"Kennen Sie Kinder ? - Wie Kinder denken, handeln und fühlen, aufgezeigt an vier Grimmschen Märchen", Carl-Heinz Mallet 1980
なぜ読んだか
「子どもを発見？発見しなくたって、そこら中にいるじゃない。いくら少子化っていったって」って思いませんでしたか。あなたは、「大人」と「子ども」をどのように区別しますか。
20歳の誕生日を境に「子供」から「大人」になる、と信じている人は少ないでしょう。少なくとも、半世紀前までは少なかったのです。半世紀前とは成人に関する法律は変わっていないのに。
半世紀前も法律によって定義がバラバラなことが問題にはなっていました。最近、有権者が18歳からになったり、少年法の改正がされたりしていますが、法律の定義が変わったからと言って「大人」や「子ども」が変わるもんじゃありません。
大抵の社会には大人と子供の区別（らしきもの）があります。でも、法律で「何歳」と定義されている社会は少ないと思います。その境界は初潮だったり、精通だったり、イニシエーション（通過儀式）だったりします。また、一つの社会でも、複数の基準（会議への参加や結婚など）があることもあるでしょう。また、本人が大人になりたいかどうかの選択権、決定権を持つ社会も珍しくありません（日本もそうだったんじゃないでしょうか）。
それでは子供は「発見」されるものなんでしょうか。
「発見」
日常的にあるもの、それはすべて「ただある」のではなく、つねに再発見されるものです。例えば今毎日報道される「新型コロナウィルス」は「変異種（変異株）」が見つかっていますが（はっきり報道されませんが、何種類もあるようです）、それは「発見（再発見）」です。目の前にいる「親」や「子」も、「本」だって、「本棚」だって、昨日のそれとは違います。今日目覚めて、そこに「ある」ものを「発見」するのです。もちろん自分もです。それはひょっとすると「毒虫」になっているかもしれません（カフカ『変身』）（笑）。
それを昨日と同じだろうという前提で見ることで、心の安定を図っているだけです。
あるもの、あるいは減少に「名前」をつけることによって、それは客観性を帯びて「存在」することになります。新型コロナがいい例です。
「子供」という概念もその内実は変わっていきます。15歳で元服するとか、20歳で成人するとか、近いうちに18歳が成人ということになるかもしれません。内実が変われば、概念そのものも変わります。
だから、子供は発見、あるいは再発見されるのです。
グリム童話（集）[wiki(JP)]（正式名『子どもと家庭のメルヒェン集 Kinder- und Hausmärchen』）
実は、私はグリム童話を読んだことはありません。もちろん、『赤ずきんちゃん』などは、何度も違う本や絵本で読んだことはあります。でも、『グリム童話集』そのものは読んだことがありません。グリム童話とイソップ物語の違いもいまだに曖昧です(^_^;)。
『グリム童話集』（Grimms Märchen）は、ヤーコプとヴィルヘルムのグリム兄弟が編纂したドイツのメルヒェン（昔話）集です。メルヒェンとは「昔話」を意味するドイツ語で、グリム兄弟はメルヒェンを収集したのであり、創作した（創作童話）のではありません。出版は1812年（第1巻）、1815年（第2巻）。日本での『今昔物語』（1120年頃？）と同じですね。
出版当時はあまり売れなかったようです。内容は、伝承に沿ったものですが、本書で何度も言及されているベヒシュタインの『ドイツ昔話集』に比べて、グリム兄弟の脚色がなされているかもしれません。また、残酷な描写も多く、第2版以降では、かなり書き換えられているようです。
近代における子供の「発見」
私はプラトン（ソクラテス）は子どもを発見したと思っています。自分とは異質なものとしての子ども。「無知で無思慮で欺かれやすい」（『ゴルギアス』等）「存在としての」子どもです。だけど、ソクラテスが自分は「知らないことを知っている」というとき、そこには自分が子供だったことに対する「郷愁」があるように思えるのです。そこに帰ること、自らを実現するために魂が宿った始めの状態に戻ること、それは「死ぬこと」と同じだったのではないでしょうか。私たちだって、子供に対する「あこがれ」と「憎しみ」があるのではないでしょうか。
それを否定するためには、「自分とは違う存在としての子供」というのを確定しなければなりません。「自分」から完全に追い出すことで、自分を「大人」として確定できるのです。
近代になって、子供は再発見されます。法による「確定」です。そこで、本人の自覚や希望や発達段階や知識などに無関係に「子供」と「大人」の境が設定されます。
と、思うのですが、「近代の子供の再発見」については、もっと知りたいと思いました。というのは、近代で再発見された子供は「安い労働力」として使えるからかもしれませんが、そこで使われた論理をもっと知りたかったのです。
それが、本書を読んだ理由です。
その思いは裏切られましたが、別の多くの収穫がありました。
「子供の発見」は同時に「親の発見」「大人の発見」でもあります。また、それは「大人の中にある子供の再発見」でもります。自分も子どもだったのだから、子どもを思い出したと言ったほうがいいかもしれません（思い出すことも「再発見」です）。
子供をわかっているか
著者は小学校の教師ですが、子供の言動が理解できないでいます。精神科医の伯父に尋ねます。「伯父さんは子供というものを理解していますか」（P.2）すると伯父さんは『グリム童話』（『子どもと家庭のメルヒェン集』）を手渡します。「「この本には、子供のことならなんでも書いてある」。さらに続けて、伯父はやさしく言った。「だが、きみの頭では、物語から知識を探し出すなんてことは、まず無理だろう」。」（「まえがき」P.3）（ひどい冗談。）そして、フロイト、ユング、アドラー等の本を「参考にすればいい」と渡します。
そして、著者はユング（フロイト）からグリム童話を読み直すのです（「方法序説」）。そしてそのなかに子どもを見た、というより、子どもがわかった、つまり「発見」したのです。
ですから、「性的に」説明している箇所も多いのですが、それはそれで説得力があります。というのは近現代は「性的であること」を強制されている社会（フーコー）だからです。
語り継ぐこと
民話は語り継がれたものです。語り継ぐことはまさしく再生産です。でも、それは単純な再生産ではありません。
語る人、時代等に合わせて、言葉も内容も少しずつ変わっていくはずです。残る（残す）というのは、変わりつつ変わらないということです。
変化を信条とする近現代社会は、実は変わらない社会です。社会体制が変わらないだけじゃなく、内実もじつは変わることを許しません。
印刷技術は物語を「固定化」します。変わるのはその解釈だけです。この著書もその一つと言えるかもしれません。
音楽や演劇なども、CD、DVD・BDなどに固定されてしまいます。すべてを固定化し、それを商品化するのが近現代社会です。物語も音楽も演劇も、語られるたび、演奏されるたび、上演されるたび変わっていくものではないでしょうか。変わることで、常に新しくなる（古くならない）のです。そしてその過程の中で、捨てられるものがあり、新しく付け加えられるものがあります。新陳代謝することで、全体が保たれるのです。
大量生産、大量消費社会
近現代社会はそれが転倒しています。新製品を常に出して、従来の（既存の）ものを常に古くする、捨てるために作る社会です。そこでは「使う」という過程が軽視されています。「使う」というのは、むしろ、その過程（再生産過程）を阻害するものとして現れます。それは短ければ短いほうがいい。なくてもいい。単なる必要悪です。物も、人も、捨てるために作られるのです。その生涯そのものが必要悪なのです。
当然そこでは、存在も生（生きること）も軽んぜられます。全体の過程だけが実在し、内実は不要です。仮象（シンボル）だけが独り歩きする社会です。「デジタル社会」というのはまさしく「記号」（情報とも呼ぶ）だけが彷徨う世界です。
『図書館の主』
この著書でとりあげられているのは「ヘンゼルとグレーテル」「赤頭巾」「ゾ―ッとすること」「ガチョウ番の少女」の4篇です。
「ゾ―ッとすること」「ガチョウ番の少女」はストーリーを知りませんでした。
「ヘンゼルとグレーテル」は『図書館の主』でも、「残酷な話」としてとりあげられています。それも面白い解釈でした。篠原ウミハルさんは、この本を読んだのでしょうか。それより考えられるのは『本当は恐ろしいグリム童話 ii』（桐生操著 1999年 ベストセラーズ）でしょう。『本当は・・・』は読んでいんませんが、「ⅰ」を読む限り本書のように深く分析するというよりは、どちらかというと「ホラー話」としてとりあげているのではないでしょうか（それも一つの解釈です）。
「ヘンゼルとグレーテル」
「彼らは時々、嘘をつく。どの子供でもそうだ。たいていの親はそのことを知っているが、ごく少数の親だけが、嘘をつくのは（FF）よその子供で、自分の子供に限って、そんなことはしないと信じている。」（P.42-43）＿＿モンスターペアレンツですよね。
「グレーテルは、ついに男性的なものとの、愛情のこもった触れ合いを発見する。この男性的なものこそ、当然彼女に与えられるべきものであり、また彼女に必要なものだ。父親との関係において、彼女はこれから、女性としての長所や能力を伸ばすことができる。一方ヘンゼルも、男性であり、ライバルである父親を大いに必要とする。彼は父親を基準として自分の力を測ることができるし、また父親を見ることによって、自分が必ずしも、最大、最善、最強の人間ではないという、きわめて重要なことを知ることができる。彼は、自分の快楽を求めるエゴイズムによって、将来余計な損害を蒙らずに済むように、自分の限界を悟らなくてはならない。」（P.96）
「わたしは、この仕事をしていて、この二人の子供が無性に好きになってきてしまった。そして、親というもの、とりわけ母親というものが理解できるようになった。魔女も少し分かってきた。この物語の結末は嬉しかった。いい結末だ。」（P.97）
「赤頭巾[wiki(JP)]」
シャルル・ペローが1697年に出版した"Le Petit Chaperon rouge"。
「彼女たちは親の道徳観に対して、驚くほど「不感症」である。従順を装いながら、彼女たちは、自分たちがやりたいと思うことを、やってのける。しかし、彼女たちがそうするのは、赤頭巾の場合と同じように、決して悪意や、反抗心や、強情のためではなくて、むしろ彼女たちが無邪気であるからだ。だｋら、このような場合の彼女たちは、罪の意識を感じないことや、疑念を抱かないことを、きわめて当然のことと考えているかのように見える。（LF）一部の父親たちは、このような「女のモラル」を見て、ひどく絶望するだろう。しかし、娘たちは理解を期待しないほうがいい。なぜなら、男たちは普通、このような女の行動方式を理解できないからだ。理解できないのは、異性であり、また若くもない父親たちが、そのような行動方式を知らないためだ。」（P.129）＿＿無邪気だということは、とても罪なことです。女の子は、「本当に」知らないのでしょうか。私にはわかりません。
「しかし、子供たちがあらゆることに首を突っ込まなかったとしたら、そして、いつも行儀よく、素直であったとしたら、彼らは自分の経験というものができないだろう。」（P.138）＿＿経験は、行動に基づくものです。行動のない経験、つまり「バーチャルな経験」は「ほんとうの意味で」の経験じゃないと思います。それは、現実の遭遇で明らかになると思います。
「狼（男）から見れば、所詮、赤頭巾は若過ぎるし、青臭いからだ。赤頭巾には、まだ両親が必要だし、また、赤頭巾が「性行為とは、狼(男)が女を食べることである」というような誤解を捨てるまでには、まだ若干の年月が必要である。」（P.139）＿＿私はロリコンですが、赤頭巾ちゃんは何歳なんでしょう。(笑)
昔話研究家のRobert Darnton氏がフロムを批判しているらしいので、たぶん、マレの解釈も否定するでしょうね。
「ゾ―ッとすること」
読んだことがないので、よくわかりませんでした。
「つまり、ゾ―ッとすることである。「我を忘れる」ほどの激しい感動を経験するために、ハンスは家を飛び出していた。その彼が、今、我を忘れた。女性的なるものが持つ未知の迫力が、ハンスに挑戦している。その迫力を前にして、彼はもはや自分の殻に閉じこもっているわけには行かない。彼は心底からうろたえる。」「彼は、成熟への最後の一歩を踏んだ。彼は大人になった。彼は幼稚な利己心という狭い域を脱して、「相手（ドゥー）」と向き合い、「他人」に対して心中を打ち明けることができるようになった。」＿＿ゾ―ッとすることを子供に経験させないと、殻を破れず、利己心に閉じ込められる人間ができるんだよね。物質的に豊かになればなるほどそういう経験は難しくなります。
「ガチョウ番の少女」
これも知りませんでした。
「だからこの女王には一つも欠点がない。その代わり彼女は少しばかり味気なく、退屈かもしれないが、彼女の無頓着は、ほとんど欠点にならない。頼りなさや、か弱さは、決定的な強みであって、男たちの愛情を獲得するのに、たいへん役立つ。強い性と言われる多くの男達は、反対の（弱い）ものを愛するが、競合することをひじょうに嫌う。だから彼らは、女の知性をほとんど評価しない。」（P.228）＿＿これはセクハラ表現でしょうか。私には女性差別の本質をついているように思えます。
「大半のことが男によって決められ、管理された世界においては、女性が抵抗戦略として、特別の力や能力を発揮するのは、ごく当たり前のことだった。女達のこのような力や能力は、男たちのものとは違うから、男たちはそのようなものを見抜くことも、理解することもできない。」（P.245）＿＿「世の中に女ほどしょうのないものはない。おだてりゃつけ上がり、やさしく言えば図に乗って、小言を言えばふくれる、殴りゃ引っ掻く（叩けば泣く）、殺せば夜中に化けて出る」（5代目 古今亭志ん生『女天下』他）猫や女性には神秘的な能力があります（犬にはない）。本当はないのかもしれません。でも、女性の神秘性というのは「男女平等」社会になれば無くなってしまうのでしょうか。女性のことがわからない私には嬉しいことだと思いますが、ちょっとさみしい気もします(^_^;)。
「王女のような善良で、欠点のない娘は、自分で身を守り、自分で切り抜けなければならないこの世では、生きて行けないだろう。だから生き残るためには、腰元の特性や能力が必要だ。このような特性が不評を買うのは、それが単独の形で現れるときだけだ。女らしい優雅さや賢さに包まれ、コントロールされ、おおわれると、それはほとんど目立たない。しかし、そのような特性が、間違いなくあることを、わたしたちは知っておくべきだ。さらにわたしたちは、弱い（女）性についての伝説を、なんとしても葬る必要がある。女性は決して弱いものではない。どんな女性でも、必要に迫られれば、腰元のように苛酷にも、向こう見ずにも、厳格にもなれるものである。」（P.257）＿＿蔑視ではなくても差別的ですね。でも、平等というのは「同じ」ということではありません。「違い」があるからこその「平等」なのです。「同じ」なら「平等」など問題にも疑問にもなりません。男性と女性は違います。日本人とアメリカ人は違います。北海道生まれと沖縄生まれも違うでしょう。山の手生まれと下町生まれも違うかもしれません。違うというのは「善悪」とか「価値の上下」とかの違いではありません。私とあなたは違うのです。
「平等」あるいは「自我」
それは「自我」がある限り、「自覚」せざるを得ません。その「自我の自覚」のあとに、自我以前の状態に戻ることはとても難しいです。多くの人は「自我は捨てられない」と、それ以上に踏み込みません。
でも、その「自我」が科学技術や資本主義社会を作り、環境破壊を生み出しているとしたら、どうでしょう。例えば、原発推進派と反原発派は同じ言葉で話をしています。「科学」という言葉です。推進派は「（人体や環境に）影響があるという証拠がない」と言い、反対派は「影響がない証拠はない」あるいは「影響があるという証拠がある」と言います。科学者じゃない私（わたしたち）には「どちらが正しいか」の判断はつきません。できるのは「どちらを信用するか」ということだけです。大抵のことは「理解（論理）」とは別で「信じる（感性）」ことしかできないのではないでしょうか。
それが「自我」が目指している「理性（ロゴス）」だとは思えないのです。
ソクラテス（プラトン）以降、西洋哲学がずっと格闘してきたのがこの事実です。そして、哲学者ごとに結論らしきものを見つけてきました。
たとえば、デカルトは「我思う故に我あり」と言いました。つまり、結局「考え続けたけど、考えている私（自我）はあるじゃん」という回り道をした後の回帰、諦念のような境地です。それは前述の現代人が思っていることですよね。
ハイデガーは、多分ですけど、ソクラテスが死に向かった理由、つまり「ポリスとの一体感」、社会に自己を投棄すること、自己と自己を生み育てた社会との一体化、自然への回帰を目指しました（それには「エルアイクニス」という体験がありました）。それが安易に「ナチス（全体主義）」と結びつくことは想像に難くありません。
私は、彼らの考えには同意しません。そして、彼らの思索を無駄にしたくはないのです。
科学が支配的（だと思われている）社会では、「科学の言葉」しか通用しません。だから、科学の言葉で科学を乗り越えなければなりません。「〜すべき」という言葉は「自我」の前では無力です。というか、無力である「べき」なのです(^_^;)。
そこには、無限の（といってもたかだか2500年ほどですが）不可能性があります。
そして、可能性は「私たちが生きている」という当たり前の事実にあります。私たちは、機械でも、コンピュータでも、AIでもありません（そちらに向かい続けるという不可能を続けてはいますが。「デジタル庁」とか）。嫌でも私たちは「肉体」とともにあるのです。私たちは「肉体」であり「自然」なのです。その事実を忘れ続ける、無視し続けることでしか「自我」であることはできないし、「科学的」であることはできないのです。
