What? It's not weird to psychoanalyze fictional characters
Rather than doing the reasonable thing and reading my French book for my oral exam tomorrow (because why would I want to do the reasonable thing? Or even not spell it "resonable" on the first try?), I have an "essay" that has been sitting in my head all day. It's...related to a class, at least. :D
I'm taking a course in Abnormal Psychology this semester (because I've always thought serial killers were fascinating, and wanted to learn more), and today we learned about Bowlby's forms of attachment (which I can totally get behind, by the way, unlike Freud, who makes me irrationally angry). Basically his theory is that a child forms a certain type of attachment (Secure, Insecure Avoidant, Insecure Ambivalent, or Disorganized) to a parent/caretaker/sibling/what-have-you in the first year of life, and that attachment basically lays the foundation for all interpersonal relationships in the future. Now, of course, since House is basically the perfect example of an Insecure Avoidant personality, I started thinking about my favorite characters and which categories they might fit into. (This is what I do in class.)
Bowlby’s four types of attachment are defined very early in life, and while they are usually altered by events later in life (as, indeed, most personality traits are), they also lay the groundwork for which events and people will be the altering factors. The theory is based on the idea that, from a survivalist perspective, attachment to others is profoundly important, and that humans are, therefore, a social creature.
The most common form of attachment is a Secure one, in which a child learns to implicitly trust and rely on its parent as the parent is reliably there. These children have cognitive development proceed at a healthy pace, and they learn coping mechanisms from their parents, and they grow up into perfectly normal people with normal relationships.
Insecure Avoidant attachments, however, lead to the person tending to push people away. These are often created by parents who believe they are doing the absolute best thing for their children in teaching them to be self-reliant and independent, but the children learn no coping mechanisms this way and often do not trust people very well. As adults, they find it extremely difficult to let others in, and are very solitary, aggressive people. House is a textbook example of this personality, as evidenced by his current personality and his relationship and history with his father.
Insecure Ambivalent attachments involve a parent and child who don’t understand each other’s signals, leading to a sort of push-pull relationship. The child may be whiny, fussy, or angry, and the parent is in turns reassuring and upset as they don’t know how to respond. These relationships are dominated by negative emotions, and as the child grows up, many of their later relationships have similar characteristics. They want to be close to people, but push themselves away instead, as they’re not sure how to do so.
Disorganized attachments produce more people with severe psychological disorders than any other, and these people often have absolutely no idea how to relate to people. They are nearly always victims of abuse or children of the same sort of person. As a child, this type is characterized by a tendency to be everyone’s friend until they are betrayed, as opposed to the normal child’s fear of strangers until reassured by a parent. As adults, these people simply do not orient towards people and have no real solution to fear.
There are no Disorganized attachments among the Weasley children, who were raised in a loving environment with doting parents, who did their best despite being overwhelmed by all their children and their situation. The children may not all have the healthiest attitudes toward interpersonal relationships, but they do all relate in some way or another.
Bill and Charlie, the first two children, formed Secure attachments to their parents. Their mother was not yet run ragged by all her children, and she had plenty of time to spend on them and form a good attachment. While we have no evidence as to Charlie’s romantic relationships, we have seen his ability to make friends (see Hagrid, the friends who took Norbert in PS). Bill, too, has formed strong alliances, with friends and his wife, even with goblins who are disinclined to like humans. The problems these two have with their parents are the normal mid-twenties problems: they have grown up and are living their own lives, and yet their mother still wants to have some control over them (she wants to give Bill a haircut in GoF, and succeeds with Charlie in DH). These two seem to have a very healthy relationship with their parents.
Percy, on the other hand, is a bit of a puzzle. He is clearly attached to his parents, even if his pride keeps him away for years, as evidenced by his eager and apologetic return in DH. And yet, there are other issues there as well. His seems to be an Insecure Avoidant attachment, in which he seeks authority positions in order to avoid connecting with too many people, and as he graduates and goes to work, he is still in positions where there is no emotional connection with his coworkers. Sadly, we do not know enough about his relationship with Penelope Clearwater or any other girls for any further understanding of his attachment to be made clear.
Fred and George are an interesting deviation. They have a Secure attachment, but it is not to their mother: it is to each other. By children 4 and 5, who came simultaneously and were inclined to be troublesome as well, Molly Weasley simply couldn’t keep up: she had five children under the age of 8. Her husband, at this point, had to spend too much time working in order to afford food and bills and therefore could not help her enough. If Fred and George had not bonded to each other, they would definitely have attachment issues, but because they had each other, they formed a Secure attachment. They still have issues with their mother, even though they love her, and by association they have issues with authority, but they are still highly capable of achieving satisfying personal relationships.
