|
Author
|
Comment
|
ilpala
Registered User
(4/2/05 2:04 am)
|
A Question on analysing fairytales
I need someones help in finding information that will help me analyse a fairytale (rapunzel) from the perspective of jung, freud, feminists, and from a post modernist view.
I particularly need some relevant info on jung and freud, could anyone help me out please?
|
KathieRose
Unregistered User
(4/3/05 3:14 pm)
|
A question on analysing fairytales
For Jungian sources on fairytale analysis, try the several books by Marie Louise von Franz== the ones I think of offhand are-- The Feminine in Fairytales, Shadow and Evil in Fairytales, An Introduction to Fairytales, etc. I think these are all now republished by Shambhala [you can search their website, Shambhala Publications]. Clarissa Pinkola Estes' Women Who Run With the Wolves is another Jungian source. There are books on midlife and fairytales by Alan Chinen. There's a book by Jacqueline Scheckman on The Stepmother in Fairytales. There are undoubtedly more than that though I can't think offhand of any analysis that specifically focusses on Rapunzel. You might try Googling the following Jungian publishers to see what's on their lists--- Shambhala Publications, Chiron Publications, Daimon Verlag, Routledge, Inner City Books, and Nicolas-Hays, Inc.
|
catja1
Registered User
(4/3/05 6:24 pm)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
For Freudian analysis, Alan Dundes is your best bet. But be aware, however, that many folklorists consider psychoanalytic readings of folktales to be problematic, or downright unethical, unless the readings are being used strictly in a therapeutic context, with no claims being made about the stories *themselves*. Avoid Bettelheim. He didn't bother to do any research on the history and development of fairy tales as a genre, and so most of his assumptions, and therefore the conclusions he draws from them, are just plain WRONG. Not to mention, the guy is a raging misogynist. He's worth reading, though, as an example of how *not* to do Freudian folkloristics, and because his book was lauded by people who don't know a damned thing about folklore, like Harold Bloom. But don't seriously rely on him for anything other than laughs and kindling.
Jack Zipes is good for a feminist and postmodernist (and Marxist) view, as is Cristina Bacchilega. Also, Maria Tatar for feminism, and Steven Swann Jones for a kind of postmodernist morphology. Marie Louise von Franz is good for Jungian analysis (with the caveats mentioned above), but Clarissa Pinkola Estes is better.
|
KathieRose
Unregistered User
(4/3/05 9:11 pm)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
<<<But be aware, however, that many folklorists consider psychoanalytic readings of folktales to be problematic, or downright unethical, unless the readings are being used strictly in a therapeutic context, with no claims being made about the stories *themselves*>>>
Catja, I certainly agree that psychoanalytic readings of folktales, etc can be problematical but 'downright unethical'? Please explain what you mean [I DO agree with you about Bettelheim though.......]. Feminist readings, for example, also make assumptions and interpretations that are beyond the boundaries of folklorist views-- would they be considered problematical or unethical as well? I'm not arguing with you here, just curious about what you mean.
And also I wonder why you'd prefer Estes over von Franz for Jungian interpretations. Again, just curious, though I can see some scholarly problems with von Franz's books since, unless they've changed in the Shambhala editions [I have the originals instead], they were transcripts of lectures made into readable prose if I recall correctly. von Franz was a brilliant woman but she did wander when she lectured........
|
catja1
Registered User
(4/3/05 11:42 pm)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
I should say up front that I don't think every psychoanalytic reading
of folklore is unethical (though most are very problematic), but
I think those by Bettelheim and his ilk *certainly* are. And those
are the ones i'm primarily blasting.
Psychoanalytic readings can be, I think, unethical in two primary
ways: the bad scholarship way (of not bothering to do any damn research
on folklore, which is very common), and the more subtle "privileged
narrative" way. It's a totalizing, and totalitarianizing, discourse
that subsumes everything under its own meta-narrative, or monomyth,
no matter what the stories themselves have to say. Psychoanalysis
is a theory that encourages its adherents to privilege *their* narratives
over whatever other narratives exist in the text or the culture
-- this story is *really* about Oedipal conflict, castration anxiety,
etc., no matter what the people who actually *tell* the story have
to say. Thre's a nice fragrant whiff of "I, the educated elite,
will come in and explain to you savages what your stories *really*
mean" about it. And I, and many folklorists and anthropologists
of my acquaintance, get the heebie-jeebies about any theory that
asserts itself over and above the collected material. The voices
of the people you (general you) are studying should be paramount,
and not be drowned out by your voice. And you have to be honest
about where, exactly your voice is coming from -- no fully objective
"Voice of God" poses, please. Which is why we tend to
favor theories that claim less explanatory power, and talk more
about the "how" than the "why" -- performance
theory, story structuring, and the like, and are so gung-ho about
context, which psychoanalysis downplays.