私は女性の方が「自己の自然」に近い気がしています。生理や妊娠、出産等、「自己の自然」を感じざるを得ない瞬間があると思うからです。それは「私の中の女を感じる」ということかもしれないし、それなら「私の中の男を感じる」というのと同じですが。
「あとがき」
「あとがき」はブルーノ・ベッテルハイム氏が書いています。彼は、マレとは意見を異にしながらも、同じ道を進む同志と考えているようです。
「銀のお盆に乗せてわたしたちのところへ運ばれてくる自由を、わたしたちは自由と受け取らず、むしろ屈辱と感じる。」「戦わずして手に入れた自由は、自尊心を弱める。しかも、強い自尊心なしに、自由は自由として経験されない。余りにも広大な自由の場が、子供たちに与えられている現代だからこそ、昔話という想像の世界に避難するチャンスが必要なのだ。その世界に入れば、子供たちは、危険な相手との論争の中で、真の自由を戦い取るだろう。」（P.265）
「自分自身の観察から結論を引き出せない者は、他の人の結論に頼らなければならないからだ。」（P.270）＿＿前述の私の考えと共通する部分があると思います。
40年
この本が刊行されて40年が経ちます。その間に色々な状況が変わりました。フロイト・ユング式の「汎性論」は批判されつつあります。それとともに、本書の記述が「性差別的様相」を帯びてきているのも事実です。
1980年といえばフーコーの『性の歴史』第1巻と第2巻・第3巻が刊行されるちょうど中間です。
フーコーの『性の歴史 第4巻』（日本語版）も去年刊行されました（原書は2018年）。まだ読み切っていませんが、「生政治」から第2巻以降のギリシャ時代への遡及は「快楽の活用」「自己への配慮」として「自我」に迫るものだと思っています。そして第4巻「肉の告白」。キリスト教の世界です。私はフーコーが「自我」に至らずに、「自己の自然」にショートカットしてしまったのではないかと想像していますが、精読したいです。
当時、その一挙手一投足がニュースとなって世界中を駆け巡った（鳥を落とす勢いだった）フーコーが、今はほとんど話題にもなりません。どうしてでしょうね。
彼と親交のあった人はどんどん少なくなっています。もうフーコーで飯が食えないということでしょうか。多分、社会がフーコーを受け入れる余裕が無くなりつつあるのではないでしょうか。第4巻の訳者、慎改康之氏のような若手（？）に頑張って欲しいです。
ハラスメント
〜ハラが跋扈する世界、それは「交互監視」の世界にほかなりません。それで被害者は減ったのでしょうか。ハラスメントの数が増える度に被害者は増えていきます。PCR検査のように。（笑）
「セクハラ」「パワハラ」・・・ある記事では「39のハラスメント」があるそうです。（笑）
「〜ハラ」は女性や若者などの「弱い立場の人々」の声（声にならない声）を救い上げているのかもしれません。でもそのほとんどは、その弱い立場の人が作ったものではないと思います。マスコミの中の「強い立場」にある人が作ったんじゃないでしょうか。
ともかくも、「セクハラはなくすべきだ」というのは「自我」には無力です。それは「社会的圧力」としてしか力を持ちません。「同調圧力」です。
信仰としての、あるいは道徳としての「男女平等」「自然保護」は資本の前では無力です。いや、むしろ資本を応援します。CO2の排出量が「商品」になっていることだけでもわかります。「エコ」は今や「商品として必須な特性」にすらなっているようです。そして「除菌」「抗菌」「ウィルス除去」、全てが商品です。もしそれらが本当に全員に「必要」なものなら、「ワクチン」より先に税金で賄われるべきものなんじゃないでしょうか。（笑）
「べきだ」では「〜ハラ」や「環境破壊」はなくならないし、止まりません。「なぜ」〜ハラや環境破壊が起こっているのかを（少々面倒でも）問う必要があると思います（どうも「歴史の必然だ」というような風潮があります。歴史には必然も、直線的・発展的時間軸も、目的もありません。それは「信仰」にすぎません）。煙（結果）だけかき消しても火元（原因）を消さなければ永遠に色んな場所に煙が立ちます。永遠の「もぐらたたき」。ゲームとしては面白いけど、疲れますね。ゲーム台のコンセントを抜いたほうがいい。
本当は、「因果関係そのもの」を問うてほしいけど、とりあえず、「科学的言説」にとどまる限りでは、因果関係を認めて「原因を追求」してほしいと思います。
子供
子供は嘘をつきます。大人もウソをつきます。その嘘には「違い」があるのかもしれません。「人のためにつく嘘」、これだって子供にもあります。嘘は「自己防衛」つまり「自我」の始まりです。他人のためにつく嘘も、自分を取り巻く（そして自分を守ってくれる）世界を壊さないための嘘です。自然は嘘をつきません（本質もなかなか見せませんが）。子供は大人になりたい。性的に、経験的に、知識的に全能な存在である大人に。それは、父であり、母でした。でも、その父や母は、学校や塾、家庭教師、習い事に取って代わってしまいました。父や母は全能な存在でも、自分を包み、守ってくれる存在でもなくなりました。単に、弱く、そして「汚い」存在。何しろ、お札という紙切れがなければ、自分より弱いのですから。その紙切れのほうが父母より強いのです(^_^;)。子供が目指すのは父母ではなく紙切れでしょう。（笑）
守られ包まれている自分。育てられている自分。その自分を捨てなければ大人になれません。そして捨てることを強制する「社会」と「自分の肉体」。生まれた時からずっと「持て余している」肉体です。色んな意味で。
さまざままな壁を自分の力で、自分で考えて乗り越えていく。その経験。段階的なすべて未知の質的な壁。それを乗り越えながらだんだんと大人になっていくのです。それが童話の主題です。
ゆるキャン△
原作はあfろ[wiki(JP)]氏の漫画で、アニメ化、ドラマ化されてます。女子高生のキャンプの話です。
ゆるキャンというくらいだから、苛酷なキャンプではありません。郊外の「携帯電話の電波が届く」、チョット行けばコンビニもありそうな場所でのキャンプです。同好会（部活になったんだっけ？）の顧問の先生がついてきたりします（昼間からお酒を飲んで全然頼りになりませんが）。そんなキャンプでも、想定外の（というか、あまり想定しているとは思えない(^_^;)）ことがさまざま起こります。でも、それこそがキャンプの醍醐味です。何かを自分で（自分たちで）成し遂げた、成し遂げられなかった、という「実感」。そして大自然に触れること。キャンプ場という人工的な場所ですが、「本物の」山や湖が見え、夜には「本物の」星が見えます。
（詳細別稿）
生きることは危険？
いまの大人は、自分がそうだったように、またそうじゃなかったからこそ、「危険なこと」から徹底的に子供を遠ざけようとします。「経験」をさせないのです。経験は悪であり、「苦労」や「嫌な目に」「危険な目に」遭わせたくないのです。でも、父も母も仕事で家にはいません（「男女平等参画社会」）。核家族化で祖父母もいません。そこで物を言うのはやはりお金です。そして「安全グッズ」をたくさん買って子供の身につけます。子供は走ることもままなりません。（笑）
大人は社会「参画」したくて会社に行っているのでしょうか。子供にはわかりません。実は大人にも分かっていないのです。「就職するのに必死」です。生死を賭けています（賭博です。ハズレの多い）。「なぜ」は発してはいけない問いなのです。「どうして？」という子供の問いは「うざくて」「あしらわれる」べき問いです。私たちは「どうして？」という問いが嫌いです。にがてです。彼（彼女）からの「どうして？」という問いは、なんとなく嫌いではないでしょうか。
子供は、わたしたち「大人」と「別な存在」として定立されることによって「実在」を得ます。でも、子供はわたしたちの過去であり、現在の私たちの中にいます。それは外的存在であるとともに、内的存在です。その矛盾は「（自然の）存在」を離れた「自己（自我）」にあります。その拭い難い過去（そして現在）を子供は体現しているのです。[1]
童話はその両方の世界をつなぐ「パイプ」です。それは、子供をこちらの世界に導くものであり、かつ、あちらの世界の魅力を見せつけるものでもあるのではないでしょうか。
この本は、前者のことを書きながらも（はからずも？）後者の魅力を表現しているように思います。
⟨impressions⟩
& quot; Kennen Sie Kinder? --Wie Kinder denken, handeln und fühlen, aufgezeigt an vier Grimmschen Märchen & quot;, Carl-Heinz Mallet 1980
Why did you read
Didn't you think, "I found a child? If I didn't find it, I wouldn't be there. How much the birthrate was declining." How do you distinguish between "adults" and "children"?
