Literature and Psychology

By

Hanieh Mehr Motlagh

Professor Dr. Asadi

The Philosophy of Literature

Mondays 12:30-14

Fall 2010

1

Abstract

There are some opinions about the extrinsic factors which influence the literary works

such as the biography, psychology, social life, causal explanation of literature in such other

collective creations, and some essential spirit of the time. The purpose of this paper is to discuss

the relationships between psychology and literature. Also this paper shows how psychology can

be helpful to the reader and the critic in four ways of helping to explain the creative process,

providing some references to the author‘s life, helping to elucidate the true meaning of a given

text and creating a sensual impression on the reader.

2

Introduction

Wellek and Warren state that there are some external points which are discussed in study

of literature. But setting and environment are more often discussed. Sometimes, the extrinsic

study only connects the literature to the social context and the previous growth. In most cases, it

becomes a ‗causal‘ explanation, professing to account for literature, to explain it, and finally to

reduce it to its origins (the ‗fallacy of origins‘). Yet, it is clear that causal study can never dispose

of problems of description, analysis, and evaluation of an object such as work of literary art.

Cause and effect are incommensurate: the concrete result of these extrinsic causes –the work of

art- is always unpredictable (73).

There are some opinions about the extrinsic factors influence the literary works such as

the biography, psychology, social life, causal explanation of literature largely in such other

collective creations, and some quintessential spirit of the time. According to Daiches in

explaining the nature of a literary work, the critic is often led into psychology, in to a discussion

of the state of mind out of which literary creation arises (329).

3

Literature and Psychology

As Wellek and Warren state there are four possible definitions about psychology of

literature: psychological study of the writer, as type and as individual, or the study of the creative

process, or the study of the psychological types and laws present within works of literature, or,

finally, the effects of literature upon its readers (audience psychology) (81). But the third

definition is the only one which is strongly related with the study.

Many theorists have thought about the nature of the artistic creation. Some theorists

believe that an artist can have artistic creation because of literary genius. Some others state that

some defects in physical appearance of an artist can lead him/her to success. For example, Pope

was a short hunched back man, Byron was limping and Keats was shorter than a normal man.

The rests argued that emotional disorders and compensatory distinguished the artists, scientists,

and other ‗contemplatives‘.

Based on what has been said there are two major questions: First, if an emotional disorder

occurs to an author, does it become the theme of his works, or motivation to create a work? (If it

is only a motivation for him to create a work, it occurs to other scientists as well.) Second, if the

theme of a literary work is neurotic, how should a reader understand it? Wellek and Warren go

on arguing that Freud‘s view about an author is inconsistent. According to him, the author as a

neurotic person keeps himself away from any madness and any real cure by the help of his

creative work. The poet is a day-dreamer to whom the society gives validly (82).

Jung states, by contrast, that the ―work of art is not a disease‖ so it requires a different

critical approach. It is less a creation that is tied to the personal life of the author than it is

something supra-personal which has ―soared beyond the personal concerns of its creator‖.

Moreover, its meaning and quality ―inhere within it and not in its extrinsic determinants‖, it is

not something that is only ―transmitted or derived‖ from external sources, that is the author's

unconscious. Indeed, Jung seems to say that the literary work is not a symptom or side-effect of

the unconscious forces at work in the writer's psyche but he says that the writer's psyche is itself

a symptom or side-effect of the very archetypal forces which impel the literary work into

4

existence. Therefore, Jung's description of literature is as a ―living being that uses man only as a

nutrient medium, employing his capacities according to its own laws and shaping itself to the

fulfillment of its own creative purpose‖.

Daiches believes that the artist pays for his creative vision by his sickness, and though

society rejects him, it nevertheless needs him because of the healing power of his art (333)

Lionel Thrilling points out that writers are more available to psychoanalysis explanation than

others because they are more articulate about themselves; but if we are to use the materials which

they provide for us to prove that their art derives from their being mentally sick, we must make

the same assumption about all other kinds of intellectual activity. Thrilling argues that

intellectual success and failure should be attributed to neurosis and since it gives us success and

failure the society is involved. But it seems that neurosis cannot be the source of the artist‘s

literary power because not all of the artists have psychological problems.

