- - - the always-open conversation

"My son, I have a fourteen-year-old. See it's funny you say it. They diagnosed him with anorexia a year ago, after I realized what'd been happening. He was very thin, you know, but it wasn't until I realized, he wasn't drinking the milk anymore. It was backpiling. And then I knew that the only meal he was eating was the one he ate with us."

// always ready for these exchanges,
   reinvigorating my purpose.
   you know,
   like whenever you have those moments
   when you understand
   that what you've chosen to do
   this time
   was so right.


  1. I'm not sure this is the appropriate response, but the age resonated with something I've been considering as a result of reading Melanie Klein, hence:

    While Melanie Klein attempts to explain the technical differences of analysis with a pubescent child, she recounts her analysis with fourteen-year-old Ludwig whose resistance to analysis stems from his identification of Klein with the dentist. Either by the retroaction of Klein indirectly paraphrasing the experience of analysis later, or by the convincing argument Klein proposes to Ludwig, this identification is given to signal an overwhelming fear, not only of pulling a tooth, but also of cutting his body up into pieces. Not unlike many of the characteristics in Klein’s descriptions, this account gives neither an explanation, nor an association or suggestion about what Ludwig’s specific fear of the dentist might denote. Rather, Klein attempts to derive from it an essence of the continuance necessary to analysis. Yet, is not this identification — made possible by the phantasms of an expanded imagination and a not yet normalized relation from the self to the reality probes, then to the real and back to the self — is not this identification perhaps indicative of a tenable hypothesis, namely, that one’s form is cut open to compromise, to extreme compromise, to laceration, to maiming, and not only when one seeks to facilitate a shrinking of problems, but also when one seeks to do so while not in any way normalizing the pathways between anger and guilt via parental example? In other words, is this identification not indicative of the very tenable fear that one is made an adult by allowing adults to cut one up and into what is normal and viable in the most desirable respects? To rephrase once more, has Melanie Klein not considered that Ludwig’s identification is a metaphor that represents normalization and the standardization of deviation in general, a specifically threatening possibility to the fourteen-year-old Ludwig, whose expanded imagination and unformed subjectivity allows for a performativity to occasion new, never before encountered selves? By far, this is the greatest “evil,” the most threatening possibility to compromise the security of adult society-networks, their management and distribution of guilt. This is to say that the future could avoid becoming the past if adults did not molest adolescents at these precious moments. This is also to say that “innocence” lacks phenomenonality altogether and that adults more and more wake up from this dreamy delusion.

  2. Shit, Joshua. I've not read Melanie (yet), but this is fascinating and resonates acutely with my personal/academic interests. Thank you. And also -- write in YOUR blog, too! It's been since 2008, if I read it correctly. A shame!