Motivi Frojdovog eseja Das Unheimliche u zbirci priča Žena koja zaustavlja satove Kornelija Kvasa

Sigmund Freud and his Oedipus complex are among the most often discussed critical and contentious issues of modern psychology and literature. Freud has brought lot of controversies in the field of modern psychology and literary trend through his theory Oedipus complex. Contrariwise, in some other assessor’s notions his concept of Oedipus complex deserves a great deal of appreciation. Nonetheless, prominent English novelist D.H. Lawrence is one of those modern writers who are greatly influenced by Freudian theories and have been promoting Freud’s notions through their works. His “sons and lovers” are considered as one of the most modern as well as controversial novels of the twentieth century. In this fiction, the protagonist Paul’s extremely emotional dealings with his mother are the illustration of Doctor Freud’s psychological theory Oedipus complex. Nevertheless, this paper aims to critically analyze the facts lying with the hallucination of Oedipus complex as it is presented in “Sons and Lovers”. The evaluation is conducted liberally and objectively as well as through comparisons between the central characters of Lawrence’s “Sons and Lovers” and Sophocles’ King Oedipus. This attempt also tends to judge the universality of Freud’s claim particularly sexual theory with the help of modern biological experiments and the result of relevant laboratory tests, conducted by eminent psychologists and psychiatrists. In short, the critique ultimately endeavors to find out a factual solution for the controversies, raised by Oedipus complex, with the help of logic, fact and scientific researches. Key words: Freudian psychoanalysis, Oedipus complex, “Sons and Lovers”

Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytical theories can be used with reference to the analysis of literary works. Reading novels, poems and other compositions through the lens of psychoanalysis gives the opportunity to analyse and evaluate the works of literature in their genesis and presentation. Freudian doctrine can be considered as a reading tool that allows the investigation of the enigmatic areas of human experience and, therefore, its main contribution to literature is related to the discovery of hidden aspects of the text, of the writer and of the reader as well. In this article, the main characters of two Victorian novels, Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre are analysed with reference to Freud theories concerning the tripartite structure of the mind (Id, Ego and Super-Ego) along with the Oedipus complex, the analysis of dreams and other aspects of sexuality. Several passages from the two works are highlighted and discussed according to the psychoanalytical theories with a main focus on the characters: Heathcliff and Catherine and then Jane and Mr. Rochester. The importance of the interpretative capacity of psychoanalysis is widely emphasized. Key words: Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis, literary analysis, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre.

In psychoanalytic theory, Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy's desire to sexually possess his mother (Freud.1900). In the course of his psychosexual development, the complex is the boy's phallic stage formation of a discrete sexual identity; a girl's analogous experience is the Electra complex. Freud first mentioned the Oedipus complex in 1897. After his father's death, he began to make self-analysis, then the formation of the concept. The Interpretation of Dreams, published in 1900, it is the official presentation of the concept. Oedipus complex has always been a cornerstone of psychoanalytic theory. In classical, Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the child's identification with the same-sex parent is the successful resolution of the Oedipus complex and of the Electra complex; his and her key psychological experience to developing a mature sexual role and identity. Sigmund Freud further proposed that girls and boys resolved their complexes differently — he via castration anxiety, she via penis envy; and that unsuccessful resolutions might lead to neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality. Hence, men and women who are fixated in the Oedipal and Electra stages of their psychosexual development might be considered mother-fixated and father-fixated as revealed when the mate (sexual partner) resembles the mother or the father. This paper uses analysis and comparison method, through comparing the prototype of the Oedipus complex in Greek mythology, the similarities and differences between Oedipus King and the literatures contain the Oedipus complex--Hamlet, Sons and Lovers, Thunderstorm and A Dream of Red Mansions. It discusses the main reason for the formation of their differences. It further reveals the Oedipus complex which impact on generations and promote the study of it.

