Purchased a used copy of On Sexuality by Freud on Amazon, although actually found an online pdf version to read while on holiday.
To recap, Oedipus complex ('OC') is theory that children tend to be attracted to parent of opposite sex. The name of the complex arises from Sophocles' play Oedipus Rex where son kills father and marries mother.
Freud evidently realised that OC is not (in all bar a small minority of people) a long-lasting complex (although see note) so seeks to explain how the complex is destroyed (he says it is more than a mere 'repression').
The dissolution post early childhood (Freud provides no age range) is followed by a latency period. There may be a 'special event' when the realisation strikes such that the child turns away from his/her 'hopeless longing'. The girl may have undergone 'harsh punishment' from the father, the boy may realise his mother has 'transferred her love'.
An alternative view is that OC must inevitably collapse just as milk teeth drop out. Freud does not deny this but seeks to explain exactly what happens during this latency period. A child's interest turns to his genitals, arousing a sense of disapproval by parents (mothers in particular). The boy is threatened by castration, having been prepared for this firstly by the withdrawal of the mother's breast, and secondly by the daily demand for defecation, but the defining moment is the sight of female genital region; this sight convinces him that the "loss of his own penis becomes imaginable, and the threat of castration takes its deferred effect.".
Once the boy accepts the possibility of castration, he no longer can obtain satisfaction from either having intercourse with his mother, or replacing his mother as the subject of affection by his father. These 'libidinal cathexes' are in conflict with his 'narcissistic interest' in his penis, and (for most) this means "the child's ego turns away from the Oedipus complex."
Having set out how the dissolution works for boys, Freud continues with how the "corresponding element takes place in little girls." Freud is, by his own admission, less confident when discussing the female development: "our material - for some incomprehensible reason - becomes far more obscure and full of gaps."
He claims, in non-modernist fashion, that the feminist demand for equal rights is of no help "for the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of psychical development. Anatomy is Destiny." Girls have an inferiority complex when they first discover the opposite sex has an appendage they do not, They assume they once had one, but lost it by castration. Castration, therefore is an established fact for girls, whereas boys fear its possibility.
Shorn of the fear, the girl's OC is simpler: taking the mother's place and adopting a "feminine attitude" to the father. The OC culminates in a desire to bear her father's child, but declines as the wish is not fulfilled.
Freud is not overly deterministic in the chronology of the OC, the threat of castration, the formation of the superego, followed by the latency period. This is not the only type, he concludes.
There are several issues one can take with this paper:
Note: Contemporaneously with reading this article, I was reading One Summer: America 1927 by Bill Bryson. Bryson is the antidote to structuralism. His writing is very well researched, and he delights in informing his audience of the background (the contextual analysis) of those he features in the discourse. Never patronising or overstated, Bryson's brief histories not only entertain but help us understand the individuals, and that even the most famous folk very often have unassuming beginnings. In his chapter on the 1927 New York Yankees (one of the greatest teams ever in any sport) he cites Lou Gehrig, the only baseball player ever to rival Babe Ruth in terms of home runs. "Gehrig was extraordinarily devoted to his mother." Bryson writes, describing how, on road trips, Gehrig would spend 10 minutes in tearful goodbyes to her, and spend hours while away buying gifts for her.
We are asked to further our thoughts on the reading with two projects:
Look at Edvard Munch's Ashes and make notes as to how Freud's ideas help you understand the picture
Munch demonstrated his own deep feelings of anxiety within his art so it would be unsurprising if The Ashes - one of his best known works - could be interpreted in several ways.
At a superficial level, the work has a Romeo & Juliet feel about it. Perhaps the couple love one another very much yet know they cannot be together; as in the Shakespearian play, perhaps because of some factor(s) exogenous to their relationship together. The Vellios School of Art article referenced below sets out a similar case: that for some reason the lovers cannot be together
Another alternative, and more aligned to a Freudian analysis, is that the misery of each is a direct result of their feelings for each other. The girl's dress is unbuttoned. The Vellios article assumes that is after the lovers have had sex, but it could be a reflection that the relationship has not been consummated. Perhaps she has been too suggestive, partially undressed, then the man does not, or cannot, overcome a physical (or more likely given Munch's known mental issues), mental hurdle that prevents him from having sex. He is embarrassed, guilty, and buries his head; she is distraught, confused, and frustrated (in more than one sense). If we wished to pursue the Freudian analysis to the extreme, perhaps the male has not emerged from his Oedipus complex, still hankering after his mother. The girl wishes to take his mother's place but he is not ready for that; consequently becoming embarrassed and guilty.
Speyrer (undated) alludes to the fact that Munch underwent a traumatic birth, and that some signs - notably the hands to the head - reflect a need for comfort through that trauma.
