04 November 2006

Do phallic symbols have to be phallic?

In a post-Freudian world, the answer may be yes, even if it's not meant to be.

Literature seems to be the only place where Sigmund Freud can be studied with even the remotest bit of credibility. Symbols of all varieties are informed by the theories of Freud. The question remains whether his theory is observation of society or of himself. He gave names and categories for understanding sexually charged symbols. In the movies, television, and literature of modern times, sex is often blatantly portrayed. Yet even as one reads into the symbols of the past, innuendos abound. A close reading of William Shakespeare's works shows the famous playwright must have written with his mind in the gutter.

In his writings Freud admitted that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. People may attribute more to an object than what exists.

So, is it human nature? Are people just dirty minded? Or are people simply more aware because of the implications of Freud's work?

A Freudian slip by any other name would still be unrecognized desire surfacing. And ShakShakespeare's rose would not be for the eyes of children

1 comment: