Psychoanalytic and Queer Theory

Josh Fish

Eric Heyne

Literary Theory and Criticism

17 Feb. 2012

Psychoanalytic and Queer Theory

page 124: "psychoanalytic criticism can exist side by side with any other critical method of interpretation... this approach attempts to explain the hows and whys of human actions without developing and aesthetic theory... Psychoanalytic criticism may then best be called an approach to literary interpretation rather than a particular school of criticism."

So this is interesting. It almost seems to me that analyzing a text through the lens of psychology has become an unconscious (pardon the pun) process that most people do when they read a text so maybe it is less a literary theory and more of a new cultural understanding of the way people understand the human condition that has informed both the reading and writing of literature. Should it always be applied to texts though. Is psychology now merely a given or do certain texts work better than others?

Also, this quote makes me interested in the boundaries or competitiveness or rivalry between different theory camps. Does anyone know if there is passionate disagreement about which lens is correct? Do the marxists have it out for the queer theorists?

page 130: "For Freud, the unresolved conflicts that give rise to any neurosis constitute the stuff of literature. A work of literature, he believes, is the external expression of the author's unconscious mind." And then on page 137: "Central to psychoanalytic criticism is Freud's assumption that all artists, including authors, are neurotic."

Now isn't this the truth. Still it's strange to think about the artist this way in today's world where artist's are sort of held up on a pedestal it seems to me anyway. But, artists are the maladjusted ones. Perhaps everyone is maladjusted and the artist creates symbolic representations to reflect that. I don't know if I've ever looked at a piece of literature like this. Maybe the films of David Lynch. It's seems strange to me to read a book as the manifested neurosis of the artist. Does this apply someone like Woody Allen or Jerry Seinfield whose subject is neurosis? This is going to change workshop.

As a side note, I still think it's strange that us, being incredibly neurotic (at least those of us who are MFA students) are chosen to teach Engl 111 and become authority figures within the institution of the University. Not that I'm complaining.

Also, has anyone ever read a psychobiography? I like that idea and think it is useful, or could be useful. Plus it would be interesting to study as a genre. How does a literary critic go about constructing the personality of an author. Is there a template for that anywhere. Here is a review of a psychobiography of George W. Bush from Psychology Today.

Page 229: "there are many queer theories, not just one. Queer theory is, from [Butler's] perspective, unlimited in its possibilities because it refuses to define itself, seeing itself, like the concept of self-identity, as always in flux. In refusing to define itself, queer theory, argue some critics, may be the cause of its own eventual demise. Being future directed and open ended, this critical stance is chiefly characterized by its transitory and transformational potential."

There's no denying that that is pretty cool. Queer theory has got to be the coolest theory. But, I still am sort of unsure as to exactly what queer theory is. Since it is a emboldened term, I turn to the back of the book and find just a summary of the assertion that Queer theory says identity is in constant flux and is performative and the theory tends to focus on sexual differences and sexual identity. So that makes more sense to me. It seems to relate to determinism to me also, that the environment we are in shapes who we are but I suppose it's more half and half, our environment, plus our decisions or our will that shapes creates identity.