Answering the big questions about relationships . by trolling though the scientific literature across many fields including computer science. void by reviewing the psychological literature on close relationships,. collectively address four central questions: (a) What is a relationship?. University of Washington Psychology Writing Center How is a literature review different from a research article? The two purposes: describe/compare and.
An Interdisciplinary Relationship By understanding interdisciplinarity as the proximity established by fields of knowledge with one another in order to exceed the discoursive principles of one field in the intersection with the theoretical perspectives and functioning modes of the other, it can be seen that interdisciplinarity is opportune for the break of the specialized character of the disciplines, a break that can be verified on different levels and in different degrees Pombo, This opportunity arises, of course, without detracting from any of the advances that interdisciplinary studies have made possible for mankind, but rather in an attempt to reverse the situation of modern man, and of specialists in particular, whereby one understands increasingly more about increasingly less, especially at present, when in general the new open access media make available to everybody, without distinction, all the world knowledge with a simple touch on a liquid crystal screen.
Within this context, what is the proximity of Psychology, which deals with specificities such as knowing and interpreting human beings and the world, to Literature, which deals with the possibility of imagination freeing itself from rules? Psychology values logic, a situation that is substantially opposed to Literature, even though the latter may be based on likelihood.
According to Russellp. This quality, again according to Russel, leads to the fact that knowledge of one field can contribute to the other in at least four categories: In the psychology of the writer there is the presence of the psychological interpretation of biographies and autobiographies of other writers, which help him learn about the authors. In turn, the psychology of the creative process focuses both on the personality of the writer and of his characters regarding how the latter function i.
Psychological studies of the process of creation of literary works usually involve the stages that all creative processes go through, respecting the peculiar variations in the style of each author. Within this context, based on psychological logic, the study of the behavior described seeks to delineate the character and the registration of the attitudes that human subjects make explicit or leave implied when performing them.
On an interdisciplinary basis, Psychology, as is the case for the perspective of related disciplines such as History, Linguistics, Communication, Social Sciences, Philosophy, Education, and Arts Visual Arts, Music, Theater, Cinemaamong others, in an attempt to establish the degree of relationship between a work of art and what surrounds it in order to provide human enligthenment, permits the extrinsic study of literature i.
In this endeavor, those who study this topic, such as Leite and Wellek and Warrenin an attempt to contribute to the understanding of this relationship, have tried to clarify what the relationship between psychology and literature deals with, describing its reach and its fragilities.
According to these authors, the psycholgical study of a writer as an individual and a type, as well as the study of his creative process, is an action of interest for the Psychology of Art, an area of Psychology that describes and explains the psychological experience of a being in the behaviors related to art, either by appreciating, creating and executing it or by interacting with the public and listening to their criticisms.
Psychology of Literature The Psychological Study of the Writer as a Type and an Individual The study of how people think, act, influence and relate to each other is part of the context of Social Psychology, a branch of Psychology that, in the 20th century, has been devoted to an attempt to dialogue with the Social Sciences, also dealing with the social experience acquired by the individuals who participate in different social movements. Within the first context, Krech and Crutchfieldp.
Within this context, the writer, as an individual, is a unique being highlighted in the uniqueness that conjugates the human ensemble of individuals. His world is made up of what he perceives, feels, sees, thinks and imagines in a manner that cannot be identically reproduced by any other person.
The world, perceived in this manner, precedes the writer's linguistic creation, primarily making him think with his senses. As a consequence, the individual perception of a writer is his thought, his invention, an observation about what is perceived. In turn, as a type, a writer has his personality taken into considerations i.
Why Literature Needs Psychology | Literary Hub
The traits are in the person; the types in an external viewpoint. Thus, for example, according to the particularities of each classification, there are philistines versus bohemians, apollineans versus dyonisiacs, and rationalists versus empiricists. Spranger, when focusing his analysis on fundamental human values, admits theoretical, aesthetic, social, political, and religious types.
