Taboo or Not Taboo
Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible
- This item is not returnable
- Ships in 2 or more weeks
-
Quantity discount
- # of Items Price
- 1 to 9$29.00
- 10 or more$21.75
Taboo or Not Taboo: Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible
In a changing society, Christians and Jews
have looked to the Bible to find values and
models. But the Hebrew Bible does not offer
just
a single model for family behavior or
relationships. This volume explores the
positive and negative aspects of family life
in ancient Israel as portrayed in the Bible.
Rashkow examines the relationships between
husbands and wives, parents and children,
and siblings, looking at the variety of
conflicts that emerged: incest, rape, abuse,
murder, and hatred. Ultimately, Rashkow's
analysis provides a reflection on family,
which is given texture and depth through her
use of psychoanalysis and literary theory.
This text traces the influence of the
biblical images on later Western literature
and society and provides comparative
discussions of other ancient Near Eastern
literatures. Also useful as a textbook for
courses in Hebrew Bible, feminist studies,
and psychological interpretations of the
Bible.
- Publisher Fortress Press
- Format Paperback
- ISBN 9780800630850
- Dimensions 6 x 9
- Pages 208
- Publication Date July 11, 2000
Endorsements
"Ilona Rashkow has been a pioneer in relating psychoanalytic criticism to biblical texts. Now she has written an intriguing and very readable book that opens a window into a familiar and unfamiliar Bible. From the missing Momma and libidinous Daddy of the Garden story onwards, this exploration is a rich and rewarding one as it connects the ancient text to one of the potent streams of modern thought. Read this book and your Bible will never be quite the same again."
— David M. Gunn
A. A. Bradford Professor of Religion, Texas Christian University
Author of Gender, Power, and Promise
— David M. Gunn
A. A. Bradford Professor of Religion, Texas Christian University
Author of Gender, Power, and Promise
Excerpts
Excerpt from Chapter 1
Background
Sigmund Freud once acknowledged that most of his discoveries about the unconscious mind had been anticipated by the poets of the past. Thus, it should not be surprising that psychology has been used in an effort to explain the origins, character, and effects of literature, including biblical literature.
What makes a reading of a literary work "psychoanalytic?" As I have discussed more fully elsewhere, to call a reading "psychoanalytic" or "Freudian" immediately introduces ambiguity because such an expression can refer either to the use of Freudian themes or to Freudian methods. That is, an interpretation of a literary work can be called "Freudian" or "psychoanalytic" with respect either to the substance of the text (what it reads), or to the interpretive procedures and techniques a reader uses (how it reads).
Generally speaking, there are three points at which psychoanalysis can enter the study of a literary work: examining the mind of the author, the minds of the author's characters, or our own minds. There is a long tradition of Freudian criticism that examines the text for buried motives and hidden neurotic conflicts that generated the writer's art: in writing Hamlet, for example, Shakespeare was working over the death of his son (Jones 1949); and in writing The Gambler Dostoevsky was drawing upon the prohibitions placed upon masturbation in his childhood (Freud 1928b). Because the hazards of examining an author's mind are inversely proportional to the amount of material available on the writer's life and private thoughts, it is never completely safe to guess at the psychic significance of a work of art, even that of a candid living author, and for some major writers (like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the biblical writers), we have only the most minimal sense of what their private lives may have been. Thus, this form of psychoanalytic literary criticism generally is viewed as mere speculation.
Most of Freud's own ventures into literature were the analyses of literary characters. His initial remarks on the Oedipus complex were literary, involving both Hamlet and Oedipus Tyrannis. Hamlet, according to Freud, is "the hysteric" who delays because he is paralyzed by guilt over Claudius' enactment of his own unconscious wishes (1916-17: 335). A stream of essays by other analysts followed, mostly on fictitious textual characters. They wrote what might be described as "case studies" of literature, dealing with those authors or characters whom they categorized as "neurotic." Most of them emphasized such analytic themes as the Oedipus complex, anality, schizoid tendencies, latent or expressed homosexuality, guilt, etc., and the roles they played in the works of the writers or among their other literary characters.
Analyzing literary characters has not fallen into as deep a disrepute as concentrating on the writer, in great part because fictional characters are viewed as representatives of life and as such can be understood only if we assume that they are "telling a truth." This assumption allows us to find "unconscious" motivations, albeit in fictitious characters. For example, Abraham's actions and language reveal a great deal about him, despite the fact that all we will ever "know" is contained in the 1,534 verses of Genesis.
On the other hand, literary characters are both more and less than real persons. This presents a problem. While one aspect of narrative characterization is to provide a mimetic function (to represent human action and motivation), another aspect is primarily textual (to reveal information to a reader or to conceal it). This situation has no precise parallel in life (although it can be argued that real persons often resemble literary characters in the masks they present to the world). As a result, examining a narrative character is not risk-free either. For instance, contradictions in Abraham's character may result from the psychic complexities the biblical writer imagined; or, they may result from the fact that Abraham is an agent in a literary narrative with a highly developed system of conventions – his "traits" may be more a function of the requirements of the story-line than his personality.
Since authors may not provide much material for the theorists and since characters are not real persons, many scholars have shifted their focus from the interpretation of meanings embedded within a text to the processes of writing and reading. This is true of the French structuralists and post-structuralists (for example, Barthes, Derrida), psychoanalytically influenced critics (see Holland, Schwartz, Bleich), and of other proponents of reader-response criticism (such as Rosenblatt, Fish, Iser, Gadamer, Poulet). Rather than attempting to determine objective meanings hidden within a text (meanings a reader needs to extricate) these scholars concentrate on the subjective experience of the reader (interactions between reader/text/author) and the values and premises with which a reader approaches interpretation of a text. As within psychoanalysis itself, their foci are problems of indeterminacy, uncertainty, perspective, hermeneutics subjective (and communal) assumptions, and agreements.