Few people believe that they will change from "children" to "adults" on their 20th birthday. At least half a century ago, it was few. The law on adults hasn't changed from half a century ago.
Half a century ago, the problem was that the definitions were different by law. Recently, voters have turned 18 years old and the juvenile law has been amended, but just because the definition of the law has changed does not mean that "adults" and "children" will change.
Most societies have a distinction between adults and children. However, I don't think there are many societies that are defined by law as "how old". The boundary may be menarche, familiarity, or initiation (rite of passage). Also, a society may have multiple criteria (such as attending a meeting or getting married). In addition, it is not uncommon for a society to have the right to choose and decide whether or not the person wants to grow up (I think that was the case in Japan as well).
So is the child "discovered"?
"Discovery"
Everything that happens on a daily basis is not just "just", but always rediscovered. For example, in the "new coronavirus" that is reported every day, "mutant species (mutant strains)" have been found (although it is not clearly reported, there seem to be many types), but it is "discovery (rediscovery)". .. The "parents" and "children" in front of you, the "books" and the "bookshelf" are different from yesterday's. Wake up today and "discover" what is there. Of course I am too. It may be a "poisonous insect" (Kafka "The Metamorphosis") (laughs).
By looking at it on the premise that it will be the same as yesterday, I am just trying to stabilize my mind.
By giving a "name" to something, or a decrease, it becomes "existing" with objectivity. The new corona is a good example.
The concept of "children" also changes. It may be that you will be a genpuku at the age of 15, or you will be an adult at the age of 20, and soon you will be an adult at the age of 18. If the truth changes, so does the concept itself.
That is why the child is discovered or rediscovered.
Grimms'Fairy Tales (Collection) [wiki (JP)] (Official name " Children and Family Fairytales Kinder- und Hausmärchen ”)
In fact, I have never read Grimm's fairy tales. Of course, I have read "Akazukin-chan" in different books and picture books many times. However, I have never read "Grimm's Fairy Tales" itself. The difference between Grimm's fairy tale and Aesop's story is still ambiguous (^ _ ^;).
The Grimms Märchen is a collection of German Fairytales compiled by Jacob and the Brothers Grimm of Wilhelm. Fairy tale is a German word meaning "old tale", and the Brothers Grimm collected fairy tales, not created them (creative fairy tales). Published in 1812 (Volume 1) and 1815 (Volume 2). It's the same as "The Story of Old and New" (around 1120?) In Japan.
It seems that it didn't sell very well at the time of publication. The content is folklore, but may have been adapted from the Brothers Grimm compared to Bechstein's "German Folktales", which is mentioned many times in this book. In addition, there are many cruel depictions, and it seems that they have been considerably rewritten in the second and subsequent editions.
Children's "discovery" in modern times
I think Plato (Socrates) found a child. A child as something different from himself. A child who is "ignorant, thoughtless, and easily deceived" (such as "Gorgias") "as an existence". But when Socrates says he "knows what he doesn't know," it seems that there is "nostalgia" for being a child. Returning there, returning to the original state where the soul dwelled to realize oneself, was probably the same as "dying." I think we also have a "longing" and a "hate" for our children.
In order to deny it, we must establish that we are "a child who is different from ourselves." You can identify yourself as an "adult" by completely expelling yourself from yourself.
In modern times, children are rediscovered. It is "confirmed" by law. Therefore, the boundary between "children" and "adults" is set regardless of the person's awareness, hope, developmental stage, and knowledge.
I think, but I wanted to know more about "rediscovering modern children." Perhaps because modern rediscovered children can be used as a "cheap workforce," but I wanted to know more about the logic used there.
That is why I read this book.
That thought was betrayed, but there were many other harvests.
"Discovery of children" is also "discovery of parents" and "discovery of adults". It is also a "rediscovery of children in adults". Since I was also a child, it may be better to say that I remembered my child (remembering is also "rediscovery").
Do you know your child?
The author is an elementary school teacher, but I can't understand what my child says and does. He asks his uncle, a psychiatrist. "Does your uncle understand children?" (P.2), and he hands you "Grimm's Fairy Tales" ("Children and Family Fairytales"). "" This book has everything about children. " Then, the uncle said kindly. "But in your mind, it's almost impossible to find knowledge in a story." ("Preface" P.3) (Terrible joke.) Then, I hand over books such as Freud, Jung, and Adler as "reference."
The author then rereads the Grimm fairy tale from Jung (Freud) ("Introduction to the Method"). And rather than seeing the child in it, he knew, or "discovered," the child.
So, there are a lot of "sexually" explanations, but that's compelling. This is because modern times are a society (Foucault) where "being sexual" is forced .
Telling
Folktales are handed down. To pass on is just reproduction. But it's not a simple reproduction.
The words and contents should change little by little according to the person who speaks and the times. To remain (leave) means to change and not change.
A modern society that believes in change is actually a society that does not change. Not only does the social system remain the same, but the truth is that it does not allow it to change.
Printing technology "fixes" the story. Only that interpretation changes. This book may be one of them.
Music and theater are also fixed to CDs, DVDs, BDs, etc. Modern society is to fix everything and commercialize it. The story, the music, and the play will change every time they are told, played, and performed. By changing, it is always new (not old). And in the process, some are thrown away and some are newly added. By metabolizing, the whole thing is maintained.
Mass production, mass consumption society
In modern society it has fallen. It is a society that constantly releases new products and always makes old (existing) ones old and thrown away. The process of "using" is neglected there. Rather, "using" appears as an obstacle to that process (reproduction process). The shorter it is, the better it is. You don't have to. It's just a necessary evil. Both things and people are made to throw away. That life itself is a necessary evil.
Naturally, existence and life (living) are neglected there. Only the whole process is real, no truth is needed. It is a society where only temporary elephants (symbols) walk alone. The "digital society" is a world where only "symbols" (also called information) wander.
" Library Lord "
This book features four volumes, "Hansel and Gretel," "Red Head," "Cooling," and "Goose-Ban Girl."
"Cooling" and "Goose-ban girl" didn't know the story.
"Hansel and Gretel" is also mentioned as a "cruel story" in "The Lord of the Library". That was also an interesting interpretation. Did Umiharu Shinohara read this book? More conceivable is " Really scary Grimm fairy tale ii (Kiryu Misao, 1999 Bestsellers). I haven't read "Actually ...", but as far as I read "i", I think it's more of a "horror story" than a deep analysis like this book (it). Is also one interpretation).
"Hansel and Gretel"
"They sometimes lie. Like any child. Most parents know that, but only a few parents lie (FF) to their own children. I believe that I will not do that for a limited time. ”(P.42-43) ＿＿Monster Parents, isn't it?
