with himself, by making himself return without making
anything but himself, her in himself, return. All the while
remaining, as close as possible, at the side of the PP which
(who) never absents itself (himself ), and thus provides (for
himself ) the greatest pleasure.... He makes himself disap-
pear, he masters himself symbolically... and he makes him-
self reappear henceforth without a mirror, in his disappear-
ance itself, maintaining himself like his mother at the other
end of the line” (Post 319 ). Derrida reads baby Ernst’s game as
a triumph: the infant has become the master of symbolism,
maneuvering himself and his mother in tandem.
But according to Freud, the fort-da game has its limita-
tions. As he notes later on in Beyond,the repetition of an ex-
perience of satisfaction (like the return of the reel to the baby’s
grasp) is not enough (Beyond 51 ). The infant will progress to
the effort to make a baby of its own to give to the mother, a
project that, “carried out with tragic seriousness, fails shame-
fully” ( 22 ). The infant’s desire to become mature, to be a little
parent himself, cannot be mere repetition; it is not regressive.
A more sophisticated form of satisfaction is being aimed at, as
we develop our childish ideas of grown-up success. The baby’s
incorporation of the mother in himself, celebrated by Derrida,
must inevitably prove partial. The mother is a separate being,
and the child must seek to please her (which boys rather im-
plausibly attempt to do, as Freud notes, by trying to make a
baby for the mother). She is not merely symbolic, despite Der-
rida’s implication.
Freud notes that although they repeat what has made an
impression on them in real life, children “abreact the strength
of the impression [that is, discharge it through action] and, as
one might put it, make themselves master of the situation. But
on the other hand,” he adds, “it is obvious that all their play is
Plato, Austin, Nietzsche, Freud 177