474 -
PARTISAN REVIEW
This inspiring argument for the value of psychoanalytic cntlclSm
contains, however, the
seeds
of disillusion. Although Crews rejects the
oversimplified conflict-defense models and glib psychoanalytic formulations
of Norman Holland, he
seems
to hope nonetheless that psychoanalysis can
somehow make of literary study a systematic discipline capable of arriving
at more certain knowledge of its objects-a hope that is bound to
be
dis–
appointed.
In the last essay, "Reductionism and Its Discontents," the inevitable
disenchantment
sets
in. Crews maintains that he still believes in valid
uses
of psychoanalytic criticism, but he cannot dispel' 'the suspicion that psy–
choanalysis is, as its opponents have always said, inherently reductionistic. "
In any case, it has obviously failed to fulfill the high expectations of "An–
aesthetic Criticism." Crews himself recognizes in his ventures into ideology
an excessive need for an explanatory
system;
in renouncing this need,
evidently he must also reject the
system.
But there is almost certainly a more familiar reason for this withdrawal
from psychoanalysis. Freudian method finds in works of art sexual and
aggressive wishes, infantile factors, and potentially pathological elements.
Even in the first essay, Crews is troubled by this: "Such an emphasis is
insulting to the artist. ... And the insult is compounded by its
success."
Ego psychology isn't much help; even though the critic stresses the adaptive
and integrative powers of the authorial
ego,
his analysis must inevitably
return to unconscious themes "in all their rawness."
Evidently what remains most distressing about psychoanalytic method
is this "rawness" of the unconscious. Psychoanalysis continues to remind us
of the persistence of infantile conflict, of the power of sex and aggression,
and of the insubstantial borderline between pathology and normalcy. The
"conflict-free sphere of the
ego"
does not
seem
entirely capable of creating
a work of art on its own; Apollo can't do without Dionysus, despite the
best efforts of the
ego
psychologists.
What, then, is the psychoanalytic critic to do? Crews advises him to
keep in mind a long list of strictures: Freudian reasoning always discovers
the same themes, deals only with desire and defense, has a penchant for
debunking, etc. In his preface, Crews writes that he wishes " not
to
dispense
with Freud, but on the contrary to mark out a territory within which he
remains indispensable." By the end of the book this territory looks about
the size of a postage stamp, and it is hard to believe that Professor Crews
will
be
standing on it much longer.
It
will
be
interesting to
see
where he
goes
now in his search for a
system
to
get
into and out of.
The defection of one of its most intelligent defenders and practitioners
