Life is not simple. No single action is committed for a single reason; rather, every action committed, every decision made is backed by a multitude of motivations and concepts. Similarly, it is entirely too simplistic and reductionist to assume that there is only one way – a right way – to interpret fairy tales. Bettelheim and Darnton both present engaging and unique perspectives on the usefulness of fairy tales. Bettelheim views the tales as important to child development, a way for children to incorporate and learn about human relationships. Darnton, on the other hand, sees fairy tales as a unique window to the obscure day to day lives of the European peasantry. Although Bettelheim and Darnton hold very different views on the interpretation of fairy tales, these views are in no way mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible to interpret fairy tales both as a tool to educate children about society and human interaction, while at the same time studying the nuances of the similarities and difference of different accounts of the same tale in order to better understand the life of the “unenlightened of the Enlightenment.”
However, that is not to say that either interpretation is perfect. Bettelheim’s interpretations focus on specific versions of certain tales, interpreting psychologically the “symbolic” meaning of the tale and its impact on child development. This specificity of selection of version is especially problematic in a genre that is originally oral and therefore has no “real” or “right” version. However, Bettelheim is not concerned with the intent of the “authors,” but rather how the tales are received and understood by children. If a specific version of a tale better exemplifies what Bettelheim views as important to child development, than the existence of other versions of the tale is immaterial – his purpose is simply to educate children in manner in which he views as healthy to development.
Similarly, Darnton’s insistence on fairy tales’ importance to understanding the lives and morals of peasants is problematic for the simple reason that the tales we have recorded were not recorded by peasants at all. The “true” tales, the tales told by the peasants around fires or at dinner tables, are lost to time. All that remains are the bourgeois and aristocratic retellings, retellings that inevitably contain alterations and “corrections” made by their authors. Nonetheless, the simple fact remains that the versions of these tales that we now possess are possibly as close as history can conceivably take us to the lives of a peasantry that was for the most part illiterate – and therefore did not keep records of themselves. Furthermore they were viewed as insignificant by their “betters,” the individuals who did keep records. History is not an exact science – it is colored by the biases of those who record it. The interpretations of fairy tales are just one method of understanding history. However, when combined with other knowledge and other sources these fairy tales shed light on an aspect of human history that has been obscured.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although we do not have primary sources (all peasent class citizens from the eighteenth century are ne deceased and would have been changed by time even if they were not) that does not mean that we are unable to know what the tales looked like from that period. Although Perrault, the Grimms, and other recorders of fairy tales may have distorted the tales to their own ends, there are many folklorists whose primary purpose was to record the oral tradition accurately, and even if these particular versions have minor errors, such as misrecording a word or a phrase or even rearranging a sentence, these effects are minimal in that the tale changes as it is told and repeated, even by the same person. It is the general flow, style, and plot that Darnton seeks to analyze.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to say that you write very well.
ReplyDeleteAs to the content, I think your interpretation of the Bettelheim essay lends it more credibility than I could find on my initial reading. Bettelheim simply uses a specific tale as a tool, much like any other scientist would use a tool to learn more about what he is studying. If the history and audience of the tale are immaterial, what is left is only the words themselves which are completely open to interpretation. Although personally I believe that the view of Darnton is a better way to determine the value of fairy tales, I can certainly respect Bettelheim's argument as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that you offer something in your response that I could not quite put together and write down on my own, and that is that both articles are not mutually exclusive. I tried my best to try and make this point in my post, but could not find the right words. Yes, both Bettelheim and Darnton address the issue of fairytales in completely different ways and have different motivations for doing so. This is why it was a little problematic for me in choosing who did a better job in expressing their ideas. I'll be honest, I don't read fairytales in my spare time nor do I have knowledge about them from outside sources. In saying that, I can not make any real comments about Darnton or whether or not peasants' oral tales were lost or distorted. The only comment I can really make about him and why I better liked Bettelheim is that his particualr interest in fairytales is not one that struck my interest, which could be due to the fact that I did not understand what exactly Darnton learned about the peasant class.
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to come out and say it because people seem to keep forgetting a small MAJOR point...
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible for both essays to be correct. There is extreme tension between to two theories primarily because Darnton spends half of his essay arguing directly against Bettelheim. Although their projects are not entirely mutually exclusive, one truly cannot say that they are both right since they speak in direct opposition to each other.
No one is arguing that both essays are mutually exclusive - Darnton rather thoroughly attack's Bettelheim's theses in his article. Nonetheless, Darton's own thesis on the importance of fairy tales to history is in no way dependent on his debasement of Bettelheim's arguments. Fairy tales can serve both as an important tool to teach children about society AND serve as a unique source of historical knowledge regarding the peasantry.
ReplyDeleteSorry - *No one is arguing that both essays are not mutually exclusive*
ReplyDeleteThis thing really needs an edit button for comments.