Chung
1
The Stagnancy of Emily’s Psyche in Faulkner’s “A
Rose for Emily”: Lacanian Reading
Only Miss Emily’s house was left, lifting its stubborn and coquettish
decay above the cotton wagon and the gasoline pumps — as eyesore
among eyesores.
— Faulkner
Thus she passed from generation to generation — dear, inescapable,
impervious, tranquil, and perverse.
— Faulkner
At the very beginning of the novel, Faulkner attempts to convey to the
reader an image of Emily via his description of the appearance of her house. He
concretely applies words and phrases such as “stubborn” and “coquettish decay”
to describe Emily’s mind and look. After Emily’s father dies, time seems to cease
in her psyche. Emily’s mysterious acts ascribe a sense of fantasy to her father’s
death. The illusion of her father hinders the function of Name-of-the-father in
Emily’s psyche. According to Lacanian theory, the function of Name-of-the-father
is “to love and to forbid”. Because she lacks this function, she has no desire to
love people or to conform to social norms. She naturally separates herself from
the community and thus builds a disharmonious relationship with the community
members. The author uses “we”, the townspeople, as the narrator, and the passion
of the town, the custom, displays the antagonism to the passion of Emily’s soul,
the nature. The town, the Other, acts as a subject who gazes at Emily, the other. In
the battle between the Other and the other, Emily unfortunately tends to play the
role of master, refusing to obey the community rules, but following her own
nature. Ultimately, her isolation from the community makes her psyche become
Chung
2
stagnant, and this is represented by her eccentric house and strange behavior,
which the author describes “as eyesore among eyesores”.
Emily’s psyche becomes stagnant after her father passes away. A short
while after her father’s death, she refuses to accept that he has died. When the
ministers prepare to dispose of her father’s body, “[s]he told them that her father
was not dead” (Faulkner 123). This is the first time that Emily displays her odd
behavior in front of the townspeople. In the beginning, the town shows its
sympathy to her because it seems understandable for a person who has just lost
the person she loves most in her life. In fact, her father was not only the person
she loved most, but indeed the only love in her life. Emily’s father drives away all
the young men pursuing her. “[S]he would have to cling to that which had robbed
her, as people will” (124). In these lines, the author illustrates the townspeople’s
understanding of the object. Yet as more time passes after her father’s death, her
odd behavior and abnormal characteristics become increasingly serious and
eventually out of control. From the townspeople’s point of view, she has become
insane, and this leads them to spread slanderous rumors about her.
Emily’s weird behavior results from her inability to successfully transfer the
imaginary father to the symbolic father, which hampers the functions of
Name-of-the-father. Name-of-the-father belongs to the field of symbolic order; its
function is to build a prohibitive and loving viewpoint in the subject’s mind, and it
drives a person to conform to social norms and to love people. After Emily’s
father dies, the phallus imaginaries should be converted to internalization and
unconscionalization, and then transferred to the symbolic phallus; that is, it is
converted from the phase of the imaginary father to the symbolic father. Phallus
imaginaries represent the characteristics which incur satisfaction and the
continuous search for new substitutions if the old satisfactions are unable to
Chung
3
please the object. Furthermore, the symbolic phallus designates the significance
rather than the image of the phallus. The symbolic phallus is described as “the
signifier of the desire to the Other” (Ecrits 290). It is the signifier of enjoyment or
enjoyment for enjoyment’s sake. The enjoyment here refers to the desire to the
Other. In other words, the object copies the enjoyment belonging to the Other and
regard it as his/hers.