Freud's Influence Has Waned But Many Ideas Hold Sway

Arab Psyche, Indian Dream, and the Ethics of Psychoanalysis

“Oedipus complex and spiritual intelligence: Are men less spiritual than women? Part I” examined Sigmund Freud’s Oedipus complex and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex in the light of male spiritual intelligence. In it, we argued that men are likely to be less spiritually intelligent than women. We extrapolated the findings of the Pew Research Center 2016 Report which found that women were generally ― but not essentially or universally ― more religious than men. Part II argues that patriarchy and toxic masculinity, have made men less spiritually intelligent by canonising the alpha male. The result is that most men are unable to realise their full potential as created imago Dei or spiritual hermaphrodites. Disavowing patriarchalism enables them to embrace their androgyneity. Utilising the example of South African athlete, Caster Mokgadi Semenya, we argue that wherever we find ourselves on the continuum between the poles of male and female, even as inter-sex, we are all called to realise our spiritual hermaphroditism. In a nutshell, Part II is an invitation to think with the androgynous soul. Methodologically, we asked respondents to answer four questions on spiritual intelligence and gender fluidity. The theoretical framework chosen for both Part I and Part II was Sigmund Freud’s Oedipus complex, interpreted as a power drive in men to dethrone their father. We used online and offline surveys to generate the state of public opinion on the subject in academia. As purposive sampling, the number of returned questionnaires was inconsequential. Part II’s objective is to adumbrate a new theory of human sexuality called spiritual hermaphroditism, which would act as an antidote to toxic masculinity. Part II also required its own methodology, a literary-linguistic-syntactic analysis and hermeneutics of suspicion of Gen 1:26‒28 and 2:7, which was not dependent on informants’ views but addressed spiritual hermaphroditism.

Psychoanalysis, the Sufi, and the Story

The debt of the Surrealist artist Max Ernst to Freud's Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious lies not in the 'Freudian' symbolism it contains, but rather in the verbal devices-such as puns, double entendres and allusions-it describes. Ernst translated these verbal devices into ways of organizing visual material. He collaged bits and pieces of preexisting images, engravingsfrom once-popular magazines and books, into new and often powerful visual sentences. The form or the relationship between these elements gave the finished collage or painting, painted according to the collage method, its impact. Often wordplays in the titles of works interacted with the plays in the imagery. Ernst also took from Freud's writings his methods of self-analysis, such as the cultivation of spontaneous responses. as methods of locating subjects that would have a significance both personal and modern. It is hardly a new thought that a Surrealist artist was influenced by the psychological studies of Freud and others. Usually that influence has been described in terms of strange dream-like images, which are seen as symbolic representations of emotional states. Indeed, this is often psychology's main legacy to Surrealist art. But for artists such as Max Ernst (1891-1976), the debt to psychological study is on a more fundamental level, for psychology was able to provide not only a subject but a method of structuring it. An awareness of the rich possibilities of psychological study is evidenced in Max Ernst's earliest post-World War I collages as well as in his later works. His knowledge and use of psychology are not haphazard. From 1910 to 1914 Ernst had been a college student at the University of Bonn, where he studied psychology among other subjects (1). He even worked in a mental hospital. Because Bonn was an intellectually active city at the time, Ernst learned not only the more conventional psychological theories of the day, but also Freud's theories and writings through a friend, Karl Otten, who had been a student of Freud's in Vienna. When Ernst reentered the art world, on completion of his military service, he did not return to the Expressionist group, several of whose key members had been killed in the war. Instead, he developed with Hans Arp and Johannnes Theodor Baargeld the Dada movement in Cologne, and began to explore the possibilities of collage as an expressive medium. He cut apart and combined fragments of engravings from popular 19th- century books, photographs, and even his own drawings. Ernst's Dada collages and paintings and then his Surrealist works were interpretations of the inner life in a modern and irreverent medium replacing the freely painted and more traditional emotional expressions of his college years. In these later works Ernst concerned himself with their almost-literary significance rather than their formal beauty. Penrose observed that the artist's comment, 'ce tableau en trois couleurs elementaires', written under the title on the face of the painting 'Oedipus Rex', was an indication of Ernst's lack of concern with the refinements of colour demanded of con- ventional works of art (2). Ernst's choices of visual symbols and the way in which they were combined were of central significance to his work. Ironically, this meant that form was of greater importance than subject. The form in question here is what Freud refers to in Jokes and Their Relation to the

