I first read about this book in Updike’s Hugging the Shore. It made a strong, favorable impression, even though-Looking back-I see my annotation wasn’t very thorough: a check mark beside this passage:
“What is new, and exciting, is the warmth, human and urgent, with which Bettelheim expounds fairy tales as aids to the child’s growth, which he understands as a growth through conflicts, the chief conflict being Oedipal.” (Updike, pg 651)
Because the quotation begins “What is new,” you may wonder: What is not new? Or, What is old? What is no longer exciting?
More precisely, the question is: In Updike’s opinion, from what does Bettelheim’s work stand apart? In a short sentence, the answer is this: In Updike’s opinion, Bettelheim’s work stands apart from the discourse wherein fairy tales are examined as ciphers for oedipal, and other, subconscious struggles. That discourse, he says, “is not new news,” and continues:
“Freud wrote his famous essay on the tale of the Three Caskets, and the Jungians are no strangers to folk wisdom. Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast are active metaphors in our contemporary language of self-understanding.” (Updike, pg 650-651)
So as to emphasize, allow me to reiterate what is new about Bettelheim’s work: Fairy tales should be read to children because they are positive, productive means for children to work out oedipal, and other, anxieties. In his own words: “This book attempts to show how fairy stories represent in imaginative form what the process of healthy human development consists of, and how the tales make such development attractive for the child to engage in” (pg 12). Or, “In short, this book explicates why fairy tales make such great and positive psychological contributions to the child’s inner growth.”
(The previous 2 quotations derive from the same paragraph on page 12. One effective, though tiresome, quality of The Uses of Enchantment-You may have already gleaned-Is Bettelheim’s frequent reiteration of his thesis and arguments. Effective, but tiresome.)
Now for a disclaimer: now that you see where this essay is headed I should mention I have never raised a child-Therefore, I will rely on quotations more often than I would like. For example, instead of saying “the most difficult task in raising a child is helping him to find meaning in life” (pg 3), I will use quotations and emphasize: Bettelheim tells me so.
For example, Bettelheim says:
“In order to not be at the mercy of the vagaries of life, one must develop one’s inner resources, so that one’s emotions, imagination, and intellect mutually support and enrich on another. Our positive feelings give us the strength to develop our rationality; only hope for the future can sustain us in the adversities we unavoidably encounter.”
Bettelheim uses the pronouns “one” and “us,” but the implication is Children must develop their inner resources, etc. Or, parents and guardians must help children develop their inner resources, etc.
What does “inner resources” mean, you may wonder. In any case, I should specify a definition:
Inner resources: The capacity to “master the psychological problems of growing up-overcoming narcissistic disappointments, oedipal dilemmas, sibling rivalry; becoming able to relinquish childhood dependencies; gaining a feeling of selfhood and self-worth, and a sense of moral obligation-[…] to understand what is going on within his conscious self so that he can also cope with that which goes on in his unconscious” (pg 6-7).
A healthy growth process, Bettelheim tells me, goes like so:
“This growth process begins with the resistance against the parents and fear of growing up, and ends when youth has truly found itself, achieved psychological independence and moral maturity, and no longer views the other sex as threatening or demonic, but is able to relate positively to it” (pg 12). I will make an earnest effort to avoid Freud lingo in this essay, but I should mention this passage refers to the notion of an integrated personality-id, ego, superego.
You may be thinking: I get it, now how about some examples. That was certainly how I felt now and then during Bettelheim’s 30 page introduction. So fine, I’ll indulge you-But first, a quick warning: Bettelheim’s interpretations are super Freudian. Many of the themes are factually, if not obviously, rooted in the early 20th century. Needless to say, one can disagree with certain premises-“Traditional” gender roles, for instance-Without wholly disregarding the underlying sentiment.
