英：Kleinian psychoanalysis
克莱因派精神分析是对围绕着奥地利精神分析家梅兰妮·克莱因 (1882一1960)的开创性工作而逐渐兴起的精神分析理论学派的命名。克莱因诞生于维也纳，她在1926年定居英国，并且在那里度过了自己的余生。在1940年代，克莱因派精神分析开始作为一支与众不同的精神分析理论学派而异军突起，以抗衡安娜·弗洛伊德迁居伦敦之后围绕着她而聚集起来的团体。然而，直至第二次世界大战结束以后，其他的分析家们才开始作为“克莱因派”而为人所知，也才开始发展出一个坚实的克莱因派思想团体。这些分析家包括汉娜·西格尔、赫尔伯特·罗森费尔德、威尔弗雷德·比昂以及（后来的）唐纳德·梅尔泽等人。
连同其他两个非拉康派的主要精神分析理论学派（自我心理学[EGO-PSYCHOLOGY]与对象关系理论[OBJECT RELAITONS THEORY])一起，克莱因派精神分析构成了对于拉康而言的一个主要的参照点，使拉康能够以此为背景而提出他自己对于弗洛伊德的独特解读。因此，拉康针对克莱因的批判，对于理解他的立场的原创性便是十分重要的。虽然我们不可能在这里提及这些批判的全部，但是其中最重要的一些还是可以被概括如下：
(1)拉康批评克莱因过于强调母亲的重要性，从而忽视了父亲的角色 (例如：Ec, 728-9).
(2)拉康批评克莱因全然在想象秩序中对幻想 (FANTASY)加
以理论化。拉康指出，这样一种方法是一种误解，因为它未能对从下面支撑着所有想象性构形 (imaginary formations)的象征性结构 (symbolic structure)加以考虑。
(3)拉康不同意克莱因有关俄狄浦斯情结的早期发展的观点。在拉康看来，有关俄狄浦斯情结的确切日期的一切争论皆是徒然的，因为俄狄浦斯情结主要并不是一个发展阶段，而是一个主体性的永久结构 (就俄狄浦斯情结能够在时间上被定位而言，拉康也不会像克莱因所做的那样把它定位得那么早。因而，虽然克莱因看似几乎否认了一个前俄狄浦斯期的存在，但是拉康认为存在着这么一个时期)。
(4)与前述观点密切联系的是拉康相较于“梅兰妮·克莱因侵入无意识的前语言领域”的不同 (Lacan, 1951:11)。对拉康而言，根本没有无意识的前语言领域 (pre-verbal areas of theunconscious),因为无意识是一个语言性结构 (linguistic structure).
(5)拉康批评克莱因的解释风格是特别野蛮的。当提及克莱因在其有关“象征形成”(symbolic formation)的论文中 (Klein, 1930)所讨论的小病人 (“迪克”)的时候，拉康评论道：“她完全野蛮地将象征意义 (symbolism)砸在他的身上。”(S1,68)
然而，把拉康描绘为对克莱因持有完全批判的态度，又会使问题变得过度简单化。因为虽然拉康与克莱因派精神分析的分歧至少同他与自我心理学和对象关系理论的分歧是一样大的，但是他对克莱因的评论并非是以同样轻蔑的语气来加以刻画的，这种轻蔑的语气明显可见于他对其他两派分析家的那些尖刻批判。他确实把克莱因派精神分析看作优于自我心理学，而且也称赞欧内斯特·琼斯站在支持梅兰妮·克莱因的一边来反对安娜·弗洛伊德 (Ec, 721-2)。此外，他还声称，就转移的理论而言，梅兰妮·克莱因当然比安娜·弗洛伊德更加忠实于弗洛伊德 (S8,369).
在拉康1950年以前的作品中，他曾多次影射克莱因关于母子关系以及在幻想中运作的各种意象的著作。在1950年以后，拉康则称赞克莱因强调了死亡冲动在精神分析理论中的重要性（尽管他自己构想死亡冲动的方式明显有别于克莱因）并且发展了部分对象 (PART-OBJECT)的概念（尽管拉康对于此一概念的阐述再一次大大有别于克莱因）。
Kleinian psychoanalysis is the name given to the school of psychoanalytic theory that hasgrown up around the pioneering work of the Austrian psychoanalyst Melanie Klein (1882-1960). Bom in Vienna, Klein settled in England in 1926 and remained there forthe rest of her life. Kleinian psychoanalysis first began to emerge as a distinctive schoolof psychoanalytic theory during the 1940s in opposition to the group which gatheredaround Anna Freud after the latter's move to London. However, it was not until after thewar that other analysts began to become known as Kleinians'and to develop asubstantial body of Kleinian thought. These analysts included Hanna Segal, Herbert Rosenfeld, Wilfred Bion and (later) Donald Meltzer.
Along with the two other major non-Lacanian schools of psychoanalytic theory (EGO-PSYCHOLOGY and OBJECT-RELATIONS THEORY) Kleinian psychoanalysis formsa major point of reference for Lacan against which he puts forward his own particularreading of Freud. Lacan's criticisms of Klein are therefore important to understanding theoriginality of his position. While it is impossible to mention all of these criticisms here, some of the most important of them may be summarised as follows:
- Lacan criticises Klein for placing too much emphasis on the mother and neglectingthe role of the father (e.g.Ec, 728-9).
- Lacan criticises Klein for theorising FANTASY entirely in the imaginary order.
Such an approach is a misconception, argues Lacan, since it fails to take into account thesymbolic structure that underpins all imaginary formations. 3. Lacan disagrees with Klein's views on the early development of the Oedipuscomplex. For Lacan, all debate on the precise dating of the Oedipus complex is futile, since it is not primarily a stage of development but a permanent structure of subjectivity. (Insofar as the Oedipus complex can be located in time, Lacan would not locate it asearly as Klein does. Thus while Klein seems almost to deny the existence of a preoedipalphase, Lacan argues that there is one.) 4. Closely connected to the preceding point are Lacan's differences with respect to'Melanie Klein's encroachments into the pre-verbal areas of the unconscious' (Lacan, 1951:11). For Lacan, there are no pre-verbal areas of the unconscious, sincetheunconscious is a linguistic structure. 5. Lacan criticises Klein's interpretative style as being particulary brutal. In referenceto the young patient ('Dick') whom Klein discusses in her paper on symbol formation (Klein, 1930), Lacan remarks that 'she slams the symbolism on him with completebrutality' (S1,68).
However, to portray Lacan as entirely critical of Klein would be to oversimplify thematter. For while Lacan's disagreements with Kleinian psycho-analysis are at least asgreat as his disagreements with ego-psychology and object-relations theory, hiscomments on Klein are not characterised by the same dismissive tone which is evident inhis acerbic criticisms of analysts from these other two schools. He certainly regards it assuperior to ego-psychology, and praises Emest Jones for taking sides with Melanie Kleinagainst Anna Freud (Ec, 721-2). He also states that Melanie Klein is certainly morefaithful to Freud than Anna Freud regarding the theory of transference (S8,369).
In his pre-1950 writings, there are many allusions to Klein's work on the mother-childrelationship and the various imagos that operate in fantasy. After 1950, Lacan praises Klein for emphasising the importance of the death drive in psychoanalytic theory (thoughhis own way of conceiving the death drive differs markedly from Klein's) and fordeveloping the concept of the PART-OBJECT (though once again Lacan's formulationson this concept differ greatly from Klein's).