We stopped buying into Frazer's sacred kingship theory for similar
reasons -- not only was there no evidence of it whatsoever, but
adherents really messed with material by proclaiming everything
that seemed a bit odd the remnants of an ancient fertility cult,
with a nice side helping of Victorian/Edwardian social Darwinism
to boot. And that was part of the point of Dundes' redefinition
of "folk group" -- any group that shares at least one
linking factor. The idea being that foklorists really need to stop
holding themselves apart from "the folk," because *we*
are the folk, too. And when we're talking about people not of our
own group, it's rather nasty to assert that I, because of education
and privilege, can and should explain people's stories better than
they can themselves. And that distance, that assertion of privilege,
is pretty much built into psychoanalysis, in a way that makes it
rather inimical to the practice of folklore today.
I should clarify; it's not so much the practice of psychoanalysis
that's unethical wrt folklore, it's the way it often gets *applied.*
Most psychoanalysts, as Dundes points out, don't bother to acquire
the faintest clue about things like versions and variants and how
they work; they go ahead and treat a folktale as if it were a stable
text, and get into all sorts of trouble when confronted with a differing
version. But then there's the meta-narrative Which Explains All
issue, and that's... icky. It reminds us of the Bad Old Days of
"everything is a fertility cult" and "everything
is a solar myth' and "everything is about the sacrificial king."
There's also the issue that psychoanalysis is so heavily rooted
in a European, masculine-normative, heteronormative mindset -- many
theories are, but some wear it more problematically than others.
The people who do psychoanalysis and folklore well don't set up the psychoanalytic narrative in competition with the folk material, but alongside it. That's why I like Estes -- she talks about specific versions of stories, and about how this story can be used to illuminate aspects of Jungian therapy and to help people. She doesn't really go around saying that this is what the stories *themselves* are about, as if folk tales existed as some kind of cultural self-help manual, just that they can be used in such a way -- and that way is not the be-all end-all of the stories.
Er, sorry to ramble on for so long. Psychoanalysis is something
of a hot-button issue with me, and Bettelheim exemplifies the worst
of it.
|
catja1
Registered User
(4/4/05 12:27 am)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
Eeep, I babbled for an eternity and didn't even hit your feminism question! Sorry! And sorry that the following is so "I"-centric; feminism is such a big field that I feel like I can only really speak for myself, so I am.
I think it depends what you mean by feminism. I, wrt to my scholarship,
define it rather simply as "what women do is important, and
gender issues are a worthy avenue of inquiry." I'm uncomfortable
with the idea of scholarship as a place to display my moral righteousness,
but then, I'm more invested in collecting than theorizing. I've
never been comfortable with "fairy tales are good/bad for girls!"
arguments; fairy tales, though many of them came from patriarchal
cultures, display a wide variety of narratives about gender, about
sex, about the virtues and vices of each sex, and so forth. And
my type of feminist scholarship is that which seeks to elucidate
the various narratives of gender being told in a particular story,
or group of stories, in conformity or contrast to prevailing narratives
of the times and places the story is told. While I am very much
an active feminist irl, and try to combat misogyny and homophobia
when I encounter it, I don't think that in my scholarship I should
try to be, like, replacing the gender narratives that are there
with ones more to my liking. It's far more useful to talk about
the gender narratives that already exist in the story *as narratives*,
and see how those narratives work out socially and culturally.
While there are fairy tales that tell stories about gender more in keeping with my own views, and while I naturally think those ones are "better," it doesn't mean that those other narratives should, like, cease to exist, because they won't. The passive, sleeping woman is too ingrained in the West, and I think the best way to combat that story working out irl is to talk about it *as a story.*
My issue with some types of feminist scholarship is the same one
that I have with psychoanalysis -- the attempt to *replace* existing
stories with one of your own devising. A theory that is in competition
with the collected material is an unethical use of the theory. I'm
rather sleepy, and am afraid I'm not making much sense. But do you
understand what I'm trying to say? If not, i'll try to be clearer
tomorrow.
|
ilpala
Registered User
(4/4/05 1:55 am)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
Thanks for your replies, but besides KathieRose's first reply i dont have much of an idea what you guys are on about in the other posts ^^; That was more complex than i was hoping for, but i'll check out those people you recommended
Thanks.
|
ronnerandall
Registered User
(4/12/05 5:03 am)
|
Re: A Question on analysing fairytales
"The Fairy Tale: The Magic Mirror of Imagination" by Steven Swann Jones (1995, published by Routledge in the UK) is a very good overview of fairy tale analysis and could lead you to other sources; Jones himself is, I believe, a disciple of Dundes, and so takes a broadly Freudian view -- but his overview is balanced and cogent. For feminist views, I'd suggest anything by Kay Stone, and Marina Warner's "From the Beast to the Blonde."
|
|
