I found results for both "psychological" and "psychoanalytic" criticism. They seemed to be used interchangeably (and seemed synonymous with one another) so I will use both and try to show the similarity.
Psychoanalytic Criticism refers to literary criticism that was influenced by Sigmund Freud and his process of "psychoanalysis." In its simplest form, Psychoanalytic Criticism is the application of psychoanalysis processes to a text and its author or character(s). This means that the critic looks for the "unconscious mental processes" in the text and how they affect modes of thinking, feeling and interaction with others (as it applies to the author, character(s) or reflexively to the reader) .
In his book Soul and Psyche, Wayne Rollins discusses Psychological (Biblical) Criticism and that "The goal of a psychological-critical approach is to examine texts... as expressions of the structure, processes, and habitats of the human psyche, both in the individual and collective manifestations, past and present." [1] What this means is that the critic wants to examine the things that influence thought, behavior, and personality (the psyche) of the author or character(s) in the text.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no one methodology to psychological biblical criticism. Rather it is a procedure that adds its interpretations to the various approaches in Biblical Criticism, be they feminist, postmodern, redaction, or others.
Prominent Scholars of Pychological (psychoanalytic) Criticism include: D. Andrew Kille, J. Harrold Ellens, Wayne G. Rollins, Gerd Theissen, and Albert Schweitzer.
The lack of a clear boundary between psychoanalytic and psychological criticism is interesting because relatively few mental health practitioners today are trained to rely on an examination of unconscious processes or to focus on "structures, processes and habitats of the human psyche." I am thinking "habitats" must mean social and cultural context. In counseling and psychology today awareness of cross-cultural issues is critical. I wonder about applying psychological principles (a Western way of thinking that developed post-enlightenment) to ancient people and texts. There seems to be an assumption that regardless of culture and period in history, these internal and individual psychological processes are operative. In other words, even if we want to focus on psyches, can we assume that psyches then and now operate in the same way? I'm going to spend some time on the web site you reference, Aaron, and see if it can shed some light on my questions. Thanks!
I believe the thought processes behind this assume that our brains now are the same and function in the same way as the brains of those in biblical times. If you buy into evolutionary theory, there has been pretty much no change to the brain of us homo sapiens in the last 200,000 years or so. If your a creationist, then our brains have been pretty much the same since Adam and Eve. They would have had the same functions and processes. The only difference between the ancient (homo sapient or adam and eve) and the modern (us) being a temporal one in which we have gathered more information about the world. So I feel that is probably why they want to focus on the psyches. That is just my guess though, hope that helps.
Thanks, Aaron. You've hit on a lively topic in psychology - nature versus nurture. I agree that physiologically our human brain structure has been stable for an extraordinarily long time. I think the psychoanalytic scholars are probably talking about hypothetical psychological structures and processes - things like "psyche," "ego," and "sublimation." There are no physical correlates for these constructs although the functions of these hypothetical structures and processes can be identified as occurring in specific parts of the brain. So I wonder if Abraham's ego (nurture) functioned in the same way as a man's in the West in the twenty-first century? Can ideas about psyche that were developed in the West be applied to a tribal patriarch who lived thousands and thousands of years ago? I am much more comfortable talking about what Abraham might have been feeling than I am his ego or superego. Then I would be assuming that at the feeling level (delight, anger, fear, awe, sorrow, loneliness, joy, etc.) there is continuity for humans over thousands of years. I am making huge leaps here so need to get on the web site! Thanks again. Sue
started by Aaron Pope on 17 Feb 10
Psychoanalytic Criticism refers to literary criticism that was influenced by Sigmund Freud and his process of "psychoanalysis." In its simplest form, Psychoanalytic Criticism is the application of psychoanalysis processes to a text and its author or character(s). This means that the critic looks for the "unconscious mental processes" in the text and how they affect modes of thinking, feeling and interaction with others (as it applies to the author, character(s) or reflexively to the reader) .
In his book Soul and Psyche, Wayne Rollins discusses Psychological (Biblical) Criticism and that "The goal of a psychological-critical approach is to examine texts... as expressions of the structure, processes, and habitats of the human psyche, both in the individual and collective manifestations, past and present." [1] What this means is that the critic wants to examine the things that influence thought, behavior, and personality (the psyche) of the author or character(s) in the text.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no one methodology to psychological biblical criticism. Rather it is a procedure that adds its interpretations to the various approaches in Biblical Criticism, be they feminist, postmodern, redaction, or others.
Prominent Scholars of Pychological (psychoanalytic) Criticism include: D. Andrew Kille, J. Harrold Ellens, Wayne G. Rollins, Gerd Theissen, and Albert Schweitzer.
[1] Rollins, Wayne Soul and Psyche: The Bible in Psychological Perspective Minneapolis: Fortress Press © 1999