In her article “The Taming of Michel Foucault: New Historicism, Psychoanalysis, and the Subversion of Power”, Suzanne Gearhart describes what she calls “the critique Foucault's "dialogue" with Freud", specifically in his "analysis of the relationship between pleasure and power" (459-60). Interestingly, in Discipline and Punishment, Foucault mentions “the subjects of two of Freud's most famous case studies: Little Hans and Judge Schreber” (469). Gearhart, however, does not fully explore Foucault's understanding of the “Little Hans” case study. Foucault cites little Hans as an exemplary object of the discipline of both his father and Freud; in many cases in the case study, however, rather than acting as the subject of Foucault's disciplinary ideas, Hans actually actively engages with, questions and challenges them. Both by transgressing the spatial boundaries his parents set for him and in the complex ways in which he simultaneously confines and empowers Hanna, Hans attempts to assert both power over his family and his newly emerging sexual desires. Indeed, his manipulation of spatial enclosures and his disciplinary interactions with Hanna allow Hans to become “the master of the house,” asserting his desires and creating his own rules and boundaries (Gurewich 137). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Despite Hans's age, scholars often note the ways in which he questions his father's authority. Early in the case study, Freud notes the Graf family's liberal policy on discipline: "his parents... had agreed to raise their first child without more constraints than was necessary to maintain dignified behavior" ( 4). Patrick Mahony argues, however, that the effect of this policy is that "Hans was subjected to his parents' confusing mix of permissiveness, overstimulation, and constraint" (1247). Hans confronts this unstable discipline by trying to surpass his father in both family control and psychoanalytic understanding. Judith Gurewich argues that Hans's constant myth-making represents his attempts to “force his father's involvement” in the paternal role (123). Furthermore, he states that Hans's fantasy of “loading and unloading” a van of furniture “serves as a dream of control” over his surroundings (123). In terms of knowledge and understanding, Gillian Beer states that often “little Hans surpasses his father” in analysis (xv). Mahony observes that, in writing the case, Hans becomes a “dictator” who “dominates” the writing activity of the Professor; the “writing father” is then left “crumpled,” indicating that the father has been relegated to the position of the mother or Hanna, both contained in the symbol of the crumpled giraffe (1249). Even Freud himself is aware of the ways in which Hans consciously seeks to elevate his understanding above that of his father. He clarifies this through the note in which he states that Hans's story is a way of knowingly “making fun of his father” (82). As a result, Hans seems concerned with acquiring and asserting his own knowledge and power over his father's. Foucault, however, sees little Hans not as a controlling agent, but as a force that should be subdued and disciplined. In his reference to the case of “little Hans” in Discipline and Punish, Foucault cites the way in which the case study identifies little Hans as exemplary of a “disciplinary regime” (193). He argues that “in a system of discipline, the child is more individualized than the adult, [and] the patient more than the healthy man” (193); consequently, the disciplinary societyidentifies its members based on how much they deviate from the norm. Because of his age and his phobia, little Hans is a prime example of a person disciplined through the “surveillance” and “observation” of both his father and Freud (Foucault 193). Consequently, Foucault interprets the case of little Hans in this way: “The adventure of our childhood no longer finds expression in 'le petit bon Henri', but in the misfortunes of 'little Hans'” (193-4). Ultimately, although Foucault sees Hans as the “unfortunate” object of disciplinary action, I argue that Hans actually intentionally escapes those disciplinary constraints and, furthermore, that he varies them and imposes them on other members of his family to assert his own control and dominion. .The main disciplinary action that Hans engages with is Foucault's idea of ​​spatial discipline. Foucault argues that rigorous spatial organization is “a question of organizing the multiple, of equipping oneself with an instrument to cover and dominate it; it was a matter of imposing an 'order' on him" (148). Consequently, classifying and controlling the position assigned to something or someone is a sign of both “power” and “knowledge” (Foucault 148). This spatial organization is exactly what Hans' father tries to do to “impose his law” and assume his place in the Oedipal triangle (Gurewich 117). Although Karin Ahbel-Rappe