Nov 24 2020
Leave a comment
Essays, S/R Essay

John’s Catalyst Effect on His Wife’s Illness and How Freud’s Criticism is Applicable to Him

In his first lecture, Freud is reproachful of doctors’ attitudes towards hysterics. He says doctors’ medical skills are unable to treat Hysteria, and so doctors let nature decide a hysteric’s prognosis (Freud 2201). Furthermore, doctors are unsympathetic to hysterics, as doctors are unable to understand why a hysteric is suffering, and because they put doctors in a layman’s position (where no learned person likes to be). As such, doctors view hysterics’ grievances as deceiving and exaggerated. Freud acknowledges that Breuer was undeserving of the same reproach, as he was sympathetic and his kind yet critical examination of his patient allowed him to heal her (Freud 2202). On the other hand, John from the “The Yellow Wallpaper” is a catalyst to his wife’s worsening condition. He exemplifies the limitations of medical training in treating Hysteria, and other psychological conditions. The short story also demonstrates doctors’ disbelief in Hysterical patients’ condition- another criticism derived from Freud’s lecture- which is seen in John’s reactions to his wife’s condition. Thus the overarching theme of Freud’s criticism, which is the damage doctors can cause hysterics and other psychologically ill, is applicable to John. 

It should be noted that Freud’s stance on doctors’ approach to Hysteria also applies to psychological illnesses in general, as he says “Medical skill is …  powerless against severe diseases of the brain…” (Freud 2201).  With that in mind, John is treating the psychological illness his wife has, so Freud’s criticism can be applied to John if John’s treatment is damaging. This makes sense considering that John parallels the doctors that Gilman wanted to protect others from, those who treated psychological conditions such as Melancholia with rest cure (Why I wrote the Yellow Wallpaper). And so, John can be viewed as a doctor with limitations treating psychological illnesses, and Freud’s criticism can be applied to him.

John illustrates Freud’s point that doctors in the late nineteenth century were limited in treating hysteria. In his lecture, Freud states: “Medical skill is … powerless against severe diseases of the brain…” (Freud 2201). This occurred in “The Yellow Wallpaper” when John provides treatment for his wife that is physiologically beneficial, but does not treat her psychological condition. For example, on page 651, the narrator describes how John treats her with “cod liver oil and tonic…” in order to keep her from losing her strength (Gilman). On page 652 however, John states that the narrator’s physique was improving, to which the narrator then implies she is not improving elsewhere, but is cut off by John (Gilman). This shows that John is focused on the narrator’s physical health, and nothing more. Furthermore, the narrator writes “I cry at nothing, and cry most of the time” (Gilman 650), which portrays that she is psychologically unwell, and John’s treatments are ineffective. Accordingly, John is limited in his medical training and treatment of his wife, which Freud points out against doctors.

Other than ineffective treatment, John rejects his wife’s illness being anything but physiological, relating to Freud’s claim that doctors were skeptical of hysterics (Freud 2201). For instance, when the narrator suggests her pain is not physiological, John refuses to entertain that idea, calling it a “false and foolish fancy” (Gilman 652). This bears similarity to Freud’s claim that doctors were skeptical of and accusatory towards hysterics, which in itself suggests that doctors do not believe in their suffering (Freud 2201). Both John’s rejection and other doctors’ skepticism lay on the same essence of disbelief. There hence exists another commonality between John and doctors that Freud criticizes: the skepticism and doubt of Hysteria and other psychological illnesses.

John’s limitations in treating Hysteria caused him to address his wife’s physiology, but not her psychological illness. Also, he rejects that she is psychologically ill. Because of these factors, he holds accountability in being a catalyst for his wife’s condition worsening. The indifference to Hysteria from nineteenth century doctors must have caused the same damage to hysterics, which Freud holds doctors accountable for by criticizing them. Thus, Freud’s criticism of most doctors applies to John.

Nov 24 2020
Leave a comment
Essays, Exploratory Essay

The Black Cat: A Psychoanalysis of the Narrator’s Losing Touch with Reality

Poe’s ‘The Black Cat’ illustrates the downward spiral of a well-natured man into a mentally broken, immoral character who harms his cat and eventually murders his wife; these despicable actions lead to his conviction, emanating from his drowning in Freudian wishful impulses and repressions. 

