Freud Ka Nazariya-e-adab

Psychology is a relatively young discipline. Until the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered a branch of philosophy, and its methodology was deductive and metaphysical. In 1879, the renowned German thinker and psychologist Wundt established a psychological laboratory, after which the discipline began its rapid journey of progress. In the present century, psychology has advanced to such an extent that its influence is evident in most spheres of life. Today, we attempt to understand various aspects and domains of life through the lens of psychology. However, psychology is a social science, and a young one at that. Consequently, the theories of different schools of thought do not merely differ; these differences often border on outright contradiction. The advantage of such disagreements is that they continuously open new avenues for research, allowing the discipline to advance at a rapid pace. Yet, under these circumstances, the possibility of reaching a consensus on any single theory is entirely out of the question.

Psychology has shed considerable light on various issues concerning both primary subjects of aesthetics: beauty and art. However, given the profound disagreements among psychologists themselves, it is inevitable that these differences would also seep into aesthetic theories. While psychology as a whole has addressed most aesthetic issues, certain schools of thought within philosophy and psychology have had a particularly profound impact on art, literature, criticism, and aesthetics. The oldest among these is the school of Empiricism. As far as aesthetics is concerned, the thinkers of this school can be divided into two groups: the intuitive and the analytical. The intuitive thinkers subscribe to the objective theory of beauty. According to them, beauty is an unanalyzable attribute and principle inherent in objects. This group includes figures like Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Reid, and Hamilton. In contrast, analytical thinkers—such as Addison, Lord Kames, Reynolds, Hogarth, Burke, Alison, and Bain—attempt to analyze beauty using psychological and analytical methods. In their view, beauty is a complex emotion that emerges from the combination of various elements. The second school of thought belongs to experimental psychology. According to this group, beauty does not reside in individual components, but rather in their mutual configuration. They not only prioritize form but often entirely disregard content. In their view, artistic taste is the complete perception of the proportions created by the arrangement of these components. Among these thinkers, we can include Adolf Zeising, Zimmerman, and Wilhelm Unger. A third notable school of thought consists of thinkers who believe that beauty arises from the free play of the observer's imagination. The foundations of art rest upon the instinct of play; play serves as an outlet for surplus physical energy, while imagination acts as an outlet for surplus mental energy. Thus, fundamentally, art, imagination, and play are one and the same. The earliest iteration of this theory can be found in the works of Kant. However, it was Schiller, Herbert Spencer, Karl Groos, and Konrad Lange who advanced this theory and presented it in its complete form. Another significant theory is that of Empathy. Empathy refers to the projection of subconscious feelings onto an object. Beauty is the manifestation of this projection, and art is its embodiment. Proponents of this theory include Robert Vischer, Volkelt, Vernon Lee, Worringer, and Victor Basch. However, it was Lipps who articulated it with the utmost clarity. While this theory enjoys considerable popularity in the contemporary era, an even more prevalent concept today is the Theory of Expressionism. Although this is an ancient theory—first introduced in its rudimentary form by Plotinus and later advanced by Baumgarten—it was the renowned Italian thinker Croce who presented it as a comprehensive academic framework. According to this theory, beauty and art are defined as the complete expression of the observer's emotions. Expression and intuition are merely two names for the same mental process. Here, expression does not imply an objective manifestation or external shaping; rather, it means fully internalizing a concept and allowing an emotion to reflect completely within the mind. This absolute internal expression is what constitutes beauty. Among psychological theories, the one that profoundly influenced art and literature—at least for a certain period—is the theory of psychoanalysis, particularly that of Freud. Building upon his psychological theories, Freud introduced a novel theory of art and literature. Our current objective is to present a concise overview of Freud's theory of art and literature.

Outside of psychology, the subjects Freud discussed most extensively are art and literature, civilization and culture, and religion and morality. There is no doubt that in all these discussions, his fundamental viewpoints remain deeply rooted in his psychological theories. Nevertheless, one might not necessarily agree with the specific manner in which he applied these psychological theories to art and literature. Therefore, before delving into his literary theories, we will first outline the psychological concepts that directly relate to them. Subsequently, we will examine how he applied these concepts to art and literature.

