Dear Sir,
It has been brought to my attention that
you are seriously toying with the notion of penis envy. Further to your
suggestion of the scientific significance of your discovery I am pleased to
submit my thoughts concerning the above issue. I am also enclosing a detailed
psychoanalysis of myself in regards to the interest evoked by your ideas.
I am glad to inform you that I have
read an account of your ideas with a certain amount of interest. Having
critically analyzed myself in accordance with your method, I came to the
conclusion that this interest has its origins in my infancy. That is, using
your terms, my early childhood sexual experiences determine my adult interest
in everything related to sex and sexuality. Unfortunately, the interest to
your work is the only point where my views come to an agreement with yours.
Further to your notion of penis envy,
there seems to be some overstatement. First, I do not believe that the majority
of female species experience the feeling of discontent and resentment aroused
by and in conjunction with desire for the possession or qualities of the above
mentioned male organ. I agree that a minor part of women do experience this
feeling, but perhaps you are unaware that the latest development of medicine
and plastic surgery has proved to avail deliverance of such envy. Let me also
remind you that a minority of men encounter with the opposite concern, that is
riddance of their male organ, which too can be easily accomplished with help of
plastic surgery.
Second,
I do not believe that this male organ signifies or has anything to do with
women’s lack of social power. I am aware that some critics have made attempts
to interpret your idea of phallus envy as “social castration”. However I
consider that these attempts are nothing else but a desire to mask their
interest in sex and sexuality by the impression of psychoanalytic research
literary works. This is another point I am pleased to expound on.
I am
highly concerned with application of your psychoanalytic theories to literary
works. I recently came upon an example of such application to Shakespeare’s Hamlet,
where you offer a solution to the question why Hamlet hesitates to obey his
father’s ghost order to kill his uncle.
There you suggest that Hamlet is unable to “take vengeance on the man who did
away with his father and took that father’s place with his mother, [because
this man] [...] shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized.” Thus
you prescribe Hamlet an Oedipus complex, which also is your famous invention. I
am sorry to notify you that I find such “psychoanalysis” lacking any
significance. First, in my opinion, it is because only the author of a literary
work can know what he has in mind while writing. Second, it is because even the
author may not be sure what he has in mind while writing. Third, the author may
just write without having in mind anything but what he is writing about. Fourth,
I believe that not every piece of literary work has anything to do with sexual
complexes taking their origins in childhood sexual experiences.
In
conclusion, although I do not agree with some of your ideas, let me express my
admiration of your considerable investment in the sphere of sexual psychology. I
have a faint hope that my letter helped change your views upon literature and
femininity. In case you remain faithful to your position of explicit
phallo-analysis, I would recommend you to turn to a good doctor in order to
analyze yourself.
Regards,
No comments:
Post a Comment