"Gretel finally discovers a loving touch with the masculine. This masculine is, of course, what she should be given and what she needs. Relationship with her father. In, she can now develop her strengths and abilities as a woman, while Hansel also needs a great deal of male and rival fathers. He can measure his strength on the basis of his father. And by looking at his father, he knows that he is not necessarily the greatest, best, and strongest man. He will suffer extra damage in the future due to his pleasure-seeking egoism. You have to realize your limits so that you don't have to suffer. ”(P.96)
"I was doing this job and I fell in love with these two kids asexually, and now I can understand parents, especially mothers. I've learned a little about witches. I was happy with the ending of this story. It's a good ending. ”(P.97)
"Red head width [wiki (JP)] "
Published by Charles Perrault in 1697, "Le Petit Chaperon rouge".
"They are surprisingly" frigid "to their parents' moral views. Pretending to be obedient, they do what they want to do. But they do so, as in the case of the red hood, not because of malice, rebellion, or stubbornness, but rather because they are innocent. However, in such cases, they seem to take it for granted that they do not feel guilty or have any doubts. (LF) Some fathers will be terribly despaired to see such "woman morals". But daughters shouldn't expect understanding. Because men usually don't understand how women behave like this. I don't understand because fathers of the opposite sex and not young do not know such a behavior. (P.129) ___ It is very sinful to be innocent. Does the girl "really" not know? I do not know.
"But if the children didn't stick their heads in everything, and if they were always well-behaved and obedient, they wouldn't have their own experience." (P.138) __Experience It is action-based. I don't think an actionless experience, or "virtual experience," is a "real" experience. I think it will become clear in real-life encounters.
"From the perspective of a werewolf, after all, the red hood is too young and smells green. The wolf still needs parents, and the wolf says," Sexual activity is a wolf (man) eating a woman. It will take some time before we can get rid of the misunderstanding that it is. (P.139) ＿＿I'm a lolicon, but how old is Akatobuki-chan? (Lol)
Old-fashioned researcher Robert Darnton seems to have criticized Fromm, so maybe Male's You would also deny the interpretation.
"Cooling"
I haven't read it, so I didn't understand it.
"That's horrifying. Hans was out of the house to experience the emotion of" forgetting me. " He has forgotten me now. The unknown power of feminine things is challenging Hans. In the face of that power, he can no longer be locked in his shell. He is upset from the bottom of his heart. "He took the last step towards maturity. He became an adult. He escaped from the narrow realm of childish selfishness and faced the" doo "and against the" others. " I can now confide in my heart. If you don't let your child experience _ chilling, you can create a person who can't break the shell and is trapped in selfishness. The richer the material, the more difficult it is to experience such an experience.
"The Girl Who Turns the Goose"
I didn't know this either.
"So this queen has no drawbacks. Instead she may be a little dull and boring, but her carelessness is hardly a drawback. Unreliability or weakness is a decisive strength. And it's very helpful in gaining the affection of men. Many men, who are said to be strong, love the opposite (weak) but very dislike competing, so they are women. I rarely evaluate the intellect of. ”(P.228) ＿＿Is this a sexual harassment expression? It seems to me that it has the essence of discrimination against women.
"In a world where most things are decided and controlled by men, it was quite natural for women to exert special powers and abilities as resistance strategies. Women's powers and abilities. Because they are different from those of men, men cannot see or understand such things. ”(P.245) ＿＿“ There is nothing in the world that can't be helped like a woman. Go up, get on the chart if you say it gently, swell if you say a little, scratch if you hit it (cry if you hit it), and it will turn into a ghost in the middle of the night if you kill it. " Ability (not in dogs). It may not be true. But will women's mystery disappear in a "gender equality" society? I'm glad I don't know about women, but I feel a little lonely (^ _ ^;).
"A good, flawless girl like a princess will not be able to survive in a world where she has to protect herself and survive herself. Therefore, in order to survive, she needs the characteristics and abilities of her waist. But such a trait is unpopular only when it manifests itself in its own form. When wrapped in, controlled and covered with feminine elegance and wisdom, it is barely noticeable. We should know that there is definitely a trait. Moreover, we need to bury the legend about weak (female) sex at all costs. Women are by no means weak. What? Even women can be as harsh as their maids, reckless, and strict if they need to. ”(P.257) It's discriminatory, even if it's not contempt. But equality does not mean "same." It is "equality" because there is a "difference". If it is "same", there is no question about "equality". Men and women are different. Japanese and Americans are different. Born in Hokkaido and born in Okinawa will be different. Born in Yamanote and Shitamachi may be different. The difference is not the difference between "good and evil" and "up and down of value". You are different from me.
"Equality" or "ego"
As long as there is an "ego", it has to be "aware". It is very difficult to return to the pre-ego state after that "self-consciousness". Many people don't go any further, saying, "I can't throw away my ego."
But what if that "ego" creates science and technology, a capitalist society, and causes environmental destruction? For example, pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear groups speak the same language. The word "science". Proponents say "there is no evidence of an impact (on the human body or the environment)" and opponents say "there is no evidence of no impact" or "there is evidence of an impact". As a non-scientist, I (we) cannot judge "which is right". All you can do is "Which one do you trust?" Most things can only be "believed (sensitivity)" apart from "understanding (logic)".
I don't think that is the "reason (logos)" that the "ego" is aiming for.
It is this fact that Western philosophy has been struggling since Socrates (Plato). And I have found something that seems to be a conclusion for each philosopher.
For example, Descartes said, "I am because I think." In other words, after all, it is a state of resignation after making a detour saying "I kept thinking, but I (ego) is thinking". That's what the modern people mentioned above think.
Heidegger probably aimed at the reason why Socrates died, that is, "a sense of unity with police", dumping himself into society, uniting himself with the society that gave birth to and nurturing himself, and returning to nature. (It had an experience called "El Aiknis"). It is not difficult to imagine that it is easily linked to "Nazi (totalitarianism)".
I disagree with their idea. And I don't want to waste their thoughts.
In a society where science is predominant (believed to be), only "words of science" are valid. Therefore, we must overcome science in the language of science. The word "should" is powerless in front of "ego". Rather, it is "should" be helpless (^ _ ^;).
There are endless possibilities (although at most 2500 years).
And the possibility lies in the fact that "we are alive". We're not machines, computers, or AI (although we continue to be impossible to keep going, like the "Digital Agency"). Even if we don't like it, we are with the "body". We are "body" and "natural". You can only be "ego" and "scientific" by continuing to forget or ignore that fact.
I feel that women are closer to "self-nature." This is because I think there are moments when you have to feel "your own nature" such as menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth. It may mean "feel the woman in me", which is the same as "feel the man in me".
"Postscript"
"Postscript" is written by Bruno Bettelheim. He seems to think that he is a comrade who follows the same path, although he disagrees with Male.
"We do not take the freedom that is carried to us on the silver tray as freedom, but rather as humiliation." "The freedom that we obtain without fighting weakens our self-esteem. Freedom is not experienced as freedom without strong self-esteem. Because of the vast space of freedom given to children today, we need a chance to evacuate to the imaginary world of old tales. For example, children will fight true freedom in a dispute with a dangerous opponent. ”(P.265)
"Those who cannot draw conclusions from their own observations must rely on the conclusions of others." (P.270) __ I think there is something in common with my idea above.
40 years
It has been 40 years since this book was published. During that time, various situations have changed. Freud-Jung's "generality theory" is being criticized. At the same time, it is also true that the description in this book has taken on a "sexist aspect".
Speaking of 1980, Foucault's "History of Sex" Volumes 1 and 2 and 3 are just in the middle of publication.
Foucault's "History of Sex Vol. 4" (Japanese version) was also published last year (original book is 2018). I haven't read it yet, but I think that the retrospective from "biopolitics" to the Greek era after the second volume approaches "ego" as "utilization of pleasure" and "consideration for self". And Volume 4 "Confessions of Meat". It is a Christian world. I imagine Foucault did not reach "ego" but shortcut to "self-nature", but I would like to read it carefully.
At that time, Foucault, whose every move became news and ran around the world (the momentum to drop birds), is hardly talked about now. I wonder why.
Fewer and fewer people have been friends with him. Does that mean I can't eat at Foucault anymore? Perhaps society is running out of room to accept Foucault. I want young people (?) Like Yasuyuki Shinkai, the translator of Volume 4, to do their best.