Background
Sigmund Freud once acknowledged that most of his discoveries about the unconscious mind had been anticipated by the poets of the past. Thus, it should not be surprising that psychology has been used in an effort to explain the origins, character, and effects of literature, including biblical literature.
What makes a reading of a literary work "psychoanalytic?" As I have discussed more fully elsewhere, to call a reading "psychoanalytic" or "Freudian" immediately introduces ambiguity because such an expression can refer either to the use of Freudian themes or to Freudian methods. That is, an interpretation of a literary work can be called "Freudian" or "psychoanalytic" with respect either to the substance of the text (what it reads), or to the interpretive procedures and techniques a reader uses (how it reads).
Generally speaking, there are three points at which psychoanalysis can enter the study of a literary work: examining the mind of the author, the minds of the author's characters, or our own minds. There is a long tradition of Freudian criticism that examines the text for buried motives and hidden neurotic conflicts that generated the writer's art: in writing Hamlet, for example, Shakespeare was working over the death of his son (Jones 1949); and in writing The Gambler Dostoevsky was drawing upon the prohibitions placed upon masturbation in his childhood (Freud 1928b). Because the hazards of examining an author's mind are inversely proportional to the amount of material available on the writer's life and private thoughts, it is never completely safe to guess at the psychic significance of a work of art, even that of a candid living author, and for some major writers (like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the biblical writers), we have only the most minimal sense of what their private lives may have been. Thus, this form of psychoanalytic literary criticism generally is viewed as mere speculation.
Most of Freud's own ventures into literature were the analyses of literary characters. His initial remarks on the Oedipus complex were literary, involving both Hamlet and Oedipus Tyrannis. Hamlet, according to Freud, is "the hysteric" who delays because he is paralyzed by guilt over Claudius' enactment of his own unconscious wishes (1916-17: 335). A stream of essays by other analysts followed, mostly on fictitious textual characters. They wrote what might be described as "case studies" of literature, dealing with those authors or characters whom they categorized as "neurotic." Most of them emphasized such analytic themes as the Oedipus complex, anality, schizoid tendencies, latent or expressed homosexuality, guilt, etc., and the roles they played in the works of the writers or among their other literary characters.
Analyzing literary characters has not fallen into as deep a disrepute as concentrating on the writer, in great part because fictional characters are viewed as representatives of life and as such can be understood only if we assume that they are "telling a truth." This assumption allows us to find "unconscious" motivations, albeit in fictitious characters. For example, Abraham's actions and language reveal a great deal about him, despite the fact that all we will ever "know" is contained in the 1,534 verses of Genesis.
On the other hand, literary characters are both more and less than real persons. This presents a problem. While one aspect of narrative characterization is to provide a mimetic function (to represent human action and motivation), another aspect is primarily textual (to reveal information to a reader or to conceal it). This situation has no precise parallel in life (although it can be argued that real persons often resemble literary characters in the masks they present to the world). As a result, examining a narrative character is not risk-free either. For instance, contradictions in Abraham's character may result from the psychic complexities the biblical writer imagined; or, they may result from the fact that Abraham is an agent in a literary narrative with a highly developed system of conventions – his "traits" may be more a function of the requirements of the story-line than his personality.
Since authors may not provide much material for the theorists and since characters are not real persons, many scholars have shifted their focus from the interpretation of meanings embedded within a text to the processes of writing and reading. This is true of the French structuralists and post-structuralists (for example, Barthes, Derrida), psychoanalytically influenced critics (see Holland, Schwartz, Bleich), and of other proponents of reader-response criticism (such as Rosenblatt, Fish, Iser, Gadamer, Poulet). Rather than attempting to determine objective meanings hidden within a text (meanings a reader needs to extricate) these scholars concentrate on the subjective experience of the reader (interactions between reader/text/author) and the values and premises with which a reader approaches interpretation of a text. As within psychoanalysis itself, their foci are problems of indeterminacy, uncertainty, perspective, hermeneutics subjective (and communal) assumptions, and agreements.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
1. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory and the Hebrew Bible: What Hath Freud Wrought?
2. Sin and Sex, Sex and Sin: The Hebrew Bible and Human Sexuality
3. Throw Momma from the Garden a Kiss: Or Paradise Revisited
4. Oedipus Wrecks: The Covenant of Circumcision
5. Daddy-Dearest and the "Invisible Spirit of Wine: Theme and Variations
6. Boys Will Be Boys: Sibling Rivalry and the Fear of Castration
7. My Sister, My--Hmmm...: Brother-Sister Incest and Sibling Rivalry
Afterwards: After Words
Notes
Works Cited
Index
1. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory and the Hebrew Bible: What Hath Freud Wrought?
2. Sin and Sex, Sex and Sin: The Hebrew Bible and Human Sexuality
3. Throw Momma from the Garden a Kiss: Or Paradise Revisited
4. Oedipus Wrecks: The Covenant of Circumcision
5. Daddy-Dearest and the "Invisible Spirit of Wine: Theme and Variations
6. Boys Will Be Boys: Sibling Rivalry and the Fear of Castration
7. My Sister, My--Hmmm...: Brother-Sister Incest and Sibling Rivalry
Afterwards: After Words
Notes
Works Cited
Index