An example:
“The central motif of “Snow White” is the pubertal girl’s surpassing in every way the evil stepmother who, out of jealously, denies her an independent existence-symbolically represented by the stepmother trying to to see Snow White destroyed. The story’s deepest meaning for one particular five-year-old, however, was far removed from these pubertal problems. Her mother was cold and distant, so much so that she felt lost. The story assured her she need not despair: Snow White, betrayed by her stepmother, was saved by males-first the dwarfs and later the prince. The child, too, did not despair because of the mother’s desertion, but trusted that the rescue would come from males. Confident that “Snow White” showed her the the way, she turned to her father” (pg 17).
I chose this example because it illustrates that, in this particular case-And others I will not relate-The child who gains insight from the story need not belong to the demographic of the protagonist (i.e. pubertal girls). The more “demographic-obvious” takeaway for, ahem, pubertal girls, would be something like: Don’t worry when your mother starts pushing you away; she wants you to become more independent. You’ll see-You’ll make friends (the dwarfs), you’ll fall in love (the prince), and be competent enough to solve the problems which come your way (evil stepmother).
That the child-Or whomever it is whose personality has not yet been integrated-Draws these conclusions herself is of tantamount importance, Bettelheim insists. Not all children will extract the same meaning from fairy tales. Thus, it is important not to “spin these yarns” any particular way. Explaining the meaning of a story to a child may preclude the child’s effort to make their own meaning of the story. According to Bettelheim, “Explaining to a child why a fairy tale is so captivating to him destroys, moreover, the story’s enchantment, which depends to a considerable degree on the child’s not quite knowing why he is delighted by it” (pg 18).
You may be thinking: Well can’t a child make his own meaning out of any story? Why fairy tales? And that’s a very good question because-Yes, of course-The tendency to seek analogies is intrinsically human; we make our own meaning of everything, for better or for worse, fairy tales or not.
But Bettelheim will argue that much children’s literature lacks the “raw material” children need in order to make meanings which help resolve these sorts of anxieties. Bettelheim’s great impetus, perhaps, for writing The Uses of Enchantment, is the trend of children’s literature toward either (1) explicit instruction, or even prescription, or (2) purely dumb entertainment (I can’t help but think of SpongeBob-whom I love) (pg 4). In addition, (3) there was (perhaps still is) much objection to the utterly unrealistic nature of certain fairly tales. The perspective was: How could something so unrealistic have much utility. (A section “Why were Fairy Tales Outlawed?” elaborates on page 116.)
Let’s ignore (2) for now-Because (a) Bettelheim does not elaborate much and (b) even were he to provide some guidance it strikes me as a very subjective claim. So then, (1).
Here’s the problem with (1) according to Bettelheim: If children rely on explicit morals, they will depend on explicit morals. That is, they may not learn to intuit morals independently. This is analogous to my previous point “Explaining the meaning of a story to a child may preclude the child’s effort to make their own meaning of the story”; just replace “meaning” with “moral.”
Regarding (3), the utterly unrealistic nature of fairy tales is critical to their success, according to Bettelheim. The utility of the utterly unrealistic nature of fairy tales is that of a guardrail which prevents the child from becoming too frightened or anxious about the analogies he or she draws from them. In a word, “externalization.” (A chapter “The Importance of Externalization” begins on page 61.)
Of externalization, Bettelheim says: “This is the value of outsmarting a jinny or a giant, as opposed to doing the same to an adult. If the child is told he can get the better of somebody like his parents, this does offer a pleasurable thought, but at the same time it creates anxiety, because if that is possible, then the child must not be adequately protected by such gullible people” (pg 33). Furthermore, “whatever the content of a fairy tale-which may run parallel to a child’s private fantasies whether these are oedipal, vengefully sadistic, or belittling of a parent-it can be openly talked about, because the child does not need to keep secret his feelings about what goes on in the fairy tale, or feel guilty about enjoying such thoughts” (pg 57). (Similar discussion page 66.)
You may still thinking: So again what makes fairy tells so special? That’s fair. In fact, I’ll mention: If I’ve given the impression I am a Bettelheim evangelist, I have misrepresented myself. I am intrigued, yes. Not much more than that.
