Introduction: “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
“Freud, Physics, and Literature” by Norman N. Holland was first published in 1984 in the Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis (Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 301-320). This work stands out for its interdisciplinary approach, intertwining psychoanalysis, theoretical physics, and literary criticism. Holland’s examination of the relationship between Freudian theory and physics, as well as its application to literary studies, marked a significant contribution to both psychoanalytic and literary theory. His exploration of how psychological concepts interact with literature has had a lasting influence on the interpretation of texts through psychoanalytic lenses.
Summary of “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
- Freud’s Attitude Towards Physics and Its Relevance to Psychoanalysis
Freud’s relationship to physics heavily influenced his understanding of psychoanalysis. Holland notes Freud modeled his psychology on the physicalist ideas of Ernst Brücke and Hermann von Helmholtz: - Freud adhered to the belief that bodily and psychological processes should be explained by “physical-chemical” forces (p. 302).
- In his 1895 Project for a Scientific Psychology, Freud sought to make psychology a natural science by representing mental processes in terms of quantifiable, physical states (p. 302).
- Psychoanalysis as a Natural Science
Freud considered psychoanalysis a natural science (Naturwissenschaft), akin to physics or chemistry, even though it often lacked precise definitions: - Freud compared psychoanalysis to physics, suggesting that both sciences use mythic, undefined terms to progress. He expressed this sentiment to Einstein, stating, “But does not every science come in the end to a kind of mythology like this?” (Freud, 1933a, p. 211).
- Despite its vagueness, Freud insisted psychoanalysis had a scientific foundation, with clinical interpretations acting as experiments (p. 305).
- Psychoanalysis and the Observer Effect
Holland draws parallels between Freud’s psychoanalysis and quantum physics, particularly the role of the observer: - Just as physicists in the 1920s grappled with the observer’s influence in quantum mechanics, Freud acknowledged the impact of the observer in psychoanalysis (p. 306).
- Freud referenced the “personal equation” from astronomy, where individual biases affect observations, and applied this concept to psychoanalysis. He believed analysts must account for their biases through personal analysis to achieve “unprejudiced reception” (Freud, 1926, p. 219).
- Freud’s View of Literature
Freud’s approach to literature reflected his psychoanalytic principles, focusing on three areas: the psychology of the author, the psychology of the audience, and the psychology of literary characters: - Freud’s famous analysis of Oedipus Rex connected the power of the play to the audience’s unconscious Oedipal fantasies: “Every member of the audience was once a budding Oedipus in phantasy” (Freud, 1954).
- In his reading of Hamlet, Freud applied psychoanalysis to explain the character’s hesitation to avenge his father, attributing it to unconscious guilt and sexual repression (p. 310).
- Freud’s Legacy and Modern Criticism
Holland highlights that while Freud’s views on science and literature may seem outdated, his work laid the groundwork for modern psychological and literary analysis: - The shift in 20th-century science, particularly in physics, reflects a broader intellectual move toward understanding the observer’s role in constructing reality. Holland compares this to contemporary literary criticism, especially reader-response theory, which emphasizes that readers create meaning in texts (p. 315).
