●"In the earlier essay, Freud assumes that grief can be resoled through a decathexis, a breaking of attachment, as well as the subsequent making of new attachments. In The Ego and the Id, he makes room for the notion that melancholic identification may be a prerequisite for letting the object go. By claiming this, he changes what it means to "let an object go," for there is no final breaking of the attachment. There is, rather, the incorporation of the attachment as identification, where identification becomes a magical, a psychic form of preserving the object" (246).
●"The lost object is, in that sense, made coextensive with the ego itself. Indeed, one might conclude that melancholic identification permits the loss of the object in the external world precisely because it provides a way to preserve the object as part of the ego and, hence, to avert the loss as a complete loss. Here we see that letting the object go means, paradoxically, not full abandonment of the object but transferring the status of the object from external to internal" (246).
●"Internalization preserves loss in the psyche; more precisely, the internalization of loss is part of the mechanism of its refusal. If the object can no longer exist in the external world, it will then exist internally, and that internalization will be a way to disavow the loss, to keep it at bay, to stay or postpone the recognition and suffering of loss" (247).
☆Gender identification and melancholy
●masculinity and femininity as products of melancholic identification which are "established in part through prohibitions which demand the loss of certain sexual attachments," in particular, "the abandonment of homosexual attachments" (247).→We might understand both "masculinity" and "femininity" as formed and consolidated through identifications which are in part composed of disavowed grief (250).→masculinity and femininity emerge as the traces of an ungrieved and ungrievable love.
●preempting the possibility of homosexual attachments, a foreclosure of possibility which produces a domain of homosexuality understood as unlivable passion and ungrievable loss (247).
→preemptionという概念の大切さ。homosexual desireをungrievable loss（heterosexual imperativeによって？）として常に既に失われているものとして捉える。"ungrieved loss of the homosexual cathexis" (248). 愛したという事実さえ認めてはならないので、もちろんその喪失はungrievableなものとなる、ということ。"the love it cannot grieve" (249)←"the love that dares not speak its name"にも近いもの。The double disavowal of the "I never loved her, and I never lost her," uttered by a woman, the "I never loved him, I never lost him," uttered by man (249).
●a preemption of grief performed by the absence of cultural conventions for avowing the loss of homosexual love (255).
●heterosexual identity is purchased through a melancholic incorporation of the love that it disavows: the man who insists upon the coherence of his heterosexuality will claim that he never loved another man, and hence never lost another man. That love, that attachment becomes subject to a double disavowal, a a never having loved, and a never having lost. This "never-never" thus founds the heterosexual subject, as it were; it is an identity based upon the refusal to avow an attachment and, hence, the refusal to grieve. (250)★ようするに、heterosexualityというのは嘆くのを禁じられたobject of homosexual desireとのmelancholic identificationの産物である、ということ。つまり、"the 'truest' lesbian melancholic is the strictly straight woman, and the 'truest' gay male melancholic is the strictly straight man" (254). たしかにこれはこれで説得力があるのだが、このロジックでgay identityにおけるmelancholic identificationをどう説明するのかが不明。
☆Gender performativity and Drag
●The relation between drag performances and gender performativity in Gender Trouble goes something like this: when a man is performing drag as a woman, the "imitation" that drag is said to be taken as an "imitation" if femininity, but the "femininity" that he imitates is not understood as being itself an imitation. Yet, if one considers that gender is acquired, that it is assumed in relation to ideals which are never quite inhabited by anyone, then feminity is an ideal which everyone always and only "imitates." Thus, drag imitates the imitative structure of gender, revealing gender itself to be an imitation (253).
●Given the iconographic figure of the melancholic drag queen, one might ask whether there is not a dissatisfied longing in the mimetic incorporation of gender that is drag. Here one might ask also after the disavowal which occasions the performance and which performance might be said to enact, where performance engages "acting out" in the psychoanalytic sense. If melancholia in Freud's sense is the effect of an ungrievable loss, performance, understood as "acting out," may be related to the problem of unacknowledged loss. If there is an ungrieved loss in drag performance, perhaps it is a loss that is refused and incorporated in the performed identification, one which reiterates a gendered idealization and its radical uninhabitability. . . . It suggests that the performance allegorizes a loss it cannot grieve, allegorizes the incorporative fantasy of melancholia whereby an object is phantasmatically taken in or on as a way of refusing to let it go. Gender itself might be understood in part as the "acting out" of unresolved grief (253-54).→Gender performance （その極北としてのdrag as a performance art）の"performance"を"acting out"（無意識の）として捉える、ということ。 この無意識てきなact outに対する注目というのは、Sedgwickのneuroticな「知る」主体と対照的なのかどうか。
●femininity is cast as the spectacular gender これはいいフレーズ。Drag kingというのがいまひとつなのはこれによる。
●Drag allegorizes some set of melancholic incorporative fantasies that stabilize gender.
[D]rag exposes or allegorizes the mundane psychic and performative practices by which heterosexualized genders form themselves through renouncing the possibility of homosexuality, a foreclosure which produces both a field of heterosexual objets and a domain of those whom it would be impossible to love. Drag thus allegorizes heterosexual melancholy, the melancholy by which a masculine gender is formed from the refusal to grieve the masculine as a possibility of love; a feminine gender is formed (taken, or assumed) through the incorporative fantasy by which the feminine is excluded as a possible object of love, an exclusion never grieved, but "preserved" through heightened feminine identification (254).
