Hello! A Self-Introduction...

[birgit kellner]

Sylvia Chong wrote:

> If anyone on this list is familiar with Allison's book, I'd be interested
> in what you think of her use of the Ajase complex (a variant of the Oedipus
> complex proposed by Kosawa in the 30s).  I've found very few mentions of it
> anywhere, but it was a fascinating contrast to Freudian psychoanalysis, and
> I ended up using it to propose a "Japanese" model of sadomasochism.  How
> Japanese it really is is anyone's guess.  Comments?

The Ajase myth and its connection with Japanese psychoanalytic theories
are quite extensively discussed in Peter Dale's "Myth of Japanese
Uniqueness" (Routledge 1986). In addition to the (quite polemically
phrased) criticism of it that is put forward in this publication, it
seems to me that the Deleuze/Guattari assault on the Oedipus complex as
voiced in Anti-oedipus also effectively does away with the Ajase-complex
in the sense of a bona fide 'genuinely' or 'uniquely' Japanese
psychological complex. [One of the issues with the Ajase myth is that it
rests upon a rather creative, not necessarily plausible and definitely
not unequivocal interpretation of Indian Buddhist texts. But of course
if one treats both the Oedipus and the Ajase myth as metaphors for
socio-culturally specific psychological complexes, adherence to
transmitted scriptures as well as philologically sound interpretation of
ancient texts is not really an issue.] At least, it seems to me that any
analysis of Japanese pornography which makes use of the Ajase complex
has to take into account the way in which the Oedipus complex, as a
counterpart of which it had originally been posited, is currently
conceptualized within psychoanalytic theory. 

I personally found Allison's book (which I read upon the recommendation
of Udo Helms on this list - thanks a lot for the reference, by the way)
rather disappointing, because (a) given her goals, she did not carry out
precisely that type of anthropological basic research that she would
have needed to carry out, e.g. interviews with consumers of ero-manga,
(b) there is no distinction drawn between different types of
pornographic materials at all and the way in which their design/media
dynamics affect modes of consumption (i.e. porno videos, ero-manga,
magazines with pornographic photographs), (c) obvious issues such as a
possible (or implausible, depending on what stance what takes)
connection between consumption of pornography and sex-related violence
are not or only very superficially addressed. Now, the third point of
criticism could be answered by saying that it was outside the scope of
her book; fair enough. As for the rest, it seemed to me that her
methodology was pretty much a post factem theory - the scholar ventures
out into the field, experiences and observes, writes down, and
afterwards tries to construct some sort of consistent theory that is
supposed to methodologically inform their research, but in fact ends up
merely justifying a convolute that was strung together in a quite
arbitrary fashion. 

I would be happy to hear more, and more profound, comments on this book.
I'm sorry that mine end up being so vague, but I've already sent the
book away and can only rely on memory. 

-- 
birgit kellner
department for indian philosophy
hiroshima university