Freud and Literary Theory

It is a well known fact that writers and critics have had a particular interest in the theories of Freud since the time of his earliest fame. If one can estimate the influence of ideas on groups of men at all, it is perhaps fair to say that neither the theories of Darwin nor Marx are so apparent in the literature of their contemporaries and successors as those of Freud are in our literature. It is of course true that not all contemporary writers have been favorably disposed toward Freudian psychology, but all have, consciously or unconsciously, taken cognizance of it. In the 19th century it was the church which was most perplexed by the new theories of Darwin, and we know now that many of the fears aroused by the controversy were groundless. It is perhaps a faulty analogy to parallel these earlier ideological struggles with the attempt on the part of contemporary artists to cope with Freud, yet it is true that writers and literary critics have been responsible for much of the popularization of Freudian theory. It is not surprising that in this process many misunderstandings arose as to what Freud's views actually were. Psychoanalysis was from the start a highly complicated psychology. As it developed over a period of fifty years it became even more complicated. But while no one can be condemned for failing to grasp a difficult subject matter, it is often enlightening to see where those failures lie and what their causes are.

Perhaps the most widespread of these misunderstandings is the belief that psychoanalysis was primarily concerned with sexual motivations. In its crudest form this belief gave new impetus to the traditional unconventionality of the artist and seemed to encourage him to throw off the inhibitions on his sexual impulses both in his personal life and in his artistic work. This was, however, only a passing phase for it was