Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Literary criticism, as a discipline, offers diverse lenses through which to interpret texts. Two prominent schools of thought, New Criticism and Psychoanalytic Criticism, both emerged as reactions against traditional approaches that prioritized biographical or historical context. While both reject the notion of relying on an author’s stated intentions to understand a work, their divergence lies in *how* they approach meaning-making. The assertion that Psychoanalytic criticism is similar to New Criticism in not concerning itself with “what the author intended,” but “what the author never intended” encapsulates this crucial distinction, suggesting a proactive exploration of the unconscious forces shaping a text, rather than a mere bracketing of authorial intent.
Defining New Criticism
Emerging in the early 20th century, primarily in the United States, New Criticism championed close reading and textual analysis. Key figures like I.A. Richards, T.S. Eliot, and Cleanth Brooks advocated for focusing solely on the “text itself,” independent of authorial biography, historical context, or reader response. The “intentional fallacy,” a term coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in 1946, became central to their methodology. New Critics believed that authorial intent was unknowable and irrelevant; the meaning resided within the intricate web of symbols, images, and formal elements of the text. The poem, or literary work, was considered an autonomous object, and its meaning was to be discovered through careful, objective analysis of its internal structure.
Defining Psychoanalytic Criticism
Psychoanalytic criticism, heavily influenced by the theories of Sigmund Freud, applies psychoanalytic principles to the interpretation of literature. Developed significantly from the 1960s onwards, with figures like Norman Holland and Harold Bloom, it posits that literature reflects the unconscious desires, anxieties, and conflicts of both the author and the reader. Unlike New Criticism, Psychoanalytic criticism doesn’t simply disregard authorial intent; it actively seeks to uncover the *unconscious* intentions behind the text. It explores how literary characters, plots, and themes can be understood as manifestations of repressed desires, Oedipal complexes, or other psychological phenomena. The text becomes a site for exploring the author’s (and reader’s) inner world, even if that world remains hidden from conscious awareness.
Comparison and Elucidation: "What the Author Never Intended"
The similarity between New Criticism and Psychoanalytic criticism lies in their shared rejection of the intentional fallacy. Both schools agree that a text’s meaning cannot be determined solely by what the author consciously intended to convey. However, this is where the divergence begins. New Criticism stops at this point, focusing on the text’s internal coherence and formal elements. Psychoanalytic criticism, however, uses the text as a window into the author’s unconscious.
Consider, for example, Shakespeare’s Hamlet. A New Critic might analyze the play’s imagery of disease and decay, its complex use of metaphor, and its exploration of themes like revenge and mortality, without speculating on Shakespeare’s personal life or motivations. A Psychoanalytic critic, however, might explore the Oedipal dynamics between Hamlet and Claudius, interpreting Hamlet’s delay in avenging his father’s death as a manifestation of unconscious anxieties surrounding patricide. This interpretation isn’t based on any evidence that Shakespeare consciously intended to write an Oedipal drama; rather, it’s a reading that uncovers unconscious patterns and motivations within the text.
Similarly, in analyzing Emily Dickinson’s poetry, a New Critic would focus on her unique use of slant rhyme and dashes. A Psychoanalytic critic might explore the themes of isolation, death, and repressed sexuality in her poems, suggesting that these themes reflect Dickinson’s own psychological state and experiences, even if she didn’t explicitly articulate these connections in her letters or other writings. The focus is not on what Dickinson *said* she meant, but on what her unconscious *revealed* through her poetry.
| Feature | New Criticism | Psychoanalytic Criticism |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Textual analysis, internal coherence | Unconscious motivations, psychological dynamics |
| Authorial Intent | Irrelevant, discarded | Unconscious intent explored |
| Methodology | Close reading, formal analysis | Application of psychoanalytic theories (Freud, Jung, Lacan) |
| Goal | Discover meaning within the text itself | Uncover hidden meanings rooted in the unconscious |
Therefore, Psychoanalytic criticism doesn’t merely ignore authorial intent; it actively seeks to decipher the meanings the author may not have been consciously aware of, utilizing the text as a projection of the author’s unconscious mind. This is the essence of the statement – it’s not just about what wasn’t intended, but about the active pursuit of the unintended.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both New Criticism and Psychoanalytic criticism represent significant departures from traditional literary approaches by rejecting the reliance on authorial intention. However, while New Criticism confines itself to the text’s internal structure, Psychoanalytic criticism ventures into the realm of the unconscious, seeking to uncover the hidden motivations and desires that shape a literary work. The power of Psychoanalytic criticism lies in its ability to reveal layers of meaning that might otherwise remain inaccessible, demonstrating that a text can speak volumes even about what its author never consciously intended to say.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.