It is not that a person fully belongs to one of these types, but rather we may understand a person by examining his values through these denominations. It should be emphasized that, as abstractions created to support these schemes of understanding, none of these typologies explains the individual as a whole. There are authors who advocate the use of ideal types derived from rational methods such as those of Sprangerand authors who advocate the use of empirical types which presume to cover a broad area of personality of many persons, extremes of a continuum, such as introverted versus extroverted individuals ; cultural types influenced by their participation in groups, whether typical or dissident, such as a trader, a farmer, a barber, a priest, a politician, etc.
However, although being a type who is part of a social group, a personality is regulated by traits i.
When dealing with the question of types in Psychology, Allportpp. However, still according to the author p. An intellectual product par excellence since it requires the exercise of reasoning and of the skills needed to execute complex tasks, creation, according to Sartrep.
Judging that a coachman whose face we represent in an obscure maner has mustaches is seeing his face appear with mustaches If, in the imagining mode, we think of individual objects, these will be the same objects that will appear to our consciousness Actually, it is rare for us to think of a an isolated class. Most of the time our thoughts are the establishment of relationships between classes.
Psychology of Literature and Literature in Psychology
However, this imaginary conceived by common sense differs from the collective imaginary, in which it is the subjectivity of a person that is presented to the unconscious, and differs from the personal imaginary in which the images of a people and of a culture are presented to the reader. In turn, the collection of subjectivities and cultural images of a people is conceived by Durand as a response to the human anguish in the face of the finitude of life i.
The E-Dictionary of Carlos Ceia n. According to Ceia, imagination, as early as stated by Aristoteles trans. As explained by Ceia, the original Greek meaning of the concept, maintained in the German term Phantasie, refers to what is present in the first great theoreticians of the subconscious, Freud and Jung, corresponding to how they always used the term.
In turn, literary studies of the 18th century emphasized the creative power of imagination as an essential activity of artistic creation, in clear opposition to its meaning in Antiquity i. This idea that it is necessary to feel to be able to imagine will not represent for Plato a way to achieve knowledge, but rather a way to obtain a sort of second-hand copy of reality. This argument was taken up again by Descartespp.
Why Literature Needs Psychology
With the European romanticism, which attributed to imagination the status of a subjective alternative in order to achieve less pragmatic forms of knowledge, and with the questions raised by Kant, which admitted imagination as the synthesis of human perceptions to which the images that represent them are proposed, a new theory of imagination was established, whereby imagination was proposed as a privileged pathway towards subjective knowledge at the expense of pragmatic knowledge.
Within this context, Coleridge, one of the creators of romanticism in England, by admitting that the full vitality of the senses can be experienced only through imagination, elevated the latter to the creative power of God. This opinion was shared by the German philosopher Schlegel, who understood imagination as the ability to associate images at the consciousness level, in contrast to fantasy, which appears to operate with images arising from the frontier with the unconscious.
The 20th century, however, revealed a greater interest in the product originating from the creative imagination, highly approximated to personal experience, than in its theorization. According to the German psychologist Rudolf Arnheimit is the task of creative imagination to enable man to translate the physical appearance of objects into appropriate forms for given contexts, this being due to the psychological reason that, in the human perception and thinking, the similarity is not based on a meticulous identity, but rather on the correspondence of essential structural characteristics.
However, according to the author, something new is only valid up to the point it serves to interpret a universal topic of human experience. Using works of art as examples of what can be perceived by man through his vision, the behaviorist Arnheim conceived that, since it is dynamic and not static, an image does not represent arrangements but rather interactions of its own tensions, leading to the reasoning that it is not the eye that constructs the interaction of objects in a visual field, but rather that it is the dynamics of shapes that determines how this visual field is perceived.
On this basis, defining a work of art as an expressive form created for our perception through the senses or the imagination expressing human feeling, as done by Susan Langeris highly acceptable on the horizon of literary studies. Regarding the creative process in the literature, Wellek and Warren proposes that modern studies may be closer to the relative role played by the conscious and the unconscious, since a writer is a specialist in the association ingenuitydissociation judgment and recombination creating a new whole from elements experienced separately of words, which he considers to be valuable symbols of themselves or in terms of what they represent.