The question as to whether Marcel Proust (1871–1922) read or at least knew about Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) is invariably raised whenever it is a matter of situating Proust in relation to psychoanalysis. This is so even though Proust himself had provided a categorical answer that could have sufficed to put an end to any further enquiry. Responding to Roger Allard's review of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1921, in which the critic had made a rapprochement between aspects of the novel and Freud's theory of the dream held by what Allard called the ‘Freudian’ school of thought, which saw the dream as ‘an effort on the part of the physical being for fulfilling an unavowable desire’, Proust had hastened to state that if he had not understood ‘the sentence on Freud’, it was because ‘he had not read his books’ ( Corr , xx , 447). The question, then, as to what unites Freud and Proust with respect to their modernity is not new. Allard's review, or Rene Rousseau's 1922 article entitled ‘Marcel Proust et l'esthetique de l'inconscient’ [‘Marcel Proust and the Aesthetics of the Unconscious’] are some of the earliest rapprochements, before Jacques Riviere delivered a series of lectures in 1924 under the heading of ‘Marcel Proust. L'Inconscient dans son œuvre’, later published in the Nouvelle Revue francaise , which were important for disseminating both Proust's work and Freud's ideas during the 1920s. These articles follow soon after the first translations of Freud's work into French, and it is useful to recall a few dates. It was only in 1907 that the Swiss psychiatrist Alphonse Maeder published didactic articles on Freud's theories. It was also in 1907 that Proust published his most ‘psychoanalytical’ article, ‘Sentiments filiaux d'un parricide’ [‘Filial Sentiments of a Parricide’], based on Henri Van Blarenberghe's killing of his mother, which ends, ‘like one of Freud's essays’. In 1913, Emmanuel Regis and Angelo Hesnard published a landmark article on ‘La doctrine de Freud et de son ecole’ in L'Encephale , the same year that Swann's Way appeared. For these authors, ‘Freud's system’ was said apparently to consist in ‘one of the most important scientific movements of the current psychological epoch’. The authors had reservations towards it, because it was after all a ‘medico-philosophical system’.

This article investigates the place of law in the Oedipus complex set out by Sigmund Freud and its later revision by Jacques Lacan. Few accounts of self-formation have been as widely recognised and discussed as the Oedipus complex. Yet the tensions that Freud recovered from Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex were a persistent feature of the theories of schools of psychoanalysis that broke away as much as those who followed Freud. In this article, I outline the Freudian position on the complex and its connection to the law before then examining the two phases of Lacan’s return to Freud’s Oedipus complex in Seminar VII and Seminar XVII.

AN IRIGARAYAN CRITIQUE OF JUDITH BUTLER Both Judith Butler and Luce Irigaray critique Freud's view of the Oedipus complex in order to determine who is excluded by his theory of subject formation. Butler develops the provocative theory that the heterosexuality of the Oedipus complex is a ruse of power that squelches sexual diversity. Both Gender Trouble and The Psychic Life of Power discuss how the Oedipus complex results in a form of melancholia that belongs to men and women alike. In contrast to Butler, Irigaray claims in Speculum of the Other Woman that our culture is most concerned with the exclusion of women and, thereby, "true" heterosexuality. Contrary to Butler, Irigaray argues that there can be no consonance between the male and female experience of melancholia. This essay argues that, in order to keep Butler's view from eliding female subjectivity, Butler's view must be tempered by Irigaray's mimetic engagement with the Oedipus complex on the exclusion of women from subjectivity. While focusing on a critique of Butler, this essay ultimately suggests that neither Butler's nor Irigaray's theory can, by itself, sufficiently guard against social and political exclusions-they need each other. Butler: Consonance Between Men and Women In her discussions of subject formation, Judith Butler addresses Freud's complete Oedipus complex. The complete complex postulates a pre-oedipal desire for both parents (primary bisexuality) which must be transformed in the Oedipus complex in the interest of solid ego formation. While Freud remains inconclusive about the importance of melancholia to subject formation, and the meaning of the complete complex, Butler believes his view is clear. Although Freud's discussion of bisexuality might lead one to believe that he discusses homosexual desire, its utter exclusion-and melancholic incorporation-is driving his work. Butler supports this claim by arguing in Gender Trouble that primary bisexuality itself is based on an unexamined acceptance of a heterosexual matrix of desire. As a point of access to this claim, she shows how Freud uses "natural dispositions" to explain why the bisexual, pre-oedipal child chooses the "properly" heterosexual route. Referring to Freud's The Ego and the Id, Butler says, At the close of his brief paragraph on the negative Oedipal complex in the young girl, Freud remarks that the factor that decides which identification is accomplished is the strength or weakness of masculinity and femininity in her disposition. Significantly, Freud avows his confusion about what precisely a masculine or feminine disposition is when he interrupts his statement midway with the hyphenated doubt: "-whatever that may consist in-.1 Although Freud admits that he does not fully understand "dispositions," he accepts them as an explanation for heterosexuality. Butler reads Freud's use of "dispositions" as an uncritical acceptance of a discourse that falsely poses as natural. She believes that the heterosexual dispositions are the products of prohibition, not nature. Butler argues that coupling primary bisexuality with a claim about primary and heterosexual dispositions reveals an unquestioned acceptance of a heterosexual matrix of desire as the guiding principle of Freud's work on primary bisexuality. She argues that bisexuality itself is based on heterosexual desire: "The conceptualization of bisexuality in terms of dispositions, feminine and masculine, which have heterosexual aims as their intentional correlates, suggests that for Freud bisexuality is the coincidence of two heterosexual desires within a single psyche. . . . Hence, within Freud's thesis of primary bisexuality, there is no homosexuality, and only opposites attract."2 Butler therefore concludes that Freudian theory is founded on a "primary" denial of homosexual desire. Given the loss of homosexual desire in Freudian theory, and Freud's own argument that loss and melancholia are central to subject formation,3 Butler investigates the implications of his view for homosexual desire. …