Two of Freud's theories can be considered foundational: first, the concentration of all human driving forces within the sexual instinct, and second, the supremacy of the unconscious in human life. For Freud, the concept of sex is much broader than the word's conventional meaning, and perhaps somewhat more ambiguous as well. It refers to that instinctual force associated with all forms of love. This includes the love a person has for their children and for humanity, as well as the devotion and attachment they feel toward certain objects and abstract concepts. Consequently, in Freud's view, thumb-sucking, swallowing, and even physical acts like excretion are manifestations of sexual gratification. The development of the sexual instinct occurs in three stages: narcissism, the latency period, and puberty. Of these three, the most crucial stage is narcissism, because whatever a person is destined to become is already formed during this phase. During this time, the individual falls prey to numerous psychological complexes from which they can never fully break free throughout their life. This stage lasts until the age of five. In the second stage, the sexual instinct remains dormant. Then, at the age of twelve, the third stage begins, wherein the individual merely repeats the experiences of the first stage with minor variations, and from this point onward, the external environment has no significant impact on them.

Here, we need to examine only two points: Is the sexual instinct the sole driving force of human beings, and is it true that a person can never break free from the psychological complexes of their initial sexual stage? There is no doubt that the sexual instinct possesses tremendous power. However, even if we accept the theory of instincts as valid, isn't it a fact that the instincts for survival, security, creation, curiosity, acquisition, maternal care, and dominance are in no way less powerful than the sexual instinct? The economic and cultural conditions of nineteenth-century Europe inevitably resulted in sexual and psychological complexes. Freud used these conditions as a foundation to present his theory of the sexual instinct, declaring psychological complexes to be an inherent demand of human nature. In doing so, he attributed the effects of a specific social environment to the entirety of the human race. Psychological complexes are not dictated by human nature; rather, they are the product of environmental influences. In a healthy environment, such complexes rarely develop. Even if they do arise, proper education, upbringing, and a supportive environment can eliminate them quickly and to a significant degree.

Freud is incorrect in his assertion that a person can never be free from the complexes of their primary sexual stage, and that every individual inevitably falls prey to them to some extent. The second aspect of this issue is the claim that unfulfilled sexual desires are the very source of literature and art—meaning that the artist is a victim of psychological complexes and projects these complexes into their creations. However, this specific point will be discussed in more detail later.

Freud divides the human personality into three components: the Id (instinctual drives), the Ego (the self), and the Superego (the conscience). The Id is the source of all human desires and libidinal energy. It is the center of all our instincts, habits, and emotional impulses. It is both illogical and amoral. Completely unrestrained, its desires constantly seek gratification in one way or another, perpetually driven by the pursuit of pleasure. The Ego, on the other hand, is connected to civilized social life. It accepts the seemingly unpleasant realities of society and elevates conscious behavior to meet the standards of civilization. The Superego cannot always keep the Id in check. Consequently, a perpetual tug-of-war exists between the Id and the Ego. On one side lie the inherently aggressive tendencies of the Id, and on the other, the social standards and ideals upheld by the Ego.

Here, Freud makes the same mistake again: he characterizes the aggressive tendencies of the Id as natural, even though they are actually produced by society. The reality is that aggressive tendencies arise in humans as a reaction when the fulfillment of a need is obstructed. If circumstances are favorable and an individual does not face external resistance, there would be no opportunity for aggressive tendencies to develop, let alone escalate. In human society, tendencies toward cooperation and socialization are far more fundamental than aggressive ones, as no human need can be fulfilled without them. However, if the fulfillment of life's basic necessities is hindered, aggressive tendencies will inevitably flourish.

As mentioned earlier, according to Freud, it is impossible for all human desires to be satisfied. The uninhibited expression of all desires, particularly sexual ones, is simply not possible. During the primary stage of narcissism, the suppression of these desires—which are sexual in nature—becomes an absolute necessity. These repressed desires gradually multiply in both number and intensity, ultimately forming what is known as the unconscious. The unconscious serves both as a repository for repressed desires and as a wellspring of psychological energy. The conscious mind is a remarkably weak rival to the unconscious, and its defeat is practically predestined. Repressed and hidden desires retreat into the unconscious, vanishing from the view of the conscious mind, yet they constantly seek opportunities for gratification. Mental illnesses, dreams, daydreams, and many trivial everyday mistakes are all manifestations of the unconscious, as repressed desires attempt to satisfy themselves through these various channels. In all these instances, the cause and the effect remain on the same qualitative level. However, in certain situations, the effect transcends the cause in its quality and becomes something higher and superior. Freud terms this process *sublimation*, and its ultimate result is the creation of literature and art. In other words, the frustration of the sexual instinct forms the foundation of literature and art, making them the byproduct of psychological turmoil.

