Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instead of viewing Andreas-Salome's fictional works in the light of her theoretical writings, as previous commentaries have done, this article will avail itself of psychological theory to throw new light on her stories. For instance, Brigid Haines's consideration of masochism in Eine Ausschweifung (1898; A Deviation) reduces Andreas-Salome's fiction to psychoanalytic theory, while even Biddy Martin and Michaela Wiesner tend to subordinate the literary writings hermeneutically to the theoretical essays. By contrast, this paper will focus on three of her richly textured stories as literary works: Eine Ausschweifung, Fenitschka (1898), and Jutta (published 1933, but written much earlier). Each story depicts a heroine whose struggle between feminine submission to a man and independent self-development occurs within an artistic framework characterized by images of armouring and fetishization, processes whose psychoanalytic versions were being promulgated around 1900. Psychoanalysis has so thoroughly permeated contemporary frames of reference that precepts such as the existence of the unconscious are taken for granted despite the fact that the psychoanalytic paradigm originated in a specific time and place. This article uses psychoanalysis and literature as imaginary constructs founded on a common cultural context. Psychoanalysis (in its Viennese origins) both embodied and fuelled sociocultural constructs about the body-mind relationship and the nature of gender. An occasional participant in Viennese literary and intellectual life, Andreas-Salome also studied under Freud, with whom she subsequently maintained a life-long correspondence. Because of the dynamic mutual context afforded by Vienna, Wilhelm Reich's ideas about armouring, developed during his Vienna years (1919-1930), provide an illuminating gloss for Andreas-Salome's stories. This essay views the psychoanalytic and literary manifestations of armouring imagery (along with the complementary fetish) as equal modes of representation, neither of which may claim primacy. Nevertheless, the psychoanalytic version of armouring offers important aids to understanding the literary meaning of this imagery. The concept first emerges
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".