching of the missionary college in which he had been educated and to embrace Confucianism. He was inspired in this move by his reading of a hugely influential text by Liang Shu Ming, Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies published in 1922. Liang, a former Buddhist scholar who had turned to Confucianism, was a staunch conservative cultural critic in a period of significant cultural reform. His book spoke of the need to identify, cultivate and protect the essence of Chinese culture from the onslaught of newly imported western scientific ideas. This was not in itself a new concern. While in the final decade of the Qing dynasty prior to the formation of the Republic there had been many calls for modernisation, a compromise had been sought in which western learning could be imported only to the extent it did not devalue the essence of Chinese culture. Although many references to national essence were vague, and there were differences about how best to preserve it, there was general agreement amongst scholars, poets, and educators that it signified a return to Confucian ethical values, most notably the principle that, in the flux of life, all elements are bound together harmoniously and are best expressed in the concept of jen (benevolence). Reacting against the "modern condition" it was Liang’s view that learning based solely on western science would foster the critically rational mind, but this in turn would threaten by critical devaluation all values. The solution to this was that learning should proceed in contexts in which not only intellectual but moral improvement might be achieved.[32]

 

How far Dai would have developed his psychoanalyse within this context remains unclear because he left in 1939 for America due to the intensification of the Sino-Japanese war, bringing his program to a close.[33] Psychoanalysis in China was not to be revived for another forty years.

 

 

A summing up

 

What are we to conclude from this very brief account of Asian encounters with Freud and orthodox psychoanalysis? In all cases of direct contact with Freud himself, his correspondents not only had read and admired his work but a priori had begun working on their own transformations of his ideas. This is in sharp contrast to developments in the West where in Europe and elsewhere there had been an initial reception and acceptance of orthodoxy before revisions began to set in. This did not please Freud but we know from the period of his life in which these Asian encounters begin, he was already in some physical decline and the Psychoanalytic movement had in any case grown too big to be contained.  More significantly Freud’s intention to see his discovery of the Oedipus complex as a universal phenomenon might have blinded him to the cultural variants his correspondents were keen to impress upon him, variants it must be said which need not have caused him too much concern since the general principles arising from his elaboration might universally apply – his formulation that opposite sexed parental projections contribute to the formation of psychic structures (superego and the mechanism of defence) most notably.

 

If cultural myths have been found to support family structures out of which different psychodynamic constellations arise, the strong emphasis in Asian cultures generally on relationships taking priority over developments of the individual self make the goal of therapy different too. Where in the past this has been seriously drawn into question,[34] there has been sufficient work in the past two decades, notably the work of Alan Roland, Sudhir Kakar and Ashis Nandy, dealing with India and Japan, to suggest that psychoanalysis in an Asian context is possible, and is practiced,[35] but, as with elsewhere, it must contend not so much with revisions to orthodoxy so much as with rival forms of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacologic practice which currently dominate al the cultures mentioned here.

 

 

[1] "Psychoanalysis and Anthropology" pp115-116 In, B. Malinowski, Sex, Culture and Myth. New York. 1962. This quotation and others in the paragraph are cited in Stocking, G., "Malinowski’s encounter with Freudian Psychoanalysis" in G. Stocking (Ed.) Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays in Culture and Personality. University of Wisconsin Press 1986.

 

[2] (1924) Psychoanalysis and Anthropology, Psyche 4, 293-332

 

[3] Jones E. (1957) Mother Right and the sexual ignorance of savages. In Psycho-myth, psychohistory; Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis vol 2 145-173.

 

[4] Stocking, Op.cit p.13.

 

[5] Jones, The Life of Sigmund Freud vol 3 p.58.

 

[6] See, Paul Roazen, Freud and his Followers p398ff for an account

 

[7] The correspondence between Bose and Freud first appeared in Samiksa, The Journal of the Indian Psychoanalytical Society Vol 10, nos. 5 and 6, 1956

 

[8] Letter of Freud to Bose dated October 27th 1922

 

[9] Bose, G. Opposite fantasies in the Release of Repression. Indian Journal of Psychology 1935 10, 29-41 (quote p34-5)

 

 

 

[10] Bose to Freud 11th April 1929. Ramana, p.126

 

[11] Kakar, S. (2001) The maternal feminine in Indian Psychoanalysis. The essential writings of Sudhir Kakar Oxford University Press, chapter 9, The Cloistered Passion of Radha and Krishna.

 

[12] Ibid.

 

[13] Hartnack, C. (2110) Psychoanalysis in Colonial India Oxford University Press. In particular chapter 5, "The Uses of psychoanalysis in the treatment of Indian patients".