The narrator’s drinking degrades his character at his pets’ expense. Pluto, his cat, was saved from this abuse by the narrator’s self-restraint, though eventually Pluto was abused as well. This passage illustrates the dynamic between the narrator’s urge to harm Pluto, and his affection for the cat:

“Our friendship lasted… for several years, during which my general temperament and character — through the instrumentality of the Fiend Intemperance — had (I blush to confess it) experienced a radical alteration for the worse… My pets… were made to feel the change in my disposition. I not only neglected, but ill-used them. For Pluto, however, I still retained sufficient regard to restrain me from maltreating him… But my disease grew upon me — for what disease is like Alcohol ! — and at length even Pluto… began to experience the effects of my ill temper” (Poe).

The narrator’s restraint in this passage is a Freudian repression, the act of resisting an inappropriate desire (Freud 2212). The narrator’s restraint was his friendship with Pluto, restraining him from hurting Pluto, a desire developed due to the narrator’s intemperance. This desire is a Freudian wishful impulse, which was “… in sharp contrast to the subject’s other wishes and … proved incompatible with the ethical … standards of his personality” (Freud 2212). In this case, the wish was to hurt Pluto, which was incompatible with his friendship with the cat. This wish is eventually fulfilled though, when after a night of drinking, the narrator takes out Pluto’s eye after being annoyed by him (Poe). 

Eventually, the dynamic between the narrator’s wish and his repression breaks, setting course for him to lose his moral grounding. This passage shows the narrator’s shift in perspective between drunkenly hurting Pluto, to committing to hanging Pluto: 

“…Who has not, a hundred times, found himself committing a vile or a silly action, for no other reason than because he knows he should not? Have we not a perpetual inclination, in the teeth of our best judgment, to violate that which is Law, merely because we understand it to be such? This spirit of perverseness, I say, came to my final overthrow. It was this unfathomable longing of the soul to vex itself … — to do wrong for the wrong’s sake only — that urged me to …  consummate the injury I had inflicted upon the unoffending brute. One morning … I slipped a noose about its neck and hung it to the limb of a tree; — hung it with the tears streaming from my eyes, and with the bitterest remorse at my heart; — hung it because I knew that it had loved me, and because I felt it had given me no reason of offence; — hung it because I knew that in so doing I was committing a sin — a deadly sin that would so jeopardize my immortal soul as to place it — if such a thing were possible — even beyond the reach of the infinite mercy of the Most Merciful …  God” (Poe),

When the narrator removed Pluto’s eye, it was in a heated, drunken moment (Poe). In contrast, the hanging was thought-out; its consequences weighed; he describes this crime as “jeopardizing [his] immortal soul…beyond the reach of…God” (Poe). Without a doubt, the narrator conscientiously hanging Pluto while acknowledging its gravity, exhibits a willful immorality the narrator adopts; this action was committed for the purpose of doing “wrong for wrong’s sake only” (Poe). This shift in the narrator’s perspective caused the transition from drunken to deliberate crime -resulting from acting on his wishful impulse- translates as the downward slope of his morals. 

Consequently, the narrator’s broken restraint against hurting Pluto makes him even more impulsive, accumulating to him killing his wife and entering a brief period of insanity, leading to his conviction. The narrator’s repression acted as gatekeeping of his morals and sanity, until he removed Pluto’s eye in his drunken state. Before hurting Pluto, the narrator’s impulse was based on irritability- but with no manifestation of his impulse, it was easier to repress. After hurting Pluto, the narrator’s impulse was strengthened by a desire to “consummate the injury”, and since he already harmed Pluto once, it was easier for him to reenact his impulse and end the cat’s life. This second enactment of his impulse indicates that his mental gatekeeping was breached. Resultedly, the narrator becomes unhinged and morally parched, thus more impulsive. Upon experiencing a split-second impulse to bring the axe down on his wife, the narrator did not restrain himself, nor was he remorseful of this murder (Poe). Further, the methodical manner whereby he hid his wife’s corpse and his pride in accomplishing that task exhibits a developed apathy to evil within him (Poe). This psychotic development affected his mental state- during a police investigation of his basement, the narrator was overcome with deliriousness, and knocked down the wall wherein his wife’s corpse lay. This episode led to the narrator’s incarceration (Poe), hence the contingency between the narrator losing his self-restraint and his conviction. 

Albeit the alter-ego Poe’s narrator becomes, due to his intemperance, can be analyzed in relation to psychical traumas from the narrator’s youth; a psychoanalysis of his adulthood also explains this alter-ego. The narrator’s ill-fated journey from alcoholic to felon, due to the fermentation of his mind, develops a tough dynamic between his desire to hurt Pluto and the resistance of their friendship; these are Freudian wishful impulse and repression. Losing the battle against his wishful impulses, the narrator becomes indifferent to heinous acts, from hanging Pluto, to murdering his wife- which ultimately leads to his conviction. Provided that Poe successfully invokes a cathartic exploration of human capacity for evil through the narrator, a question arises: to what extent can this evil be summoned within each of us?

