The psychological, mythological/archetypal, and feminist approaches are similar, yet very different. The psychological approach is filled with Freudian theories and "buzz words” that give the approach a very formal and, to the average person, an outrageous look at literary works. The mythological/archetypal approach is based more on the culture of the literature and those who read it. It is based on social or cultural fields with a little bit of psychology mixed in. The feminist approach is one of the younger approaches to literature, but also one of the most controversial and attacked or stereotyped aspects of literary criticism. Feminist literature is thought to be only about female power and equality in society but there are really four sub-studies - gender studies, Marxist feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, and minority feminist criticism. These three approaches to literary criticism are very different from each other but have many of the same bases or theories in which they work with. In the comparing and contrasting of the psychological, mythological/archetypal, and feminist approaches to literary criticism, a better understanding of the benefits and downfalls of each approach can be reached.

The psychological approach is based upon the theories of Freud. Freud’s theories on the functions of the ego, superego, and the id can be used to analyze and understand the actions and thoughts of characters of literary works. Other aspects of Freud’s psychological theory that can be applied to literary criticism is the Oedipal complex, rebellion against the father figure, sexual repression, and sexual imagery. The Oedipal complex is when the “child,” usually male, has desires towards their mother. The desires do not necessarily need to be sexual, but usually pertain to affection and attention. This also goes in conjunction with the rebellion against the father figure, because the father figure is usually the competition for the mother’s affection and attention. All of Freud’s theories are based on sex. Most, if not all, of the actions of characters in literary works, have sexual imagery in them. Many objects and thoughts include these images also. The desires and dreams of the characters, and resulting actions are usually based upon repression of their sexual impulses. Literary critics have mixed views on these theories and approaches to viewing literature. Words such as Oedipal complex, anal eroticism, phallic symbol, and oral fixation are “buzz words” in this approach and can be offensive or unbelievable to those who do not have degrees in psychology. The psychological approach is not always highly looked at or read because many critics have ended up abusing the approach, and also many people misread and misunderstand the approach all together. Guerin believes that the psychological approach should not be used exclusively or alone but to “apply this mode of interpretation to enhance their understanding and appreciation of literature” (125).

A mode of literary criticism that many people can identify with or tend to understand better is the mythological/archetypal approach. The mythological/archetypal approach is based upon religion, anthropology, and cultural history, all subjects that deal with general beliefs and actions of different cultures. It is based upon some theories but mostly explains the symbols that people encounter day to day and the image or meaning it has behind it for the majority of a specific culture. There is some psychological approach built within the mythological/archetypal approach. Freud inspired the approach when he delved into mythology and was also the teacher of the major contributor to this approach - C. G. Jung. Jung believed in Freud’s theories, but believed that they delt with subjects that were more than just sexual. He also believed “Freudian theories [are] too negative because of Freud’s emphasis on the neurotic rather than the healthy aspects of the psyche” (177). Jung believes that everyone is born with “myth-forming” elements and that symbols and mythology are instinctual rather than taught. He expands on the ideas of the ego, superego, and id in creating his own - the shadow, persona, and anima. The shadow is the darker side of the person that is usually repressed - the devil. The anima is the “soul-image” of the person, their “life force or vital energy” - the angel. The persona is the mask in which a person shows the world and mediates between the shadow and the anima. Another major aspect of the mythological/archetypal approach is the “American Dream” myth cluster. The “American Dream” myth cluster was developed to identify the aspects that are particularly “American” to literature. The “American Dream” pertains to themes such as the search for “paradise,” a quest of sorts. The character goes through “moral regeneration” and dreams of success and prosperity. There is also an uncorrupted feeling within the American hero but goes against a “dark suspense” within themselves or around them which takes them on a journey, maybe of another kind to find and better themselves. However broad and culture based this approach is there are limitations to it. While on one hand it can point out the many symbols that we have around us, the symbols for different things are not the same for each culture. A literary work can be analyzed and interpreted differently by every race, culture, and region in the world. Many times, also, a critic can loose the overall beauty and meaning of the work and forget that the work is “a vehicle for archetypes and ritual patterns” (193).