The so-called imaginary father is an imago, an image without consciousness
and an image of an ideal father. It is the fantasy of the figure of the father which is
constructed by the subject. It is a kind of father that reflects the constitutions of
the phallus imaginaries, satisfactions. Throughout the novel, the image of an ideal
father still exists in Emily’s psyche and seems to never completely fade away. The
author applies the image of the horsewhip to imply the imaginary phallus,
demonstrating that the imaginary father is still alive in Emily’s psyche. “…, her
father a straddled silhouette in the foreground, his back to her and clutching a
horsewhip, ...” (Faulkner 123). The horsewhip is the image of the phallus which
satisfies her sense of power. Aside from the horsewhip, the author also mentions
the “yellow-wheeled buggy” (124) and the sound of a horse’s
hoof, ”clop-clop-clop” (125) as symbols that imply glory and position, the
signifier of the imaginary father. When she sits on the buggy with Barron, “[s]he
carrie[s] her head high enough” (125) in order to show off her honor and high
status. In sum, Emily’s fantasy about her father makes the imaginary father unable
to transfer to the symbolic father. This process can be illustrated by Lacanian
Algebra as follows:
Chung
P’ ( φ )
4
P(Φ)
Emily’s fantasy to
her father
p’ : imaginary father
φ : phallus imaginary
P : symbolic father
Φ : phallus symbol
Unable to successfully pass from the imaginary father to the symbolic
father, Emily’s psyche exhibits the condition of delusion. In Lacanian theory, “the
paranoiac lacks the Name-of-the-father, and the delusion is the paranoiac’s
attempt to fill the hole left in his symbolic universe” (Even 34). The subject
(Emily) is incapable of achieving the phase of symbolic father due to the absence
of the symbolic phallus. Her delusion results in her being incapable of
distinguishing what is real from what is not. Retaining the corpse of her father
evidences her delusion. Later, the same situation is confronted by Homer Barron,
the foreman. To satisfy her desire for the phallus, Emily poisons Homer Barron so
as to force him to stay with her. The narrator describes her purchasing
marriage-related accessories and utensils, such as jewelry, a men’s silver toilet set,
men’s nightshirts, and so on. As stated by the narrator, “They are married” (127).
The townspeople believe that Emily has actually gotten married. In fact, Emily
herself begins to believe this, and she even sleeps with the corpse of Barron until
her death. After poisoning Homer, as described in the text, the front door of
Emily’s house remained closed for six or seven years. This means that Emily
further alienated herself from the reality, the town. The alienation deepens the
Chung
5
stagnancy of her psyche and all the things in her life. Her unorthodox behavior
was hidden from the outside world and locked in her house, the forbidden
chamber, until she died and the town people discovered the “iron-gray hair”
(130).
Later, Emily’s delusion turns out to be psychosis. In this phase,
Name-of-the-father has already been foreclosed. She does not know how to
overcome her libido, and she obeys the paternal signifiers, the law, finally
triggering her psychosis. In Lacanian terminology, psychosis is triggered by
“foreclosure” — the absence of the symbolic father. That is, the paternal
function is replaced by the image of the father, and the function of the father is
left in the unconsciousness. If the subject does not confront the paternal signifier,
the result will be a display of delusions and/or hallucinations rather than the
outright triggering of psychosis. On the contrary, if the subject violates the things
involving the signs of paternal signifiers, psychosis will be set off. The signifier of
Name-of-the-father is to forbid and to love. “It is in the Name-of-the-father that
we must recognize the support of the symbolic function which, from the dawn of
history, has identified his person with the figure of the law” (Ecrits 67). To obey
the law and forbid the subject to do things by his/her own nature is an important
function of it. Foreclosing its function makes the social law lose its binding force
upon Emily. “I have no taxes in Jefferson” (Faulkner 121). Emily says these
words three times, illustrating her stubborn character and her contempt for social
norms and laws. Even though the city authorities try all possible approaches to
force Emily to pay taxes, their efforts are eventually in vain.
Another notable instance occurs when she buys rat poison in the pharmacy.
The druggist says, “‘But the law requires you to tell what you are going to use it
for.’ Miss Emily just stared at him, her head tilted back in order to look him eye
Chung
6
for eye, …” (126). This manner strongly indicates her insolent disdain for the law.
Her “stare at him” means that she stares at “laws”, and the gesture of “her head
tilted back in order to look him eye for eye” represents her perceived superiority
over the laws. Emily puts her priorities before the laws, and even attempts to
challenge and overthrown them when necessary. We can take the incident of
Homer Barron as a prime example of this. Barron, the masculine, represents the
phallus that the feminine desires. Nevertheless, disappointingly, Barron’s
homosexuality brings about an immense frustration in Emily. Facing such an
embarrassing situation and dilemma, Emily chooses to foreclose the function of
the law, the paternal signifier, and poisons Barron. In fact, when she kills him, she
has become psychotic; as such, she acts following her nature, losing her reason.
At that time, given Emily’s psychological condition, sleeping with her love in the
isolated room is an act that brings her the greatest sense of happiness. After
killing Barron, she faithfully continues believing that Barron is still alive, and this
leads to her strange behavior with Barron’s corpse.