- Freud’s work enabled scholars to discuss the psychological aspects of literature and art, allowing for a more individualized and dynamic interpretation of texts (p. 319).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
| Literary Term/Concept | Definition | Relevance in Holland’s Article |
| Psychoanalytic Criticism | A form of literary criticism that uses psychoanalytic theory to interpret texts. | Holland examines how Freud’s psychoanalytic ideas, such as the Oedipus complex, are applied to literature. |
| Oedipus Complex | Freud’s theory that a child experiences unconscious desires for the parent of the opposite sex. | Holland highlights Freud’s use of the Oedipus complex to explain the audience’s reaction to Oedipus Rex and Hamlet. |
| Authorial Psychology | The study of the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of an author through their work. | Freud analyzed authors like Shakespeare, attributing Hamlet’s behavior to unconscious desires similar to his own. |
| Character Psychology | The analysis of literary characters as if they were real people, often through psychoanalytic methods. | Freud’s psychological analysis of characters like Hamlet, exploring their motivations and unconscious conflicts. |
| Audience Response | The emotional or intellectual reactions of an audience to a literary work. | Freud theorized that Oedipus Rex resonates because it taps into unconscious desires shared by all audience members. |
| Natural Science (Naturwissenschaft) | A field of study that seeks to explain phenomena through empirical and physical means. | Freud believed psychoanalysis was a natural science, similar to physics, applying this belief to his literary analysis. |
| Realism | A literary approach focusing on the portrayal of everyday life and characters in a believable manner. | Holland contrasts Freud’s realistic analysis of literary characters, like Hamlet, with modern critiques of realism. |
| Relativism | The idea that knowledge and truth are dependent on one’s position or perspective, rather than absolute. | Holland explores Freud’s opposition to relativism, especially regarding the role of the observer in psychoanalysis. |
| Reader-Response Criticism | A theory that focuses on the reader’s experience and interpretation of a text as central to its meaning. | Holland contrasts Freud’s idea of universal audience response with modern reader-response criticism. |
| Formalist Criticism | A school of literary theory that emphasizes analyzing the formal elements of a text, such as language and structure. | Holland references formalist critics who, unlike Freud, focused on the text itself rather than its psychological aspects. |
| Deconstruction | A poststructuralist approach that suggests texts have multiple meanings and contradictions. | Holland mentions deconstructionists who argue that a text undermines its apparent meaning, challenging Freud’s method. |
| Interdisciplinary Approach | Combining theories and methods from different academic disciplines, such as literature, psychology, and physics. | Holland’s article blends ideas from psychoanalysis, physics, and literary criticism to create new interpretations. |
| Mythical Concepts in Science | The idea that scientific terms, like those in psychoanalysis and physics, often remain vague or undefined. | Freud’s comparison of psychoanalysis to physics, both using “mythical” terms to explain complex phenomena. |
| Personal Equation | A concept from astronomy, applied by Freud, that accounts for individual biases in observation. | Holland uses this concept to explain the influence of the observer’s personal biases in both science and psychoanalysis. |
Contribution of “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Psychoanalysis as a Literary Tool
- Holland underscores how Freud’s psychoanalytic theories, particularly the Oedipus complex, can be used to interpret both characters and audience reactions. He demonstrates that psychological forces within characters, like Hamlet’s indecision, can be examined through Freudian analysis, thus enhancing psychoanalytic literary criticism.
- Contribution: Holland expands the use of psychoanalysis in literature by showing how Freud’s theories offer a deeper psychological understanding of both texts and audiences.
2. Psychoanalysis and Natural Science
- Holland explores Freud’s belief that psychoanalysis is a natural science, akin to physics or chemistry. By aligning psychoanalysis with scientific inquiry, Freud’s method moves beyond a mere interpretive framework to one of quasi-experimental observation and discovery.
- Contribution: This analogy helps position psychoanalysis as a credible, rigorous method for exploring literature, supporting its status as a scientific tool in literary theory.
3. Role of the Observer in Interpretation
- Drawing parallels to quantum mechanics and the observer effect, Holland suggests that, like scientists, literary critics influence the outcome of their interpretations. Just as observation in physics shapes reality, so too does a critic’s perspective shape their literary analysis.
- Contribution: This highlights the subjectivity in literary criticism, foreshadowing reader-response theory and deconstruction, which stress the variability of interpretation based on individual readers.
4. Reader-Response Criticism
- Holland touches on modern reader-response theory, suggesting that literature is co-created by readers and texts. He challenges Freud’s notion of a universal audience response, proposing instead that interpretations are personal and culturally dependent.
- Contribution: Holland moves beyond Freud’s idea of a “universal” response, opening the door to diverse, individualized readings of literature. This idea supports the development of reader-response criticism, which focuses on how readers actively construct meaning.
5. Myth and Vagueness in Scientific and Literary Concepts
- Holland notes that Freud likened psychoanalysis to physics in its use of undefined, “mythical” concepts, such as energy, forces, or the unconscious. Freud’s refusal to offer precise definitions shows that a science or theory does not require exactitude to be valid.
- Contribution: This introduces the concept that literary theory, much like scientific theory, can work with abstract, fluid terms. It legitimizes the use of vague or metaphorical concepts in literary interpretation, a method embraced by later theories like deconstruction.
6. Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries
- Holland’s article is groundbreaking in its interdisciplinary approach, merging literary criticism, psychoanalysis, and physics. By doing so, he challenges the boundaries between the humanities and the sciences, suggesting that literary interpretation can benefit from scientific methods.
- Contribution: This interdisciplinary approach paves the way for broader, more flexible literary theories, allowing for cross-pollination between seemingly disparate fields like science and literature.