 

[14] Freud to Bose January 1st 1933.

 

[15] See (1997) Blowers, G.H and Yang, SHC, "Freud’s Deshi: the Coming of Psychoanalysis to Japan" Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 33 (2) 115-126 and (2001) Blowers G.H. and Yang SHC, "Ohtsuki Kenji and the Beginnings of Lay Analysis in Japan." International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 82 (1) 27-42.

 

[16] Letter of Kosawa to Freud 13th February 1932.

 

[17] Freud to Kosawa 30th July 1932. In German in the original.

 

[18] Subsequently published as "Zaiakuishikino nishu" ["Two types of Guilt Consciousness -- Oedipus and Azase [Ajase]" in Seishin bunseki [Tokyo Journal of Psychoanalysis] (March-April 1935). Later revised in Seishinbunseki kenkyu twice, in 1950 and 1954

 

[19] One of the Chinese characters for Ajase's name means "broken finger".

 

[20] Okonogi Keigo, "The Ajase complex". Paper read at the International Psychoanalytic Conference, San Francisco, August 1995.          

 

[21] This plays on a strong cultural element for it was sometimes a custom in Japan up to the Edo period (1603-1868) for mothers to kill their children in times of famine.

 

[22] Klein wrote of the need for the baby in the course of its development to separate good and bad aspects of the same object about which it has fantasies, and to which it can harbour ambivalent feelings of love and hate. Beginning with anxieties over being attacked by a bad object (breast/mother) the baby shifts to fears for the safety and return of the good. Its feelings of persecution give way to depression which becomes the motive for reparation. See, for example, Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation, and other works (London: Hogarth Press).  

 

[23] Although Freud initially offered to analyze Kosawa at a reduced rate, his analysis was eventually taken over by Richard Sterba.          

 

[24] See Blowers (1993) Freud’s China Connection, Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development 14, (4) 263-273.

 

[25] Freud's letter first appeared as a photographic reprint ofthe original in a preface to Zhang Shizhao's translation of Selbstdarstellung (1930). The letter was not translated into Chinese until many years later and appears in Yu Feng Gao's Psychoanalysis and Modern Chinese Novels (1987). The translation here is from the German photoprint.

 

[26] It was in Zhang’s preface to his translation that a photographic reprint of Freud’s letter first appeared. The letter was dated May 27th 1929.

 

[27] See for example, Wolfgang Bauer, H. and Hwang Shen-chang (1982) German Impact on Modern Chinese Intellectual History: a bibliography of Chinese publications. Wiesbaden, GMBH, Franz Steiner Verlag and Blowers, G.H. (1996) Gao Juefu: China's interpreter of western psychology. World Psychology pp 107-121

 

[28] Blowers, G.H. (1997) "Freud in China: the variable reception of psychoanalysis." China Perspectives 10, March/April. Pp 33-39.

 

[29] Zhang, Jingyuan (1992) Psychoanalysis in China: Literary transformations (1919-1949). Cornell: Cornell East Asia series.

 

[30] Blowers, G.H. (1997a) La psychoanalyse en Chine avant 1949: Le rejet ou la distorsion. Perspectives Chinoises 30. Jan-Feb. 33-39 and (1997b) Freud in China: the variable reception of psychoanalysis. China Perspectives 10, March/April. pp 33-39. Zhang Jingyuan Op.cit.

 

[31] See "Confucianism and the Life cycle" in Richard Solomon (1971) Mao’s Revolution and Chinese Political Culture. Zhang Jingyuan Op.cit p68ff.

 

[32] Alitto, G. (1976) "The conservative as sage: Liang Shu-ming" in Charlotte Furth (Ed) The limits of change: essays on conservative alternatives in Republican China. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press 1976.

 

[33] Blowers G.H. (2004) Bingham Dai, Adolf Storfer, and the tentative beginnings of psychoanalytic culture in China: 1935-1941. Psychoanalysis and History 6 (1) 93-105

 

 

 

[34] See Maloney, J.C. (1953) Understanding the paradox of Japanese psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 34, 291-303, Blowers G.H. (2001) Ohtsuki Kenji and the beginnings of Lay Analysis in Japan. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 82 (1) 27-42

 

[35] [35] Roland, A. (1988) In search of Self in India and Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kakar, S. (2001) The essential writings of Sudhir Kakar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nandy, A. (1995) The savage Freud and Other essays on Possible and Retrievable selves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

         

                  

          Ινστιτούτο Ψυχικής Υγείας Παιδιών και Ενηλίκων