In the novel, Emily plays the role of a person who is gazed at by the town,
the Other. For the sake of escaping from this gaze, Emily cannot help but cut
herself off from the public. Therefore, from this viewpoint, the public’s scrutiny is
another factor causing Emily’s psychological stagnancy. In Lacanian theory, eyes,
being attributed to the field of consciousness, are the interface between somatic
and psyche, the inner desire and the outer milieu. Eyes are the keys which open a
gate to the connection between the interior world and the exterior world; they also
connect the single subject and other subjects, and create an intersubjective
“common cosmos”, the Other. In the novel, we occasionally see the narrator use
the word “we” to express “the look” of the townspeople, such as “we did not say
she was crazy then” (124), “we believed that she was fallen” (125), “we all said,
Chung
7
‘She will kill herself’” (126), and “we would see her at a window for a moment”
(127). The town, Jefferson, is composed of the people, and these people create
their own “common cosmos”. As a member of this cosmos, Emily should follow
the common consciousness, the customs, in the town. If there is anyone who does
not do so, he/she would naturally become an outcast in this group. This is a
relationship that could not be severed. Due to the lack of the Name-of-the-father,
Emily has no ideas and will forbid her id to conform to the moral regulations in
Jefferson. She has no desire to get along with the town citizens, saying nothing
more to “love” them. Therefore, the battle between Emily (the other) and the
community (the Other) is inescapable. This war is sustained for about forty years,
from the first conflict, which is evoked by the incident of the “smell”, to the
incident of “tax” with the new generation thirty years later, and finally until she
dies.
Nevertheless, the war between the other and the Other will be terminated in
an unchangeable relationship called the “master-and-slave relationship”, in which
the Other is the master and the other is the slave. This is because the other, which
is called “an object of desire” in Lacanian terms, desires to cater to the common
will of the Other. The Other “is essentially coupled with the ego, in a relationship
which is always reflexive, interchangeable” (The Seminar, Book II 321). Ego, the
conscious self, is a referee between id, libido, and superego, the will of the Other
or the social taboos. Because the other has a “desire” for the Other, the desire will
regulate and amend his/her id, the nature. It is a long and endless journey for the
other before he/she dies. The town symbolizes the superego, and its union with
the ego could attack the id of the other. Sometimes, the other chooses to obey the
id and to be a master in the tug-of-war, but sometimes it takes sides with the
superego and serves as a slave. Through this swift alternation of master and slave,
Chung
8
the other will keep something and terminate something. Finally, the other will
gradually achieve a condition of harmony and balance with the Other, depending
on his/her ego.
We tend to see Emily as occupying the superior position in the battle.
Sometimes, we even become confused about whom the real master is in the earth.
However, Emily’s superior position is just a semblance. When the townspeople
force the Baptist minister to call upon Emily, he never discloses the situation of
the interview and refuses to go back again. This implies that the minister does not
achieve his mission. And when they complain to the mayor about the smell from
Emily’s house, Mayor Stevens says, “But what will you have me do about it, ...?”
(Faulkner 122), and “Isn’t there a law?” (122). We seldom see Emily placing
herself in the inferior position in the tug- of -war. We even doubt whether or not
the Other really ever affected Emily. Actually, the procedure of the tug-of-war
really comes into being in Emily’s inner world, yet this is conveyed in a subtle
manner. The most obvious clue in the novel is when she gives the China-painting
lessons to earn her living after her father’s death. Nevertheless, it is always an
unchangeable rule that the Other will always be the master and the winner in the
battlefield. Because Emily isolates herself from the community, she gets away
from the gaze of the Other. In other words, she is like an army deserter who does
not join the “master-and-slave relationship” war. That is, she is not a winner, but
an escapee. To sum up, although the Other is the eternal master in the
“master-and-slave relationship”, its binding force is unable to effectively
condition the other’s subject because of the ineffective gaze and the lack of
Name-of-the-father. This can be illustrated by Lacanian Algebra as follows:
Chung
s (A)
lack of Name-of-the-father
(to love and to forbid)
9
a
ineffective gaze
(Emily’s isolation from the Other)
s ( A ): the signification of the Other (the message/symptom)
s: the signified
A: the big Other (the Other)
a: object little a (the other)
As a result of her isolation from the town, Emily’s psyche becomes stagnant.
It stops at the point of her father’s death. Emily protects herself from the
repressive nature of reality (the Other) by separating herself from the community.
She ceases all social activities — “After her father’s death she went out very
little; after her sweetheart went away, people hardly saw her at all” (122), and “no
one save an old manservant… had seen in at least ten years” (119). According to
these words, Emily lives as a hermit in the town for a period of almost forty years.