Find two or three images [that feature a dominatrix] that might be explained in part at least by Freud and by annotatioon show how.
The annotated images can be viewed on following links:
Dominatrix 1
Dominatrix 2
References:
Having set out how the dissolution works for boys, Freud continues with how the "corresponding element takes place in little girls." Freud is, by his own admission, less confident when discussing the female development: "our material - for some incomprehensible reason - becomes far more obscure and full of gaps."
He claims, in non-modernist fashion, that the feminist demand for equal rights is of no help "for the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of psychical development. Anatomy is Destiny." Girls have an inferiority complex when they first discover the opposite sex has an appendage they do not, They assume they once had one, but lost it by castration. Castration, therefore is an established fact for girls, whereas boys fear its possibility.
Shorn of the fear, the girl's OC is simpler: taking the mother's place and adopting a "feminine attitude" to the father. The OC culminates in a desire to bear her father's child, but declines as the wish is not fulfilled.
Freud is not overly deterministic in the chronology of the OC, the threat of castration, the formation of the superego, followed by the latency period. This is not the only type, he concludes.
There are several issues one can take with this paper:
- Despite Freud's admission that the course of development can take other routes, he elicits no evidence that the course he sets out actually happens, and if it does the likely ages;
- As I have said before with Freud, there is a feeling of 'so what?' Does this theory really help us understand anything of any use, particularly several decades later. We shall look at Munch's painting shortly, but other than isolated examples of its impact, I am struggling to think what relevance OC and its dissolution has to visual culture;
- It is openly sexist. The idea of women harbouring 'penis-envy' or only men having a 'super-ego' would invite opprobrium in contemporary culture, and it is therefore strange that we somehow indulge Freud because he is viewed as a leading figure whose writings have to be listened to.
Note: Contemporaneously with reading this article, I was reading One Summer: America 1927 by Bill Bryson. Bryson is the antidote to structuralism. His writing is very well researched, and he delights in informing his audience of the background (the contextual analysis) of those he features in the discourse. Never patronising or overstated, Bryson's brief histories not only entertain but help us understand the individuals, and that even the most famous folk very often have unassuming beginnings. In his chapter on the 1927 New York Yankees (one of the greatest teams ever in any sport) he cites Lou Gehrig, the only baseball player ever to rival Babe Ruth in terms of home runs. "Gehrig was extraordinarily devoted to his mother." Bryson writes, describing how, on road trips, Gehrig would spend 10 minutes in tearful goodbyes to her, and spend hours while away buying gifts for her.
We are asked to further our thoughts on the reading with two projects:
Look at Edvard Munch's Ashes and make notes as to how Freud's ideas help you understand the picture
 |
| The Ashes, Edvard Munch 1894 |
Munch demonstrated his own deep feelings of anxiety within his art so it would be unsurprising if The Ashes - one of his best known works - could be interpreted in several ways.
At a superficial level, the work has a Romeo & Juliet feel about it. Perhaps the couple love one another very much yet know they cannot be together; as in the Shakespearian play, perhaps because of some factor(s) exogenous to their relationship together. The Vellios School of Art article referenced below sets out a similar case: that for some reason the lovers cannot be together
Another alternative, and more aligned to a Freudian analysis, is that the misery of each is a direct result of their feelings for each other. The girl's dress is unbuttoned. The Vellios article assumes that is after the lovers have had sex, but it could be a reflection that the relationship has not been consummated. Perhaps she has been too suggestive, partially undressed, then the man does not, or cannot, overcome a physical (or more likely given Munch's known mental issues), mental hurdle that prevents him from having sex. He is embarrassed, guilty, and buries his head; she is distraught, confused, and frustrated (in more than one sense). If we wished to pursue the Freudian analysis to the extreme, perhaps the male has not emerged from his Oedipus complex, still hankering after his mother. The girl wishes to take his mother's place but he is not ready for that; consequently becoming embarrassed and guilty.
Speyrer (undated) alludes to the fact that Munch underwent a traumatic birth, and that some signs - notably the hands to the head - reflect a need for comfort through that trauma.
Find two or three images [that feature a dominatrix] that might be explained in part at least by Freud and by annotatioon show how.
The annotated images can be viewed on following links:
Dominatrix 1
Dominatrix 2
References:
Vellios School of Art (undated) Ashes 1894 Available from http://www.edvard-munch.com/gallery/love/ashes.htm Accessed 5 June 2014.
Speyrer (undated) Peri-Natal Themes of Death and Dying in the Art of Edvard Munch http://primal-page.com/munch.htm. Accessed 5 June 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment