The Contributions of Horneyan Psychology to the Study of Literature

When accepting the Nobel Prize for literature, William Faulkner said that the “only” things “worth writing about” are the “problems of the human heart in conflict with itself.” He laments that too many young writers “labo[r] under a curse” because they have ignored these problems. Many literary critics also labor under this curse, for the new emphasis on structuralism, semiotics, linguistic typology, and sociopolitical theory has resulted in a disregard of the mimetic quality, which to a great extent gives literature its power and humanistic value.

Certainly, if literature is to be fully appreciated, neither its formal nor its mimetic dimensions can be slighted. However, I have discovered as a teacher and student of literature that often the predominant reason why I, my students, and more of my colleagues than will admit it have read and re-read the great masterpieces is that we identify with the intensity of the struggling human beings portrayed. Indeed, it might be concluded that the fundamental criterion by which a work's greatness is measured is that it “speak[s] to our condition,” striking some common chord in human experience.^{1, p. 57} This is the yardstick used by Karen Horney, when at the age of twenty-one she explored the question, “What does ‘artistic value’ mean?”^{2, p. 179} She was certain that “it can't be purely formal-for with ‘structure’ or ‘dialogue’ alone it still isn't done.” Although Horney discovered no definitive answer, her own interaction with literature corresponds to that of most readers: “… I must say, if I approach any literary creation it is with the question: what ideas has the poet or writer about people and human life, about this or that struggle which happens to preoccupy me? Or else I can find in the work some sort of tone that is sympathetic to me….” Horney's career channeled her energies in another direction, and she does not address this