You have just read some of the basics of Freud's theories of human behavior and of literature (including Ernest Jones's Freudian interpretation of Hamlet). I am curious as to your thoughts concerning the validity of Freudian theory, from some of his specific arguments to the field of psychoanalysis in general. Go ahead. Fire away.
14 comments:
Personally, I like Freud's theories, even though some of them are questionable. They're complex, and much more interesting than analyzing a piece of literature's structure or history.
However, I definately don't agree that his concepts can be applied to every novel, poem, short story, etc... I can also understand, how at times, the psychological approach can be abused. People can get carried away with the symbolism of this and the symbolism of that that they might fail to extract a simpler lesson from the text...
Well. Hmm. I have to say I don't really think Freud's theories are that accurate, even if they are more interesting than talking about syntax. First of all I don't think the Id, Ego, or Superego are a true representation of the human mind. Is it really SO unconscious that we have no control over our behavior and feelings? I don't think so. I don't think that everything humans do is based on sexual drive either, and even though we're high schoolers, not everything in life or literature has to be an innuendo. I mean, everyone is different. You'll never find someone who can be labeled "Id-Driven" or "Superego Freak." Everyone has impulsive moments and moments of rational, calm thought.
P.S. I prefer analyzing the deeper meaning to literature than analyzing structure or history, too.
Freud should definitely be awarded brownie points for creativity! Although his theories are unique, I would not apply them to every piece of literature. Instead, I would use aspects of his approach to better understand a work rather than totally rely on it to supply me with everything I need to know about the text. Paired with the right novel, poem, short story, etc, Freud's ideas, overall, have the potential to be accurate.
As far as the id, ego, and superego are concerned, these labels make it easier to interpret the workings of the human mind. At the same time, it is too simplistic to trace the reasons for all mental processes back to one or several of three categories. I do, however, like the fact that the id, ego, and superego are governed by the pleasure principle, reality principle, and morality principle respectively, and that the superego mediates between the id and ego. These are solid suggestions because many people struggle to balance the rational and irrational in real life. What I don't agree with are the proportions to which freud assigns to these structures. The influence of the libido driven id seems too great, while the influence of the other two appears to be too small. How can we all be pleasure hungry beasts when the majority of humans act rationally, think logically, and live normal lives? The perception of the id might lie at the center of this problem. The id is most often the uncontrollable, impulsive person, but the idea of the id incorporates more than sexual pleasure, like the desires to eat and sleep. Maybe then, it actually is appropriate to say that our mind is mainly composed of the id. The validity of Freud's ideas are ultimately in the eye of the beholder...
The theory of the unconcious I can agree with. I do believe that people in general can do things without realizing the reason behind it. However, like Lauren had said, the balance between the id ego and superego do seem to be off the way Freud stresses them. It seems to me that he is claiming that most people are driven by the id (but I do admit that I am not that knowledgable about Freud besides what we learned in class and the occasional mention is psychology class). It seems to me, that if Freuds theories are valid, than it would be more accurate to say that most people are governed by the ego and superego.
However, situations are different with literary characters, especially after Freud's theories came about (but as in Shakespeare's case, before these theories as well). I feel that it is perfectly valid to view Hamlet as the struggle between the id, ego, and superego. At the same time, I need to disagree with Jones's view of Hamlet as having the Oedipus complex. I've mentioned this before in other posts that I strongly do not believe that Hamlet desires his mother sexually.
I agree with most of the other posts in the idea that freud's theories should not be used alone, but are interesting tools to utilize. However, i disagree is some of what Lauren and Michelle said. I don't think that it's shocking that so much of the mind occurs in the subconscious. It's like white light. We only see the sunshine, even though it's made up of so many different colors that can't be seen. In the same sense, there are so many unconscious feelings at work that we may never act on.
Also, humans are the only creation that is not driven solely on instinct. Dogs kill people all of the time because they feel threatened. The only reason why humans think killing is bad is because society has made it a moral wrong. We are all more like the animals than we think (evolution would say we come from apes). We are driven by the same instinct as animals, the id. The only difference is that society has not accepted the id. Therefore, we are forced to resist primal urges in order to survive. Why do people still kill? Because subconsciously we all want to kill at times, we just use the ego and superego to protect ourselves and others. *i do always seem to play devil's advocate*
Hel~lo! sorry im so very late with this..... Over the summer I read "Dreaming: An Introduction To the Science of Sleep" by Allen Hobson, and there was certainly quite a bit a Freud bashing there. Many of his theories are too far out there in my opinion. Freud was a genius to come up with the idea that we may repress our more base desires within our subconscious, which do show themselves during dreams, but To think that every time we fly we ACTUALLY are thinking about sex? Mmmm, I don't really agree with that; it seems too exaggerated. A lot of it does make sense though: wish fulfillment and desire repression make since if they were toned down a bit.