According to Freud, nature's true intent is the uninhibited gratification of desires. The suppression of these desires inevitably manifests in the form of neurosis. However, in our current era of civilization and culture, the unrestrained fulfillment of desires is impossible. Consequently, every individual suffers from neurosis and psychological distress to some degree. Yet, if a person redirects their repressed sexual desires toward social goals or literary and artistic creations, these very desires transform them into a writer or an artist rather than a neurotic patient. Freud discussed this point in detail during his fifth lecture at Clark University. Ironically, however, he contradicts himself within that very same lecture. On one hand, he asserts that sexual and libidinal energy can be channeled toward higher pursuits beyond mere sexual objectives. Yet, in the same breath, he argues that we must not ignore the demands of our nature's animalistic elements, as the pursuit of pleasure is the legitimate right of every individual, and every person is instinctually driven to seek it. Furthermore, Freud remains silent on exactly how libidinal energy can be redirected toward these higher purposes. In fact, he states quite plainly:

The public expects things from psychoanalysis in which it cannot offer much help. It must be admitted that psychoanalysis sheds no light on the two issues in which they are most interested: it can neither explain the nature of artistic ability, nor can it offer us any guidance regarding the techniques of art.

One flaw in Freud’s theory of sublimation is that it fails to explain exactly how sexual energy can be redirected toward achieving other, higher goals. Another major shortcoming, as mentioned earlier, is his belief that the sexual drive generally cannot be satisfied naturally due to social constraints or other reasons. When this drive clashes with external restrictions, it is processed in various ways. The drive is either repressed, regresses to an earlier stage, is displaced onto another objective, or is sublimated. In this final scenario, the energy of this drive unconsciously leads to the creation of fine arts, literature, and intellectual theories. The sublimation of the sexual instinct is thus the very foundation of all human civilization and culture. This implies that our fine arts and literature are not natural phenomena; rather, they depend entirely on the frustration of the sexual instinct. If the sexual instinct could be satisfied in a natural and uninhibited manner, there would be no knowledge, no art, no literature, and no philosophy. Civilization, culture, and human progress would all cease to exist. Even if we assume they would not disappear entirely, all these achievements are still rendered artificial, rather than natural and authentic.

In reality, the source of art and literature is not the sexual instinct and its sublimation, but rather the creative impulse, which exists as a natural inclination in every individual. However, this impulse can only be actualized in a conducive environment; otherwise, it remains dormant in its rudimentary state. Nevertheless, this is an entirely different subject, and it would be inappropriate to delve into it here.

The unconscious is a repository of repressed desires. These repressed desires manage to evade the mind's censor, finding ways to manifest themselves and achieve satisfaction. If these repressed desires are relatively few and weak, they find an outlet through dreams, daydreams, and common slips of the pen or tongue. Otherwise, the individual falls prey to neuroses, and these desires find their satisfaction through the symptoms of the illness. The creation of literature and art is similarly the result of these repressed desires. It is on this basis that Freud considers the artist to be suffering from psychological conflict. Writing about the hero of a novel, Freud notes that due to a discrepancy between his imagination and his mental capacities, he was destined to become either a poet or a neurotic, and that he belongs to that class of individuals for whom this world is not a suitable place. In Freud’s view, dreams and literature are entirely analogous, as both serve as conduits for repressed desires. The role of the imagination in both is undeniable. However, the type of imagination required for each differs fundamentally in nature. Literature and art require a disciplined imagination, whereas dreams rely on an unconstrained imagination. Furthermore, Freud eventually conceded that dreams and children's play are not merely means of wish fulfillment, but also mechanisms for preparing to confront reality. If the reality principle operates within children's play and dreams, it is impossible to deny its presence in literature and art. And if the reality principle is indeed at work in art and literature, then the question of reducing them to mere byproducts of psychological conflict and repressed desires simply does not arise.

According to Freud, literature is not reality, but rather an illusion of reality. He does concede that this illusion is not as harmful as certain others. However, if literature is merely a deception, one is left to wonder what actually constitutes reality in this world and what can truly be considered real. If that were the case, all manifestations and actions of the ego and human energy would be reduced to mere illusions—and Freud himself would likely prefer to label the manifestations of the ego as illusions. Literature, however, is a reality whose utility, truth, and sincerity cannot be denied.