claims that Hans' father “is a man [consciously] obsessed… with being the big daddy who heralds the Oedipal order,” he ultimately fails to do so (853). Gurewich even uses spatial terms in arguing that the father must place himself “between mother and child” to successfully fulfill his role (117). Hans's father tries, but fails, to discipline his son in the following passage: Hans always comes to us early in the morning, and my wife can't resist taking him to bed with her for a few minutes. At this point I always start to warn her against taking him with her... and she tells me it's nonsense... Hans then stays in his bed for a while. (30) In this passage, Hans's father attempts to limit where his son can and cannot go, but fails and Hans is eventually admitted to bed, marking the breakdown of the father's sense of control. Sleeping with his mother is one of the main ways in which Hans avoids the spatial limitations his father imposes on him, thus escaping any sense of discipline except his own. Many of the other instances in which Hans transgresses spatial boundaries involve using the toilet. The most obvious example, which also involves his mother, is when Hans goes with her to the bathroom: Hans answers yes when his father asks him: "Have you often been in the bathroom with mother?" (49). Upon further investigation, Hans' father discovers that Hans enters the toilet in hopes of "seeing mother's widdler," once again representing a case of Hans transgressing spatial boundaries to defy his father and get closer to his mother (50) . Furthermore, Hans states that “with [Berta] he went to the toilet” in Gmunden (48). This, perhaps more than any other example, shows that Hans actively pushes spatial boundaries in the sense that he does not ask Berta's permission to enter the toilet with her; he “entered alone” (48). Likewise, the fact that Hans's parents then tell him “not to do it again” shows that this act is a precise spatial transgression, despite Hans's claim that he is “not bad” (48); this statement perhaps indicates Hans's sense of his own right to break these boundaries. Finally, Freud suggests that Hans refuses to limit himself to urinating only in the toilet. Early in the case study, Hans' father explains that Hans likes to “'play' toilets” in a “lumber shop” in the house, despite the fact that the toilet is right next door (9). Hans also remembers “where is the little garden [in Gmunden], where the radishes are, there I used todo the widdle” (47). In these examples, Hans chooses to define his own cabinet rather than adhere to the spatial boundaries established for him. Another way Hans shows a desire to physically transgress boundaries is through his two criminal “thoughts” on March 30th. The first is Hans's fantasy that "I was in Schonbrunn with you [his father] watching the sheep and then we crawled under the ropes and then we told the policeman at the entrance what we had done and he grabbed us" (31 ). The second fantasy involves breaking a window from inside a train, perhaps to get off it, in response to which, once again, “a policeman took [Hans and his father] away” (31). Gurewich examines these two fantasies and focuses on the policeman's presence as an “articulation of [Hans'] desire for a threshold, for a limit to be placed between him and his mother” (131). Another way to look at these fantasies, however, is in the context of Hans's desire to transgress boundaries rather than construct them. These fantasies differ from Hans's other attempts to challenge spatial discipline in that they explicitly involve the father; Ahbel-Rappe argues that "instead of the father assigning the son to the order of decency [in this fantasy], the son adapts the father to a transgressive disorder," once again indicating Hans' desire to control his father (849) . Furthermore, according to Gurewich, these fantasies show Hans as "forming an alliance with his father to defeat his all-powerful mother" (126). Consequently, these instances of spatial transgression strengthen Hans' power over both his mother and father. The most compelling reason why these transgressions display and reinforce Hans's sense of control can be found in Foucault's connection between pleasure and power in The History of Sexuality. . Gearhart cites the following aspects of Foucault's argument on the relationship between power and pleasure: "They function as mechanisms with a double impulse: pleasure and power...power [asserts itself] in the pleasure of showing off, scandalizing or resisting" ( 462). . In this way, Foucault argues that “showing off” and “scandalizing,” both elements of Hans's behavior, are ways of asserting power. Perhaps most importantly, however, Foucault argues that the connections between power and pleasure “are not boundaries not to be crossed, but perpetual spirals,” suggesting that the two ideas are inextricably intertwined (Gearhart 462). In this