Nov 22 2020
Leave a comment
Annotated Images

Forbidden Impulses? Forbidden Fruit?

What better to represent a wishful impulse than the forbidden fruit itself?

The story of Adam of Eve is essential to each of the Abrahamic beliefs, which include Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Though the image of the bitten apple appeals to the Christian narrative, this annotation will consider the nuances of the Islamic discourse. Adam and Eve were created in heaven– everything was available to them, however, they were not to approach Shajarat Ul-Khold, the tree of immortality. Some curiosity and desire later, they transgress by eating from the tree, which was their own wishful impulse, and as a result, they are brought down to Earth. 

In a nutshell, In “The Black Cat” the protagonist has his own wishful impulses, in the form of hurting his cat. Eventually he begins to entertain these impulses, which leads to his transgression of hanging his cat from a tree in his yard (The Black Cat). Here we have the protagonist’s transgression, as well as Adam and Eve’s transgression. As what seems to end up being a consequence, another cat makes its way into the life of the protagonist. While the protagonist wants to do good by this cat at first, his old impulses eventually return, and they grow worse (The Black Cat). What follows is a complete disconnect of the protagonist by a “demoniacal rage” wherein he murders his wife, and as the story wraps up we see a psychotic character that the protagonist has become (The Black Cat). 

If this degradation of character, which begins from a now seemingly meaningless annoyance to a cat, can be considered a punishment of its own sort, that acts out by destroying the protagonist and leaves him to incriminate himself, is this not a punishment that would have been the result of acting on a wishful impulse? If so, then there are parallels that can be drawn between the overarching theme of acting on your wishful impulses and the consequences it can have on your person, which is the case of the protagonist, or on your status, which is the case of Adam and Eve. 

Oct 12 2020
Leave a comment
Annotated Images

Arthur Fleck’s Acting on Wishful Impulse Creates the Joker

When “Joker” was released in 2019, it was a success and crave for psychology nerds, but not so much for actual DC fans. This annotation though, will dive into the psychology side of things from a Psycho-analytical lens. 

The image to the left is from the climax of the movie, when Arthur murders talk show host “Murray” on live television. In the build-up to this moment, Murray uses Arthur’s attempt at stand-up comedy as a punchline on his show. However, Murray also invites Arthur unto the show, which Arthur agrees to. While on the show, Arthur goes off track and confesses to a crime and goes on one of those villain speeches that makes the audience go “he has a point though.”

Though there were various indications throughout the film that Arthur was mentally unstable, he calls it out himself when he confesses to murdering two businessmen, though he blames being crazy on his environment. Murray decides to challenge Arthur’s ideas, which eventually leads to his murder. Here, Freudian concepts can be explored. Freud argues that when an individual does not act on their wishful impulses, those urges continue to press the individual until fulfilled. 

Perhaps Arthur’s wishful impulse is to inflict harm, as was done to him throughout the movie.  Murray made himself a target for this by publicly humiliating Arthur. It’s important to consider the deep betrayal Arthur felt since it was his idol that betrayed him. 

Upon killing Murray, Arthur, disturbingly enough, appears liberated from his grievances, as he laughs off his actions, and seems to no longer be distraught by his condition  In one of the movie’s ending scenes, Arthur goes through some sort of rebirth, he recognizes the rebellions taking place because of his actions, and cements his new persona as the Joker by performing his symbolic dance, drawing a crimson smile on his face, and flaunting at the protestors.

Referring back to the idea of a wishful impulse, it does make sense for Arthur to have been battling some form of destructive urge. The film starts off with Arthur’s lousy boss. As the movie progresses, we come to find out that Arthur was sexually assaulted by his adopted mother’s boyfriend. His mother also tells him his father is Thomas Wayne, who abandoned them, poor and helpless, which was a lie. While it’s damaging enough to grow up with the perception that your father had left you, it’s even worse to find out that the man who had actually left you was not who you were told it was. These factors cause him to entertain suicide at least twice; once when he shuts himself in his fridge, and another when he cocks a gun at his throat in the dressing room at Murray’s. However, when Murray plays Arthur’s comedy skit on his show, Arthur’s destructive impulse becomes targeted at Murray. Though, his suicidal tendency may also have acted as a resistance up to a certain point, which would make sense of his dressing room act. However, Murray’s challenging demeanor triggered Arthur into acting on that destructive impulse and kill Murray. In alignment with Freud’s ideas, Arthur’s self-destructive tendency and his pain fades after acting on his wishful impulse, which the end of the movie so symbolically depicts.

 

 

Skip to toolbar