Does this mean, then, that there is nothing acceptable—or at least valuable—in Freud’s theory of literature? And does psychoanalysis fail to shed light on any aspect of art and literature from a valid perspective? No, that is not the case. Psychoanalysis can certainly help us uncover the deeper meanings of a creative work and fully understand the artist as an individual. There is no doubt that certain literary works carry multiple layers of meaning. To fully comprehend these works, it is essential to reach their deeper significance. But the question remains: is this deeper meaning the *true* meaning? Furthermore, once we uncover this deeper meaning, can we still fully enjoy the literary work? Take the example of Shakespeare’s famous play, *Hamlet*—an example presented by Freud himself. Let us assume that Hamlet suffers from an Oedipus complex, and that his hesitation in killing his uncle stems from an unconscious sense of gratitude—because his uncle, by murdering Hamlet's father, effectively removed his rival. But the question is: does this psychoanalytic interpretation allow us to truly appreciate *Hamlet* as a tragedy? As for the second point—understanding the artist as an individual—is it really possible to access Shakespeare’s mind through this method? Can we, like Dr. Jones, diagnose Shakespeare with this psychological conflict and claim that the true catalyst for writing this tragedy was the death of Shakespeare’s own father, which occurred shortly before the play was penned? Yet, in a stroke of cosmic irony, Freud became convinced in his later years that these plays were not written by Shakespeare at all, but by the Earl of Oxford. Consequently, Dr. Jones’s entire theory falls apart. There is no doubt that we cannot fully grasp an artist's work without understanding their mind. However, this by no means implies that the artist is merely a victim of psychological neuroses, or that their creations are nothing more than the sublimated forms of repressed desires.

The creation of art and literature is a conscious process. The selection of form and content is the result of deliberate, conscious effort. The artist always has certain objectives and ideals in mind, and they actively strive to achieve these goals. Therefore, if we wish to fully understand a creative work, merely accessing the artist's mind is insufficient. The true determining factors are the social forces, contemporary trends, and collective goals that shape both the artist and their mindset. If we restrict ourselves solely to the psychological study of the artist's mind, the universality and objectivity of art and literature are entirely lost.

Finally, just one more thing! While Freud influenced literature, he also gained a great deal from it. On the occasion of his seventieth birthday, when a speaker referred to him as the discoverer of the unconscious, Freud corrected him in his response, saying:

Poets and philosophers had already discovered the unconscious before me; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied.

As far as philosophers are concerned, we find the existence of the unconscious in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Hegel, too, while discussing Diderot's famous work *Rameau's Nephew*, refers to the nephew as disintegrated consciousness and Diderot as pure consciousness. Similarly, regarding poets and writers, traces of the unconscious can be found in Shelley, Schlegel, and Ibsen.

Besides the unconscious, many of Freud's other theories can be found in earlier literature. Schopenhauer considered the sexual drive to be the foundation of art. The Oedipus complex in Shakespeare's plays; the macabre in Shelley, Poe, and Baudelaire; the death drive in Novalis's works; and mental derangement in Dostoevsky's novels—all these elements existed in literature long before Freud. Symbolism and allegory were highly popular during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. A subject was interpreted in four different ways: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. Dante, too, acknowledged this distinction in meanings. Before Freud, Baudelaire had once again popularized symbolism. Likewise, it goes without saying how much Freud benefited from Romanticism—the famous literary and critical movement—and from nineteenth-century philosophical movements like Positivism and Existentialism.

Freud's theory of the sexual drive can be seen as a link in the chain of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Vitalism. Kant's theory of free will, Carlyle's hero worship, Marx's dialectical dynamism, Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, Morgan's emergent evolution, Bergson's *élan vital*, McDougall's ego sentiment, Bernard Shaw's Life Force, Adler's striving for superiority, and Iqbal's concept of *Ishq* (Love)—these are all various links in this same chain. Different thinkers interpreted this force in different ways, and there is no doubt that some of them presented contradictory theories. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that all these thinkers were proponents of Vitalism and advocated for the supremacy of the active, practical aspect of human nature.

In conclusion, we see that although Freud highlighted an aspect of literature and art that had previously remained largely hidden from view, the status he accorded to them in life is not one that can be considered a matter of pride. Similarly, applying the theory of psychoanalysis to literature is not particularly beneficial. Doing so would strip literature of its objectivity, universality, and collective spirit, leaving it confined merely to subjectivity and individualism.

