The central influence of Freud's version of the Uncanny is evident from the fact that our key modern readings in theory derive from it: Garber, Todorov, and Jackson all use Freud's ideas as a point of departure.
But that's not to say that his statement on the Uncanny entirely satisfies all readers.
To provoke discussion at our next session, please post a comment here briefly (in a paragraph or so) evaluating Freud's conception of the Uncanny, taking up any or all of these questions:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of his definition?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of his analysis?
How fair and useful is his reply to Jentsch?
Does his formulation give you something meaningful to work with when you consider films, stories, artworks that you consider instances of the Uncanny?
The idea that struck me most was Freud’s idea of giving life to inanimate objects and creating relationships with these objects. He states “Children do not distinguish at all sharply between living and inanimate objects, and that they are especially fund of treating their dolls like live people”. As a child it is very easy to create a character for an object, especially with dolls, because they already represent human characteristics. I myself would give my dolls personalities and stories as a child, wanting to believe they were real. In Hoffmann’s the Sandman, Nathanael unknowing falls in love with a doll that he is certain is a human. Even though she sits silently barley moving or speaking a word he creates a story for her. When we desire something so much that we are willing to believe anything and when we are force to start questioning what we think, is when we experience a feeling of uncanny. The idea that everything you thought was real may not be.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that Freud's analysis of "The Uncanny" incorporates childhood anxieties. When I would've first thought of "The Uncanny", childhood anxieties wouldn't first come to mind but after this analysis, it makes complete sense to me. I thought that bringing upon the Sandman as an example was a great way to represent his thought because of this irrational fear of losing one's eyes because of not falling asleep. I personally always thought that this fear of "the Sandman" was a ploy that parents used to get their children to fall asleep. What I found strange though is Freud's comparison of this fear of losing one's eyes to castration anxiety. I guess in the broadest sense, it makes sense, being that both are fears of losing bodily functions that are extremely important to a person. I also thought that it was interesting that Freud says that familiarity stems from repressed emotions in the unconscious, and the fear that such traumas might re-occur. And that the Uncanny is something familiar and foreign at the same time. I feel like that is something that may explain the whole childhood anxiety that is based around closets and under beds. These anxieties are built up around stories told and personal experiences with noises heard during one's childhood. And because of these anxieties, many adults have been known to still be afraid of these places because of this fear of the unknown in the dark. All while still being very familiar with your surroundings.
ReplyDeleteIn his analysis, Freud touches on the psychoanalytical elements of the uncanny relating to “The Sandman”. Freud mentions Jentsch’s theory of the automaton (referencing the character Olympia) and claims that the source of the uncanny lies in the undecidability of the robot. Though Freud disagrees, claiming that the sandman himself is the source of the uncanny and relates it back to the general uncertainty of whether things are real or fake (in literature). I’m not sure if I’d consider his response to be “unfair” though it doesn’t seem too far off from his idea… then Freud goes on to talk about the “loss of the eyes” and the connection to the fear of castration/castration complex. I find this to be increasingly compelling, the idea that one’s repressed psychosexuality can (or does) control one’s confrontation and experience with the uncanny. I’m quite curious to discuss this idea in regards to film, and how sexuality plays a part in enhancing or undermining the uncanny.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFreudian Uncanny
As I read Freud’s theory of the uncanny. I kept relating the term primal to Rothko’s colored field paintings. The emotions that arise in people when they witness Rothko’s work, in Freudian terms, are primitive feelings that are extensions of repressed infantile complexes. Though many things can be attributed Rothko’s work, one peculiar thing is that his work is attributed to primal feelings deeply hidden within everyone. Certain subtleties within his use of gradation are supposed to impregnate the viewer with a power that can make them become overwhelmed with emotion. His work is supposed to be all encompassing and democratic, in that everyone can experience its power. Some will even go so far as to say that if one focuses hard enough on his work, it will look as if it is pulsating in time with the viewer’s heart-beat. Freud’s theory about primitive beliefs or feelings that have been surmounted,made once more quite real by external factors, feels similar to the effects of Rothko’s work. When something reminds us of these surmounted complexes in our lives, often things that we are afraid of and can’t answer, we then use the repressed infantile complexes as answers.
In Freud's theory of the uncanny, he discusses how the uncanny arises from repressed feelings, especially those experienced during childhood. Children are commonly used in horror or supernatural films to juxtapose their innocence with terrifying events happening around them. Traumatic events definitely affect children's psyches even if they are not aware of what exactly is going on. This part of Freud's theory brings to mind the film The Shining, where one of the main characters is a boy who has an uncanny ability to see the true nature of people and events that are going to happen. Another child with the ability to access the world of the uncanny was the boy in the Sixth Sense, who could speak to ghosts. The innocence and openness of children in these stories is what makes them conduits for this strange, uncanny world. They seem to be at once a part of it and unaware of it, as perhaps we all are.
