You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Laplanche's title, mysterious and playful, risks failing to signal the depth of engagement of this short paper with the work, the paradoxes, and the extraordinary achievement of Melanie Klein. His project is contextualized within the more general terrain of ruptures and tensions within psychoanalysis. So perhaps I might start with a few words in relation to this meta-position. I share with Laplanche the view that a central feature of psychoanalysis is to be found in the various tensions it contains. For example, psychoanalysis can be considered a child of the Enlightenment even while announcing a new major obstacle to its continued development. One can also think of this as the tension between the two forms of modernism it embraces1; there is the new knowledge it makes possible and the sober recognition of the limitations we labor under to gain access to this knowledge. Then there is that conflict between the more humanistic and scientistic poles that strain our subject, maintaining the many-sidedness of its object. But these tensions are always, I believe, under danger of collapse—leading to simplification and degradation in psychoanalytic thinking. In this sense we might distinguish two kinds of rupture: there is a progressive form of rupture that demands a break with previous modes of thought; this form will always present itself to some extent as a threat (here Laplanche has Klein firmly situated); then there is another kind of rupture that is regressive—here there is an abandonment of the tensions just discussed and a collapse into one pole or the other (for example, psychoanalysis reconfigured as a purely mechanistic science or, alternatively, as only a humanistic discipline of interpretation and meaning).