Psychoanalysis

It seems that Mitchell is actually defending the interpretation of psychoanalysis for Freud against feminists. She claims that the words used to described psychoanalysis can be misinterpreted for today's modern language. When I read that section it really reminded me of the lecture about semiotics and how language today is different from the same language years ago. Mitchell also claims there are certain aspects which lose meaning into today's standard. (Oedipus Complex, hysteria) Psychoanalysis is continuously updated with the advances in science and technology. It seems that psychoanalysis evolves over time and culture greatly effects the theories behind it.

neglected occasions for feminist inquiry

De Lauretis’ discussion of a number of films near the end of her chewy chapter from Alice Doesn’t provoked for me the realization that whereas the poststructuralist psychoanalytic feminist critics of the ’70s and ’80s most frequently had recourse either to classical Hollywood film or to a sainted canon of five feminist filmmakers—Chantal Akerman, Yvonne Rainer, Sally Potter, Lizzie Borden and Bette Gordon—for evidence in their theoretical ventures, an entire cohort of films made by women from the late ’70s to the early ’80s, with ostensibly greater potential for reaching wide audiences than the often recondite work of Akerman, Rainer, et al., was, but for a few important exceptions, strangely disregarded by feminist scholars. In particular I am thinking of the films of Joan Micklin Silver (Hester Street, 1975; Between the Lines, 1977; Chilly Scenes of Winter, 1979), Lee Grant (Tell Me A Riddle, 1980; The Willmar 8, 1980), Claudia Weill (Girl Friends, 1978) and Lynne Littman (Testament, 1983). With the exception of critical notice by B. Ruby Rich in the US and Robin Wood in Canada, this valuable yet neglected group of films seems to have been largely ignored by the very feminist scholars and critics from whom one might expect the most avid interest. Why these films have languished, unrecuperated for feminist theory, remains unclear.

female power

Chapter 5 of "Alice Doesn't" by de Lauretis left me with many mixed emotions. I felt that the reading was very confusing, in the sense taht it seemed to jump from topic to topic in an incoherent way at some points. It also left me with clarity on certain issues. for starters, in the beginning of the chapter, the issue of historical context is heavily stressed. in my opionion, I think this is why so many women take offense to Freud's theories and the male domination of society. In history, this is what life was like! Today women dont like being viewed as the submissive sex, but i feel that this comparision leaves room for improvement and change. As is later discussed, narrative and text are circular and rhythemic, not linear. man and woman will go through this cyclical changes over the course of history. One of the things that I found to be empowering to women was this idea of fairly tales and the power women had in them. women were representative of the "matriarchial system" and males "heroes" were representative of the "patriarchial system". In this reading, men had to win the woman, often proving themselves worthy of the female in order to marry her and ultimately inhert the throne. In essence, women had control during these stories and ultimately made the decision of who was "manly" enough. This is empowering to women because man was now defined according to women and the womens power.

psychoanalysis and feminism

I was a bit confused as to exactly what idea Mitchell was trying to get across in her article, but it seems to me that what she's saying is that while Freud's ideas might not have any true psychological basis from a universal perspective, they certainly have historical value. She suggests that Freud helps to demonstrate how women behave and are viewed in a patriarchal society, such as the one Freud himself lived in. The insight that Freud provides in this context is tremendous. But personally, studying Freud hasn't really given me any more insight into the female psychology in such a society, because Freud doesn't truly address female psychology. For Freud, femininity is the abscence of masculinity, he doesn't really explore female psychology as a separate entity at all. He tends to involve himself only with only the male psyche, and gloss over the female. Truthfully, I feel that better insight could be gleaned from a history book which actually examines the female perspective of the time, not the perspective of females as seen from a man's view.

Mitchell

Although Juliet Mitchell's article was unusual in terms of a feminist point of view. She talks about how completely disregarding Freud's theories would be detrimental to the feminist study because by learning about how we were seen during those times we may learn why men were so oppressive to women. In her article Mitchell states that we cannot blame Freud for his masogonistic theories because he was part of a patriarichal society. And although things like Freud's Penis-envy theory may seem "laughable" now, but back than it seemed perfecly plausable.

