In the early generations, Freudian psychology took the form
of a discipleship as well an understanding of human behavior. Freudian analysts
were, by definition, part of a community which set itself off from other psychologists.
Therefore, it it is not surprising that much of support for Sigmund Freud
and Ernest Jones' interpretation of
Hamlet came from within the psychoanalytic
community and much of the opposition came from outside of it. In his book,
The Design Within, M.D. Faber speaks of this dichotomy as follows:
From quarters inhabited by analysts and by critics with psychoanalytic
leanings came numerous expressions of belief and gratitude: The mystery
had been solved and hats off to those who had solved it. From literary
circles, however, came a great many statements of disbelief and shock,
as well as critical assaults that aimed at pointing up the erroneousness
of regarding Hamlet in the Freud-Jones manner. -
MD Faber, The Design Within, Science House, N.Y.. 1970. p.111. |
Faber's book, however, also acknowledges opposition from among Freudian analysts
as well. Frederic Wertham, a psychoanalyst himself, led the attack on Freud's
interpretation.
Hamlet expresses in the play his great love and admiration for his
father. That this feeling may be accompanied by ambivalence must
be conceded. But there is no evidence of this hostility against the
real father in the text, and certainly no evidence either in the text
or in the whole psychological setting of the story, that this assumed
hostility is so strong and far-reaching that it can serve as the main
explanation. - Frederic Wertham, "Critique
of Freud's Interpretation of Hamlet" in MD Faber, The
Design Within, Science House, N.Y.. 1970. p.114. |
The response from the psychoanalytic community centered on the universality
of the Oedipal complex, as did the attack itself. Thus, the argument for and
against became one of a willingness to accept one of the major tenets of the
faith. The Freudian position was that the greater the Oedipal complex, the
greater the effort will be to repress it. In the case of
Hamlet, the
fact that there is no visible evidence that Hamlet harbored the wish to kill
his father further argues to the point that such a wish exists and that it
is very strong. That it is so thoroughly repressed, say the Freudians, attests
to the fact that it constitutes the greatest psychological threat to Hamlet.
In the end, the argument becomes one of doctrine. Either you accept the universal
role of the Oedipal complex, or you do not. In response to opposition, Freud's
contention was that critics who refuse to accept his theory are, themselves,
repressing their own oedipal feelings. This response is echoed by MD Faber.
Freud also suggests (and this is perhaps the most brilliant stroke)
that the difficulty critics have had lies in ... the critics' own unwillingness
to consciously recognize the role that the Oedipal conflict has played
in their own lives." - The Design Within.
p.80 |