Comparing “The Struggle for Meaning” to “Peasants Tell Tales: The Meaning of Mother Goose”

Both Bettelheim and Darnton make strong arguments for two separate aspects of the role of fairy tales in society. To begin with, Bettelheim concentrates on a scientific and psychological approach to fairy tales, with a main focus on ensuring that children feel they have a purpose and meaning in their lives. Bettelheim believes fairy tales are the best way to help children develop and he states that the biggest influences in a child’s development are conditions in the home, parenting styles, and certain traditions in one’s particular culture. Additionally, Bettelheim criticizes other children’s literature because it does not teach children how to develop certain “inner resources”, as he calls them, meaning our emotions and imagination, with which they can find purpose for their lives (270). Bettelheim adopts the idea of Freud’s id, superego, and ego, all of which can be influenced by a fairy tale. He argues that both the content and structure of fairy tales instigate a sense of curiosity and wonder in children. In order for a child to live in our society, he must have “a moral education which subtly, and by implication only, conveys to him the advantages of moral behavior, not through abstract ethical concepts by through that which seems tangibly right and therefore meaningful to him” (Bettelheim 270), which Bettelheim declares can best be learned by fairy tales. My only complaint with this article is the lack of proof, especially when Bettelheim criticizes other children’s literature. I do not know what other books he is referring to, and therefore I cannot compare the two to determine my own opinion on whether or not fairy tales are truly better than other children’s books. I would like more proof that other children’s literature cannot serve the exact same purpose as a fairy tale. Overall, he offers a convincing argument about why children enjoy fairy tales and how these stories positively influence their psyche, as well as help children identify meaning in their lives.

On the other hand, Darnton seems to view fairy tales more as cultural stories that portray the history of a group of people, rather than a manual or guide to help children develop properly and fully. Darnton views fairy tales as a source of understanding the early modern peasant outlook of the world. At the beginning of the article, he also discusses the id, superego, and ego as it relates to “Little Red Riding Hood” and “Hansel and Gretel”. He knows that while these tales are critical to understanding the peasants of this time period, they are also problematic because there is no direct link to the peasants’ culture since the stories are passed down orally over many years. Also, he argues that because there are multiple versions of each fairy tale, it would be inaccurate to establish one universal truth of one particular version of a fairy tale. I liked how Darnton used specific fairy tales to illustrate his points relating to the French folklore tales and their distinct characteristics, like the blatant violence and reflection of popular culture at one time period in the stories.

Honestly, I think the articles are meant to complement each other because they are not necessarily taking opposite sides. However, Darnton disagrees with Bettelheim’s generalizations of a story’s truths when studying only one version. Bettelheim seems to be focused on the scientific side of fairy tales and their benefit for children, while Darnton is focused on the historical aspect of fairy tales and where they originate. I found Darnton’s article more convincing, mainly because he used specific examples and I was also more drawn to the historical and cultural analysis rather than the psychological one. I enjoyed reading both articles, and I gained a better understanding of each man’s approach to fairy tales and their functions.