statement, Foucault metaphorically compares the correlation between pleasure and power to a crossable border, recalling his thesis on the institution and transgression of spatial discipline as a sign of power in Discipline and Punish. It seems clear that most of them are motivated by sexual pleasure and desire. Hans' father, for example, interprets Hans' entry into his mother's bed as "in the night he is overwhelmed by desire for his mother, for her caresses and for her sexual member and so he enters our bedroom" (30). Likewise, entering the toilet with both the mother and Berta occurs because of the desire to see them urinate, and also because Berta touches his widdler (48, 50). Even in the “toilet game” Hans satisfies his sexual desire by “exposing himself” in the closet, which Freud describes as an “autoerotic” impulse (9). Furthermore, Hans's diction of “exposing himself” is explicitly sexual and suggests an aggressive sexuality in which Hans dominates (even if, in this particular situation, there is no subject to dominate): this action of “showing off”, as Berta entering the toilet without permission shows that Hans' assertive and erotic desires are in full control. Finally, although Hans's desire to crawl under the rope and break the train window doesn't seem specificdriven by sexual pleasure, Freud describes them as desires to "penetrate a closed area", indicating that these fantasies may also derive from Hans's sexual desires (31). As a result, Hans is shown to be unconsciously concerned with power and control, not only because it oversteps boundaries, but also because these acts of transgression allow him to gain pleasure and assert his sexual power over others. In addition to avoiding the boundaries that others have set for him to assert his sense of dominance, he also sets those same boundaries for the people around him, especially his sister Hanna. Gurewich rightly notes that, for Hans, Hanna becomes “the ideal embodiment of the phallic object” (139). With Hans's “adoration” of his sister, however, also comes the simultaneous desire to assert his control over her (Gurewich 139). In the case study, Hans' father states that Hans “becomes affectionate towards Hanna only when [he becomes] aware of his superiority” over her (7); as a result, their relationship can be understood on multiple levels. Observing their relationship on a superficial level, Hans attempts to exercise on Hanna a type of discipline similar to that which others propose to him: the imagination confined and easily localized in various "myths" created by him. The most obvious example of this is his fantasy that Hanna travels to Gmunden before being born in a bathtub enclosed in a box (55); the presence of both the box and the tub represents a double sense of internment. Furthermore, even after Hanna's birth, or her exit from the metaphorical stork box, Hans states that "when we go to Gmunden this time Hanna will travel in the box again," indicating his continued desire to confine her (55). Just as Hans's experiences of asserting his control by transgressing boundaries give him pleasure, his powerful (if imaginary) act of putting Hanna back in the stork box is also pleasurable in that he gets rid of “this child who had robbed of a part of her parents' love" (Freud 54). Another significant example of Hanna's confinement at the hands, or imagination, of Hans is found in the myth that Hans creates about the stork: Frau Kraus (the midwife) put her in her mother's bed... The stork came up the stairs... and put Hanna in your bed and mother was sleeping... no, the stork put her in her bed the stork gently placed her in bed (56) Despite all the various details that permeate this passage, the only consistent detail is that someone places Hanna in a bed is repeated four times in the passage, highlighting it as the most important and more certain than Hans' story. Once again, here Hans attempts to locate and confine Hanna in an enclosed space. Just as in the fantasy about the box, however, Hans's manipulation of his sister's position occurs only in his imagination; as Hans himself states, “'wanting' is not the same as 'doing' and 'doing' is not the same as 'wanting'” (24). Consequently, although Hans often engages in and challenges the disciplines of space that affect both him and his sister, the fictional nature of his control over Hanna suggests limitations on how much dominance Hans can actually exert over his family due to his age and his "small" size. In these superficial attempts to contain and locate Hanna, however, Hans interestingly imagines himself with her in precisely these scenes of confinement. Consequently, another way to understand Hans' relationship with Hanna is that he identifies with her and perhaps seeks to share her sense of power and control. Imagining Hanna locked in the box on the road to Gmunden, Hans also puts himself in the box 74.6 (1993): 1245-51.