Blog 2: Split Personality Criticism: Psychoanalytics in The Catcher in the Rye

Split Personality Criticism: Psychoanalytics in The Catcher in the Rye

In the textbook, Busher and Hinton touch lightly on a few different schools of critical analysis. One such school that the authors do not mention is psychoanalytic criticism. Psychoanalytic criticism seeks to understand a text within the confines of psychological theory and theorists. The major theorists usually studied are Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and  Jaques Lancan. For the purpose of this argument, I will be focusing on the following definition of psychoanalytical analysis:

Psychoanalytic criticism imagines the text as a display of the author’s psychology . . . another way to apply psychoanalysis to literary works is to consider the psychological makeup of the individual characters within the work. A final way that critics can use psychoanalysis to interpret a literary work is to analyze the degree to which the work aims to tap into the fears and/or desires of the reader. In this mode of interpretation, the reader becomes the patient or the subject of psychoanalysis. (Saylor Academy)

I like this definition for classroom work because it supports the idea that psychoanalytic criticism can yield three or more different readings of a single text. This multi-use application can act a springboard into getting students to, as Bucher and Hinton suggest, step outside themselves as a reader and consider texts through different lenses. By encouraging students to apply psychoanalytic criticism specifically to J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, teachers can demonstrate to students that through critical theory and application, one book can yield many readings.

In order to demonstrate the first idea of the definition, I would show students how Holden Caulfield acts as a rebellious and angst-driven outlet for Salinger's own life. Biographically, Holden Caulfield's life parallels that of his author’s. Like Holden, Salinger lived in NYC, failed out of a prestigious private school, and Holden’s best subject is English (specifically writing), and like Salinger, Holden is the manager of the fencing team at the school. What is important for teachers to point out to their students about Salinger and Holden is their differences and what those difference imply. Holden’s narrative takes place during WWII, but in the text, he only alludes to war problems. In a bar in NYC, Holden meets an ex-girlfriend of his brother’s while she is on a date with a Navy man. As a 17-year-old male, WWII and the draft would have been a serious point of consideration for Holden. He describes the Naval Officer as “Commander Blop or something . . . one of those guys that think they’re being a pansy if they don’t break around forty of your fingers when they shake hands with you. God, I hate that stuff” (97). Salinger himself went to a military academy, and then served in WWII. Holden’s derogatory description of the Naval Officer demonstrates Salinger’s underlying disgust with the armed forces. Holden names the officer “Commander Blop,” a ridiculous name that is obviously made up. He goes on to undermine the institution of male masculinity by complaining that he “hates” when men feel the need to show their superior masculinity through handshakes. In this short exchange, Salinger uses Holden as a way to express his own disgust for the military and for war.

By studying the “psychological makeup of” Holden Caulfield, it is obvious that he is an unstable, unreliable witness who is telling his tale from an institution. First, it is imperative to understand that Holden tells his readers on numerous accounts that he is crazy and that he is a liar. At one point he stops himself from lying by “reading a timetable I had in my pocket . . . Once I get started, I can go one for hours . . . no kidding. Hours” (65). This self-admission and need to stop himself from lying for hours demonstrates to the reader that Holden is likely a pathological liar, and nothing in his narrative can be fully trusted. The entire book may be only part of Holden’s pathological psychosis. Holden begins the book by telling the reader “if you want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born” (1). Holden goes on to refer to the occurrence, the “it” as “madman stuff that happened around last Christmas and had to come out here and take it easy” (1). At the end of the book, Holden again tells the reader about the “here” that he is in, giving more information by saying that “this one psychoanalyst guy they have here keeps asking me if I’m going to apply myself” (234). The fact that Holden is a liar and self-confessed crazy, coupled with his inability to ever definitively tell the reader what “it” is that happened to him, in addition to his references to a “here” near Hollywood with a psychoanalyst implies that Holden is telling his story from a mental institute. As a teacher, it is at this point that I would ask my students what story Holden is telling, and what is his truth, or if his truth is possible to find.

Finally, as an exercise in the idea that psychoanalytic criticism can yield a resulting paper in which the “reader becomes the patient or the subject of psychoanalysis,” I would ask my students to begin by writing their responses to the book, specifically how they feel about Holden Caulfield, and then analyzing their own responses. I would guide them with questions such as: If Holden is crazy, and if he is locked in an institution, what should we think of ourselves if we see him as a hero? Use the text to explain why you do or do not like Holden Caulfield. Does this tell you about yourself? Were there any specific instances in which you rooted for Holden or wanted him to fail? Why do you suppose you felt this way? After students have struggled with their own feelings about the text, I would have them write a reader-response paper that focuses on the psychoanalytic critical themes of the book.

By using psychoanalytic criticism in the classroom to explain The Catcher in the Rye, students would be able to compare papers written in accordance to the three parts of the psychoanalytic definition, and then explore the idea that one type of criticism can yield many readings of a text. By demonstrating to students that each part of the definition yields a different interpretation of the text, students will be able to step outside of themselves as a reader and use critical lenses to drive their ideas. An exercise in psychoanalytic criticism can act as a springboard into helping student understand that using different critical schools of thought for one text can yield many different readings of the text.

Works Cited

Constitution Foundation, Saylor Academy. Psychoanalytical Criticism. N.P. 2015. Web. 31st May, 2015. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/themes/Edu/curriculum/curriculumQAAJAX.php?action=getcourseunitqas&courseunitid=8430

Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye. New York: Little Brown and Company, 1951. Print.