Psychology is a relatively young discipline. Until the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered a branch of philosophy, and its methodology was deductive and metaphysical. In 1879, the renowned German thinker and psychologist Wundt established a psychological laboratory, after which the discipline began its rapid journey of progress. In the present century, psychology has advanced to such an extent that its influence is evident in most spheres of life. Today, we attempt to understand various aspects and domains of life through the lens of psychology. However, psychology is a social science, and a young one at that. Consequently, the theories of different schools of thought do not merely differ; these differences often border on outright contradiction. The advantage of such disagreements is that they continuously open new avenues for research, allowing the discipline to advance at a rapid pace. Yet, under these circumstances, the possibility of reaching a consensus on any single theory is entirely out of the question.

Psychology has shed considerable light on various issues concerning both primary subjects of aesthetics: beauty and art. However, given the profound disagreements among psychologists themselves, it is inevitable that these differences would also seep into aesthetic theories. While psychology as a whole has addressed most aesthetic issues, certain schools of thought within philosophy and psychology have had a particularly profound impact on art, literature, criticism, and aesthetics. The oldest among these is the school of Empiricism. As far as aesthetics is concerned, the thinkers of this school can be divided into two groups: the intuitive and the analytical. The intuitive thinkers subscribe to the objective theory of beauty. According to them, beauty is an unanalyzable attribute and principle inherent in objects. This group includes figures like Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Reid, and Hamilton. In contrast, analytical thinkers—such as Addison, Lord Kames, Reynolds, Hogarth, Burke, Alison, and Bain—attempt to analyze beauty using psychological and analytical methods. In their view, beauty is a complex emotion that emerges from the combination of various elements. The second school of thought belongs to experimental psychology. According to this group, beauty does not reside in individual components, but rather in their mutual configuration. They not only prioritize form but often entirely disregard content. In their view, artistic taste is the complete perception of the proportions created by the arrangement of these components. Among these thinkers, we can include Adolf Zeising, Zimmerman, and Wilhelm Unger. A third notable school of thought consists of thinkers who believe that beauty arises from the free play of the observer's imagination. The foundations of art rest upon the instinct of play; play serves as an outlet for surplus physical energy, while imagination acts as an outlet for surplus mental energy. Thus, fundamentally, art, imagination, and play are one and the same. The earliest iteration of this theory can be found in the works of Kant. However, it was Schiller, Herbert Spencer, Karl Groos, and Konrad Lange who advanced this theory and presented it in its complete form. Another significant theory is that of Empathy. Empathy refers to the projection of subconscious feelings onto an object. Beauty is the manifestation of this projection, and art is its embodiment. Proponents of this theory include Robert Vischer, Volkelt, Vernon Lee, Worringer, and Victor Basch. However, it was Lipps who articulated it with the utmost clarity. While this theory enjoys considerable popularity in the contemporary era, an even more prevalent concept today is the Theory of Expressionism. Although this is an ancient theory—first introduced in its rudimentary form by Plotinus and later advanced by Baumgarten—it was the renowned Italian thinker Croce who presented it as a comprehensive academic framework. According to this theory, beauty and art are defined as the complete expression of the observer's emotions. Expression and intuition are merely two names for the same mental process. Here, expression does not imply an objective manifestation or external shaping; rather, it means fully internalizing a concept and allowing an emotion to reflect completely within the mind. This absolute internal expression is what constitutes beauty. Among psychological theories, the one that profoundly influenced art and literature—at least for a certain period—is the theory of psychoanalysis, particularly that of Freud. Building upon his psychological theories, Freud introduced a novel theory of art and literature. Our current objective is to present a concise overview of Freud's theory of art and literature.

Outside of psychology, the subjects Freud discussed most extensively are art and literature, civilization and culture, and religion and morality. There is no doubt that in all these discussions, his fundamental viewpoints remain deeply rooted in his psychological theories. Nevertheless, one might not necessarily agree with the specific manner in which he applied these psychological theories to art and literature. Therefore, before delving into his literary theories, we will first outline the psychological concepts that directly relate to them. Subsequently, we will examine how he applied these concepts to art and literature.