The division of the mind is also interesting, the id, ego and superego that is. This makes sense to me too, but we often risk assigning these aspects of the mind too rigidly to characters (such as Dee=id, Maggie=superego, and Mom=ego). Assigning these roles may be useful, but it shouldn't be limiting; regular people aren't dominated by just one of these three aspects, but by all three. Plus, what happens when there are more than three characters, like in "Hamlet"? Assigning roles is then a bit harder, and bit less practical. Freud is still cool though.
Ugh ooops, that last comment from tsopel was actually me, Paul Parzyszek. I was using his screen name since my computer has a virus. Sorryyyy.
In the aspect that Freud's theories should not be applied to every piece of literature I agree. However, If you really pay attention to detail and observe what is written you can deffinately see how Freud could apply what some people call "nonsense". If you take Oedipus for example, this is an ideal depiction for the Freud's theories hence the "Oedipus complex" but it doesn't stop there. The id, superego, and ego are used or seen in our everyday life. An act that we commit may be justified with the label of our id, ego, or superego. I do admit that at times this theory may not sound sane or even plausible but I you really do think about it, it can make sense and fit into perfect situations. I do not think that Freud's theories should always be used as an excuse for certain behavior however, but I do like the theories. Not everyone is going to agree with the labels that Freud has put out. I think that they are nicely set categories to be able to organize certain charatctes in literature.
A little fun biography fact you won't find in many psychology textbooks: Freud was a cocaine addict. Freud willingly admitted his frequent use of the narcotic in which he reaped the benefits of its anti-depressant qualities. He also commended the drug for its pain relieving sensations. Over his career, he not only used cocaine but "prescribed" it to many of his "patients," some of who died from using it. He even wrote an entire paper on cocaine entitled "On Coca," outlining the unlimited virtues and "uses" of the drug.
The point I'm trying to make is simple: I don't and neither should anyone else take Fraud's theories as psychological dogma. Sure, the information and ideas he so eloquently presented have passed the test of science and time. But, I just take each of his theories with a grain a salt. For some reason, I don't think I can fully trust the "discoveries" someone makes while under the influence of cocaine.
mike would know that Freud was a cocaine addict. Anyways, I think that we have to look at Freud's theories as insightful, but not facts. We cannot use them alone when analyzing anything, including literature. I agree with Jess that they're more interesting and insightful, but stuff like the Oedipal complex is bizarre. That was one story in literature and now that Freud says it is a real phenomenon we try applying it to every work of literature. For example, Freud would definately say that Hamlet wants to kill Claudius because he couldn't fufill the Oedipal complex with his real father and he is jealous because he wants to be with his mother. Thats just completely ludicrous. I think we see characters struggle often in literature with the their id, ego and superego, like Holden Caufield who doesn't realize he is subconsciously protecting his sister and protecting childhood innocence in general because of the death of his brother. Yet, that doesn't mean that "The Catcher in the Rye" can only be viewed through a psychological lens.
I do not agree that sexual motivation is the strongest. Instead in my opinion, food is the strongest motivation.
Anyway, I agree with Mike. During Freud's time, psychology was not a medical field. Instead it was something people enjoyed to indulge in. Freud himself prescribed cocaine for its medical purposes! This puts a major hole in his repression theory. His repression theories did not take into account chemical problems, brain damage, drug use, chronic anxiety syndrome, and such.
Freud's theories are solid ways of analyzing a work of literature. However, I believe that whatever works for the reader is what counts. If his theories count then so be it, that is good for the reader. However, if it doesn't, and another method does, then so be it. I feel that whatever makes the reader take away the overall message and/or theme of the text should be what counts. However, Freud's theories do help break down the text and resolves some issues that can't be explained at times. So using his theory would probably help, even it is just a little bit.
Freud's theories on human behavior and on literature illicit two different responses from me. His theories on human behavior seem to be very reasonable and for the most part are applicable in psychology, even though it was all based off of conjecture made from specific case studies rather than experiments, like it should have been.
The application of his psychoanalytic theory to literature is another story. I believe a good bit of Freud's psychology is valid, and as a result think that some of his theories on literature would also have to be valid. However, his obsession with sex may be useful in predicting basic human behaviors, he overuses the role of sex in literature. It is definitely present, but he drastically overstates its role, in my opinion. His theories on Id, Ego, and Superego on the other hand, those I think all apply well to literature. You can look at other beliefs about human behavior, and other psychological approaches to literature, but almost all of them have some form of competition between the base, emotional, unconscious mind (Id), the thinking, intellectual, conscious mind (Ego), and the conscious mediating between the two (Superego).
I challenge anyone to show me a piece of literature that Id, Ego, and Superego does not apply to
Freud's theories on psychoanalysis have a lot to do with looking at what the author was thinking when he was writing the work. I think it's interesting to look at, because the approach deals with mental processes of both the author and the character, which helps develop an understanding of the point of the work. Understanding the reasoning behind the author himself is the unconscious part of the deciphering a character's actions, and the reasoning behind the character's thoughts is the conscious part of it. The down side is that it's really difficult to understand an author's reasoning through his words, because you don't actually know the author, himself. I think Freud's theory is interesting, but not as reliable as other methods, because it's based on theory and one's one perception on the author and characters, not a generalized one.
Post a Comment