Ron was not as lucky as Fred and George: his overworked mother simply did not have enough time to deal as thoroughly with her sixth son, and when he was quickly followed by a daughter he got lost in the shuffle. Ron developed an Insecure Ambivalent attachment in which his affection and tolerance fluctuated, and that would continue to characterize his relationships for the rest of his life. Ron, as a teenager, is an extremely volatile character, continually fighting with his friends and pushing them away before returning and sorting everything out (usually an impulse driven by nearly losing one of them, at which point he remembers why he wants to be close to them). This is most definitely a defining characteristic of his relationship with Hermione, as well: she, as the only child, has a Secure attachment with her parents which allows her to make friends (when they are willing to befriend her in return). This tends to create issues: Ron, with his ambivalence, will push her away, and this will wound her deeply and so she’ll stay away as well, until something happens to drive them back together. Ron is an extremely interesting character because of this, and that’s what makes his relationship with Hermione so appealing: they love each other, and the reader wants them to be together, but they’re always driving themselves apart. It’s a relationship that grips the reader.
Ginny and Harry, on the other hand, have no such relationship, as appealing as it may be. Ginny, as the first daughter and the baby of the family, had as much attention as could be spared from the others lavished on her. The sheer number of her siblings prevented her from being spoiled, but she got enough attention to form a Secure attachment. She received enough love, from her parents and siblings, to make her open and confident and highly capable of making friends and having secure relationships. This is why she has three moderately serious romantic relationships in school, but no short-term flings: she is fully prepared to enter into a full-fledged relationship with no hesitation. What is truly remarkable is that Harry is similar: despite his heavy losses and very difficult childhood, he has a loving heart and is eager to make friends. Perhaps this is based on a Secure attachment formed in his first year of life to his parents, which was so strong that not even losing them and living through ten years of mental abuse was enough to break. This attachment was lying in wait inside Harry for years, looking for someone to attach him to; at eleven, he found plenty. This is why his attachment to Hagrid is so strong; it was formed quickly, the first in many years, at a time of his “birth” into the Wizarding world. Harry was given a chance to start anew in terms of love, and he did so easily and whole-heartedly.
Tom Riddle, on the other hand, was so thoroughly Disorganized that this new start hardly registered with him. But that’s an essay for another time!
That may be a bit tl;dr for many people - in Word it's over 2 pages of tight-packed information. But I enjoyed writing it, and I think it's an extremely interesting idea. Clearly, I'm insane. :D Hopefully those of you with the patience to read it will find it interesting too - I want to hear your thoughts!
I'm taking a course in Abnormal Psychology this semester (because I've always thought serial killers were fascinating, and wanted to learn more), and today we learned about Bowlby's forms of attachment (which I can totally get behind, by the way, unlike Freud, who makes me irrationally angry). Basically his theory is that a child forms a certain type of attachment (Secure, Insecure Avoidant, Insecure Ambivalent, or Disorganized) to a parent/caretaker/sibling/what-have-you in the first year of life, and that attachment basically lays the foundation for all interpersonal relationships in the future. Now, of course, since House is basically the perfect example of an Insecure Avoidant personality, I started thinking about my favorite characters and which categories they might fit into. (This is what I do in class.)
Bowlby’s four types of attachment are defined very early in life, and while they are usually altered by events later in life (as, indeed, most personality traits are), they also lay the groundwork for which events and people will be the altering factors. The theory is based on the idea that, from a survivalist perspective, attachment to others is profoundly important, and that humans are, therefore, a social creature.
The most common form of attachment is a Secure one, in which a child learns to implicitly trust and rely on its parent as the parent is reliably there. These children have cognitive development proceed at a healthy pace, and they learn coping mechanisms from their parents, and they grow up into perfectly normal people with normal relationships.
Insecure Avoidant attachments, however, lead to the person tending to push people away. These are often created by parents who believe they are doing the absolute best thing for their children in teaching them to be self-reliant and independent, but the children learn no coping mechanisms this way and often do not trust people very well. As adults, they find it extremely difficult to let others in, and are very solitary, aggressive people. House is a textbook example of this personality, as evidenced by his current personality and his relationship and history with his father.
Insecure Ambivalent attachments involve a parent and child who don’t understand each other’s signals, leading to a sort of push-pull relationship. The child may be whiny, fussy, or angry, and the parent is in turns reassuring and upset as they don’t know how to respond. These relationships are dominated by negative emotions, and as the child grows up, many of their later relationships have similar characteristics. They want to be close to people, but push themselves away instead, as they’re not sure how to do so.
Disorganized attachments produce more people with severe psychological disorders than any other, and these people often have absolutely no idea how to relate to people. They are nearly always victims of abuse or children of the same sort of person. As a child, this type is characterized by a tendency to be everyone’s friend until they are betrayed, as opposed to the normal child’s fear of strangers until reassured by a parent. As adults, these people simply do not orient towards people and have no real solution to fear.