Two of Freud's theories can be considered foundational: first, the concentration of all human driving forces within the sexual instinct, and second, the supremacy of the unconscious in human life. For Freud, the concept of sex is much broader than the word's conventional meaning, and perhaps somewhat more ambiguous as well. It refers to that instinctual force associated with all forms of love. This includes the love a person has for their children and for humanity, as well as the devotion and attachment they feel toward certain objects and abstract concepts. Consequently, in Freud's view, thumb-sucking, swallowing, and even physical acts like excretion are manifestations of sexual gratification. The development of the sexual instinct occurs in three stages: narcissism, the latency period, and puberty. Of these three, the most crucial stage is narcissism, because whatever a person is destined to become is already formed during this phase. During this time, the individual falls prey to numerous psychological complexes from which they can never fully break free throughout their life. This stage lasts until the age of five. In the second stage, the sexual instinct remains dormant. Then, at the age of twelve, the third stage begins, wherein the individual merely repeats the experiences of the first stage with minor variations, and from this point onward, the external environment has no significant impact on them.

Here, we need to examine only two points: Is the sexual instinct the sole driving force of human beings, and is it true that a person can never break free from the psychological complexes of their initial sexual stage? There is no doubt that the sexual instinct possesses tremendous power. However, even if we accept the theory of instincts as valid, isn't it a fact that the instincts for survival, security, creation, curiosity, acquisition, maternal care, and dominance are in no way less powerful than the sexual instinct? The economic and cultural conditions of nineteenth-century Europe inevitably resulted in sexual and psychological complexes. Freud used these conditions as a foundation to present his theory of the sexual instinct, declaring psychological complexes to be an inherent demand of human nature. In doing so, he attributed the effects of a specific social environment to the entirety of the human race. Psychological complexes are not dictated by human nature; rather, they are the product of environmental influences. In a healthy environment, such complexes rarely develop. Even if they do arise, proper education, upbringing, and a supportive environment can eliminate them quickly and to a significant degree.

Freud is incorrect in his assertion that a person can never be free from the complexes of their primary sexual stage, and that every individual inevitably falls prey to them to some extent. The second aspect of this issue is the claim that unfulfilled sexual desires are the very source of literature and art—meaning that the artist is a victim of psychological complexes and projects these complexes into their creations. However, this specific point will be discussed in more detail later.

Freud divides the human personality into three components: the Id (instinctual drives), the Ego (the self), and the Superego (the conscience). The Id is the source of all human desires and libidinal energy. It is the center of all our instincts, habits, and emotional impulses. It is both illogical and amoral. Completely unrestrained, its desires constantly seek gratification in one way or another, perpetually driven by the pursuit of pleasure. The Ego, on the other hand, is connected to civilized social life. It accepts the seemingly unpleasant realities of society and elevates conscious behavior to meet the standards of civilization. The Superego cannot always keep the Id in check. Consequently, a perpetual tug-of-war exists between the Id and the Ego. On one side lie the inherently aggressive tendencies of the Id, and on the other, the social standards and ideals upheld by the Ego.

Here, Freud makes the same mistake again: he characterizes the aggressive tendencies of the Id as natural, even though they are actually produced by society. The reality is that aggressive tendencies arise in humans as a reaction when the fulfillment of a need is obstructed. If circumstances are favorable and an individual does not face external resistance, there would be no opportunity for aggressive tendencies to develop, let alone escalate. In human society, tendencies toward cooperation and socialization are far more fundamental than aggressive ones, as no human need can be fulfilled without them. However, if the fulfillment of life's basic necessities is hindered, aggressive tendencies will inevitably flourish.

As mentioned earlier, according to Freud, it is impossible for all human desires to be satisfied. The uninhibited expression of all desires, particularly sexual ones, is simply not possible. During the primary stage of narcissism, the suppression of these desires—which are sexual in nature—becomes an absolute necessity. These repressed desires gradually multiply in both number and intensity, ultimately forming what is known as the unconscious. The unconscious serves both as a repository for repressed desires and as a wellspring of psychological energy. The conscious mind is a remarkably weak rival to the unconscious, and its defeat is practically predestined. Repressed and hidden desires retreat into the unconscious, vanishing from the view of the conscious mind, yet they constantly seek opportunities for gratification. Mental illnesses, dreams, daydreams, and many trivial everyday mistakes are all manifestations of the unconscious, as repressed desires attempt to satisfy themselves through these various channels. In all these instances, the cause and the effect remain on the same qualitative level. However, in certain situations, the effect transcends the cause in its quality and becomes something higher and superior. Freud terms this process *sublimation*, and its ultimate result is the creation of literature and art. In other words, the frustration of the sexual instinct forms the foundation of literature and art, making them the byproduct of psychological turmoil.