ReplyDeleteReality to one is not always to another. After reading I am sure there will be an intense discussion on points made by Freud. I was so interested in the theory that the uncanny arises from suppressed feelings during childhood. My younger brother has 2 toys he can not live with out since the age of two they eat,sleep,travel,play,etc with him. The two toys are soft figurines, Woody and Buzz from the movie Toy Story. He watched it everyday for a year at 2 years old. We can spectate about what we believe is going through a child's mind when they have connects like these but once their older they forget like I once forgot. What is happening during that time? Why do we forget? Chemically what happens that allows one too forget or change? It's so much you can discuss when relating the uncanny to childhood because children are the definition to uncanny. They are fearless in their nature which makes their experiences so unexplainable but so real. (I want to hear more of others thoughts/experiences in class)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Freud’s Uncanny, I have come to realize that the uncanny cannot be defined as one singular thing or have one definition. What interest me is the use of literature and the arts to define what the uncanny is and how to create it, which leads us to believe that the uncanny relies on the weakness of our minds. Therefore I would agree with Jentsch's definition of the uncanny as intellectual uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteThe uncanny relies on the mind and its many weaknesses hence the reason why it stems from childhood anxiety as the mind is not logically inclined at a young age. We are able to see illusions which originates from the illogical and unreasonable side of brain. Reality does not compel us and we are willing to fall into the belief that the impossible is in fact attainable. When creating a work of uncanniness it must function like a dream. There is no logical stream of events or actions that would fit or even be plausible in our reality. What interest me the most is the use of the story the Sand Man and how it is unclear when or where the author is taking us in or out of reality to the fantastic. The uncanny experiences during the boy's story began from childhood and the fear of the sand man who is represented by the lawyer. This constant reappearance of the character throughout the plot is a reminder of a traumatizing event from his childhood. This reminds us of the story of the ballet Coppelia which is the story of a man falling in love with an inanimate doll due to his loneliness, but it also underlines the desire to believe that something that is so human like in shape and form can come to life and be a living, breathing thing. The ballet is actually based on Hoffman’s story of the Sand Man, but alters in ending. Even though Coppelia has a happier ending its uncanniness stems from a repressed memory or psychologic condition in both characters. The utility of these objects and relationships built with them in literature is to portray, bring to life and make factual, the mind of the character. The dolls are a physical representation or reminder of a repressed emotion or feeling.
Another story which follows the same line as the Sand Man is La Venus D’Ille by Prosper Merimée, where a man falls in love with the beauty of an inanimate object shaped like the form of a women. The introduction of the bronze statue of Venus to the story brings consistent bad luck to the characters. The story ends with the death of a young boy on the first night after his wedding. What differs in this story is the want of love from the statue versus the man.
Although these relationships are uncanny and underline the discontent of the characters, it seems to be a consistent pattern in story which underlines a more male perspective of the uncanny, as it is always a man falling under the spell of a gorgeous inanimate object.
As I have mentioned before in discussions of the uncanny and its meaning, I have a difficult time really pinning down the full connotation of the word. It was very satisfying at first, then, to have Freud discuss the opposite of the uncanny, the heimlich. However, Freud goes onto explain that the heimlich also refers to the secret and concealed, and then we are back at square one again. I think it really speaks to the duality of the subject, and further emphasizes its elusiveness. It will be helpful for me in the future to think of both the uncanny and the heimlich in conjunction with one another so as to better understand.
ReplyDeleteI find that I side alot more with Freud in regards to his understanding on the Uncanny. Freud argues that the Uncanny is the subject of Aesthetics, whereas Jentsch seems more preoccupied by the its relationship to the unfamilar or more particularly an intellectual uncertainty. I think I find Freuds argument more convincing because of the way he goes about describing it. By approaching from a psychoanalytical standpoint. Also due to the emphasis on aesthetics something usually preoccupied with beauty the sublime ect as a way to understand the concept of the uncanny is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteDoes Freud's formulation give me something to work with? I would have to say partially, and not when he gets into psycho-analysis. Initially, the definitions of heimlich served as a perfect opposite for the uncanny: safety, comfort, recognition, warmth, family, etc. I found this helpful until he started hypothesizing that heimlich also meant unheimlich and everything in between. My main concern with Freud is when he starts to attribute the importance of so-called underlying factors such as castration, dreams, incest, childhood, and so forth. I think there are those of us that agree with Freud and those who don't. In last weeks discussion of The Fall of the House of Usher, when we brought up the idea of incest in relation to the bizarre relationship between brother and sister, I was reminded of a couple of friends of mine. Two girls, twins, shorter than most, significantly wider than most, almost perfectly egg shaped in fact, long stiff curly hair. They dress almost exactly alike. They share the same facebook page. They share all the same interests. They work the same job. Their appearance and lifestyle seem uncanny; unfamiliar, strange, off-putting to many. It is likely that they will grow old together and even die together. I fear that psycho-analysis of them would bring up some ugly words, such as incest. To me this is unnecessary and unfortunate. The Fall of the House of Usher is particularly uncanny precisely because you don't fully understand the relationship between brother and sister. The less you understand, the more the uncanny. To psycho-analyze things in such a manner is a way of making things okay and safe again, bringing them back into a world we feel comfortable in. "Incest, ewwwww" I feel like reality is much too strange, and our brains are much too small for such easy answers.
ReplyDelete