There are no Disorganized attachments among the Weasley children, who were raised in a loving environment with doting parents, who did their best despite being overwhelmed by all their children and their situation. The children may not all have the healthiest attitudes toward interpersonal relationships, but they do all relate in some way or another.
Bill and Charlie, the first two children, formed Secure attachments to their parents. Their mother was not yet run ragged by all her children, and she had plenty of time to spend on them and form a good attachment. While we have no evidence as to Charlie’s romantic relationships, we have seen his ability to make friends (see Hagrid, the friends who took Norbert in PS). Bill, too, has formed strong alliances, with friends and his wife, even with goblins who are disinclined to like humans. The problems these two have with their parents are the normal mid-twenties problems: they have grown up and are living their own lives, and yet their mother still wants to have some control over them (she wants to give Bill a haircut in GoF, and succeeds with Charlie in DH). These two seem to have a very healthy relationship with their parents.
Percy, on the other hand, is a bit of a puzzle. He is clearly attached to his parents, even if his pride keeps him away for years, as evidenced by his eager and apologetic return in DH. And yet, there are other issues there as well. His seems to be an Insecure Avoidant attachment, in which he seeks authority positions in order to avoid connecting with too many people, and as he graduates and goes to work, he is still in positions where there is no emotional connection with his coworkers. Sadly, we do not know enough about his relationship with Penelope Clearwater or any other girls for any further understanding of his attachment to be made clear.
Fred and George are an interesting deviation. They have a Secure attachment, but it is not to their mother: it is to each other. By children 4 and 5, who came simultaneously and were inclined to be troublesome as well, Molly Weasley simply couldn’t keep up: she had five children under the age of 8. Her husband, at this point, had to spend too much time working in order to afford food and bills and therefore could not help her enough. If Fred and George had not bonded to each other, they would definitely have attachment issues, but because they had each other, they formed a Secure attachment. They still have issues with their mother, even though they love her, and by association they have issues with authority, but they are still highly capable of achieving satisfying personal relationships.
Ron was not as lucky as Fred and George: his overworked mother simply did not have enough time to deal as thoroughly with her sixth son, and when he was quickly followed by a daughter he got lost in the shuffle. Ron developed an Insecure Ambivalent attachment in which his affection and tolerance fluctuated, and that would continue to characterize his relationships for the rest of his life. Ron, as a teenager, is an extremely volatile character, continually fighting with his friends and pushing them away before returning and sorting everything out (usually an impulse driven by nearly losing one of them, at which point he remembers why he wants to be close to them). This is most definitely a defining characteristic of his relationship with Hermione, as well: she, as the only child, has a Secure attachment with her parents which allows her to make friends (when they are willing to befriend her in return). This tends to create issues: Ron, with his ambivalence, will push her away, and this will wound her deeply and so she’ll stay away as well, until something happens to drive them back together. Ron is an extremely interesting character because of this, and that’s what makes his relationship with Hermione so appealing: they love each other, and the reader wants them to be together, but they’re always driving themselves apart. It’s a relationship that grips the reader.
Ginny and Harry, on the other hand, have no such relationship, as appealing as it may be. Ginny, as the first daughter and the baby of the family, had as much attention as could be spared from the others lavished on her. The sheer number of her siblings prevented her from being spoiled, but she got enough attention to form a Secure attachment. She received enough love, from her parents and siblings, to make her open and confident and highly capable of making friends and having secure relationships. This is why she has three moderately serious romantic relationships in school, but no short-term flings: she is fully prepared to enter into a full-fledged relationship with no hesitation. What is truly remarkable is that Harry is similar: despite his heavy losses and very difficult childhood, he has a loving heart and is eager to make friends. Perhaps this is based on a Secure attachment formed in his first year of life to his parents, which was so strong that not even losing them and living through ten years of mental abuse was enough to break. This attachment was lying in wait inside Harry for years, looking for someone to attach him to; at eleven, he found plenty. This is why his attachment to Hagrid is so strong; it was formed quickly, the first in many years, at a time of his “birth” into the Wizarding world. Harry was given a chance to start anew in terms of love, and he did so easily and whole-heartedly.
Tom Riddle, on the other hand, was so thoroughly Disorganized that this new start hardly registered with him. But that’s an essay for another time!
That may be a bit tl;dr for many people - in Word it's over 2 pages of tight-packed information. But I enjoyed writing it, and I think it's an extremely interesting idea. Clearly, I'm insane. :D Hopefully those of you with the patience to read it will find it interesting too - I want to hear your thoughts!