7. Challenges to Realism in Literature
- Holland critiques Freud’s reliance on realism in his interpretation of literature, where Freud treated characters as real people with psychologies that could be analyzed. Holland contrasts this with 20th-century literary movements, like formalism and postmodernism, that reject the notion of objective realism in favor of text-centered or fragmented interpretations.
- Contribution: This critique contributes to the ongoing evolution of literary theory, challenging realist approaches and fostering the growth of formalism, structuralism, and postmodernism in literary criticism.
8. Freud and Postmodernism
- Although Freud resisted relativism, Holland connects Freud’s ideas to postmodern shifts in science and literature, where the observer’s role becomes integral to the interpretation. Freud’s discomfort with the observer’s influence prefigures the subjective realities central to postmodern and deconstructive criticism.
- Contribution: Holland’s work situates Freud at the crossroads of modern and postmodern thought, contributing to literary theories that question fixed meanings and embrace interpretive multiplicity.
Summary of Contribution
Holland’s Freud, Physics, and Literature makes major contributions to:
- Psychoanalytic Criticism by applying Freudian analysis to both literature and its readers.
- Interdisciplinary Theory by merging insights from physics, psychology, and literary theory.
- Reader-Response Criticism by emphasizing the role of the reader in constructing meaning.
- Postmodern and Deconstructive Thought by challenging the idea of fixed meanings and realist interpretations in literature.
Examples of Critiques Through “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
| Literary Work | Freudian Analysis/Critique by Holland | Key Concept from Freud, Physics, and Literature |
| Oedipus Rex by Sophocles | Freud’s Oedipus complex explains why Oedipus Rex has such a “gripping power” over audiences. Holland notes that Freud believed every audience member unconsciously identifies with Oedipus, having once been a “budding Oedipus in phantasy.” | Holland connects the Oedipus complex to the audience’s psychological response, demonstrating how Freudian theory explains literary impact (p. 310). |
| Hamlet by William Shakespeare | Holland explores Freud’s view that Hamlet’s hesitation to kill his uncle stems from unconscious guilt related to repressed Oedipal desires. Hamlet’s sexual coldness toward Ophelia is explained as a rejection of the father’s role, leading to his eventual downfall. | Holland uses Freudian character psychology to explain Hamlet’s behavior, linking it to broader psychoanalytic ideas (p. 310). |
| Gradiva by Wilhelm Jensen | Freud’s analysis of Gradiva focuses on the psychological motivations of the main character, treating the work as a case study of repression and hysteria. Holland follows this approach to interpret the text as a portrayal of unconscious desires. | Holland highlights Freud’s method of analyzing literary characters as if they were patients, applying psychoanalysis directly to the narrative (p. 311). |
| Lady Macbeth in Macbeth by Shakespeare | Freud viewed Lady Macbeth’s ambition and subsequent madness as driven by unconscious guilt and repression. Holland expands this Freudian reading to analyze her psychological breakdown as the manifestation of unresolved inner conflicts. | Holland applies Freud’s idea of guilt and repression to explain character behavior, illustrating how psychoanalysis reveals deeper character motivations (p. 311). |
Criticism Against “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
Overreliance on Psychoanalytic Theory
- Critics argue that Holland’s analysis is overly dependent on Freudian psychoanalysis, which has been widely critiqued and questioned, particularly in modern psychology and literary studies. Freud’s theories, including the Oedipus complex, are seen as reductive when applied to complex literary works, reducing diverse interpretations to singular psychological explanations.
Neglect of Non-Western Literary Traditions
- Holland’s focus on Freudian theory is deeply rooted in Western intellectual traditions. Critics suggest that his approach overlooks non-Western literary frameworks and fails to account for how psychoanalytic theory might not be universally applicable to all cultures and literary traditions.
Dismissal of Other Literary Criticism Methods
- Some critics believe Holland neglects alternative critical frameworks, such as feminist, Marxist, or postcolonial criticism, in favor of psychoanalytic interpretations. This creates a narrow analytical scope that could limit more holistic understandings of literature.
Scientific Reductionism in Literary Analysis
- Holland’s analogy between Freud’s psychoanalysis and the natural sciences, such as physics, has been criticized for attempting to make literary theory more “scientific.” Some argue that this approach oversimplifies literature, reducing its richness to formulaic interpretations based on unproven scientific parallels.