I agree with Aaron that de Lauretis' article quite confusing, but I found one of the author's arguments quite compelling. The author contends that in just about all myths and other such fables, the hero is always male and the obstacle always in a female term. Oedipus is the hero, being male, & the Sphinx is 'female-like' in which he has to conquer and figure out the riddle to achieve the status as a hero. de Laurtetis describes how the hero, must 'penetrate' the obstacle to becomes successful. There is a boundary that must be broken and in doing so, will make the hero, the hero he is supposed to become. This outlook on literature is a little 'out there' but does has its strong points. This idea does conform to a lot of myths and legends and as a result shaped culture throughout the centuries.

psychoanalysis of feminism

Women are inferior to men? Historically yes. In the past centuries or maybe just several decades ago, women are most dependent to men. They lack of opportunities to study and their most time devote to housework. Because of this, generally speaking that women's contribution to civilization are much less than men. Freud's "envy of penis" in fact fit in women's struggle of sexual differentiation. When they realize men's need of their vagina as bad as them, they develope a sense of rebel. Also, they realize they have to get more educated so they can compete to men. Feminism will start to form. They strive to refuse penis control as strive to get independent from men. Contemporary women prove their ability of learning and many other things else are not inferior to men. But it also proves their struggles for penis' power.

reaction Mitchell's view

Juliet Mitchell in contrast to most feminist who attack Freud’s views on women, takes a different approach. She considers Freud’s analysis of women an important contribution to the understanding the status of women in our patriarchal society. And I would fully agree with that. In order to challenge the social role of women successfully it is important to understand how our society has viewed their status in the past. But Freud was not simply describing his observations of women. He believed that women were lower than man and submissive by nature and this is evident in his analysis of femininity. So I would have to disagree with Mitchell who believes that Freud’s analysis of femininity was not suggesting what role women should have in society but was simply stating his observations.

The de Lauretis article was pretty confusing, but i noticed one thing that she points out, that i do not think was a main part of her argument, that i found interesting. The fact that certain themes, most themes even, in myths and flok tales are universally shared temporally and internationally, and even most modern literature echoes the tales of old.
Literature, like the desire that de Lauretis mentions at the end of this chapter, is a mystery. Literature, even art, need not be analyzed and broken down by myriad different theories, it can be appreciated for its inherent rich human value. So much of art, literature, and music is universal and touches us in a sublime fashion; that is what art and literature is for, the conveyance of emotion and experience, and there is no reason to break them into pieces to try and read our own agendas into them.
That is a bit of a Romantic view of literature, i know, but i am discovering that i view literature from a romantic perspective.

Juliet Mitchell allows us to see Freud's work in somewhat of a constructive view. "If we are interested in understanding and challenging the oppression of women , we cannot afford to neglect it." Mitchell views Freuds "penis-envy" theories as something that shouldnt be seen as we said in class "stupid" but should be understood and closely studied.

While most feminists neglect Freud's Psychoanalysis, Juliet Mitchell believes Freud and his theory are important in order to understand the oppression of women. In addition in a sense, it's Freud's awkward testimony that influenced and caused women's movement. She' aware of the significant influence that Freud brought politically, thus concentrating on the impact rather than the argument.

hooray for Gertrude’s lust; Hamlet in the matrix

First, it’s worth mentioning what a pleasure Heilbrun’s chapter on Gertrude was, the most gratifying critical extract thus far. Without knowing her other work I’ve no idea if her arguments are always so keen or if perhaps she was channeling some of Gertrude’s concision here, but in any case Heilbrun persuasively clarifies the motive centrality of Gertrude’s lust to the play’s action.

But if it’s not too much of a tangent I wanted to share, with reference to the historical timeline for Hamlet furnished by Prof. Kijowski, this blurb from Robert Stam, a professor in cinema studies at NYU, concerning the notion of “dialogic intertextuality,” which he develops from the late Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin:

“In the broadest sense, intertextual dialogism refers to the infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive practices of a culture, the entire matrix of communicative utterances within which the artistic text is situated . . . The intertext of the work of art . . . may be taken to include not just other artworks in the same or comparable form, but also the ‘series’ within which a singular text is situated.”
(Robert Stam, Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000, p. 202)

Following Stam, another way of approaching Hamlet would be to locate the play as intertext, rather than a wholly self-contained emanation of Shakespeare’s unique “genius,” which at all events speaks for itself. Seen as a node in the larger cultural matrix suggested by Stam, Hamlet becomes a kind of palimpsest of earlier versions of medieval narratives dramatizing the Danish throne’s agonies, as well as the influence generating countless subsequent versions, together constituting a chain of utterances through time—Stam’s “series”—in which the precise point of origin has long since vanished into the oral past of lore and legend, and the endpoint is unlikely to arrive soon, with new productions of Hamlet appearing constantly.