Harassment
The world where ~Hara is scared is nothing but the world of "alternate monitoring". Did that reduce the number of victims? As the number of harassments increases, so does the number of victims. Like a PCR test. (Lol)
"Sexual harassment" "Power harassment" ... In one article, " 39 harassment " There seems to be. (Lol)
"~ Hara" may be saving the voices (non-voiced voices) of "vulnerable people" such as women and young people. But I don't think most of them were made by the vulnerable person. I think it was made by someone in a "strong position" in the media.
Anyway, "the sexual harassment should be eliminated **" is powerless to the "ego". It has power only as "social pressure". "Peer pressure".
"Gender equality" and "nature maintenance" as faith or morality are powerless in front of capital. No, I would rather support the capital. You can tell just by the fact that CO2 emissions are "commodities". It seems that "eco" is now even becoming an "essential characteristic of a product". And "sterilization" "antibacterial" "virus removal", all are products. If they are really "necessary" for everyone, they should be ** should be taxed before the "vaccine". (Lol)
"Should" does not eliminate or stop "~ hara" and "environmental destruction". "Why" -I think it is necessary to ask (even if it is a little troublesome) why harassment and environmental destruction are occurring (there is a tendency that "history is inevitable". History is inevitably linear. There is no evolutionary timeline or purpose, it is just "faith"). Even if only the smoke (result) is extinguished, if the fire source (cause) is not extinguished, smoke will forever rise in various places. Eternal "whac-a-mole". It's fun as a game, but it's tiring. You should unplug the game console.
Actually, I would like you to ask the "causal relationship itself", but for the time being, as long as it is limited to "scientific discourse", I would like you to recognize the causal relationship and "pursue the cause".
Children
The child lies. Adults also lie. There may be a "difference" in that lie. "Lies for people", this is also true for children. Lies are the beginning of "self-defense," or "ego." A lie for others is also a lie that does not destroy the world that surrounds you (and protects you). Nature doesn't lie (although it's hard to show the essence). A child wants to be an adult. For adults who are sexually, empirically, and knowledgeably omnipotent. It was a father and a mother. But his father and mother have replaced schools, cram schools, tutors, and lessons. Fathers and mothers are no longer omnipotent, nor are they wrapping and protecting themselves. Simply a weak and "dirty" being. After all, if you don't have a piece of paper called a bill, you're weaker than yourself. The piece of paper is stronger than my parents (^ _ ^;). Your child will be aiming for a piece of paper, not your parents. (Lol)
I am protected and wrapped. I am being raised. You cannot grow up unless you abandon yourself. And "society" and "my body" that force me to throw away. It is a body that has been "excessive" since it was born. In many ways.
I will think and overcome various barriers with my own power. That experience. A gradual, all-unknown qualitative wall. Overcoming that, I gradually grow up to be an adult. That is the subject of fairy tales.
Laid-Back Camp △
The original is Afro [wiki (JP)] 's manga, animated. It has been made into a drama. It's a story about a high school girl camp.
It's not a harsh camp because it's about Laid-Back Camp. It is a camp in the suburbs where "the radio waves of mobile phones can reach" and there is a convenience store if you go a little. An adviser teacher of the club (did you become a club activity?) Comes with you (although you can't rely on it at all after drinking alcohol from daytime). Even in such a camp, various unexpected things (or rather, I don't think I'm expecting much (^ _ ^;)) occur. But that's the real thrill of camping. The "real feeling" that something was achieved or not achieved by oneself. And touching nature. It's an artificial place called a campsite, but you can see "real" mountains and lakes, and at night you can see "real" stars.
(Detailed separate article)
Is it dangerous to live?
Today's adults try to keep their children away from "dangerous things" as they did and because they didn't. It doesn't let you "experience". Experience is evil and I don't want to have "hard", "disgusting" or "dangerous" eyes. But neither my father nor my mother are at home for work (“Gender Equality Society”). There are no grandparents due to the nuclear family. It is money to say things there. Then, buy a lot of "safety goods" and wear them for children. Children can't even run. (Lol)
Do adults go to work because they want to "participate" in society? Children don't know. In fact, even adults don't know. "I'm desperate to get a job." I'm betting on life and death (gambling. There are many losses). "Why" is a question that should not be asked. The child's question, "Why?", Should be "disgusting" and "treated." We hate the question "why?" It's a long time ago. I don't think he (she) hate the question "why?"
Children gain "existence" by being established as "another being" with us "adults". But children are our past and our present. It is both an external being and an internal being. The contradiction lies in the "self" that has left the "(natural) existence". Children embody that hard-to-wipe past (and present). [1]
A fairy tale is a "pipe" that connects both worlds. Isn't it something that guides children to this world and also shows the charm of that world?
I think this book expresses the charm of the latter while writing about the former.
& quot; Kennen Sie Kinder? --Wie Kinder denken, handeln und fühlen, aufgezeigt an vier Grimmschen Märchen & quot;, Carl-Heinz Mallet 1980
Why did you read
Didn't you think, "I found a child? If I didn't find it, I wouldn't be there. How much the birthrate was declining." How do you distinguish between "adults" and "children"?
Few people believe that they will change from "children" to "adults" on their 20th birthday. At least half a century ago, it was few. The law on adults hasn't changed from half a century ago.
Half a century ago, the problem was that the definitions were different by law. Recently, voters have turned 18 years old and the juvenile law has been amended, but just because the definition of the law has changed does not mean that "adults" and "children" will change.
Most societies have a distinction between adults and children. However, I don't think there are many societies that are defined by law as "how old". The boundary may be menarche, familiarity, or initiation (rite of passage). Also, a society may have multiple criteria (such as attending a meeting or getting married). In addition, it is not uncommon for a society to have the right to choose and decide whether or not the person wants to grow up (I think that was the case in Japan as well).
So is the child "discovered"?
"Discovery"
Everything that happens on a daily basis is not just "just", but always rediscovered. For example, in the "new coronavirus" that is reported every day, "mutant species (mutant strains)" have been found (although it is not clearly reported, there seem to be many types), but it is "discovery (rediscovery)". .. The "parents" and "children" in front of you, the "books" and the "bookshelf" are different from yesterday's. Wake up today and "discover" what is there. Of course I am too. It may be a "poisonous insect" (Kafka "The Metamorphosis") (laughs).
By looking at it on the premise that it will be the same as yesterday, I am just trying to stabilize my mind.
By giving a "name" to something, or a decrease, it becomes "existing" with objectivity. The new corona is a good example.
The concept of "children" also changes. It may be that you will be a genpuku at the age of 15, or you will be an adult at the age of 20, and soon you will be an adult at the age of 18. If the truth changes, so does the concept itself.
That is why the child is discovered or rediscovered.
Grimms'Fairy Tales (Collection) [wiki (JP)] (Official name " Children and Family Fairytales Kinder- und Hausmärchen ”)
In fact, I have never read Grimm's fairy tales. Of course, I have read "Akazukin-chan" in different books and picture books many times. However, I have never read "Grimm's Fairy Tales" itself. The difference between Grimm's fairy tale and Aesop's story is still ambiguous (^ _ ^;).
The Grimms Märchen is a collection of German Fairytales compiled by Jacob and the Brothers Grimm of Wilhelm. Fairy tale is a German word meaning "old tale", and the Brothers Grimm collected fairy tales, not created them (creative fairy tales). Published in 1812 (Volume 1) and 1815 (Volume 2). It's the same as "The Story of Old and New" (around 1120?) In Japan.
It seems that it didn't sell very well at the time of publication. The content is folklore, but may have been adapted from the Brothers Grimm compared to Bechstein's "German Folktales", which is mentioned many times in this book. In addition, there are many cruel depictions, and it seems that they have been considerably rewritten in the second and subsequent editions.
Children's "discovery" in modern times
I think Plato (Socrates) found a child. A child as something different from himself. A child who is "ignorant, thoughtless, and easily deceived" (such as "Gorgias") "as an existence". But when Socrates says he "knows what he doesn't know," it seems that there is "nostalgia" for being a child. Returning there, returning to the original state where the soul dwelled to realize oneself, was probably the same as "dying." I think we also have a "longing" and a "hate" for our children.
In order to deny it, we must establish that we are "a child who is different from ourselves." You can identify yourself as an "adult" by completely expelling yourself from yourself.
In modern times, children are rediscovered. It is "confirmed" by law. Therefore, the boundary between "children" and "adults" is set regardless of the person's awareness, hope, developmental stage, and knowledge.
