Questions to consider responding to for Thesis Sentence Four:

1. Are there (what are the) limits (problematic premises/effects?) to psychoanalytic analysis/inquiry?

2. What do you think is the primary and/or most important (useful?) aspect (claim/concept/premise) of psychoanalytic theory and criticism?

Psychoanalytical theory significantly reduces freedom of the reader to make assumptions about motives of the fictional characters, because psychoanalytical notions (Oedipal complex, superego, id, mirror stage, etc.) are not only guiding principles, but also sophisticated micro-interpretations of human nature.—Iana

A limit to the effectiveness of psychoanalysis is that in the process of interpretation we often impose our own assumptions, which according to Lacan are inherently incomplete as we can never truly know ourselves, because when we try to look at ourselves all we see is an object detached from our true selves.—Jerry

Freud and Lacan both limit the usefulness of psychoanalytic theory through their constructions of gender; Freud through his use of biology, and Lacan through his concept of the patriarchal symbolic order, have established woman as lack, and this construction of absence is so rigid that there remains little room to challenge such a dominant, patriarchal creation of theory.—Alli

The most important aspect/function of psychoanalytic criticism is that it systematically relates concepts of human nature and human development
linguistic, biological, and social) to literature, which could be defined as a mirror for (displacement of?) both concepts.—Melissa

The value of psychoanalytic theory stems from its recognition of the presence and impact that personal drives - albeit that many of these drives might not be limited to personal - can have in a text (though at times this recognition can be taken to extremes), both on the part of the reader in transfering or transposing emotions and desires into a given text, as well as linking names and identities to the dynamic forces in a text that shape our perceptions and awareness of the world, both conscious and subconscious, around us..—Clayn

Lacan's train at the station metaphor suggests that perception is both determined and predetermined by one’s position in time and space--at once a choice of the “individual” (in choosing”where” to sit) and outside of “individual” control (where the train stops is anyone’s guess); the use of this dialectic parallels the dialectic’s importance in Lacanian theory at large.—Sean

A central problem with psychoanalytic theory is that it owes its origins to a metaphor--and a stereotype at that: not only a mother-son dynamic (from which most, if not all, sub-metaphors issue), but its ensuing preoccupation with sexuality and a limited array of sexual
tropes--dominion-submission, presence(phallus)-absence, master-slave—that leave its (purported) proponents ultimately and subversively grasping at Jungian phrases, structuralism, New Historicism, and deconstruction in order to make their meanings complete; and it is (incidently) irredeemably hampered by this stereotype or sexual bias, despite the best of intentions by some critics to construct a more female-friendly, or separate-but-equal, accommodation.—Mike

Lacan writes that there is no distinction between the self and society because beings become social with the creation of language and this language creates a subject; however the decision that language is ultimate determinate of societal standards and stipulations falls short in constituting a society because language alone does not create one body of a societal culture and the language of one group of beings might not always be within the same language as those of another group of beings. (body, gestures, different languages) ---Another possible debatable thesis idea (for discussion): Lacan says that language is the condition for the unconscious and it creates and gives rise to the unconscious how can this be?—Molly

Psychological criticism is limited in that it cannot fully accomodate the full historical and sociological context of a work; when examining the background of a work, it is confined to the workings of the mind and cannot objectively examine themes relating to social structures and class conflict.--JiM

Further Discussion:

Awaiting replies, but in the meantime, I'll ask a leading question by noting that both Alli and Michael note concern/limitations/flawed
assumptions relating to gender relations/sexual figures/tropes, particularly a perceived/asserted bias against women (?) Others agree? How might you try to defend psychoanalytic theory (Freud or Lacan) against such claims? Other unrelated observations? What about Jim's contention that the "full historical . . .context of a work" gets left out (also not objective analysis)?--Stephan

I would agree with Mike, Alli, and numerous critics that suggest a certain bias in Lacan's work towards/against/when dealing with women.
I wonder, however, if this could be sidestepped by saying that this is a function of lingual/social patterns. †That our language itself is
(traditionally) phallogocentric, and that that structure repeats itself in ourselves...inscribes the patterns into consciousness (to put a turn
on Plato)?? And to what extent are the categories, male and female (phallus/lack, etc), figurative or symbolic? I admit that it is problematic.
Since I am not near my books at the moment, I cannot offer a better response.--Sean

Along the lines with what Sean said, we have to take into account that Lacan is writing about patriarchal power relations, which in itself is going to be bent towards male dominance. However, it is interesting to note the vastly different reactions of feminists to his work. It goes to the extremes on
both sides of the argument. So it appears to depend on how you go about reading him as to the response you'll have. While at first look he may
appear biased, perhaps Lacan can be seen as simply providing an accurate description of patriarchal power relations and encouraging one to go beyond the simple relationship between men and women and consider the relationship both have to the phallus -- noting of course that he uses the term phallus not in an anatomical way, but as a term referring to "all of those values which are opposed to lack" (24). While this is still open to attack, it does appear he's trying to be more inclusive than Freud. The response then falls on our acceptance/refusal of the phallus as a neutral symbol/signifier.--Jerry