![Discuss how useful you find a psychoanalytical approach to fandom - you can concentrate
on Klein or Winnicott or both of them. Your answer will need to refer to Matt Hills (2002).
In this essay I am going to discuss the viability of the use of a psychoanalytical approach in terms of fandom.
This will involve looking at studies from Melanie Klein who looks at the position of ‘projective identification’
and Donald Winnicott who looks at the the position of the ‘transitional-object’ which is used to replace the
mothers breast after birth, to subject the feasibility of the theoretical and ethical approaches to fandom.
Psychoanalysis was a theory devised by Sigmund Freud, which explored the theory of the mind. The Institute
of Psychoanalysis (The Institute of Psychoanalysis, 2015) states that, ‘pyscho-analysis is based on the theory
that early relationships with parents, childhood, experiences of, love, loss, sexuality and death all lay down
patterns in the mind which provide… unconscious ‘templates’…’. These templates are used to understand the
human mind at a deeper level, allowing theorists to understand decisions made by people based on the
experiences they have had in their lives. When applying this approach to fandom I will have to consider, as
Hills (2002, pg.95) states, that, ‘It would be a mistake to assume that psychoanalysis can offer up a singular
theory of affective play which can then simply be ‘applied’ to fan cultures’. Affect being what adds colour and
meaning to our lives, is difficult to understand through the psychoanalytical approach, as there are many
approaches to the psychoanalytical theory in terms of fandom. However, they have all worked from the same
theory of ‘object-relations’, which as Greenberg (1983) is a research into the ‘depths of human experience’,
which has been seen as the linking of objects to certain ‘drives’ within a person.
Tudor (1997, pg.446) states that, in relation to horror fandom, that, ‘psychoanalytic theories of horror gain
credibility from the widespread belief that horror fans are a peculiar bunch who share a perverse
predilection…. How could anyone want to be horrified… unless there was some deeply hidden reason…[?]’.
This suggests that because the subjects of the horror film are not considered ethical, that for someone to be
part of horror fandom, they person must have deeply routed issues within themselves to project the same
feeling. This viewpoint can go in-line with the statement from Kleine (1991, pg.21) which says, ‘….projective
identification was first described by Klein… In this the ego projects its feeling into the object which it then
identifies with, becoming like the object which it has already imaginatively filled with itself.’ The ‘projective
identification’ theory fandom seems to be to be more useful when looking at cultural studies. This is in
comparison with the paranoid-schizoid position, which explains the method of a person subconsciously
splitting their personality so that the object, in this case horror, does not affect a persons good. This is
agreed upon by Hills (2202, pg.97_as he states, ‘… what are these ‘bad’ and threatened ‘good’ parts of the
self? Surely our ‘selves’ are not internally torn apart in such violent ways?’ I find this difficult to use a
psychoanalytical approach here, as it seems there are many beliefs of how it should be approached. Because,
the projective identification position seems to abstract itself from the effects of the outer world on a person,
as Hill (2002, pg. 97-98) states, ‘…Klein’s work shows disregard for the politics of the external world…’
meaning that, Klein only believed that the internal was the only thing that would influence a persons psyche.
Whereas, the paranoid-schizoid position shows disregard that not every person is passive to the object, and
may separate the bad from the good on their on terms.
Duffett (2013, pg.87) states, ‘Obsessed fans supposedly retreat into social isolation, have ‘narcissistic fantasies’
and become overly fixated on their star…if the celebrity challenges the image constructed of them – the
obsessed follower’s immense emotional investment can supposedly cause them too enter a resentful rage…’
this links with ‘projective identification’, where the fan projects the worst parts of themselves on to the
celebrity. This stems for Klein’s (1989, pg. 143) position which states that, ‘In the sadistic phase the individual
protects himself from his fear of his violent object, both introjected and external, by redoubling his own
destructive attack upon it in is imagination.’ This explains how , for example, Mark Chapman killed John
Lennon. This is because at times severe violence can be directed at the object itself to remove it as the as the
projective relation.
Minsky (1998, pg. 51) states in reference to Winnicott’s transitional position that the child, ‘…is a creature
who from its moment of birth enthusiastically wishes to participate in its own development.’ The](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/89c38a66-ad9f-4178-8a38-a1979ed149c1-160125204355/85/Subcultures-Assignment-2-1-320.jpg)
![development in early life for every human, they are under the illusion that the breast corresponds with their
external capacity to create. Winnicott (1971, pg. 12) explains that after this, ‘The transitional object and the
transitional phenomena start each human off with what will always be important to them, i.e. a neutral area
of experience which will not be challenged.’ This is used to explain the transition between the breast say to
the infants thumb, the content of the object does not matter, that we as humans are looking for that
transitional object to replace the gap left by the removal of the mothers breast.