This psychological break makes Emily essentially disappear in this world. She
knows nothing about what is going on outside her house; for example, she did not
learn of the old mayor’s death until almost ten years after it happened. The
psychical stagnancy causes obstinacy and rot to manifest in Emily’s mind and
living conditions. The generations change, but that is insignificant to Emily,
because she maintains a constant identity and psyche. When Emily is alive, she
lives as a fossil. And when she dies, she is compared to a monument representing
the ideal of an era. She is “a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary
obligation upon the town, …” (90). Her death emblematizes the end of an era, and
Chung
10
the fall of a monument. The townspeople go to her funeral with “a sort of
respectful affection for a fallen monument, …” (119).
Faulkner describes Emily’s house as a kind of eyesore; nevertheless, this
passive viewpoint is not the complete picture in this novel. “Stubborn and
coquettish decay” is, in some senses, the gesture which is worthy of extolling.
Faulkner writes that “Miss Emily had gone to join the representatives of those
august names…among the ranked and anonymous graves of Union Confederate
soldiers who fell at the battle of Jefferson” (89). Perhaps it is because her life is so
abnormal that it seems to have such unique and irreplaceable value. Or maybe the
general people are fond of worshipping extraordinary things. Emily escapes from
the moral law and obeys her own nature only. Aside from the time she poisoned
Barron, Emily’s life represents her nature escaping the influence of the culture in
the town. We cannot deny, however, that customs are the common consciousness
of a specific people and hence may sometimes deviate from the natural law in the
universe. In some cases and situations, we understand that the customs that we
follow are not reasonable but are absurd and cruel, yet they still exist and may
change from generation to generation. We blindly obey the customs because we
have no courage to return to our nature. In this sense, Emily is brave to obstruct
her desire for the Other, as this evokes the id which is hidden in our psyche. For
this reason, Emily, at the end of the novel, is described as a “carven torso”, who
“…passed from generation to generation — dear, inescapable, impervious,
tranquil, and perverse” (116). The narrative tone is filled with calmness,
cool-headedness, and lamentation to Miss Emily.
All in all, there are two reasons for Emily’s psyche becoming stagnant: the
lack of Name-of-the-father and the gaze from the Other. The death of Emily’s
father brings about the stagnancy of her psyche. Because her father is her only
Chung
11
love, she is unable to transfer the imaginary father to the symbolic one. Ultimately,
Emily cannot but fall into a condition of delusion. She becomes unable to
distinguish the real from the delusion, and she thus preserves her father’s corpse
and sleeps with Barron’s corpse until her death. Her delusion soon turns out to be
a psychosis generated from her psychologically powerful love of her father and
her contempt for the paternal signifier, the law. What’s worse, she refuses to pay
taxes and poisons Barron due to her nature and her disdain for the laws. Over the
course of about forty years, Emily lives as a hermit who essentially locks herself
in her frame house, which is seen as an eyesore in Jefferson. In the novel, she
plays the role of a martyr, isolating herself to escape the gaze of the Other. The
gaze of the townspeople is a kind of common consciousness, which serves as the
master which critiques and judges the other, Emily. Although Emily is doomed to
be the slave in the tug-of-war with the Other, her valiance and fearless spirit
shapes her into a monument which symbolizes the tradition, style, and ideals of
her generation.
Chung
12
Works Cited
Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London:
Routledge, 1996. Print.
Faulkner, William. Collected Stories of William Faulkner. New York: Random,
1950. Print.
Feldstein, Richard, Bruce Fink, and Maire Jaanus, ed. Reading Seminar XI:
Lacan’s Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Albany, New
York: State University of New York Press, 1995. Print.
Glowinski, Huguette, Zita M. Marks, and Sara Murphy. A Compendium of
Lacanian Terms. London: Free Association Books, 2001. Print.
Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton,
1977. Print.
---. “Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father Seminar.” Trans. Jeffrey Mehlman.
October 40 [Spring, 1987]: 81-95. Print.
---. The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences
of Man. Ed. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato. Baltimore and London:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. 186-200. Print.
---. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Ed. Jacques-Alain
Miller. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1977. Print.
---. "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in
Psychoanalytic Experience." 1949 Ecrits. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York:
Norton, 2005. 75-81. Print.
---. The Seminar, Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of
Psychoanalysis, 1954-1955, edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. by
Sylvana Tomaselli, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1988. Print.
---. The Seminar, Book III. The Psychoses, edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, trans.
by Russell Grigg, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1993. Print.
Chung
---. "Some Reflections on the Ego." Paper read to the British Psycho-Analytical
Society on 2 May, 1951. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 34
(1953): 11-17. Print.
13