Nevertheless, psychology can also study the various methods of composition, correction and rewriting practiced by writers. The usefulness of this? To discover gaps that will permit the writer to probe what occurs in his laboratory of artistic production and to inhibit inconsistencies and distortions in the work of art he intends to create, although always being aware of the fact that, even though these are practices of creation, they do not belong to a work of art, but rather to its elaboration.
It is definitely possible to state that fictional characters appear to be psychologically true, especially in cases in which the author has sought in psychology the figures and interpersonal relations he has used in his work of art. But these characteristics overlap so constantly that the complex situations in which they are involved and on which they act deserve more acute observations than the possibility of fitting them into a specific social type. An example of this is represented by works constructed using the stream of consciousness technique.
In these works, a faithful reproduction of the mental processes presented is less relevant han the possibility of dramatization offered by the technique used. In other words, it is not the psychological truth, regardless of the emphasis on the notion of the reality of creation, that will give artistic value to a work of art, but rather the way this truth was manipulated to underscore coherence and complexity so that something really new is obtained.
In literary studies, the type is investigated as one of the possibilities of a character to be created. A common practice in historical novels, the presence of the type, according to Kaufmanis justified by the necessity of the extistence of representatives of a given milieu or social class in whose fictional destinies are reflected important trends and historical changes. By representing society or a specific social group, their literary construction becomes possible, among other aspects, thanks to the attention placed by the author on the meaning of his words and to the practice of orality established by this attention between locutors and interlocutors in the plot of the text, which guarantees the important linguistic and imaging representation for the insertion of the characters in the universe of a determined epoch.
As plane characters, their role is tied to a specific situation or to a generalized conduct, a characteristic that also distances them from caricature, which involves a unique quality or idea taken to the extreme, so that such distortion purposefully evokes a satire. Thus, identified by their profession, behavior and social class i. The Study of Laws.
It is certainly possible to use psychology to clarify the interpretation and valuation of literary works, and it is also possible to proceed in the same manner regarding sociology, philosophy, history and other disciplines which, supported by their theoretical constructs, can help the reader to understand the fundamental concepts that may have been used to elaborate a literary plot. It is by attracting a language that is appropriate for the production of meaning that a literary work, as it exercises the principle of synthesis, provides a communicable language and becomes able to be mimetic.
However, Wellek and Warren alerts to the danger of directing one's investigative interests at drafts, rejected versions, exclusions and other original cuts made by the authors: Specifically used to deal with what one or more criteria cause something to be considered literature, the term literality, defined as a fictitious discourse or the imitation of daily language acts and in relation to certain properties of language Culler,has theoretically and methodologically relevant aspects of the literary object.
By representing reality or by self-representation, a literary work may show realistic intentions, with a character being dentified as a social individual; conventional semantic intentions with the text acting as a mediator of the instances that occur in the narrative; simulation intentions, in which what can be said or not said is always indirect; and social symbolization intentions, with the narrative involving a consideration of the manner how society symbolizes itself.
This presentation of fundaments for a theory of artistic production, however, deserves a specific discussion, such as that performed by Bordieuwhich is beyond the purposes of the present study. The Study of the Effects of Literature on the Readers. Since the traditional interpretation intended to elucidate hidden meanings, Iser wanted to see the meaning as the result of an interaction between text and reader, as an effect that is felt by the reader and not as a message that must be found in the text.
This active complementation by the reader causes him to wonder at any instant whether the formulation of the meaning he is performing is adequate for the reading he is carrying out.
And it is by means of this condition that the interaction of the text with the reader occurs, something quite different from reading the text looking for a hidden message or based on a unique interpretation.
Roman Ingarden provided a useful explanation for this investigation, stating that the aesthetic object is constructed only through the act of cognition by the reader. By adopting this precept of Ingarden, Iser exchanges the focus of the text as an object with the text in potential, born from the results of the act of reading.
