Abstract
Osborne’s Look Back in Anger revolves around the aggressive angry young man. Jimmy Porter, who can never feel satisfied with what life offers him. His financially deprived social status seems to aggravate his anger towards the individuals and the social institutions around him, however; when looked closely, it can be seen that his anger originates from certain things that he lived as a child. Against the background of Lacanian theory, it can be argued that Jimmy lived through a problematic Oedipal period and could not internalize the Law of the Father within the Symbolic Order he lived and, as a result, he is not happy with his position of a cast-away within this Symbolic Order. He can get rid of his anger only when he plays a game with his wife Alison in which he can re-create the symbiotic tie between the mother and the infant in the lmaginary phase, and in Lacanian terms, this is an attempt of a psychologically crippled individual who has not been positioned in the Symbolic Order during the Oedipal period to establish the lmaginary within the Symbolic. This justifies Jimmy’s anger, which is, in fact, against the Law of the Father rather than the individuals around him.
Abstract
Osborne’s Look Back in Anger revolves around the aggressive angry young man. Jimmy Porter, who can never feel satisfied with what life offers him. His financially deprived social status seems to aggravate his anger towards the individuals and the social institutions around him, however; when looked closely, it can be seen that his anger originates from certain things that he lived as a child. Against the background of Lacanian theory, it can be argued that Jimmy lived through a problematic Oedipal period and could not internalize the Law of the Father within the Symbolic Order he lived and, as a result, he is not happy with his position of a cast-away within this Symbolic Order. He can get rid of his anger only when he plays a game with his wife Alison in which he can re-create the symbiotic tie between the mother and the infant in the lmaginary phase, and in Lacanian terms, this is an attempt of a psychologically crippled individual who has not been positioned in the Symbolic Order during the Oedipal period to establish the lmaginary within the Symbolic. This justifies Jimmy’s anger, which is, in fact, against the Law of the Father rather than the individuals around him.
Details
| Journal Section | ART |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | October 21, 2016 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2004 Volume: 1 Issue: 1 |