According to Freud, nature's true intent is the uninhibited gratification of desires. The suppression of these desires inevitably manifests in the form of neurosis. However, in our current era of civilization and culture, the unrestrained fulfillment of desires is impossible. Consequently, every individual suffers from neurosis and psychological distress to some degree. Yet, if a person redirects their repressed sexual desires toward social goals or literary and artistic creations, these very desires transform them into a writer or an artist rather than a neurotic patient. Freud discussed this point in detail during his fifth lecture at Clark University. Ironically, however, he contradicts himself within that very same lecture. On one hand, he asserts that sexual and libidinal energy can be channeled toward higher pursuits beyond mere sexual objectives. Yet, in the same breath, he argues that we must not ignore the demands of our nature's animalistic elements, as the pursuit of pleasure is the legitimate right of every individual, and every person is instinctually driven to seek it. Furthermore, Freud remains silent on exactly how libidinal energy can be redirected toward these higher purposes. In fact, he states quite plainly:

The public expects things from psychoanalysis in which it cannot offer much help. It must be admitted that psychoanalysis sheds no light on the two issues in which they are most interested: it can neither explain the nature of artistic ability, nor can it offer us any guidance regarding the techniques of art.

One flaw in Freud’s theory of sublimation is that it fails to explain exactly how sexual energy can be redirected toward achieving other, higher goals. Another major shortcoming, as mentioned earlier, is his belief that the sexual drive generally cannot be satisfied naturally due to social constraints or other reasons. When this drive clashes with external restrictions, it is processed in various ways. The drive is either repressed, regresses to an earlier stage, is displaced onto another objective, or is sublimated. In this final scenario, the energy of this drive unconsciously leads to the creation of fine arts, literature, and intellectual theories. The sublimation of the sexual instinct is thus the very foundation of all human civilization and culture. This implies that our fine arts and literature are not natural phenomena; rather, they depend entirely on the frustration of the sexual instinct. If the sexual instinct could be satisfied in a natural and uninhibited manner, there would be no knowledge, no art, no literature, and no philosophy. Civilization, culture, and human progress would all cease to exist. Even if we assume they would not disappear entirely, all these achievements are still rendered artificial, rather than natural and authentic.

In reality, the source of art and literature is not the sexual instinct and its sublimation, but rather the creative impulse, which exists as a natural inclination in every individual. However, this impulse can only be actualized in a conducive environment; otherwise, it remains dormant in its rudimentary state. Nevertheless, this is an entirely different subject, and it would be inappropriate to delve into it here.

The unconscious is a repository of repressed desires. These repressed desires manage to evade the mind's censor, finding ways to manifest themselves and achieve satisfaction. If these repressed desires are relatively few and weak, they find an outlet through dreams, daydreams, and common slips of the pen or tongue. Otherwise, the individual falls prey to neuroses, and these desires find their satisfaction through the symptoms of the illness. The creation of literature and art is similarly the result of these repressed desires. It is on this basis that Freud considers the artist to be suffering from psychological conflict. Writing about the hero of a novel, Freud notes that due to a discrepancy between his imagination and his mental capacities, he was destined to become either a poet or a neurotic, and that he belongs to that class of individuals for whom this world is not a suitable place. In Freud’s view, dreams and literature are entirely analogous, as both serve as conduits for repressed desires. The role of the imagination in both is undeniable. However, the type of imagination required for each differs fundamentally in nature. Literature and art require a disciplined imagination, whereas dreams rely on an unconstrained imagination. Furthermore, Freud eventually conceded that dreams and children's play are not merely means of wish fulfillment, but also mechanisms for preparing to confront reality. If the reality principle operates within children's play and dreams, it is impossible to deny its presence in literature and art. And if the reality principle is indeed at work in art and literature, then the question of reducing them to mere byproducts of psychological conflict and repressed desires simply does not arise.

According to Freud, literature is not reality, but rather an illusion of reality. He does concede that this illusion is not as harmful as certain others. However, if literature is merely a deception, one is left to wonder what actually constitutes reality in this world and what can truly be considered real. If that were the case, all manifestations and actions of the ego and human energy would be reduced to mere illusions—and Freud himself would likely prefer to label the manifestations of the ego as illusions. Literature, however, is a reality whose utility, truth, and sincerity cannot be denied.

