Sigmund Freud argues that dreams are the uncontrolled manifestation of the id. As we all know, the id is an absolutely essential to our being, however, we are constantly divided, “the dream-thoughts and dream-content are presented to us like two versions of the same subject-matter in two different languages” (819), which suggests we live a state of ignorant miscommunication with ourselves. He later states that through symbolism and proper representation, the id can be expressed in a poetic a beautiful form—basically, a romantic sense of genius.
My question then becomes: how functional is exploring or representing the id in poetry or other forms of art? Freud argues that exploring the rhetoric of dreams is an act of “condensation,” it is the individual’s job to understand his or her own dream-content in order to understand the id. And yet, I find myself struggling with the objectivity of the condensation process. It seems Freud finds the id-knowledge to be ideal, the most accurate representation of the self. However, I cannot seem to agree in the universalism of the id. By not discriminating who should evaluate or condense himself or herself, everyone is left to explore and prescribe to his or her own ids. This is obviously problematic. In some cases ids can produce such works as William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, in other cases, the id can create the mania in Henry VI. Without a proper filter, this id-exploring advocacy could (probably) be harmful to the greater society. By fulfilling our id representations, humans would be dictated by inwardly focused impulses and nonsensical ideology versus the humanism found in Unitarianism and Kantianism.
My Two Cents on Last Night's Lecture:
I found it interesting Henry VII choice to relocate Henry VI's body to Saint George's chapel for the sake of publicity and divinity. Often, we turn to rituals or ceremonies as a form of mechanics, a default when he simply don't know how to process or understand the situation(s) around us. We mark them as sacred, and (typically) establish a sort of divinity or religion to the action. However, Henry VII's choice to move VI to entrench his divinity or saint-status is almost ironic. He chooses to corrupt the initial ritual in an effort to simulate worth to the deceased. VII's flippancy toward sacred acts amuse me, it seems when it comes to issues of political power, our customs and traditions are obsolete as long as the ends justify the means.
Lesley,
ReplyDeleteGood insights on Freud. Yes, there's a lot of irony in historical events--or rather people's choices.
Lesley,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely that a total and complete indulgence in the id is nothing short of a bad idea. Perhaps if we were all hermits, giving way entirely to the id would be acceptable and commendable. But the fact is, most of us do live in community with one another, and that requires that we can't constantly be acting out of our own selfish desires at all times. I argued on this a little bit in my blog on Marx a while back, and nothing we've covered has managed to change my opinion on this. I think that an exploration of the id is a good thing, but you said it best: a proper filter is needed before engaging in this activity. We can't expect that the desires of the id will be conducive to functioning in a community, especially if, as Freud argues, some of our foundational instincts direct that we have "our first sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and murderous wish against our father" (816). I'll take a guess here and say that such desires are not the basis for creating a successful community.
I think sublimation is important to understanding Freud. It is essentially a protective factor built into the subconcious for the id. While real expression of the id might be best according to Freud, he's not so foolish as to think that that's just gonna work out great for all of these mad people to be running around. Rather, he talks about sublimation, how the desires of the it are held back and then sublimated into something which is palatable by society (say, art). This palatable thing is NECESSARY for the id to be satisfied and for it to SURVIVE in society, which will want to oppress it (perhaps to protect our own ids). Art, then, is a direct expression of the id in an acceptable medium.
ReplyDelete