Psychoanalytic literary theory is the use of psychoanalysis to interpret literature. It’s particularly fascinating, and useful, when it comes to convoluted, complicated novels with plots open to interpretation and deep psychological drama. A fantastic example of this is Henry James’s Turn of The Screw. Born in 1843 and dying in 1916, James was a writer and literary critic, regarded as a key pillar of 19th century literary realism. He was also widely believed to be a closeted homosexual, which is relevant only in how it relates to the psychological interpretations of his work.
Henry James
Though women in the 1800’s were considered little more than human chattel, James managed to write a realistic female protagonist from the first person perspective in Turn of the Screw (TOTS). Whether she was completely insane or not is another matter. She was very realistic, and, also, possibly, quite insane. But before delving too deeply into the plot of TOTS, it might be useful to have a deeper understanding of psychoanalytic literary theory.
Sigmund Freud
Pioneered by Austrian Neurologist Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic literary theory, while consisting of many disparate schools, primarily revolves around psychoanalyzing the author, characters, or text (language) of a book or other work of literature. To use psychoanalytic literary theory one must:
a. Read the text with a psychoanalytic perspective. b. Reread, looking for metonyms, metaphors, and Freudian slips (these are dead giveaways to a deeper emotion or meaning) c. Narrow focus to the author, a main character, or the text itself. d. Consider possible manifestations of the unconscious. e. Interpret and write literary criticism of the work.
Freud was a big fan of repression, particularly sexual repression, and believed that one should read a book as if interpreting a dream, looking in metaphors and metonyms for the signs of sexual dysfunction hidden below the surface.
His colleague and spiritual heir, Carl Jung, expounded upon this idea by adding the theories of archetypes, or tropes that reoccur over and over, and the collective unconscious, a vast unconscious wellspring that we all draw from and that influences our conscious choices.
After Freud and Jung came Lacan, the French psychoanalyst who advocated a revival of Freud’s focus on the childhood, and pioneered the analysis of language itself in psychoanalytic literary theory, as well as the popular theory of the “mirror stage”, when the child first, looking into the mirror, recognizes itself as separate from the mother and begins to develop an ego.
Jacques Lacan
Each analyst developed a “school”, or sorts, of similar thinking colleagues, and after them there were many other important figures in the field, each with their own theories and complexes to contribute-Anna Freud, Melanie Klein, D.W. Winicott. It’s a mistake to think of psychoanalytic literary theory as one vast, connected method of critical interpretation; rather one must pick and choose among prominent figures to create an interpretation of a text that suits them best.
In this spirit I interpret TOTS, and must add a proviso: what I see in the novel may not be what others see, as the best thing about TOTS is that it is open to interpretation. Feel free to contribute conflicting theories or refutations in the comment section. All is welcome in the spirit of intellectual discussion. Also, a brief synopsis of TOTS may be needed.
Essentially, a governess is hired by an absent uncle to run his manor in the country and educate his beautiful and intelligent orphaned niece and nephew, both of whom appear increasingly sinister to the governess as time goes on. The governess begins to see ghosts, one of a man, former head of the house (appointed by the uncle), who was a rake and died drunk. The other ghost is of the former governess, who was pregnant by the rake and probably died in childbirth. The governess is convinced that the children can also see these apparitions, and attempts to get them to admit this. At the end of the novel, she confronts the nephew, and he screams out the name of the ghost, heart stopping in her arms. The ending, like the entire book, is slippery, open to interpretation, and incredibly inconclusive. Though the novel is fertile ground for academic pursuits, it left me stone cold and beyond frustrated. Furthermore, on a personal note, Henry James’s page long paragraphs and interminable adverbs ought to be abolished.
A depiction of the governess with the children in a rendition of TOTS.
My first, more classically Freudian interpretation, is as thus: The governess subconsciously invented the ghosts as a means of impressing her sexual object, the uncle, with her competency and heroism. Though she professed to be a “screen”, protection for the children, she needed them to acknowledge the ghosts in order to preserve her mental and s they and the uncle would be aware of her sacrifice, her martyring. When the children did not see the ghosts she chose to believe they were lying and had been “lost.” At the end, unable to preserve her fantasy, she smothered Miles (the nephew). Her account (she tells the story in the form of a letter) is a plea to the uncle, and the ultimate authority of the reader, for absolution.
The other theory is that the book is a larger metaphor for the abuse of sexual desire, particularly homosexuality, in Victorian society. This is particularly poignant as /James himself is widely believed to be a closeted homosexual. The governess, representing wider society and Jung’s collective unconscious, is terrified by the children;s growing sexual maturity and her own displaced sexual desire for them. The ghosts are a manifestation of this fear, particularly the fear that Peter Quint (the male ghost) may have molested Miles, and his subsequent acting out at school was the result of this and the reason he was expelled. The children themselves don’t see the ghost because they are unafraid of sexuality and their own incumbent adulthood.
Psychoanalytic literary interpretation, while viewed by some as nothing but an intellectual excercise, and others as a perversion of the simple joy of reading a book for its own sake and taking it at face value, can have useful and lasting benefits. It can lead to insights, revelations, and a deeper interpretation of the text. When one understands the author and their motives, they can better understand the book. It can be fun, a diversion. And it can lead to meaningful contributions in both psychoanalysis and the wider field of literary theory. To that end, I applaud Freud for creating such an interesting new branch of intellectual discourse.
Freud says no problem.
thehauntedllama 