In accordance with the transitional position in terms of fandom it is believed that the ‘transitional-object’ in
adult life can become that of a fandom. Phillips (1988, pg. 155) states that, ‘The first transitional object is
essentially idiosyncratic and unshareable. Winnicott, however, never makes clear how the child gets from the
private experience to the more communal experience’. This goes from the position that later in adult life, we
replace the transitional objects with things such as Star Wars fandom. Hills (2002, pg. 109) begins to discus
this transitional object, in terms of it being secondary, stating that the secondary object, ‘…may be a
transitional object which has not altogether surrendered its affective charge and private significance for the
subject, despite being recontextualised as an intersubsective cultural experience…’ This is used to explain fans
sometime irrational claims of ownership over a celebrity or fandom. This is because they believe this as their
transitional object, and that it is part of them as a being. Duffet (2013) talks in accordance with this about a
‘fan without fandom’, that many maybe think it is just being in the right place a the right time but that
instead there is ‘more at work here’. This relates highly to the ‘transitional-object’ fans cannot find
themselves with nothing to fill that space left by the mothers breast in earlier life, so when there comes a
time there is not something there, they fill it with another object. For example the fan may grow-up
watching Doctor Who, but later in life get directed to Star Wars, this is to make sure they are not a ‘fan
without a fandom’.
I believe that Winnicott’s theory of pyscho-analysis is far more useful when determining fandom, than that of
Klein’s. The position of a transitional-object that we use from birth, which is used to fill a ‘third space’ in
between internal and external forces acting on the self. It makes sense that if we grow up with the
impression that this transitional thing will bring us an experience, that fans latching on to a celebrity is quite
normal. However, I believe that Klein’s projective theory can explain how some fans end up directing violence
at their star because of them changing their style. Duffet (2013, pg. 288) explains the psychoanalysis with
fandom brilliantly stating, ‘ A master theory may never be found, but it remains a worthy goal to understand
the phenomenon as a special bundle of processes that interact in contingent ways’. This explains how I feel
about psychoanalytical approach to fandom as the theories make a lot of sense on their own but so many of
them contradict each other.
References
Duffet, M. 2013. Understanding fandom. London: Bloomsbury.
Hills, M. 2002. Fan cultures. London: Routledge
The Institute of Psychoanalysis, 2015. What is psychoanalysis? [online] Available at:
< http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/about_psa.htm> [Accessed 19th January 2015]
Klein, M. 1989. The psycho-analysis of children. London: Virago Press
Minsky, R. 1998. Psychoanalysis and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Mitchell, J. ed., 1991. The selected: Melanie Klein. London: Penguin Books
Phillips, A. 1988. Fontana modern masters: Winnicott. London: Fontana Press](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/89c38a66-ad9f-4178-8a38-a1979ed149c1-160125204355/85/Subcultures-Assignment-2-2-320.jpg)
Subcultures - Assignment 2
- 1. Discuss how useful you find a psychoanalytical approach to fandom - you can concentrate on Klein or Winnicott or both of them. Your answer will need to refer to Matt Hills (2002). In this essay I am going to discuss the viability of the use of a psychoanalytical approach in terms of fandom. This will involve looking at studies from Melanie Klein who looks at the position of ‘projective identification’ and Donald Winnicott who looks at the the position of the ‘transitional-object’ which is used to replace the mothers breast after birth, to subject the feasibility of the theoretical and ethical approaches to fandom. Psychoanalysis was a theory devised by Sigmund Freud, which explored the theory of the mind. The Institute of Psychoanalysis (The Institute of Psychoanalysis, 2015) states that, ‘pyscho-analysis is based on the theory that early relationships with parents, childhood, experiences of, love, loss, sexuality and death all lay down patterns in the mind which provide… unconscious ‘templates’…’. These templates are used to understand the human mind at a deeper level, allowing theorists to understand decisions made by people based on the experiences they have had in their lives. When applying this approach to fandom I will have to consider, as Hills (2002, pg.95) states, that, ‘It would be a mistake to assume that psychoanalysis can offer up a singular theory of affective play which can then simply be ‘applied’ to fan cultures’. Affect being what adds colour and meaning to our lives, is difficult to understand through the psychoanalytical approach, as there are many approaches to the psychoanalytical theory in terms of fandom. However, they have all worked from the same theory of ‘object-relations’, which as Greenberg (1983) is a research into the ‘depths of human experience’, which has been seen as the linking of objects to certain ‘drives’ within a person. Tudor (1997, pg.446) states that, in relation to horror fandom, that, ‘psychoanalytic theories of horror gain credibility from the widespread belief that horror fans are a peculiar bunch who share a perverse predilection…. How could anyone want to be horrified… unless there was some deeply hidden reason…[?]’. This suggests that because the subjects of the horror film are not considered ethical, that for someone to be part of horror fandom, they person must have deeply routed issues within themselves to project the same feeling. This viewpoint can go in-line with the statement from Kleine (1991, pg.21) which says, ‘….projective identification was first described by Klein… In this the ego projects its feeling into the object which it then identifies with, becoming like the object which it has already imaginatively filled with itself.’ The ‘projective identification’ theory fandom seems to be to be more useful when looking at cultural studies. This is in comparison with the paranoid-schizoid position, which explains the method of a person subconsciously splitting their personality so that the object, in this case horror, does not affect a persons good. This is agreed upon by Hills (2202, pg.97_as he states, ‘… what are these ‘bad’ and threatened ‘good’ parts of the self? Surely our ‘selves’ are not internally torn apart in such violent ways?’ I find this difficult to use a psychoanalytical approach here, as it seems there are many beliefs of how it should be approached. Because, the projective identification position seems to abstract itself from the effects of the outer world on a person, as Hill (2002, pg. 97-98) states, ‘…Klein’s work shows disregard for the politics of the external world…’ meaning that, Klein only believed that the internal was the only thing that would influence a persons psyche. Whereas, the paranoid-schizoid position shows disregard that not every person is passive to the object, and may separate the bad from the good on their on terms. Duffett (2013, pg.87) states, ‘Obsessed fans supposedly retreat into social isolation, have ‘narcissistic fantasies’ and become overly fixated on their star…if the celebrity challenges the image constructed of them – the obsessed follower’s immense emotional investment can supposedly cause them too enter a resentful rage…’ this links with ‘projective identification’, where the fan projects the worst parts of themselves on to the celebrity. This stems for Klein’s (1989, pg. 143) position which states that, ‘In the sadistic phase the individual protects himself from his fear of his violent object, both introjected and external, by redoubling his own destructive attack upon it in is imagination.’ This explains how , for example, Mark Chapman killed John Lennon. This is because at times severe violence can be directed at the object itself to remove it as the as the projective relation. Minsky (1998, pg. 51) states in reference to Winnicott’s transitional position that the child, ‘…is a creature who from its moment of birth enthusiastically wishes to participate in its own development.’ The
- 2. development in early life for every human, they are under the illusion that the breast corresponds with their external capacity to create. Winnicott (1971, pg. 12) explains that after this, ‘The transitional object and the transitional phenomena start each human off with what will always be important to them, i.e. a neutral area of experience which will not be challenged.’ This is used to explain the transition between the breast say to the infants thumb, the content of the object does not matter, that we as humans are looking for that transitional object to replace the gap left by the removal of the mothers breast. In accordance with the transitional position in terms of fandom it is believed that the ‘transitional-object’ in adult life can become that of a fandom. Phillips (1988, pg. 155) states that, ‘The first transitional object is essentially idiosyncratic and unshareable. Winnicott, however, never makes clear how the child gets from the private experience to the more communal experience’. This goes from the position that later in adult life, we replace the transitional objects with things such as Star Wars fandom. Hills (2002, pg. 109) begins to discus this transitional object, in terms of it being secondary, stating that the secondary object, ‘…may be a transitional object which has not altogether surrendered its affective charge and private significance for the subject, despite being recontextualised as an intersubsective cultural experience…’ This is used to explain fans sometime irrational claims of ownership over a celebrity or fandom. This is because they believe this as their transitional object, and that it is part of them as a being. Duffet (2013) talks in accordance with this about a ‘fan without fandom’, that many maybe think it is just being in the right place a the right time but that instead there is ‘more at work here’. This relates highly to the ‘transitional-object’ fans cannot find themselves with nothing to fill that space left by the mothers breast in earlier life, so when there comes a time there is not something there, they fill it with another object. For example the fan may grow-up watching Doctor Who, but later in life get directed to Star Wars, this is to make sure they are not a ‘fan without a fandom’. I believe that Winnicott’s theory of pyscho-analysis is far more useful when determining fandom, than that of Klein’s. The position of a transitional-object that we use from birth, which is used to fill a ‘third space’ in between internal and external forces acting on the self. It makes sense that if we grow up with the impression that this transitional thing will bring us an experience, that fans latching on to a celebrity is quite normal. However, I believe that Klein’s projective theory can explain how some fans end up directing violence at their star because of them changing their style. Duffet (2013, pg. 288) explains the psychoanalysis with fandom brilliantly stating, ‘ A master theory may never be found, but it remains a worthy goal to understand the phenomenon as a special bundle of processes that interact in contingent ways’. This explains how I feel about psychoanalytical approach to fandom as the theories make a lot of sense on their own but so many of them contradict each other. References Duffet, M. 2013. Understanding fandom. London: Bloomsbury. Hills, M. 2002. Fan cultures. London: Routledge The Institute of Psychoanalysis, 2015. What is psychoanalysis? [online] Available at: < http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/about_psa.htm> [Accessed 19th January 2015] Klein, M. 1989. The psycho-analysis of children. London: Virago Press Minsky, R. 1998. Psychoanalysis and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Mitchell, J. ed., 1991. The selected: Melanie Klein. London: Penguin Books Phillips, A. 1988. Fontana modern masters: Winnicott. London: Fontana Press
- 3. Tudor, A. 1997. Why horror? The peculiar pleasures of a genre. Cultural Studies, 11(3)