De Berg, Henk. Freud's Theory and Its Use in Literary and Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2003. 155pp. $60.00 hardcover. This short book is intended to introduce advanced undergraduates and graduates to Freud's theories and their application to literature and culture. One can imagine a series of classroom lectures, in which teacher presents, with verve, Freud's main ideas, interspersing Freud's own examples with made-up ones. The presentations on Freud are followed by expositions of ways in which critics and thinkers have applied Freud to literature and culture. The writing is clear, lively, unpedantic, and rhetorical. It serves its purpose well. In Part I, De Berg sets forth Freud's key ideas: repression; conscious versus unconscious mental processes; sexuality; dreams, free associations, Freudian slips, resistance, and transference; ego, superego, and id. The chapters are organized by topic rather than pursuing Freud's development as a thinker. Even book titles, like Three Essays on Theory of Sexuality or The Ego and Id, are dropped from text, although sexuality theory and second topography are topics. This topic-based organization gives slightly skewed impression that Freud's ideas were synchronous, but De Berg does point out that second topography came later, and in any case, book is not written for scholars, but rather for beginners. Simplicity and brevity take precedence over scholarly usability. Is summary accurate? For most part, yes, except in one area, discussion of unconscious. De Berg does not say that it was in The Interpretation of Dreams that Freud discovered unconscious. Instead, discussion of unconscious is displaced backward onto Studies on Hysteria. Several problems result. Breuer is made coresponsible for dualistic model of mind (consciousness/unconsciousness), whereas Breuer never signed off on Freud's final essay, in which Freud begins to construe psyche as site of permanent, as opposed to pathological and curable, conflict. Moreover, book creates impression that unconscious may be equated with drives, probably because sexual repression is at bottom of most of Freud's cases of hysteria. The Interpretation of Dreams is then treated as if it were centrally about interpretation of dreams, instead of equally about interpretation of dreams as the royal road to a knowledge of unconscious activities of mind. Thus, De Berg takes Freud to task for not taking consciousness into account as a source of dreams-a reasonable complaint, but one that overlooks fact that Freud instrumentalized dreams, insisting that every dream had unconscious roots precisely so as to be able to posit existence of unconscious. The student who pursues Dramatisierung (dramatization) as a form of dream work in The Interpretation of Dreams will not find it; Freud himself calls it die Rucksicht auf Darstellbarkeit (considerations of representability). It is still not possible today to write about Freud and escape controversy. The reader picks up a book on Freud wondering: How will author approach topic? Will he or she be pro- or anti-Freud? Will Freud be represented as a monument of intellectual history? …

What is the fate of the Oedipus complex? Is it ideally resolved once and for all, or is it continually reworked and transformed throughout subsequent stages of development? Most psychoanalysts would agree that the Oedipus complex is universal, but that also, it cannot retain its original form. How and why this change occurs, as well as what achievements are gained as a result of Oedipal resolution will be the subject of this paper. As a basis for discussion, I will explore two seminal essays which deal with this complicated and elusive topic of Oedipal mastery: Freud's classic essay of 1924, “The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex,” and Hans Loewald's paper, “The Waning of the Oedipus Complex,” written fifty-five years later in the light of subsequent psychoanalytic theory. The topic of the fate of the Oedipus complex speaks to the essential issue of the continuity vs. the discontinuity of human development. Although Freud did indeed acknowledge the importance of our archaic past, the idea that t...

