Guilty Mom Horror Part 3: “the Real” issue in the guilty mom horror film? Keep looking, you won’t locate it.
Within
the context of a horror film, this three-pronged tensional dynamic highlights
the unique vulnerabilities and conflicts of the ‘guilty’ mom and creates an
avenue through which viewers experience Jacques Lacan’s Real. Lacan’s Real is the
uncanny location between the conflicting imaginary order and symbolic order. The
Real creates the impossibility of absolute comprehension. Not being able to
understand something when one’s life is at stake is frightening.
The
imaginary order is the part of human consciousness that exists without language
and expression. In the imaginary order, the self is connected to others,
objects, and the world. This order is without boundary or definition; it is the
fantasy image of self. It is narcissistic, fueled by unsatisfiable demands. It
is the order of the maternal. The mother, in her traditional role, exists in
the imaginary order with the child. She protects the emotions of the child and creates
emotional safety. For these reasons, the traditional maternal role is
associated with the imaginary order.
The
imaginary order is separate from the symbolic order. The symbolic order is the
place of self that is expressed through language, the place ruled by societal
demands, norms, rules and expectations. It is composed of a narrative, concrete
and defined by the absence or presence of objects and ideas. It is this aspect
of self that affords the ability to deal with others and to be part of a
community. It is characterized by desire, by want. The father, in his traditional role, protects
the worldly safety of the child and guides the child into that place where
norms dictate behavior and rational thoughts are expressed through language. Thus,
the traditional paternal role is associated with the symbolic order.
The
Real is the place between the imaginary and symbolic orders. It is the
incomprehensible, undefinable space beyond rational thought, although it does
contain knowledge. It cannot be expressed in spoken or written language and so
is not fully comprehensible or communicable. That is not to say it is inherently
irrational or inherently anxiety producing. There are pleasant ways to
experience the Real. Being curious or intrigued, for example. Wondering about
something while still feeling in control of one’s thoughts, while knowing there
are no harsh consequences to not know—these are safe, if not productive and
pleasant ways to experience the Real. However, the Real is undefinable and thus
uncanny by its very nature. Additionally, it is unique to each person and so
not uniformly shared. It is undefinable, yet familiar. It exists, and must
exist, but is not explainable nor controllable. The ‘guilty’ mom situation
drives the mother, the child, and the viewer into the Real. It is in this
incomprehensible abyss that the battle against evil takes place.
The
mother figure is vulnerable because of her inability to become fully incorporated
within the paternal symbolic order. Without this empowerment, she does not have
access to the resources necessary to negotiate the story terror. She may be
denied access altogether or she may be forced to back channel her way in,
managing a delicate balancing act of pretending the situation isn’t present
while also attempting to get help. As a result, she silences the child and forces
the child back into the imaginary order, although not intentionally, insofar as
this limitation happens via her own inability to gain access into the symbolic
order. She has a sense or knowledge that she shouldn’t cling to or smother her
child, yet her guilt may cause her to over-nurture the child, keeping the child
‘trapped’ in the imaginary order and without access to the language and
rational thought of the symbolic. She, herself, is disoriented, drifting in the
Real, a place with no understanding or solutions.
Children
are by their nature vulnerable; however, the horror film child faces challenges
that amplify that vulnerability. In the situation of a guilty mom horror film,
the child is dealing with two threats. One, the evil force that terrorizes, and
two, the mother who either suppresses and smothers or silences and rejects. The
threat created by the guilty mom is uniquely terrifying. Barbara Creed, in The Monstrous-Feminine, notes that “monsters
frighten, in large part, because they recall our previous stage of development
when we were not separated from the body of the mother.” A child who is forced
into that place of development where they are part of the mother, especially
when the mother herself is a threat, is struggling within the incomprehensible Real.
The child’s location within the Real is complicated by this cyclical conflict. Intuitively,
the child knows there is a problem. Using language, they seek help from their
mother and in the lack of assistance or rejection are forced back into the
imaginary, emotionally-based, pre-Oedipal stage. This regression is uncanny, distressing,
and denies the child agency. The mother, wanting to control the situation of
the child and keep the child’s needs from usurping her own, continues to smother
or silence the child. Without the ability to express the need for help or the
ability to understand their situation and thus protect themself from the terror,
the child is even more exposed and vulnerable. This vulnerability is reinforced
by the mother’s response to her guilt, the silencing or over nurturing. Due to
the distress that the child experiences and causes, both mother and child are
rejected by the community or society. The child experiences that rejection and
begins to fear or reject society in turn. They are shut out of the symbolic
order by both the larger group and by the actions of the mother and now must
fight the terror on their own.
Stefan
Gullatz, in his work analyzing contemporary horror through Lacanian theory,
discusses the impact of films like Hellraiser,
in which the lines of reality are blurred. He asserts that the true terror
stems from the viewers inability to determine the location of the action.
The
‘enjoyment’ at stake…appears to be the horrific, excess enjoyment of a desire
that has come too close to its object. The fact that such films, despite their
traumatic impact, may nonetheless be mesmerizing may be in part linked to their
existential dimension, their ‘revelation’ of the real of our desire underlying
the fiction of symbolic reality. One is reminded of the unbearable but
nonetheless revelatory encounter with the real at the ‘navel’ of a dream or
nightmare, which causes the subject to wake up in order to enable him to
‘continue dreaming’... to preserve the comforting illusion of a stable social
self. Such films can therefore only enjoyed retroactively, from the perspective
of a more distanced reflection that facilitates a symbolic re-inscription of
the traumatic experience.
Adding
this additional layer of mental and emotional confusion to the uncanny situation
of a guilty mom is an effective strategy for horror writers.
Guilty Mom Horror Part 4.
Guilty Mom Horror Part 4.
Comments
Post a Comment