In two strongly contrasting, opinionated essays, Bruno Bettelheim and Robert Darnton explore the many interpretations of fairy tales. These interpretations can be categorically described as the ‘scientific’ fairy tale and the ‘historical’ fairy tale. The scientific interpretation of the fairy tale is what would probably be most valued in the world today, because it could produce usable (and sellable) ideas about the mental state of children and their development. However, I think that the historical interpretation is actually far more important because it teaches us about the cultural significance of a segment of the population we know very little about: the illiterate peasant class in 17th, 18th, and 19th century Europe.
In Bettelheim’s essay, he believes that fairy tales should be used to help discover psychoanalytical truths behind child development. What he is missing is the rather large factor that many of these tales were actually composed for adults, not children. Most of the tales compiled by the Brothers Grimm and other chroniclers were simply the adaptation of an oral tradition directed at entertaining the illiterate adult peasant class. This simple fact throws most of his argument, because the target audience is not who he needs to psychoanalyze. Granted, if using the watered down, children specific, modern versions of many tales (aka Disney movies), then his argument is entirely valid because those are actually meant for childhood development.
Bettelheim also neglects to take into account that these tales were compiled from oral traditions hundreds of years old; modern children cannot relate to many aspects of Grimm’s fairy tales: the rural setting, landed aristocracy, strict patriarchal society, and belief in magic, among others. The fact is that society has changed from when these tales were compiled. While they are still fantastic stories, sometimes with good morals still applicable in modern life, using them to reach psychoanalytical goals is simply not going to work.
On the other hand, in taking the tales in context a historian can learn a great deal about the society in which they were prevalent. Darnton explains this in an anthropological application: modern historians can study the tales and thus realize the values which guided these historical cultures. In applying the anthropological lens to the differences between versions of the stories, modern scientists can also see how societies changed over time. As an oral tradition, the fairy tales compiled by the Brothers Grimm had gone through a long process of slow change and revision before they were ever written down. In each retelling, a different part of the story may be emphasized to better relate to the current society. By looking at the same tale evolve over time, one could easily see how the society changes.
Since the peasant class through most of history has been illiterate, there are very few ways in which modern historians can learn about the daily life of the majority of the world’s population. Oral tales are one of these methods, because the peasants were able to hear and interpret them without need for a literate middleman. The tales are constantly changing to reflect a given time; almost every generation or two a new storyteller will come along and create a new interpretation of the old tales. Most recently, this niche has been filled by Walt Disney. Just as studying Disney’s movies could (and does) lead to social commentary on current society, so does studying the Grimm Brother’s tales reflect on the culture of the time.
I would like to start by saying, with whatever respect is due and proper, that I believe you have completely missed the point of Bettelheim's essay, starting from your misuse of the word "psychoanalyze". Psychoanalysis is merely the method by which he practices psychology, and he in no way intends to use fairy tales as a means to psychoanalyze children. Psychoanalysis cannot, in and of itself, ever be an end. It is only ever able to be a means. Thusly does he not use fairy tales to psychoanalyze but to promote good psychological health. Only after having dissected the Grimms' fairy tales through psychoanalytic processes does he have the ability to justify their use and verify the validity of his project.
ReplyDeleteEven more distressing than your misappropriation of the term, however, was your analysis' complete misrepresentation of his argument for fairy tales, particularly those collected by the Grimm brothers, as a medium by which to indoctrinate children into society and provide them with proficient literacy skills. For Bettelheim, there is no imperative attached to the original purpose or ends in mind when the tales were collected, rather the imperative lies in the content, by its own merit and regardless of its conception. For Bettelheim, in fact, it is even preferential to some degree that they were not originally intended for children for fear of creating what he would call atrocities—like Disney movies—which present an unfair balance of good prevailing and far too little violence. Furthermore, although the Grimms did not originally have children in mind as the purpose of their recording tales, there is a clear shift in their later publications to direct the tales in such a way that they would not only be content usable by adults but children as well. Their system of values of children's literature was simply different than our own society's conceptions.
I will leave off there.
As a response to the response of this essay, no where in the original poster's essay is the claim that Bettelheim uses fairy tales as a means to psychoanalyze children. The original poster clearly states that Bettelheim "believes that fairy tales should be used to help discover psychoanalytical truths behind child development," and that much of Bettelheim's argument is irrelevant because the tales were created primarily for adults, while he's seeking to explain them as childhood truths. When the poster says that "the target audience is not who he needs to psychoanalyze" he is using the word "psychoanalyze" precisely in your definition, "the method by which he practices psychology." The poster is saying that the intended audience of the fairy tale does not correspond with Bettelheim's patients, the ones who he needs to psychoanalyze in general, not through the use of fairy tales. The poster's focus is on Bettelheim attempting to reach psychological goals through the stories, not to use fairy tales as a means to "psychoanalyze" them, so your rebuking of his use of the word "psychoanalyze" was misguided.
ReplyDeleteAllow me then to make more clear and explicit my point.
ReplyDelete"he believes that fairy tales should be used to help discover psychoanalytical truths behind child development."
FALSE: his analysis of fairy tales warrants the claim that they are productive to use in the education and development of children's minds. He is not attempting to teach children "psychoanalytic truths" nor is he using them to discover the truths behind child development. His entire argument hinges on him already knowing the "psycoanalytic truths" (which is itself a misuse of terminology).
What he is missing is the rather large factor that many of these tales were actually composed for adults, not children.
FALSE: He knows and does not care. He takes the works as he sees them at face value and out of any specific context.
Most of the tales compiled by the Brothers Grimm and other chroniclers were simply the adaptation of an oral tradition directed at entertaining the illiterate adult peasant class.
SO WHAT?
This simple fact throws most of his argument,
FALSE: unwarranted and see explication on irrelevance of whether or not they were written for children.
because the target audience is not who he needs to psychoanalyze.
HE DOES NOT INTEND TO PSYCHOANALYZE ANYONE OR ANYTHING HERE. He has already sufficiently (according to his methodology) psychoanalyzed children and he has analyzed the fairy tales that he promotes psychoanalytically. HE IS NOT USING FAIRY TALES TO PSYCHOANALYZE.
Granted, if using the watered down, children specific, modern versions of many tales (aka Disney movies), then his argument is entirely valid because those are actually meant for childhood development.
FALSE: He argues directly against this.
--Smiles