Literary Theory

Series I: Handout #16

Dolores Matatesta, “The Courage to Squeal”: satirizes the well-publicized tendency of psychoanalysis--inflected by pop therapy--to recover repressed memories of childhood abuse which probably did not take place. Reflects the general suspicion with which psychoanalytical literary criticism (particularly “pop” forms) are now regarded by most critics and scholars (who, like Foucault, tend to historicize psychology more than use it).

Psychoanalysis “is a form of therapy which aims to cure mental disorders ‘by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind.’” It works by talking with a patient and bringing problems lodged in the unconscious mind into the conscious mind. It believes in the possibility of freely choosing to become “healthy.”

“Tell me about your mother…”

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): largely discredited as a psychoanalyst (not verifiable, too subjective) but, like Marx, his impact on literary theory and criticism remains enormous; suspicious of reason (Enlightenment tradition); humans are motivated by unconscious mind; studied implications of dreams, verbal slips, memory lapses, and jokes.

The Interpretation of Dreams (1900): longevity of literary works reflects their capacity to address universally repressed desires, and thus classic literature can give us keys to important psychological questions; Oedipus Complex: boy’s infantile sexual desire for mother coupled with murderous rage towards father—revelation that children are NOT innocent (contra Victorian/Romantic cultural belief, e.g., “Little Eva,” etc.); historically speaking, Freud represents Realist/Modernist attack on Victorian culture—he wants to shock prim readers with suggestions of infantile mother-lust, etc.; Dream Work: dream-thought vs. dream content are like two different languages, which is why we can’t remember our dreams very well; Condensation: an enormous amount of content is in a dream, Lacan describes this as “metaphor”; Displacement: dreams often invert the relative psychic value of their elements—something small can really be something very important, Lacan calls this metonymy; The Means of Representation in Dreams are not logical, close proximity = intimate association; interestingly (from a theory point of view), contradictions need not be reconciled in dreams.

Some Key Terms:

Unconscious/conscious

Repression, Sublimation

Ego/id/superego

Infantile sexuality, Oedipus complex

Eros (vs. Thanatos)

Oral/anal/phallic

Transference, projection

Defense mechanisms, screen memory

Freudian slip

Dream work (displacement, condensation)

Shall we try this? How about The Cat in the Hat? Or Psycho? What’s really going on, heh, heh?

1. Covert content? 2. Unconscious motives of author/characters? 3. Sexual preoccupations? 4. Conflicts? 5. Larger, trans-cultural psychological patterns?

Does the method work? Is it convincing? Reductive? Arbitrary? Misogynist? Should we just stop worrying, trust Pfizer, and take Prozac instead.