Psychoanalysis
Thanks everyone for the enjoyable discussion yesterday. For anyone interested in exploring liberal humanism a little further, I've posted to the right a link to T.S. Eliot's poem "The Hollow Men," which was inspired in part by Heart of Darkness, and a couple of other essays.
For Monday we're reading about psychoanalytic criticism and finishing Heart of Darkness. If you have time, please read the two selections from Freud I've posted in the Links section, as they will help to clarify some of his thinking about creative writing that influenced literary critics.
Here is your second blog assignment:
From the chapter in Barry, what do you make of the uses of evidence and internal argument structure in psychoanalytic criticism (both Freudian and Lacanian)? Do you find Guerard's reading of Heart of Darkness convincing? How does it match with your own experience of the novella?
Feel free to invoke any of the optional readings or to bring in other literary works if you like.
Thanks everyone for the enjoyable discussion yesterday. For anyone interested in exploring liberal humanism a little further, I've posted to the right a link to T.S. Eliot's poem "The Hollow Men," which was inspired in part by Heart of Darkness, and a couple of other essays.
For Monday we're reading about psychoanalytic criticism and finishing Heart of Darkness. If you have time, please read the two selections from Freud I've posted in the Links section, as they will help to clarify some of his thinking about creative writing that influenced literary critics.
Here is your second blog assignment:
From the chapter in Barry, what do you make of the uses of evidence and internal argument structure in psychoanalytic criticism (both Freudian and Lacanian)? Do you find Guerard's reading of Heart of Darkness convincing? How does it match with your own experience of the novella?
Feel free to invoke any of the optional readings or to bring in other literary works if you like.
posted by Jeff at
2:20 PM
4 Comments:
Uh, you got me...
In regard to the ideas of evidence and internal argument structure in Freudian and Lacanian criticism I take it that we are looking at the text as evidential and the internal argument structure as the inferences made on the evidence of the text, respectively. There is a strong possibility that I don't understand what you mean also, because we seem to have progressed to shorthand.
Anyway, in Freudian criticism there would seem to be subtextual emphasis, which seeks to uncover the "real" meaning of a work, with an analytical approach that focuses on symbolism and "psychodrama" with particular attention paid to the voice of the author and characterization.
While I find Lacan somewhat more elusive, it would seem that there is a larger perspective (supertextual?) which seeks to connect the "evidence" of the text to the unconscious, not of the specific author or character per se, but to the unconscious as the central fact of the emotional and "psychic" life of the whole of humanity, if you will. If the unconscious is the central aspect and common ground of our intellectual and emotional life, than Lacanian criticism seeks to connect a work to that centrality through the use of Lacanian concepts of unconscious drives and motivations.
While I may not have a clear understanding of either theory I think that they are both interesting and give me a new perspective on approaches to criticism. I think that at this stage of the game the initial response is to be somewhat dismissive of Freud, but I can't dismiss him completely because I don't know what the hell Lacan is talking about. That's only half a joke.
Give me Jung, the "collective unconscious", and archetypes anyday.
And like Allison and Donna Marie, I did like Guerard's reading. I had picked up on the idea of Kurtz as a double to Marlow, and Guerard's idea of Kurtz as a "potential" Marlow was valid for me. His examination of the theme of darkness, and the variety of symbols (the shoes especially) were also helpful. Marlow's loyalty to Kurtz was also an important topic to me which Guerard touched on.
Personally, I really like this book. While there is alot that one could easily not like about it, I think it is an intense depiction of a brutal and changing experience. From the idea of the confrontation of one's darkest self, the one that you never want to face or have to make a choice about, to the depiction of the hubris and savagery of colonialism and it's pettiness in comparison to an immense and indifferent nature, I think that it has real power. I also like the fact that Marlow told the whole story in the dark, there's alot in that. Based on the background material, it seems that Conrad had a real eye-opening experience, which differed significantly from his initial expectation.
Robert Damon
By
Robert Damon, at 7/23/2006 11:59 PM
It is difficult for me to approach a work of literature using psychoanalytical criticism. That is not to say that I am unable to approach a work of literature on an unconscious level in terms of images, symbols, emblems and metaphors- but I do have a distrust of Freudian psychoanalytical critics. I think it is important to be aware of unconscious motives and feelings of both the author and the characters but if this is your primary focus then there is a lot you miss out on. Although I do not fully buy into Freud, due to exposure through various undergraduate classes I am able to understand this criticism and can easily work it through- something I am unable to do with Lacan. His work left me confused. (Hopefully in class today I will be able to understand him better.) While reading this particular section I kept imagining myself sitting at one of his lectures being given information in coded form and wanting to cry from intimidation. Also, in order to accept the Lacanian position you must reject the conventional view of Characterization in literature-something I think I am unable to do, (maybe it is because I teach high school English and I have become hardened by the Regents and literary terms.) One of the things I love about literature though is taking in the characters as real people and believing in them, instead of taking on the reading strategy Lacan suggests and assembling signifiers clustered around a proper name. How can you enjoy a character by doing this?
On a more positive note, I liked reading Guerard’s argument. I, like many others, found it compelling and it offered me some insight into the book that I had overlooked. I liked his interpretations of the “darkness” and thought it provided some alternate views and enhanced the conversation that was had in class on Thursday. This concept of darkness is open to so much interpretation I liked what Allison said and I too see additional metaphors- not only the darkness of the inner self but also darkness as a failure to see other human beings.
I also enjoyed reading some of the background information in Conrad. His inner conflicts certainly affected how he set up his narration and it served as a great resource when reading about Freudian and Lacanian criticism. Although I am not crazy about their criticism, I do see how Heart of Darkness is a perfect specimen for their analysis.
By
Meg, at 7/24/2006 7:18 AM
Like Meg and some other bloggers, I too am having trouble wrapping my head around Lacanian criticism. I am confused as to how it is different from a Freudian reading, and I hope that discussions in class today will help give me a better understanding of the two. I liked Allison's comment about the similarity between psychoanalytic criticism and liberal humanism. I found this similarity especially noticeable in Guerard's essay, which I did enjoy.
At times, it seemed like Guerard was utilizing a standard humanistic approach. Then, he would slip in a bit of psychoanalytic theory into his explanation. I liked this, as it illustrated that while some view Freud's thoughts as "out there" or disconnected to the text, they are often a logical extension to a close reading of a work. I liked Guerard's point that the whole story seems to be told as if it were a dream. If you consider the story a dream, then its many ambiguities make sense, and are even necessary to the mood.
I have one final note in this rather disjointed blog entry. If we take Guerard's point that Marlow and Kurtz are in fact doubles, then Kurtz cannot truly be the "Id". This would imply then that Marlow is the superego, and there is little evidence of this in the story. Marlow, in fact, seems to be rooted in the ego. He understands little of his id, and when it shows itself to him, he is repulsed and confused. Yet, he is not completely controlled by a superego, and has a greater ability to understand Kurtz than most. He even lies on Kurtz's behalf, which is not a superego-inspired decision. So, if Kurtz is not the id, and Marlow is not the superego, what are they? They are both men who are forced to choose between the call of the id (Africa) and the call of the superego (Europe). Kurtz chooses Africa, and wishes to stay there. Marlow chooses Europe and returns, but is never comfortable there again. I think Conrad saw Marlow, Kurtz, the Manager, the natives, and all humanity as pawns moved back and forth between these two forces: the savage (the id) and the civilized (the superego). No single human being can embody either ideal, because both exist within all of us.
--Matt Fisher
By
Matt Fisher, at 7/24/2006 8:49 AM
I found Matt's refusal to accept the neatly psychoanalytic argument of Marlowe corresponding to the super-ego and Kurtz to the id very compelling. I, too, in trying to approach Heart of Darkness from a psychoanalytic perspective, fell into this mode of interpretation. However, uncomfortable with the identity of the ego left hanging mid-air, I attached it to the anonymous narrator. The narrator, although at time it is easy to forget, is the one that relates the character of Marlowe in contrast to Kurtz, and so in a way can be said to mediate the moral restraints of society with our dark inner unconscious desires.
The entire novella then can then be read as a process of psychoanalysis. His journey to find Kurtz is in essence a journey to uncover his unconscious, or his own "heart of darkness". The fact that the narrator relates the story, and not Marlowe directly, coincides nicely with the notion that true artists can find release for their unconscious desires within their art, and so also provide a comfortable distance for the reader to participate in this release as well.
However, this entire analysis is thrown off by the question posed by Matt of whether or not there is enough evidence in the text to attach the term super-ego to Marlowe's character. His ability to sympathize with Kurtz seems to discount this whole argument.
As for the Barry chapter, I found the layout of Freud's concepts in relation to literature very easy to follow, due to being exposed to these notions numerous times throughout high school and my undergraduate education. The Lacanian theories are newer to me, and so harder to follow along. Hopefully there will be some clarification in class later. The Guerard essay was very interesting, although I would have liked some more extensive connection of Conrad to the novel. I felt as though he started very strong from this premise, but then lost this thread as the essay went on.
By
Niela, at 7/24/2006 9:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home