I think, but I wanted to know more about "rediscovering modern children." Perhaps because modern rediscovered children can be used as a "cheap workforce," but I wanted to know more about the logic used there.
That is why I read this book.
That thought was betrayed, but there were many other harvests.
"Discovery of children" is also "discovery of parents" and "discovery of adults". It is also a "rediscovery of children in adults". Since I was also a child, it may be better to say that I remembered my child (remembering is also "rediscovery").
Do you know your child?
The author is an elementary school teacher, but I can't understand what my child says and does. He asks his uncle, a psychiatrist. "Does your uncle understand children?" (P.2), and he hands you "Grimm's Fairy Tales" ("Children and Family Fairytales"). "" This book has everything about children. " Then, the uncle said kindly. "But in your mind, it's almost impossible to find knowledge in a story." ("Preface" P.3) (Terrible joke.) Then, I hand over books such as Freud, Jung, and Adler as "reference."
The author then rereads the Grimm fairy tale from Jung (Freud) ("Introduction to the Method"). And rather than seeing the child in it, he knew, or "discovered," the child.
So, there are a lot of "sexually" explanations, but that's compelling. This is because modern times are a society (Foucault) where "being sexual" is forced .
Telling
Folktales are handed down. To pass on is just reproduction. But it's not a simple reproduction.
The words and contents should change little by little according to the person who speaks and the times. To remain (leave) means to change and not change.
A modern society that believes in change is actually a society that does not change. Not only does the social system remain the same, but the truth is that it does not allow it to change.
Printing technology "fixes" the story. Only that interpretation changes. This book may be one of them.
Music and theater are also fixed to CDs, DVDs, BDs, etc. Modern society is to fix everything and commercialize it. The story, the music, and the play will change every time they are told, played, and performed. By changing, it is always new (not old). And in the process, some are thrown away and some are newly added. By metabolizing, the whole thing is maintained.
Mass production, mass consumption society
In modern society it has fallen. It is a society that constantly releases new products and always makes old (existing) ones old and thrown away. The process of "using" is neglected there. Rather, "using" appears as an obstacle to that process (reproduction process). The shorter it is, the better it is. You don't have to. It's just a necessary evil. Both things and people are made to throw away. That life itself is a necessary evil.
Naturally, existence and life (living) are neglected there. Only the whole process is real, no truth is needed. It is a society where only temporary elephants (symbols) walk alone. The "digital society" is a world where only "symbols" (also called information) wander.
" Library Lord "
This book features four volumes, "Hansel and Gretel," "Red Head," "Cooling," and "Goose-Ban Girl."
"Cooling" and "Goose-ban girl" didn't know the story.
"Hansel and Gretel" is also mentioned as a "cruel story" in "The Lord of the Library". That was also an interesting interpretation. Did Umiharu Shinohara read this book? More conceivable is " Really scary Grimm fairy tale ii (Kiryu Misao, 1999 Bestsellers). I haven't read "Actually ...", but as far as I read "i", I think it's more of a "horror story" than a deep analysis like this book (it). Is also one interpretation).
"Hansel and Gretel"
"They sometimes lie. Like any child. Most parents know that, but only a few parents lie (FF) to their own children. I believe that I will not do that for a limited time. ”(P.42-43) ＿＿Monster Parents, isn't it?
"Gretel finally discovers a loving touch with the masculine. This masculine is, of course, what she should be given and what she needs. Relationship with her father. In, she can now develop her strengths and abilities as a woman, while Hansel also needs a great deal of male and rival fathers. He can measure his strength on the basis of his father. And by looking at his father, he knows that he is not necessarily the greatest, best, and strongest man. He will suffer extra damage in the future due to his pleasure-seeking egoism. You have to realize your limits so that you don't have to suffer. ”(P.96)
"I was doing this job and I fell in love with these two kids asexually, and now I can understand parents, especially mothers. I've learned a little about witches. I was happy with the ending of this story. It's a good ending. ”(P.97)
"Red head width [wiki (JP)] "
Published by Charles Perrault in 1697, "Le Petit Chaperon rouge".
"They are surprisingly" frigid "to their parents' moral views. Pretending to be obedient, they do what they want to do. But they do so, as in the case of the red hood, not because of malice, rebellion, or stubbornness, but rather because they are innocent. However, in such cases, they seem to take it for granted that they do not feel guilty or have any doubts. (LF) Some fathers will be terribly despaired to see such "woman morals". But daughters shouldn't expect understanding. Because men usually don't understand how women behave like this. I don't understand because fathers of the opposite sex and not young do not know such a behavior. (P.129) ___ It is very sinful to be innocent. Does the girl "really" not know? I do not know.
"But if the children didn't stick their heads in everything, and if they were always well-behaved and obedient, they wouldn't have their own experience." (P.138) __Experience It is action-based. I don't think an actionless experience, or "virtual experience," is a "real" experience. I think it will become clear in real-life encounters.
"From the perspective of a werewolf, after all, the red hood is too young and smells green. The wolf still needs parents, and the wolf says," Sexual activity is a wolf (man) eating a woman. It will take some time before we can get rid of the misunderstanding that it is. (P.139) ＿＿I'm a lolicon, but how old is Akatobuki-chan? (Lol)
Old-fashioned researcher Robert Darnton seems to have criticized Fromm, so maybe Male's You would also deny the interpretation.
"Cooling"
I haven't read it, so I didn't understand it.
"That's horrifying. Hans was out of the house to experience the emotion of" forgetting me. " He has forgotten me now. The unknown power of feminine things is challenging Hans. In the face of that power, he can no longer be locked in his shell. He is upset from the bottom of his heart. "He took the last step towards maturity. He became an adult. He escaped from the narrow realm of childish selfishness and faced the" doo "and against the" others. " I can now confide in my heart. If you don't let your child experience _ chilling, you can create a person who can't break the shell and is trapped in selfishness. The richer the material, the more difficult it is to experience such an experience.
"The Girl Who Turns the Goose"
I didn't know this either.
"So this queen has no drawbacks. Instead she may be a little dull and boring, but her carelessness is hardly a drawback. Unreliability or weakness is a decisive strength. And it's very helpful in gaining the affection of men. Many men, who are said to be strong, love the opposite (weak) but very dislike competing, so they are women. I rarely evaluate the intellect of. ”(P.228) ＿＿Is this a sexual harassment expression? It seems to me that it has the essence of discrimination against women.
"In a world where most things are decided and controlled by men, it was quite natural for women to exert special powers and abilities as resistance strategies. Women's powers and abilities. Because they are different from those of men, men cannot see or understand such things. ”(P.245) ＿＿“ There is nothing in the world that can't be helped like a woman. Go up, get on the chart if you say it gently, swell if you say a little, scratch if you hit it (cry if you hit it), and it will turn into a ghost in the middle of the night if you kill it. " Ability (not in dogs). It may not be true. But will women's mystery disappear in a "gender equality" society? I'm glad I don't know about women, but I feel a little lonely (^ _ ^;).
"A good, flawless girl like a princess will not be able to survive in a world where she has to protect herself and survive herself. Therefore, in order to survive, she needs the characteristics and abilities of her waist. But such a trait is unpopular only when it manifests itself in its own form. When wrapped in, controlled and covered with feminine elegance and wisdom, it is barely noticeable. We should know that there is definitely a trait. Moreover, we need to bury the legend about weak (female) sex at all costs. Women are by no means weak. What? Even women can be as harsh as their maids, reckless, and strict if they need to. ”(P.257) It's discriminatory, even if it's not contempt. But equality does not mean "same." It is "equality" because there is a "difference". If it is "same", there is no question about "equality". Men and women are different. Japanese and Americans are different. Born in Hokkaido and born in Okinawa will be different. Born in Yamanote and Shitamachi may be different. The difference is not the difference between "good and evil" and "up and down of value". You are different from me.
"Equality" or "ego"
As long as there is an "ego", it has to be "aware". It is very difficult to return to the pre-ego state after that "self-consciousness". Many people don't go any further, saying, "I can't throw away my ego."