Feminist criticism is one of the younger approaches to literary criticism and also one of the most stereotyped and attacked approaches. Feminist criticism came about in three different stages, according to Elaine Showalter. These stages were “the ‘feminine’ phase (1840-80)...the ‘feminist’ phase (1880-1920)...and the ‘female’ phase (1920-present). The feminist movement came when women started writing more often and imitated the traditions of the time until they slowly became independent and at one time outspoken to the point of annoyance. Women have always, to the present day fought for their rights and equality within the cultures. Feminist criticism shows the basis, background, and desire of women to reach equality and recognition in their cultures. They started out with the purpose of giving credit to female writers of the past who were forgotten or really never discovered. Feminist criticism mostly deals with female writers or the feminine images within a text. In doing this the field of feminist criticism split into four significant derivatives: gender studies, Marxist feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, and minority feminist criticism. Gender studies is a wide approach that many critics hide under to peruse topics of gender, gay studies, or if a male wishes to study feminism. The gender study approach goes towards the “qualities of masculinity and femininity” rather than the sex of the characters, author, or reader (200). The Marxist feminism approach “focuses on the relation between reading and social realities” (202). They include and mix both studies of gender and class, dealing with ideas and acting on them. Marxist feminism closely resembles the Marxist approach but incorporates the gender question into the theories. Psychoanalytic feminism deals with a host of topics such as “mothering, living within enclosures, doubling of characters and of the self, women’s diseases, and feminized landscapes” (203). This form of criticism is practical and leaning towards mythological/archetypal in that symbols and imagery and expression within the works are important rather than the sexes in and dealing with the text. Such mythological/archetypal aspects are they figures of Medusa, vegetation-goddess, mother-earth, witches - all dealing with motherhood, birth or growth, and trickery or evil. Some say, though, that this form of criticism is “promoting a false universality of identity” within cultures and literature (208). The last derivative of feminist criticism is the minority feminist criticism. This group generally includes blacks and lesbians in arguing “against racism, xenophobia, and homophobia” (208). They focus on the works of black female writers, and lesbian authors in giving the authors credit and recognition of their culture, beliefs, and race. Feminist criticism, though very broad, is probably the most stereotyped form of criticism. This is probably because of some of those who use this form of criticism and place themselves within the feminist theories and thoughts become very outspoken and rebellious against society which cause a lot of inner turmoil and resentment within cultures. Because the feminist criticism has the word feminist in it, people tend to believe that the people using this form of criticism are outspoken, masculine, independent women. Instead, feminist criticism is a study of feminine culture, symbols, and celebration and recognition of female authors. Feminine culture isn’t all innocent, however, many times they do not include male works of art and do not let male critics use the feminist approach because of their gender. This creates tension between the genders of criticism and a little backlash from the inequality between genders within the field of criticism.

Of the three forms of criticism shown here, I believe that the mythological/archetypal is the most reliable and believable. This is because it is based upon religion, culture, and social doctrine of different races, cultures, regions, and religions. The fact that a work of art can be analyzed and taken so many different ways depending on what culture you are looking through makes the work of art that much more interesting to me.

The three approaches of literary criticism that are explained and summarized above are different and the same in many ways. Each form of criticism is based upon symbolism and mythology. The psychological approach focuses on the brain and the sexual imagery, symbols and repression a character creates and acts upon. The mythological/archetypal explains the symbols and myths within literature and society. The feminist approach focuses on the symbols and myths that pertain to women or the feminine aspects of culture and life. Another similarity between the two is that they all use psychology as a base of their criticism in one form or another: psychological uses Freud’s theories; mythological/archetypal uses Jung’s theories; and the feminists use watered down Freudian theories. The differences between all of them is their degree of formality, psychological being the most formal and feminist being the least, and their degree of aggression, feminist being the most aggressive, mythological being the least aggressive.

In comparing and contrasting the three types of literary criticism above, one can learn to understand and appreciate each better. Many of the forms of criticism are misunderstood and forgotten because they are not explained, studied, or are stereotyped. Though different and the same they are each unique giving an insight into the characters, language or stories, and genders of each work of art.