Does this mean, then, that there is nothing acceptable—or at least valuable—in Freud’s theory of literature? And does psychoanalysis fail to shed light on any aspect of art and literature from a valid perspective? No, that is not the case. Psychoanalysis can certainly help us uncover the deeper meanings of a creative work and fully understand the artist as an individual. There is no doubt that certain literary works carry multiple layers of meaning. To fully comprehend these works, it is essential to reach their deeper significance. But the question remains: is this deeper meaning the *true* meaning? Furthermore, once we uncover this deeper meaning, can we still fully enjoy the literary work? Take the example of Shakespeare’s famous play, *Hamlet*—an example presented by Freud himself. Let us assume that Hamlet suffers from an Oedipus complex, and that his hesitation in killing his uncle stems from an unconscious sense of gratitude—because his uncle, by murdering Hamlet's father, effectively removed his rival. But the question is: does this psychoanalytic interpretation allow us to truly appreciate *Hamlet* as a tragedy? As for the second point—understanding the artist as an individual—is it really possible to access Shakespeare’s mind through this method? Can we, like Dr. Jones, diagnose Shakespeare with this psychological conflict and claim that the true catalyst for writing this tragedy was the death of Shakespeare’s own father, which occurred shortly before the play was penned? Yet, in a stroke of cosmic irony, Freud became convinced in his later years that these plays were not written by Shakespeare at all, but by the Earl of Oxford. Consequently, Dr. Jones’s entire theory falls apart. There is no doubt that we cannot fully grasp an artist's work without understanding their mind. However, this by no means implies that the artist is merely a victim of psychological neuroses, or that their creations are nothing more than the sublimated forms of repressed desires.

The creation of art and literature is a conscious process. The selection of form and content is the result of deliberate, conscious effort. The artist always has certain objectives and ideals in mind, and they actively strive to achieve these goals. Therefore, if we wish to fully understand a creative work, merely accessing the artist's mind is insufficient. The true determining factors are the social forces, contemporary trends, and collective goals that shape both the artist and their mindset. If we restrict ourselves solely to the psychological study of the artist's mind, the universality and objectivity of art and literature are entirely lost.

Finally, just one more thing! While Freud influenced literature, he also gained a great deal from it. On the occasion of his seventieth birthday, when a speaker referred to him as the discoverer of the unconscious, Freud corrected him in his response, saying:

Poets and philosophers had already discovered the unconscious before me; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied.

As far as philosophers are concerned, we find the existence of the unconscious in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Hegel, too, while discussing Diderot's famous work *Rameau's Nephew*, refers to the nephew as disintegrated consciousness and Diderot as pure consciousness. Similarly, regarding poets and writers, traces of the unconscious can be found in Shelley, Schlegel, and Ibsen.

Besides the unconscious, many of Freud's other theories can be found in earlier literature. Schopenhauer considered the sexual drive to be the foundation of art. The Oedipus complex in Shakespeare's plays; the macabre in Shelley, Poe, and Baudelaire; the death drive in Novalis's works; and mental derangement in Dostoevsky's novels—all these elements existed in literature long before Freud. Symbolism and allegory were highly popular during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. A subject was interpreted in four different ways: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. Dante, too, acknowledged this distinction in meanings. Before Freud, Baudelaire had once again popularized symbolism. Likewise, it goes without saying how much Freud benefited from Romanticism—the famous literary and critical movement—and from nineteenth-century philosophical movements like Positivism and Existentialism.

Freud's theory of the sexual drive can be seen as a link in the chain of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Vitalism. Kant's theory of free will, Carlyle's hero worship, Marx's dialectical dynamism, Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, Morgan's emergent evolution, Bergson's *élan vital*, McDougall's ego sentiment, Bernard Shaw's Life Force, Adler's striving for superiority, and Iqbal's concept of *Ishq* (Love)—these are all various links in this same chain. Different thinkers interpreted this force in different ways, and there is no doubt that some of them presented contradictory theories. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that all these thinkers were proponents of Vitalism and advocated for the supremacy of the active, practical aspect of human nature.

In conclusion, we see that although Freud highlighted an aspect of literature and art that had previously remained largely hidden from view, the status he accorded to them in life is not one that can be considered a matter of pride. Similarly, applying the theory of psychoanalysis to literature is not particularly beneficial. Doing so would strip literature of its objectivity, universality, and collective spirit, leaving it confined merely to subjectivity and individualism.