Wellek and Warren state that Freud‘s view disposes the philosopher and ‗the pure

scientist‘ along with the artists; therefore, it is a kind of positivist ‗reduction‘ of contemplative

activity to an observing and naming instead of acting .This limit describes the indirect effect of

literary works that is ―alterations in the outer world‖(82).

The theory of art as a neurosis considers the relation between the imagination and belief.

In this case the artist combines his imaginary world with the reality. Moreover it is said that the

artist can combine two or more kinds of imageries which is called synesthesia (82). This term, as

it is defined in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is a neurologically-based condition in which

stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a

second sensory or cognitive pathway. This is related to the time of Baroque and Romanticism

who were against the clarity of the age of Enlightenment.

Wellek and Warren say that T.S Elliot believed that a poet is supposed to repeat and keep

his relation with his childhood and race and at the same time he looks at the future. Then, in

1918, he wrote that a poet ―is more primitive, as well as more civilized, than his contemporaries

…‖. In 1932, he repeated this conception, especially about ―auditory imagination‖ but also of the

poet‘s visual imagery, and especially his recurrent images, which ―may have symbolic value, but

5

of what we cannot tell, for they have come to represent the depths felling into which we cannot

peer‖. Then he concluded that ―the pre-logical mentality persists in civilized man, but becomes

available only to or through the poet (84).

Jung divided people into four groups , said Wellek and Warren ,based on the strength of

thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation and he added that people in each of these groups can be

extrovert and introvert. But he did not categorize all of the authors to a certain types. He remarks

that some writers reveal their type in their creative work, while others reveal their anti-type (84).

Nietzsche, in his The Birth of Tragedy proposed two polarities of art. They were classical

―maker‖ and romantic ―possessed‖. Nietzsche theorized this according to Apollo and Dionys is,

two gods of arts in Greeks myths.

Wellek and Warren state that the idea of Nietzsche influenced Ribot who was a French

psychologist. He divided the artists into ―plastic‖ and ―diffluent‖. A ―plastic‖ artist can make a

very rigid visualization, even if he is stimulated. Meanwhile the ―diffluent‖ artist begins his

imagination from his emotion or feeling then reveals it. He is helped by ―stimmung‖ from inside

of himself. Wellek and Warren go on to point out that L. Rusu, a contemporary Rumanian

scholar, distinguished three basic types of artists: ―type sympatique‖, ―type demoniaque

anarchique‖ and the ―type demoniaque equilibre‖. The second type is the anti-thesis of the first

type. The rest is claimed to be the greatest type, at the end of the quarrel against the battle, the

balance occurs (84).

The―creative process‖ should consist all of the parts that originate from the subconscious

of a literary work and reach the last revisions which are the most genuinely creative part of the

works of some of the writers (85). One should know that the structure of a poet‘s mind is

different from a form of a poem; therefore, impression is different from expression.

Wellek and Warren claim that ―Inspiration‖ is a traditional name for the unconscious

factor in creation, and is classically associated with the Muses and in Christian thought with the

Holy Spirit. Inspiration in creation of work of art cannot be denied. Alcohol, opium, and other

drugs numb the conscious mind and release the activity of the subconscious; however , what is

shown in the works of the artists like Do Quincy and Coleridge proves that creation is not related

6

to using drugs but it has been originated from their unconscious mind (86). Then, do the way and

technical of writing influence the style of writing? Hemingway said that the typewriter

―solidifies one‘s sentence before they are ready to print.‖ Then, the others commented that the

using of a typewriter leads to a work in journalistic style. Milton himself knew by heart his

Paradise Lost and dictated it. Even, Scott, Goethe, and Henry James had prepared their works.

