Posts
Seeing is not always believing- Martin Luther King Jr.
Can we believe what we can't see? Sigmund Freud, an early psychologist largely disregarded by today's scientifically driven psychologists, sure did. Most of Freud's findings had no scientific evidence, yet his concepts were and still are widely accepted. One might not think to challenge the existence of the Id, Ego and Superego, but they can't really be proven to exist either. Besides his focus on the sexual energy of children in the psychosexual stages (many psychologists believe Freud was wrong about children being driven by sexual energy as well), I haven't come across many of Freud's ideas that strike me as completely illogical. This is why I was surprised about how uncomfortable psychoanalytic literary criticism makes me.
A few days ago in English, we discussed the psychoanalytic lens pertaining to Hamlet. We discovered that the Psychoanalytic theory is based off of a few of Freud's ideas:
and The Oedipus Complex
According to the Psychoanalytic theory, the Oedipus Complex can be seen in Hamlet. The Oedipus complex is a fixation (a result of unresolved conflict in a particular stage) that can occur in the phallic stage of psychosexual development. Basically it results in a feeling of wanting to kill dad and be with mom. When Hamlet was young, his father was killed, and therefore part of his Oedipus complex was fulfilled. The problem was that his uncle Claudius married his mom, carrying out the rest of this "fantasy" for him. When Hamlet needs to kill his uncle and avenge his father, he delays because he feels somehow connected to his uncle for carrying out his unconscious desire to marry his mother.
Now there are two things to take into consideration. The first is that Freud came after Shakespeare's time. He claims that this complex is found in most human men, but did their culture create this complex, or is it a biological function? Could it even have existed in Shakespeare's time? Many seem to think the time period is irrelevant, but I still believe it must be considered. The second problem I see with this evaluation of Hamlet is that none of this can be proved. The repressed feelings and motivation for killing his uncle are being extrapolated by the reader. Shakespeare never says Hamlet's journey is a result of the Oedipus complex. Can we believe what we cannot see?
Since the idea of an unconscious mind does not bother me, and that cannot be seen or proven, I was surprised to find that an interpretation of Hamlet that is based off of an idea that cannot be proven from the text itself did bother me. I can't say I would completely disregard the Psychoanalytic literary theory, but I don't see myself using this very often in the future.
You make some interesting points, Molly. I was also a little uneasy about the idea of the Oedipus complex when it was first introduced to us in class. It became more understandable, however, when I looked at in a figurative sense. Rather than thinking that little boys actually want to kill their fathers and marry their mothers, it was easier for me to think that little boys strive to become like their fathers and will likely end up marrying someone like their mothers. One becomes their father and marries their mother. This is an idea I have heard before and feel more comfortable with. I think it is especially applicable to "Hamlet" because Hamlet really admired both of his parents and would likely have wanted to become like his father and marry someone like his mother.
ReplyDelete