The Reading by Freud " Femininity" really made me wonder about my femininity. Freud had some very valid points about a girl and her mother, and the girl with father. I really don't like the way he states that girl is longing for a penis which her mother refused to give her, it makes it seem that we are envious of not being a boy. why would a girl be envious of not having a penis if she doesn't know what one is. It is really crazy to me how he explained the whole castration complex. I personally don't believe in the castration complex of the women because it just seems so far off. The reading "The character of Hamlet's Mother" on the other hand had some very valid points about Gertrude and her personality. I found it quite interesting how Professor Dover Wilson found Gertrude to lustful. I also thought of her as being lustful and passionate, the reason for my characterization would be her quick marriage to Claudius. the quick marriage showed that she always wanted company and companionship and a lustful person would ways want someone around.

Freud, you sexist...

I apologize in advance for the feminist rant, but it seems obvious that Freud's entire conception of how femininity emerges as a construct, is hinged entirely on a notion that the male sex is inherently superior and dominant to the female sex. Throughout his essay, he consistently views women only in the context of how they are similar or dissimilar to men. It seems that femininity cannot stand on its own a construct, but exists only as a reaction to masculinity. For example, Freud claims that in the phallic stage, "the little girl is a little man." What? Why is her behavior at this stage considered "masculine"? If this is normal behavior for a girl at this stage, why is this behavior seen as masculine, and not merely a normal stage of development for both males and females? Why is this behavior inherently masculine if it is seen in both sexes? Freud's question of "how does she pass from her masculine phase to the feminine one to which she is biologically destined?" is ridiculous. If this phase is inherent in both sexes, why does she have to pass through it to become feminine? Why is this stage not also inherently feminine?
Freud's theory that a female's entire developmental process is due to her lack of a penis is also ridiculous. Why would a little girl see a penis as being inherently better than what she has? Without any social experience, how would she know that males and the penis are inherently superior? Freud seems to imply that the possesion of a penis does render the male sex inherently superior. The penis is clearly biologically enviable, as evidenced by the fact that a little girl can be made to feel inferior just by realizing that she does not have a penis. She feels castrated because she lacks this organ. Freud thereby consistently insinuates that women are essentially biologically disenfranchised, and inherently inferior.

Hamlet's Mom

During my initial reading of the play, I assumed Hamlet's mother was an old lustful woman, who in her haste and naivete married the first eligible bachelor around. She appeared to me, as Professor Bradley thought of her as, "very dull and very shallow." She didn't seem to play a major role in the play. However, after reading all about Jones' interpretation according to psychoanalytic theory, and Heilbrun's take on Hamlet's mother, it appears she took on a bigger role. Heilbrun contends that Gertrude was an intelligent woman that asked pointed questions and weighed her words carefully. One of those quotes she uses is from when Claudius and Polonius are using Ophelia to get to Hamlet, Gertrude says to Ohephlia, "And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish/ That your good beauties be the happy cause/ Of Hamlet's wildness" (III.i.38-42). Heilbrun assumes that with this statement to Ophelia, Gertrude seems intelligent. However I see no correlation between this kind gesture and Gertrude's intelligence. Gertrude may not appear to be shallow, but there is no wise words coming out of the mouth of Gertrude. Thus being said, I'll keep my opinion that Gertrude was an old lustful woman, but I'll add in that she was a kind (in some sense), old and lustful woman.

Femininity

Freud's assertions regarding "penis envy" seem to completely disregard society's role in the formation of this supposedly inevitable complex. Firstly, Freud omits any parental explanation of genitalia. Therefore, even if one were to acknowledge Freud's ideas as valid, in order for "penis envy" to develop "naturally," a child could not be exposed to any gender discourse, conversations regarding genitalia or any implications with regard to these subjects. However, from a young age, children are almost always socialized according to their sexes. Therefore, Freud's comments seem quite presumptuous. It seems more likely that little girls and women are reacting to a dislike of patriarchal society, rather than the absence of a penis. Hence, if the differences between the sexes are properly explained to children, girls and boys usually grow up understanding that men and women are different, but can appreciate their own bodies.
Secondly, Freud's remarks about girls playing with dolls in connection with their relationships with their mothers seem almost ludicrous. Countless studies show that girls are more likely to play with dolls than boys are because society encourages and socializes them to do so. Freud's ideas seem to be largely based on assumptions and, if anything, illustrate the effects of society on the formation of gender roles, rather than explain "natural" processes.

In reading Hamlet as well as other novels, it brings up many questions. In the "The character of Hamlets mother" it brought up questions that I also wondered after reading the story several time. When you first read a book you dont pick up many tiny details that may be vital to the story. One question that I always wanted to be answered was if Gertrude was having an affair with Claudius BEFORE Hamlet was killed. These unanswered questions, to me, is what makes the book so good. It gives you information to have a story but doesn't give an extent to detail.
I thought it was interesting how Freud came about the homosexuailty of a female. Many of Freud's analysis on women seem demeaning, and most of the time is, but it fuels for new, more logical theories to be produced.

Hamlet's Mother

I have to disagree with Heilburn statement that Gertrude is not a weak individual. I absolutely think she is. To defend my point I will use Heilburn's statement "Lust - in a woman of forty-five or more - is the key word here." Gertrude desire sexual relations after the death of her husband shows, dove her into an incest marriage relationship. There is no excuse for an incest marriage. Lust is a horrible excuse. People that fall to the hands of lust in my eye site, are viewed as weak individuals. Lust is not an easy temptation to overcome, but if you cannot surpass lust, you have been beaten. You are weakened by the strengthening squeeze of lust. Although Heilburn may pinpoint that Gertrude is supportive of her sons grieving, "always hoping for the best" (pg. 11), and may seem forceful, she is a weak individual because she could not overcome lust.

Reaction to "Femininity" by Sigmund Freud

In Women’s Subordination through the Lens of Sex: Conservatism, Sigmund Freud argues his view point on femininity. Without a question the argument in itself is flawless. His conversion of original male Oedipus complex to femininity works very well. But a good argument does not necessarily portray anything significant. Before Freud makes the argument he introduces a lot of assumptions. So if one can accept the assumptions then his argument would contain some validity. However, an argument purely based on assumptions does not constitute a theory; it can only belong to creative writing and should be analyzed according to its category.

Queens analysis

i was rather surprised in reading the analysis of "Hamlets mother" by Heilbrun. when i read Hamlet, i thought the mother was a nasty, almost naive woman. i understood her foil to Ophelia, but i didnt think her to be such an important character. in reading this essay, she is characterized in so many differnet ways, almost contradicting of one another. She is argued to be unintelligent and dull, yet seems strong minded and caring. she seems indifferent, yet "sentimental". she is characterized as being "real" and understanding reality and aware of her surroundings, yet corrupt and weak. i found the analysis to be very informative and supported, which made me see her character more clearly.
The analysis of her faithfulness to the King before he died was very detailed and very well analyzed. it makes the reader really focus on the text and the diction. i liked how the critics incorporated the meaning of certain words in Elizabethian times and explained how their meaning has changed over the ocurse of decades. this brings light to someof shakespeares meanings and intenetions of his text.

Masculine Complex

It seems that Freud's psycho-analyisis is rather persuasive. He says that a little boy's experience of Oedipus' complex is oppoiste of a little girl. A little girl in the begininig phase although is same like boys getting affections from their mothers, usually after they learn their libido require man's genital and they will turn their intersts to fathers. However, like a boy's castration complex, suppression will occur but with different outcomes. A boy usually develop ego or super-ego to set a boundary that will destory Oedipus Complex. A girl goes two different ways, one is growing masculine comlex whcih will result of homosexuality; or getting Oedipus Complext that arise their envies to compete with their mother's penis which results trying ways to attract more men even for their father. Masculine complex for female also result a situation--ambivalence.

Freud seems admittedly to base his idea upon pure conjecture, as when he says that if one were to view his idea of penis-envy, which he has no empirical proof for, as “fantastic” and as an “idée fixe” (driving obsession), he would be defenseless. As a theory of literary this type of conjecture can perhaps be accepted but Freud is writing a scientific treatise of working of the human mind. He bases all of his ideas on mere anecdote, he is a terrible scientist. Doing this with characters in the literature is valid, as the character exists not as a type but as an individual creation within a specific story, where specific details are given to us, inferences can be made. Followers of Freud in literary theory seem to go beyond this and fabricate things for the characters that do not exist in the text at all. It seems that one of the grounding themes of Freud and his followers is that they are very good and creating ideas ex nihilo that seem to make logical sense without any substantial grounding, which works for a philosophical theory but not a practical medical treatment.