They dictated it and other people wrote it (87).

The discussion about the creative process in creation should consider the effect of

consciousness and unconsciousness. It is easy for us to compare the romantic and expressionistic

periods (in which they exaggerate the unconscious world) to the classic and realistic which

emphasized the intelligence, communication, and the text revision (87).

Moreover, Wellek and Warren state that we have to make two kinds of tests if we want to

seek literary talents. The first test is proposed to see a poet talent. The second test is to see the

narrative writer. A poet is associated with symbols, meanwhile a narrative writer with the

creation of characters in a story and sometimes these characters seem to be created based on the

personal experience of the writer. (89) Also, Daiches argues that one could analyze a particular

work and learn about the psychology of the author and one could pay attention to the work of an

author and derive general conclusions about his state of mind which could then be applied to

elucidate particular works (334). In this case biography of the author, his letters and other

documents can reveal authors personality. Daiches goes on to point out that if this kind of

psychological inquiry does not help to assess the value of a work, it helps us to see what literary

works are as product of the human imagination working in certain ways under certain conditions

(334).

This idea of Daiches is somehow reflected in the opinion of Louis Dudek when he says

that the source of every work of literature is in a human individual, and that individual in a

particular state of mind and motivation. He means that from long experience and observation,

and after long resisting some of the conclusions it leads to, that creativity is a crisis phenomenon.

It is the result of problems facing the individual psyche — exactly as Freud explained the origin

of dreams — and it is an attempt to resolve these problems in complex symbolic forms.

7

Then Dudek goes on to point out that a work of literature is a psychological entity. It is

related to the biography of the author. It is translated by the author himself, into a statement

about the problems of his own age, and of the world he lives in. Later, it will be applied to other

times and other ages. It is never merely a literal statement or representation; it is always literary,

that is an object of contemplation and communication.

Wellek and Warren discuss about the psychology of the writer as well. The writer‘s

creative process is the scope of psychologists‘ investigative curiosity. Psychology can explain

about the creative process. A study of revisions, corrections, and the like has more which is

literarily profitable, since, well used; it may help us perceive critically relevant fissures,

inconsistencies, turnings, distortions, in a work of art (91).

Concerning the creative process, Jung claims that the ―nascent work‖ emerges in the

―psyche of the artist‖ in the form of an ―autonomous complex‖, that is, as a ―psychic formation

that remains subliminal until its energy-charge is sufficient to carry it over the threshold into

consciousness‖. An autonomous complex arises when a "hitherto unconscious portion of the

psyche is thrown into activity, and gains ground by activating the adjacent areas of association"

and develops by withdrawing energy ―from the conscious control of the personality‖. However,

this psychic formation is not fully ―assimilated‖ by consciousness and is only ―perceived‖. In

other words, it is ―not subject to conscious control, and can be neither inhibited nor voluntarily

reproduced. In this case it appears and disappears in accordance with its own inherent

tendencies, independently of the conscious will‖.

Like Freud, Jung believes that there are two types of literary creation: one in which the

writer's personal intentions predominate and the other in which personal intentions are

subordinated to the raw material with which he/she is working (the myths, legends, etc.) The

second type of literature, he argues, offers proof that the conscious is not only influenced by the

collective unconscious but is in fact entirely guided by it.

