1. Underbelly
1. I will be using the designation “phantasy” rather than “fantasy” in order to
keep the specificity of British (Kleinian) psychoanalytic theory to the fore (rather
than its French or American equivalent). Elizabeth Spillius et al. (2011) give a lucid
account of these national/conceptual differences:
Susan Isaacs . . .  suggests the use of the “ph” spelling for unconscious
phantasy and the “f spelling for conscious fantasy. Some analysts have
adop ted Isaacs’ suggestion, but most British analysts now use the “ph” spell-
ing for both unconscious and conscious phantasies, at least in part because
it is often difficult to be sure whether a patient’s phantasy is unconscious,
tacitly conscious or fully conscious. Laplanche and Pontalis criticise Isaacs’
usage because in their view it disagrees with the profound kinship that Freud
wished to emphasise between the conscious phantasy of perverts, the de-
lusional fears of paranoid patients and the unconscious phantasy of hys-
terics. The spelling situation is further complicated by the fact that most
American analysts use the “f spelling for both conscious and unconscious
phantasies. (5)
2. The feminist work on biology (or critical work on biology that has been in-
formed by feminist theories of the body) is now extensive and diverse in terms of
its po litical and conceptual ambitions: since 2000 see Alaimo and Hekman 2008;
Alaimo 2010; Birke 2000; Bluhm, Jacobson, and Maibom 2012; Chen 2012; Cooper
2008; Fausto- Sterling 2000, 2012; Franklin 2007, 2013; Giffney and Hird 2008; Grosz
2004, 2005; Haraway 2007; Hekman 2010; Hird 2009; Jordan- Young 2010;
Keller 2002, 2010; Kirby 2011; Mol 2002; Mortimer- Sandilands and Erickson 2010;
Richardson 2013; Roberts 2007; Rosengarten 2009; Waldby and Mitchell 2006.
NOTES
Previous Page Next Page