Psych and Psyche

Since today is a student presentation day, we didn’t have an assigned reading. But Sam and I are presenting today, so I thought I’d write about psychoanalytic critique and Beauty and the Beast.

As a kid, even a kid addicted to Greek mythology, I never put two and two together to realize that Beauty was Psyche and that Beast was Cupid. Looking back on it all now, it seems a bit like a punch in the face. But when dealing with psychoanalytic critique, that point falls by the wayside. Psych critique was first developed by Freud as a form of therapy. The reader is meant to study the underlying tones, and concentrate on the author’s and character’s motives and feelings. We have to focus on the distinction between the conscious and the unconscious mind.

So obviously the conscious decision made by the author was for the story to parallel the Greek myth of Cupid and Psyche. Why? Well it’s a classic love story, literally a tale as old as time. So its success as a love story is almost a given. But what about the unconscious decisions? Like Belle being left by her father, twice, and then her leaving the Beast? What does the rose really symbolize? We can all speculate, but I think that the author may have had abandonment anxiety.

Stylistic Ambition

I've been attempting to understand fashion more these days. I'm working at a women's clothing store here in Fort Worth and picking up pointers from my coworkers. There are some key tips I've learned in the last two week which I think I'll share:

1. One size does NOT fit all. A perfectly good pair of wool tights ruined is evidence to that.
2. Invest in essentials. Staples like a black blouse or a good pencil skirt are vital to the success of a wardrobe.
3. A cardigan is an underated accerssory. Use it wisely.
4. Tight is rarely a positive adjective.
5. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

The last bit of advice is possibly the most crucial. Lots of designers and outfits go horribly wrong when they choose to embellish. Or rather, overembellish. Any loyal Project Runway fan can tell you that.

You may wonder why I bring this up, but hopefully the parallel between clothing styles and literature styles as not been lost on you. Think of Ernest Hemingway as a literary Vera Wang. Simple, to the point, elegant, and most prominently, timeless. The brooches, patterns, and ruffles that make some clothes gaudy can be compared to the overuse of adjectives and adverbs. This, I think, is one way a modern stylistician might approach literary theory. Each composition a garment, each sentence a seam.

Beginning Theory P. 203

Hybridity and Polyvalence: What's Your Status?

Our Beginning Theory book discusses the roles of postcolonial critics. Of all their listed roles, I found this one the most interesting and applicable to the non-theorist:

“They celebrate hybridity and ‘cultural polyvalency’, that is, the situation whereby individuals and groups belong simultaneously to more than one culture…”

Hybridity is defined as the creation of new transcultural forms within the contact zone produced by colonization. That is to say, it is the cross-breeding created as a direct result of colonization in pre-populated territories. Examples include Pidgin and Creole; furthermore, the word ‘pidgin’ has come to stand for a simplified language that develops as a means of communication between two or more groups that do not have a language in common. I find this to be a kind of perfect definition. These transcultures are best exemplified by their linguistic and tradition crossbreeding.

The idea behind polyvalence is not that complicated; in fact, it is covered by many introductory level sociology classes. In sociology, such classes and groups are called ‘status groups,’ and many times the multiple status groups you belong to can conflict. For example, my research professor is both my teacher and my friend. This is a status group conflict for both of us because when I make a bad grade on a test, I can’t hold it against my friend. Likewise, he has to be impartial when grading my work.

Beginning Theory, P. 192

Making History: Cultural Materialists vs. New Historicists

One of the largest distinctions between new historicists and cultural materialists is their view on the makers of history. The cultural materialists focus on the “interventions whereby” people make history, whereas the new historicists look at the “less than ideal circumstances in which they do so.”

What I take from this is that the materialists see historical figures as fortunate people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. As if anyone in their place would have been an adequate substitute. For certain historical events, I can see the merit in this. The discovery of penicillin, for example, by Alexander Fleming, was a fairly serendipitous event. Alexander Graham Bell was originally trying to make a hearing aid and ended up with the telephone. Even Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA was kind of a fluke. Rosalind Franklin was right behind them, and some people even debate that they took credit for her work. So in these situations, I can agree that it seems fate or nature or both intervened on the behalf of the historical figure.

However, in most circumstances I would be more likely to side with the historicists. Their outlook seems to be more positive, and suggests that historical findings and inventions have a base in merit, determination, and lots of hard work. Without their hardships, certain historical figures would have been mediocre, average people. Examples include Anne Frank, Harriet Tubman, and Edward Jenner, the inventor of the vaccine. To test the vaccine, Jenner was forced to inoculate an 8 year old with cowpox, then smallpox. I like to believe that without such hardships, we can find no great success.

Page 178, Beginning Theory.

Any Color You Like: A Summary of Marxism

The passage I found most interesting this week was from Beginning Theory, on the subject of interpellation from a Marxist point of view. The main goal behind Marxism, from what I can glean, is the destruction of any existing class system; that is to say, we would all become equal owners of our world. I find this ultimate goal of Marxism naïve, and that’s really putting it mildly. To say that we could all become equally invested in life is to say that we all have the same level of ambition, motivation, and determination, and I can say, unequivocally, that is false.

I’m pre-med, and for a pre-med, I am lazy. If it weren’t for great teachers and even better friends, I never would have made it this far. And there’s still no guarantee that I’ll ultimately become a doctor. Why? Because I don’t have the same motivations as my peers. I don’t come from a family with economic hardship. While grades were important, good study habits were not emphasized in my upbringing. And personally, I tend to view school more as a series of opportunities rather than an obstacle to get to the opportunities. These factors have culminated in the creation of a college senior who still crams for the majority of her exams the night before, and is satisfied with a mediocre GPA.

The more modern views of Marxism, based on the work of Louis Althusser, lead us to believe that we have no actual choices and are duped into believing that we do. Interpellation is the term coined by Althusser to describe this mechanism; “the way the individual is encouraged to see herself or himself as an entity free and independent of social forces.”*

As we have discussed in class on several occasions, interpellation is one way to describe the effects of media and pop culture on the masses.  Through commercials, advertisements, and product integration, we are told what to believe, buy, and say. Best of all, we are led to believe that these were all originally our own thoughts. In my opinion, the idea of Marxist interpellation may have very well been the basis of the movie Inception.

*Quote is from Beginning Theory:An Introduction to Cultural and Literary Theory, Page 158