Marx, Freud

What can I say about this week’s readings? Really, they weren’t that bad. I don’t care much for Freud; he has an unsettling way of painting women out of the picture, unless it is to objectify them as “castrated” men. Given the choice I would much rather study Jung. But Freud did start the ball rolling in this area, and he makes some very interesting points. I keep going back and thinking about his analysis of Hamlet. It is brilliant and fascinating, but I just can’t get behind it. His explanation that the entire plot of the play, comprised mostly of Hamlet’s deliberations on how and why to kill Claudius, can be crystallized into the fact that Hamlet doesn’t want to kill Claudius because Claudius really did him a favor, in acting out Hamlet’s own oedipal urges to kill his father. Of course, he explains it better than that, but I can’t figure out what it is that bothers me about it. It is, on the surface, a reasonable possibility. There does not seem to be a reason given in the play for Hamlet’s delay. In many ways, though, this is the heart of the play. His endless intellectual contemplation and inability to act are what make him such a frustrating yet fascinating character. In some ways psychoanalytical theory is frustrating, because it is rather subjective. I cannot prove it is wrong, but I, well, it’s just wrong. It is too simple. His argument that Hamlet proves himself a man of action, thus refuting the Hamlet-as-ineffectual- intellectual argument is weak, for one thing. True, he does manage to kill Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (henceforth to be called “R” and “G”, as Freud points out. But these circumstances are much different. For one thing, he kills Polonius in the heat of the moment (heat of passion?) when he is acting on impulse, and thus freed from the torture of his over-analytical brain. Furthermore, he thinks that Polonius is actually Claudius, hidden in the bed curtains. (I know, I can hear Freud now “but does he really, or does he subconsciously know it is not him…”) The murder of R and G can also be explained away as an act of self-preservation, and thus out of the norm. It is still cold and heartless, but in these situations he was forced to make a choice, not allowed time for the brain to be “sicklied o’er with pale cast of thought”. OK, so Freud, I reject your interpretation. I don’t believe that the driving force behind “Hamlet” is Hamlet’s, and by extension Shakespeare’s, Oedipal complex. I have no hypothesis to offer in return, however, I think that Hamlet’s actions and thought processes are mysterious for a reason, and that is what makes the play so engaging. One can impose any number of possible interpretations upon it, without ever totally isolating the one true motivation. OK, enough Hamlet. Except to say, I wonder if Freud had access to Quarto 1, and if it holds up to his theory as well…hmmm…I would find Freud interesting to sit down and have a discussion with, but I don’t think I would like him very much…

And the castration anxiety thing…oh boy. Does he really believe this stuff? “Probably no Male human being is spared the fright of castration at the sight of a female genital” Really? Because I have asked around, and I find this not to be the case. I even interviewed my three year old (poor thing) to ascertain the truth, and he assures me that he is perfectly comfortable with the fact that I have no penis, and he is confident in the knowledge that I have never had one. In fact, he comforted me simplistically, saying “No Mommy, you have a vagina instead, remember? You’re a girl, like Bree” (Bree, short for Brianna, is my 10 month old daughter) So, I felt a little silly, but nonetheless vindicated.

Marx. Now that’s another story. I like the idea (ideology? :-) behind both psychoanalytical and Marxist criticism. Both put forth the theory that there are forces at work in our lives of which we are not even aware, and that these forces influence, nay, are the unseen foundation for our literature and art. I like the thought that there is something greater behind it all, because it makes more sense than many other theories, which discount the author entirely, or assume that he works in a vacuum of sorts, un-influenced by outside forces. We do bring the baggage of our social consciousness and political and cultural identities to everything we read or write. But I am hesitant to apply this interpretation as an all encompassing explanation, as well. Yes, looking at a text as playing out the elements of capitalism, products and consumption, the characters as workers and bourgeois, adds an interesting and thought provoking dimension. I do not believe that it is the only dimension, however. And on that note, I will sign off. Have a good Fall Break, everyone!

Jen