C. Fred Alford Melanie Klein and | Theory An Account of Politics, Art, and Reason Based on Her Psychoanalytic Theory Yale University Press New Haven and LondonCopy © 150 Yl ies ‘hak may tbe raped in we ym nen at oping pi by ‘Srey 17 wd 08 ft 03 Cone aa ext by vi rpc pel wit wt pmo he Desa yh) tot inhi Re by ‘peti ne Comb Macht say of Cones atoingn enon te Deed on her pastors i Al TSN at-04505-9 poe 1 Payne and are 2 ln Mali, Repu xychosnlye)— Sect eps Cheon Modi cay— oye epce. 5. Soll veal Til ‘Th pope i ebook ant tino rman an diya he Cm on edt Caio or Bok ange of te ps0 TES Contents PREFACE CHAPTER ONK Melanie Klein asa Socal Theovist? CHAPTER TWO. Psychoonalyst ofthe Passions CHAPTER THREE A Psychoanalytic Theory of the Large Group CHAPTER FOUR Art ond Reparation: Or Posty ator Avschwite? CHAPTER FIVE. Reason and Reps CHAPTER SIX Reparation and Gvilation Notes REFERENCES INDEX 2 a0Preface iy fst action to Melanie Klein war that Yonuld not imagine a pevchonalyst whose work is lsseelovent to social thoy This is fol only bocause she, unlike Fir, never developed the socal im- plications of her teacungs beyond a fw bil, seattrad remarks, It Fraloo because he estore are abot a pve, internal wold far removed from the public world we normally inhabit. Gradually it fame fo me, howevet, that this fs raly the stongth of hor theory. Ny task as se has bean not to make hor categories more social tnd relatioaal (enough object relations theorists, a they are called, bnve done this lead) but rathor to show bow the inner word she dleacibos helps to make the outer world wo al live i. “Reprtion and Giiization” was my working tile for tls book, toutmy eitr tells me, corey, Tam sur, that this is insuliciently| descriptive. I montion it here becase the working tle captures the pnt with which I began the project: to write a Kleinan version of ‘orbert Marcus's Bros and Cliiztion, which s Marcus's radical reworking of Freud's Cilization and ft Discontents. As the book Aevoloped, however, bop to nl this approech somewhat contin ing andthe current tle actualy beter ects my interest, Never: tholess, my orignal way of looking at Klein has remained a guiding principle: to show how her work might enswer somo of the ques tions with which the Frankfurt School of Cetical Theory ws con ‘cerned, questions they could not adaquately answer oxting in part to the limitations of Frevdian psychoanalysis, Many of my answers, it will come apparent, are not those that member ofthe Frankfurt School would have found very attractive, and Ilo not claim to have vi