Sometimes the psychoanalytic study of the characters in a literary work can be helpful in

interpreting a work of art; however, Daiches claims: ―If Hamlet behaves according to a pattern

which Freud discovered to be characteristics of certain kinds of individuals acting in certain

8

kinds of circumstances, this does not mean that Shakespeare knows Fraud‘s theories but it

confirms Shakespeare‘s remarkable insight into human nature‖ (337). Daiches then goes on to

say that sometimes works which are difficult and confusing can be seen more clearly in the light

of the psychologist‘s demonstration of what is actually going on among the characters. For

example the ―problem plays‖ of Shakespeare like Measure for Measure and All’s Well that Ends

Well have long puzzled the critics (338). Psychological observation of these works can be helpful

in reading the play right. (343)

Therefore, psychology helps the reader and the critic in three ways: first it helps to

explain the creative process. Second, it can provide some references to the author‘s life. Third, it

can help to elucidate the true meaning of a given text. Moreover, Masoume Khodadadi says that

according to Khadja Nasirud-Din Tusi, one of the features of a literary work is to create a sensual

impression on the reader; therefore the psychological influence of a literary work on the reader

shows the relationship between the psychology and literature.

Jean-Paul Sarte deals with ―Why We Write‖ in his book What Is Literature? .There are

some fascinating and vigorous reflections on the psychology of writing and reading – some of

which anticipate forms of literary criticism which were not developed until twenty years later.

For instance, he explains that the meaning of writing remains unrevealed until it is brought alive

in the reader‘s mind – and his observation that "reading is directed creation" is Reader-Response

Theory summed up in four words (37).

Wellek and Warren make another point by asking a question that if a character is

psychologically true then can the work have any artistic value or not. Sometimes the knowledge

of psychological truth is needed but it is not too necessary for art because psychological truth

does not have any artistic value. Psychology may strengthen the sense of reality of a writer and

help him to observe the environment and discover the hidden patterns; however, psychological

truth can have artistic value if it adds to the coherence and complexity of the work of art (93).

9

Conclusion

Critics usually are concerned with the psychology of the literary works and they deal with

the state of mind out of which literary creation arises. Psychology helps the reader and the critic

in four ways: first it helps to explain the creative process of creating a work of art. Some

theorists believe that the artistic genius is the result of physical defects in the artist and some

other state that literary talent originates from the unconscious of the author. Second, it can

provide some references to the author‘s life. Biography of the author, his letters and other

documents can show the author‘s personality. Third, it can help to interpret the true meaning of a

given text. Forth, it creates a sensual impression on the reader. Most of the modern literary works

which are confusing and complicated to the reader can be analyzed based on the psychology of

the author and the psychoanalytical process of dealing with the characters‘ psyches.

It is noteworthy to say that according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, each year the

International Literature and Psychology Conference (ILPC) provides a forum for the exchange of

ideas on the psychological study of literature and other arts. They try to explore literature, film,

or other arts by analyzing the psychological study of literature and other arts. Participants come

from nations around the world including France, England, Portugal, Spain, Italy, the

Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Serbia, the Czech Republic, Greece,

Cyprus, Turkey, Japan, Canada, and, from all over the United States of America.

10

Bibliography

―International Literature and Psychology Conference‖. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

Dec.2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Literature_and_Psychology_Conference>.

―Synesthesia‖. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Dec.2010.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia>.

Daiches David, Critical Approaches to Literature. 2nd

ed. Karaj: Behzad Daha, 2003.

334-343.

Sarte Jean-Paul, What Is Literature? Trans. Bernard Frenchtman. New York: Philosophical

Library Inc. 1949. 37.

Dudek Louis, “The Psychology of Literature”, Saskatchewan : Canadian Council of

Teachers of English , 1974.

Jung Carl, "On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry". 4th ed. New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1978 . Web. Dec.2010.

<http://www.studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essaymain.html>.

Khodadadi Masoume, “Psychology and Literature‖. Varamin Azad University. Web.

Dec.2010 < http://www.civilica.com/Paper-NCNRPL01-NCNRPL01_011.html>

Nietzsche Friedrich Wilheim, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music . Trans. Ian

Johnston. Arlington :Richer Resources. 2009.

Thrilling Lionel, “Art and Neurosis”. Partisan Review. Boston: Partisan Review Inc.

(1945).

Wellek, René, and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. 3rd. rev. ed. San Diego: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich, 1977. 73- 93.