In order to examine the interaction between the text and the reader, Iser looks for those qualities of the text that render it legible, deserving to be read, or that influence our reading, as well as the charactistics of the reading process that are essential for the comprehension of the text. This resides in the structure of the act and in the textual structure. Later, with a more in-depth dependence on the terminology of Ingarden, he differentiates text, concretization of the text and work of art.
The first differentiator beween the text and a work of art is the artistic aspect, which is located here by the author for us to read, and which must be better conceived as a potential expected achievement. The concretization of the text, in contrast, refers to the product of our own productive activity; it is the realization of the text in the thinking of the reader, achieved by filling out the blanks or openings in order to eliminate what is indeterminate.
Finally, a work of art is not a text or a concretization, but is something between them. It occurs at the point of convergence between the text and the reader, a point that is never fully defined. A work of art is characterized by its virtual nature and consists of various overlapping procedures. One of them involves the dialectic of protention and retention, two terms borrowed from the phenomenologic theory of Husserl Protention is understood as the state of expectation that prepares the reproduction of a memory i.
What we love dims the rest of the universe, whether we love a person, a drug, or an idea. Or even, I would venture, an art form.
She reads what she knows she likes, until one day she wakes up to find that what she likes no longer measures up to what she needs.
When I was 18, I did the same two things as a million other year-olds: I went to college, and I got depressed. To my naive surprise, depression changed what I needed from my reading. It made the great realist novel, until then my deepest pleasure, feel far away, like the events it described were happening to characters living in a world a few feet to the left of mine. No longer for me setups, marriages, intrigues, misunderstandings. I embarked on what amounted to a research project that took as its object of study my own emotional state.
Ten years later, I still consider these books foundational. For these authors were writing literature of a kind; you could hear it in the music of their prose and their command of figurative language. And their concerns were literary, which is to say they were interested in the same vital questions about the human condition that philosophers and novelists have asked for millennia. The difference between the genres lay not in what stories they told, but in how they told them, each according to the intellectual tradition from which its authors had come.
Despite their divergent frameworks, both traditions were organized around that fact of human experience that summoned art and philosophy into being: An essential mission of literary and psychological writing is to construct a taxonomy of pain in order to extract meaning from it—because if pain means nothing, then it cannot be borne.
Whereas literature gestures at this mission obliquely, psychology features it front and center. Which is one reason it had previously escaped my notice. Depression forced me into a critical intimacy with my pain, made up of traumas and anxieties that had heretofore lain dormant.
But now I peered into the well of my discomfort, craning to see its dark recesses. As I dove deeper, my reading advanced from the popular to the academic: Each forced me, to greater and lesser degrees, to remake my world in its image.
Article continues after advertisement I felt exhilarated, newly awakened, yet also prickled by that annoyance you feel when you discover on your own what smarter people should have made you read long ago.
When I thought of introducing a psychological context to these discussions, I balked, restrained by a sure premonition of pushback, or worse, blank stares.
I do not think this dread was unfounded. No matter that the psychoanalytic tradition was quick to outgrow Freudian orthodoxy, beginning with Jung and Lacan and continuing into its present incarnation, which ranges from Buddhist mindfulness to gestalt to feminist analysis.
And even the ideas of Freud himself were never confined to the pinhole of the individual and his neuroses; he was always already writing social theory on a grand scale. Snow to describe the chasm in Western intellectual life between the humanities and the sciences.
Though some have heard in the current vogue of multi- and interdisciplinary studies the death knell of the culture war, we are everywhere surrounded by evidence of its vigor. Too much pathology, says Roth, which is too particular, too strange to generalize in the way that literature ought to allow for. As though pathology were not universal.
As though there were any difference between mind and brain. And as though the scope of human knowledge were a finite resource, to be doled out between disciplines like wartime rations. Rather than berate the neuronovelist for letting icky science into her writing, we ought to commend her for broadening the purview of literature to include insights gleaned from other territories.