Reader Response Theory Overshadowed by Freud’s Legacy
- While Holland touches on reader-response criticism, his heavy focus on Freudian psychoanalysis can overshadow the role of the reader’s individuality and experience in interpreting texts. Critics of this approach suggest that he underemphasizes the modern shift towards the reader’s active participation in meaning-making.
Limited Engagement with Postmodern Criticism
- Though Holland hints at postmodern concerns with relativism and the observer’s role, critics argue that he doesn’t fully engage with or integrate postmodern and deconstructionist perspectives. This limits the article’s relevance in more contemporary literary theory discourse, which focuses on the instability of meaning.
Representative Quotations from “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation | Page |
| “Freud’s ideas about the arts go hand in hand with his ideas about science and the science of psychoanalysis.” | Holland emphasizes the interconnectedness between Freud’s views on art and science, suggesting that Freud’s psychoanalytic approach is scientific in nature. | 301 |
| “The intention is to furnish a psychology that shall be a natural science: that is, to represent psychical processes as quantitatively determinate states of specifiable material particles.” | This quote references Freud’s Project for a Scientific Psychology, where he aimed to make psychology a measurable, empirical science, similar to physics or chemistry. | 302 |
| “Freud clung to this hope throughout his life.” | Holland highlights Freud’s lifelong ambition to establish psychoanalysis as a scientific discipline, even when empirical evidence was lacking. | 302 |
| “But does not every science come in the end to a kind of mythology like this? Cannot the same be said to-day of your own Physics?” | Freud’s reflection on how scientific theories can become “mythical” when their key terms remain vague, drawing a parallel between psychoanalysis and physics. | 303 |
| “The aim of a natural science was not definition but understanding, and this, too, was something Freud insisted on to the very end of his life.” | Holland explains that Freud prioritized understanding over precise definitions in psychoanalysis, aligning with the practices of natural science. | 303 |
| “He analyzed the psyches of Hamlet, Falstaff, Lady Macbeth, Richard III…all were, one way or another, ‘Just like my hysterics.'” | Holland illustrates how Freud treated literary characters like real people, using psychoanalysis to interpret their psychological motivations as he did with his patients. | 311 |
| “The real world the psychoanalyst or other scientist studies, however, is ultimately unknowable, because it is impossible to get out of our own senses.” | Holland reflects on Freud’s acknowledgment of the limitations of human perception, an idea that aligns with modern scientific thought about subjectivity in observation. | 305 |
| “Freud was asking about the role of the observer in psychoanalysis.” | Holland draws parallels between Freud’s concerns about the observer’s influence in psychoanalysis and the role of the observer in modern physics, such as in quantum theory. | 306 |
| “Every member of the audience was once a budding Oedipus in phantasy.” | This quote summarizes Freud’s belief that the audience’s emotional response to Oedipus Rex stems from unconscious identification with the protagonist’s Oedipal desires. | 310 |
| “We are not simply observers of some process out there. We are part of that process.” | Holland emphasizes the shift in modern thought, from seeing the observer as detached, to recognizing the observer’s active role in shaping the interpretation of phenomena. | 313 |
Suggested Readings: “Freud, Physics and Literature” by Norman N. Holland
Books
- Breger, Louis. Freud’s Unfinished Journey: Conventional and Critical Perspectives in Psychoanalytic Theory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
- Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Basic Books, 2010.
https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/sigmund-freud/the-interpretation-of-dreams/9780465019779/ - Wheeler, John Archibald. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. Norton & Company, 1998.https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393319917
Academic Articles
- Brooks, Peter. “Freud’s Masterplot.” Yale French Studies, no. 55-56, 1977, pp. 280-300. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930433
- Eagleton, Terry. “Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism.” Critical Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, 1973, pp. 59-74. Wiley Online Library,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8705.1973.tb02003.x - Holland, Norman N. “Psychoanalysis and Literature.” American Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol. 65, no. 2, 2005, pp. 105-123. Springer Link,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11231-005-4339-x
Websites
- “Psychoanalysis in Literary Criticism.” Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL),
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/literary_theory_and_schools_of_criticism/psychoanalytic_criticism.html - “Freud’s Oedipus Complex: A Critical Analysis.” Simply Psychology,
https://www.simplypsychology.org/oedipus-complex.html - “The Unconscious Mind and Literature.” The British Library,
https://www.bl.uk/20th-century-literature/articles/the-unconscious-mind-and-literature - “Norman N. Holland’s Psychoanalytic Theories.” Internet Archive,
https://archive.org/details/psychoanalysisandnorman