But what if that "ego" creates science and technology, a capitalist society, and causes environmental destruction? For example, pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear groups speak the same language. The word "science". Proponents say "there is no evidence of an impact (on the human body or the environment)" and opponents say "there is no evidence of no impact" or "there is evidence of an impact". As a non-scientist, I (we) cannot judge "which is right". All you can do is "Which one do you trust?" Most things can only be "believed (sensitivity)" apart from "understanding (logic)".
I don't think that is the "reason (logos)" that the "ego" is aiming for.
It is this fact that Western philosophy has been struggling since Socrates (Plato). And I have found something that seems to be a conclusion for each philosopher.
For example, Descartes said, "I am because I think." In other words, after all, it is a state of resignation after making a detour saying "I kept thinking, but I (ego) is thinking". That's what the modern people mentioned above think.
Heidegger probably aimed at the reason why Socrates died, that is, "a sense of unity with police", dumping himself into society, uniting himself with the society that gave birth to and nurturing himself, and returning to nature. (It had an experience called "El Aiknis"). It is not difficult to imagine that it is easily linked to "Nazi (totalitarianism)".
I disagree with their idea. And I don't want to waste their thoughts.
In a society where science is predominant (believed to be), only "words of science" are valid. Therefore, we must overcome science in the language of science. The word "should" is powerless in front of "ego". Rather, it is "should" be helpless (^ _ ^;).
There are endless possibilities (although at most 2500 years).
And the possibility lies in the fact that "we are alive". We're not machines, computers, or AI (although we continue to be impossible to keep going, like the "Digital Agency"). Even if we don't like it, we are with the "body". We are "body" and "natural". You can only be "ego" and "scientific" by continuing to forget or ignore that fact.
I feel that women are closer to "self-nature." This is because I think there are moments when you have to feel "your own nature" such as menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth. It may mean "feel the woman in me", which is the same as "feel the man in me".
"Postscript"
"Postscript" is written by Bruno Bettelheim. He seems to think that he is a comrade who follows the same path, although he disagrees with Male.
"We do not take the freedom that is carried to us on the silver tray as freedom, but rather as humiliation." "The freedom that we obtain without fighting weakens our self-esteem. Freedom is not experienced as freedom without strong self-esteem. Because of the vast space of freedom given to children today, we need a chance to evacuate to the imaginary world of old tales. For example, children will fight true freedom in a dispute with a dangerous opponent. ”(P.265)
"Those who cannot draw conclusions from their own observations must rely on the conclusions of others." (P.270) __ I think there is something in common with my idea above.
40 years
It has been 40 years since this book was published. During that time, various situations have changed. Freud-Jung's "generality theory" is being criticized. At the same time, it is also true that the description in this book has taken on a "sexist aspect".
Speaking of 1980, Foucault's "History of Sex" Volumes 1 and 2 and 3 are just in the middle of publication.
Foucault's "History of Sex Vol. 4" (Japanese version) was also published last year (original book is 2018). I haven't read it yet, but I think that the retrospective from "biopolitics" to the Greek era after the second volume approaches "ego" as "utilization of pleasure" and "consideration for self". And Volume 4 "Confessions of Meat". It is a Christian world. I imagine Foucault did not reach "ego" but shortcut to "self-nature", but I would like to read it carefully.
At that time, Foucault, whose every move became news and ran around the world (the momentum to drop birds), is hardly talked about now. I wonder why.
Fewer and fewer people have been friends with him. Does that mean I can't eat at Foucault anymore? Perhaps society is running out of room to accept Foucault. I want young people (?) Like Yasuyuki Shinkai, the translator of Volume 4, to do their best.
Harassment
The world where ~Hara is scared is nothing but the world of "alternate monitoring". Did that reduce the number of victims? As the number of harassments increases, so does the number of victims. Like a PCR test. (Lol)
"Sexual harassment" "Power harassment" ... In one article, " 39 harassment " There seems to be. (Lol)
"~ Hara" may be saving the voices (non-voiced voices) of "vulnerable people" such as women and young people. But I don't think most of them were made by the vulnerable person. I think it was made by someone in a "strong position" in the media.
Anyway, "the sexual harassment should be eliminated **" is powerless to the "ego". It has power only as "social pressure". "Peer pressure".
"Gender equality" and "nature maintenance" as faith or morality are powerless in front of capital. No, I would rather support the capital. You can tell just by the fact that CO2 emissions are "commodities". It seems that "eco" is now even becoming an "essential characteristic of a product". And "sterilization" "antibacterial" "virus removal", all are products. If they are really "necessary" for everyone, they should be ** should be taxed before the "vaccine". (Lol)
"Should" does not eliminate or stop "~ hara" and "environmental destruction". "Why" -I think it is necessary to ask (even if it is a little troublesome) why harassment and environmental destruction are occurring (there is a tendency that "history is inevitable". History is inevitably linear. There is no evolutionary timeline or purpose, it is just "faith"). Even if only the smoke (result) is extinguished, if the fire source (cause) is not extinguished, smoke will forever rise in various places. Eternal "whac-a-mole". It's fun as a game, but it's tiring. You should unplug the game console.
Actually, I would like you to ask the "causal relationship itself", but for the time being, as long as it is limited to "scientific discourse", I would like you to recognize the causal relationship and "pursue the cause".
Children
The child lies. Adults also lie. There may be a "difference" in that lie. "Lies for people", this is also true for children. Lies are the beginning of "self-defense," or "ego." A lie for others is also a lie that does not destroy the world that surrounds you (and protects you). Nature doesn't lie (although it's hard to show the essence). A child wants to be an adult. For adults who are sexually, empirically, and knowledgeably omnipotent. It was a father and a mother. But his father and mother have replaced schools, cram schools, tutors, and lessons. Fathers and mothers are no longer omnipotent, nor are they wrapping and protecting themselves. Simply a weak and "dirty" being. After all, if you don't have a piece of paper called a bill, you're weaker than yourself. The piece of paper is stronger than my parents (^ _ ^;). Your child will be aiming for a piece of paper, not your parents. (Lol)
I am protected and wrapped. I am being raised. You cannot grow up unless you abandon yourself. And "society" and "my body" that force me to throw away. It is a body that has been "excessive" since it was born. In many ways.
I will think and overcome various barriers with my own power. That experience. A gradual, all-unknown qualitative wall. Overcoming that, I gradually grow up to be an adult. That is the subject of fairy tales.
Laid-Back Camp △
The original is Afro [wiki (JP)] 's manga, animated. It has been made into a drama. It's a story about a high school girl camp.
It's not a harsh camp because it's about Laid-Back Camp. It is a camp in the suburbs where "the radio waves of mobile phones can reach" and there is a convenience store if you go a little. An adviser teacher of the club (did you become a club activity?) Comes with you (although you can't rely on it at all after drinking alcohol from daytime). Even in such a camp, various unexpected things (or rather, I don't think I'm expecting much (^ _ ^;)) occur. But that's the real thrill of camping. The "real feeling" that something was achieved or not achieved by oneself. And touching nature. It's an artificial place called a campsite, but you can see "real" mountains and lakes, and at night you can see "real" stars.
(Detailed separate article)
Is it dangerous to live?
Today's adults try to keep their children away from "dangerous things" as they did and because they didn't. It doesn't let you "experience". Experience is evil and I don't want to have "hard", "disgusting" or "dangerous" eyes. But neither my father nor my mother are at home for work (“Gender Equality Society”). There are no grandparents due to the nuclear family. It is money to say things there. Then, buy a lot of "safety goods" and wear them for children. Children can't even run. (Lol)
Do adults go to work because they want to "participate" in society? Children don't know. In fact, even adults don't know. "I'm desperate to get a job." I'm betting on life and death (gambling. There are many losses). "Why" is a question that should not be asked. The child's question, "Why?", Should be "disgusting" and "treated." We hate the question "why?" It's a long time ago. I don't think he (she) hate the question "why?"
Children gain "existence" by being established as "another being" with us "adults". But children are our past and our present. It is both an external being and an internal being. The contradiction lies in the "self" that has left the "(natural) existence". Children embody that hard-to-wipe past (and present). [1]
A fairy tale is a "pipe" that connects both worlds. Isn't it something that guides children to this world and also shows the charm of that world?
I think this book expresses the charm of the latter while writing about the former.
[1] わたしたちは「育てられた」、そして大人になっても「育てられている（自然と無関係では存在し得ない）」存在です。
<凡例＞
（FF） 改頁
（LF） 改行