Some other mechanisms of the fairy tale: They are deliberately vague, in order that nothing seem too real (pg 62). The stories took place “long ago,” in “a land far away. Characters rarely have proper names-When they do, the names are often not so much names as descriptions (pg 40). E.g. Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White-Even Cinderella derives from the description of a girl who was made to sleep in ash (cinders). Or, consider a proper name like Jack, of beanstalk fame: It is a common name, not unlike “John Doe.”
Another interesting consideration: Many of these fairy tales have been honed over hundreds of years-Some, thousands. Bettelheim explores how certain fairy evolved over time in second part of the book, “In Fairy Land.” The metamorphosis of Goldilocks is exceptionally fascinating (pg 215). In the beginning, her fate after meeting the bears was, well, just gruesome (e.g. eaten by the bears); later, it became more ambiguous (e.g. jumped out a window, escaped?f). Goldilocks is unlike many fairy tales in that it does not have a happy ending (pg 123). One could argue it is not truly a fairy tale-More of cautionary tale, albeit a fantastic one. Yet, perhaps because Goldilocks is so rife with psychoanalytical material Bettelheim devotes ~10 pages to it. (The bears, a perfectly integrated family; Goldilocks, a pre-oedipal adolescent giving the role of father, mother and baby each a try, via use of their belongings.)
In general, a happy ending is essential to the sort of fairy Bettelheim advocates-Stories wherein conflict is resolved and the child can make associations between the conflicts in his own life and factors in the resolution of the fairy tale. “As soon as the child is able to imagine (that is, to fantasize) a favorable solution to his present predicament, temper tantrums disappear-because with hope for the future established, the present difficulty is no longer insufferable” (pg 125). Later, “While the fantasy is unreal, the good feelings it gives us about ourselves and our future are real, and these real good feelings are what we need to sustain us” (pg 126).
So, if none of the arguments have appeal to you thus far, run with this: Fairy tales make you feel good.
I can dig it.
I must say: Despite Updike’s name-dropping of Freud and Jung, I did not anticipate just how rooted in psychoanalysis The Uses of Enhancement is. I am neither turned on by it, nor disappointed by it-But I do suppose the rootedness in that science lends a certain academic quality to the book. The research is certainly there. I’ll cop an unrelated description of another researcher’s methodology from Stephen Jay Gould and say Bettelheim surveyed hundred of fairy tales to demonstrate by the most powerful tactic of all-an overwhelming list of documented examples-that therein lie means of to resolve subconscious problems which are the source of so many childhood anxieties (italics from An Urchin in the Storm, page 42).
Psychoanalysis or not, there is something special about fairy tales, isn’t there? It’s almost as if they are hardwired in our nerve spaghetti. I have no recollection of my parents reading me these stories-Or even of seeing some of the Disney moves-Yet I remember them so well. (Or, if not “so well,” then “well enough.”) How many other stories do I remember from childhood? Well, I remember one about a kid who gets stripped naked and flown through a milk factory, or something like that. (Sounds ripe for psychoanalysis.) Then “Where the Wild Things Are,” but not the plot so much as the artwork. Then “Goodnight, Moon,” but book so much as the title-Then suddenly my recollections are of chapter books-Roald Dahl, sparse plot details.
There is something magical about fairy tales-I’m not sure whether its that they are psychoanalytical anecdotes, or serve as them, but Bettelheim makes a heck of a thorough, if not a convincing case.
8
ISBN#0679723935
P.S. If you’re thinking about reading this book-Or heck if you’re not thinking about if but I have another chance to convince you-Let me point these few things out:
It’s important to remember this book was published in the 70s-Not far-removed from the new wave of psychoanalysts who picked up Freud’s mantle, swept popular science, postwar. I think its also important to be open-minded to, if not accepting of, pseudosciences (or areas of study which are called pseudosciences). You just never know, and it doesn’t hurt to learn a little bit about it before disregarding it, yo.