Introduction This essay explores the psychoanalytic work of Lou Andreas-Salomé, specifically in relation to theories of the development of the ego. That Andreas-Salomé's writings have received so little attention is especially regrettable in light of the many ways in which they anticipate current discussions. Andreas-Salomé perceives an inconsistency in Freud's thinking on the formation of the ego; she senses, even when she does not explicitly state, that in this respect his theories need reworking. The topic of ego development has played a central role in the debates between mainstream and French psychoanalytic theorists. Whereas in Freud's time other psychoanalysts (especially Jung and Adler) rejected Freud's concept of sexuality because they thought he overemphasized its importance for the development of the self, today his concept of sexuality is accepted by most French analysts (though not by many others), but his account of the development of the ego is widely challenged. This holds true not only for Jacques Lacan but also for Catherine Clément, André Green, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, and Jean Laplanche. Here I focus on Kristeva's writings and the writings of Lacan that influenced her, examining the theories of both in relation to those of Andreas-Salomé. I am concerned, above all, with Andreas-Salomé's rethinking of Freud's theory of ego development, but I would also like to elucidate the points of connection between her work and the theories of Lacan and Kristeva. 1 [End Page 813] Theories of Ego Development: Freud, Lacan, Kristeva Many social critics of psychoanalysis object to Freud's theory of the earliest development of the self. Their revisions, however, often presuppose an innate striving for a self, which is precisely what Freud thought needed to be investigated. How does a newborn child, this bundled mass of flesh, which cries when it is hungry or in pain, become a person? How does an ego emerge? It is in the context of such questions that Lou Andreas-Salomé's psychoanalytic writings are best located. Freud presents two versions of the development of the ego. From his formulation of the two principles of mental functioning (1911), he surmised that there must be an agency mediating between wish and reality. In the Introductory Lectures, he states that the "transition from the pleasure principle to the reality principle is one of the most important steps forward in the ego's development" (1916-17, 357). He posits that the ego emerges when our drives are not satisfied and serves to mediate between the reality principle and the libido. Indeed, he ascribes the function of reality-testing to the ego. In "A Metapsychological Supplement to the Theory of Dreams," he writes: "We shall place reality-testing among the major institutions of the ego" (1917a, 233; italics in original); and in "Mourning and Melancholia" he again refers to reality-testing as one of the central functions of the ego (1917b, 247). It seems, however, that Freud himself was not completely convinced by his presentation of the ego as developing out of the conflict between the reality principle and the pleasure principle. In The Ego and the Id (1923), he radically revised his earlier conception and depicted the ego as a precipitate of internalized identifications, especially those of the child with its parents during the Oedipus complex. Neither Lacan nor Kristeva accepts Freud's depiction of the ego as an agency that arises through contact with external reality, but both are deeply influenced by Freud's later theory of an ego that arises through internalized identifications. Both believe, however, that a preoedipal form of identification must inaugurate the ego. Freud himself acknowledges such a possibility, albeit only once, when he alludes in The Ego and the Id to [End Page 814] identification with the "father of one's own personal prehistory" [Vater der persönlichen Vorzeit...

Oedipus Rex is undoubtedly the most famous among the thousands of names that pepper the vast panoply of Greek mythology. Out of the scores of tales of this mythology interpreted as symbols, none other has been as embellished with interpretations as the tale of Oedipus. Especially today, in the wake of Freud and his disciples, Oedipus has been elevated from a merely historical symbol to the key for the study of the human psyche. Just as modern mathematics seeks to integrate all natural phenomena within a single unified formula, so, too, modern literary and art criticism, along with psychology and education, philosophy and ethnology, seeks to find a single formula that is universally true for everything human. Though proposed by many for this purpose, the Oedipus Complex does not have the force of a mathematical formula. It nonetheless is much more popular than any such formula, even the Pythagorean theorem. The revolt of the son against the father, the desire of the new to usurp the old, is seen by many as the very essence of every social interaction and as marking every mode of social expression: religion and art, philosophy and law. The psychoanalytic method, that on occasion dangerously approximates the method ofpilpul, endowed the Oedipus Complex with wondrous flexibility. Anyone who follows the application of the Oedipus Complex in contempo rary intellectual thought, especially in literary criticism, will note how the Oedipus Complex is capable of inverting itself, of being itself and its oppo site, of embracing love and hate under one roof, of holding sin and regret together at the same time. Needless to say, the secret of this flexibility is not unknown to both the disciples of psychoanalysis and its detractors: the Oedipus affair inheres to tally within the realm of the unconscious. This emphasis, though it may seem self-evident, is necessary for our enquiry. It is important to emphasize that in selecting Oedipus as a key symbol for decoding the subconscious of the human psyche, Sigmund Freud was attracted not only to the plot itself (a son killing his father in order to possess his mother and the father's domain), but rather by the realm within which this plot takes place, namely, the realm of the unconscious. This story would not have been of interest to