As a psychology major it's hard for me to buy into anything Bettelheim says. I've actually had very little exposure to his research/work as well as the closely linked Freud in my coursework, primarily because they don't exactly fall into the category of "legitimate science." Their theories are immeasurable, untestable, and in turn cannot be proved wrong and as anybody who has taken a science class knows one of the necessary qualities for any hypothesis is falsifiability. Consequently my overall reaction to anything Bettelheim says is along the lines of disenchantment and callous disregard.
Despite everything I just said, I do believe that the two authors are not necessarily mutually exclusive if you take Bettelheim's theories at face value. Darnton chastizes Bettleheim for focusing his research and analysis too narrowly but in truth Darnton does not really show that Bettelheim is wrong. Fairy tales could very well be used as tools for character building and moral uplift, they simply get adapted as each culture sees fit for its well being and the rearing of its youngsters (which would help explain the dozens of versions of some tales). In that sense, as Darnton says, it is very important to consider the history of each story to understand the influences that played a part in its shaping. From there, Bettelheim or others could have analyzed the tales on a symbolic level in a historical/cultural frame of reference to determine if his theories (however asinine they might be) are generalizable.
It's hard (maybe impossible) to disagree with Darnton's belief that there are many aspects of fairy tales that must be considered in order to fully understand them. The traditions of oral and scribed storytelling are complex beasts and to ignore any aspect of their creation, alteration or promulgation seems unwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Darnton chastizes Bettleheim for focusing his research and analysis too narrowly but in truth Darnton does not really show that Bettelheim is wrong."
ReplyDeleteFortunately for Darnton, it is not his duty to show whether or not Bettelheim was wrong, but by pointing out significant ideas that have been left out by Bettelheim or points that were overlooked/simply not discussed is a legitimate way to disagree without the outright bashing of a colleague.
"Darnton says, it is very important to consider the history of each story to understand the influences that played a part in its shaping. From there, Bettelheim or others could have analyzed the tales on a symbolic level in a historical/cultural frame of reference to determine if his theories"
I really agree with this point. It is similar to my argument in agreeing that the combination of two analytical approaches provides a better explanation and line of reasoning for true understanding of fairy tales. And even if one was to believe that both were off of their rockers, it would not sound as far fetched or narrow as either arguments standing alone.