Midterm

Andzhela Keshishyan
Dr. Steven Wexler
English 638
March 19, 2010

Seeing Through the Horse’s Eyes
Peter Shaffer’s dramatic play Equus is layered with psychoanalytic theories. From the relationship between Dysart (a psychiatrist) and Alan (the teenage patient who has blinded six horses), to the idea of sexual repression, the play is full of questions. Although there has been some scholarship focused on the most important moment in the play – the blinding of the horses and its relationship to Jacques Lacan’s “mirror stage,” there has not been a sufficient study of this theory in terms of Alan’s sexuality within the play. If the mirror-stage can be defined as a “turning point in the chronology of a self,” as Jane Gallop has suggested, then the horses’ eyes symbolize this essential moment in Alan’s life (121). They act as a mirror for Alan, allowing him to see his “whole” self as opposed to the fragmented self defined by society. In this image, Alan recognizes his homosexuality and realizes that it has been oppressed by the traditional, heterosexual world surrounding him. Dysart symbolizes the control society has over the “other.” The “other” in this case is Alan, or more specifically, his sexuality, since homosexuality is perceived as a threat to the heterosexual norm. Dysart, however, complicates the notion of “control” as he begins to question his role in “normalizing” Alan. Despite his hesitance, however, he still conforms to the duties of his job, and tries to help Alan conform as well. But the violent acts of blinding the horses symbolize Alan’s frustration with conformity, and in this act, he destroys society’s control over his sexuality, and more extensively, the control over his true self. The “mirror-stage” plays a crucial role in this destruction, and I argue that it is only in this moment of chaos where Alan finally feels free and can be his whole self (as opposed to the hole he feels in himself prior to this moment).

Before the idea of the horses’ eyes as mirrors can be explained, it is important to understand society’s role in ingraining the mind with traditional concepts and its harsh judgment over anything that differs. In terms of sexuality, anything outside of the heterosexual norm is regarded as sinful and disgraceful. When Dysart asks Alan’s parents what they have taught him about sexuality, his mother replies: “I told him the biological facts. But I also told him what I believed” (Shaffer 29). This statement reinforces the role of the family in influencing (and controlling) the sexuality of future generations. Mrs. Strang (Alan’s mother), ends her explanation with “I simply…I don’t understand…Alan!” and then breaks down in sobs (29). Mrs. Strang is very religious, which makes the acceptance of homosexuality, for instance, nearly impossible. The implication here is that Mrs. Strang speculates, or possibly is aware of her son’s sexuality; her sobbing represents the response from the norm, who regard homosexuality as unacceptable. It is no wonder, then, that Alan is uncomfortable with expressing his true sexual orientation.

Since “coming out of the closet” is an entrance into a life of harassment and judgment by society, Alan tries to conform to “normalcy.” In his attempt to stay “normal” (i.e., heterosexual), “He has become a gendered subject, surmounting his Oedipus complex; but in doing so he has, so to speak, driven his forbidden desire underground, repressed it into the place we call the unconscious” (Eagleton 134). Before the connection with the horses, Alan is in a stage that precedes the mirror stage, where his identity is merely a “projection or a reflection” of society’s expectations; before his release, he has not recognized this suppression because “there is nothing on the other side of the mirror” yet (Gallop 121). Before seeing himself in the horses’ eyes, Alan is not the subject of himself; rather, he is only an object constructed by unquestioned rules and expectations from others.

The first moment of self-recognition for Alan occurs at the age of six when he is at the beach with his family. While building sandcastles, Alan meets a horseman who allows him to stroke and then sit on the horse. Alan rides the horse faster and faster, feeling an increasing sense of freedom while doing so. This scenario can be regarded as the moment that Alan recognizes his homosexuality. When his parents see him riding the horse, they are shocked and frightened. They tell Alan to come down from the horse, but he refuses, shouting “NO…NO!” (Shaffer 35). Here, at the somewhat less constructed age of six, Alan shows a rebellious side by refusing to listen to the voice of authority in his life: his father. Mr. Strang, obviously frustrated, tells the horseman, “How dare you pick up children and put them on dangerous animals” (36). When the Horseman expresses surprise over the word “dangerous,” Mr. Strang replies, “Of course dangerous, Look at his eyes. They’re rolling” (36). This notion of the rolling eyes and the horse as a “dangerous” animal reflects Mr. Strang’s fear for his son to enter a different path – one in which he would have no control over. Besides the threat of control, the horse symbolizes Alan’s suppression, and Mr. Strang’s fear is that he will recognize this and respond to it (which he does). Alan’s relationship with his father is ruined after this incident, and “it must be remembered [that] hatred or contempt of the father is a classic homosexual pattern” (Simon 99).

In a session where Alan recalls this first meeting with the horse, he tells Dysart: “When the horse first appeared, I looked up into his mouth. It was huge. There was this chain in it” (43). The chain in the horse’s mouth, of course, represents control, suppression, and silencing. This has left a lasting impression on Alan because he recognizes himself in the horse. The horse is Alan. They are both controlled by another, silenced, and held in constraint, with no way to escape and run free. Alan’s taste of freedom occurs when he rides the horse; in this scene, he is no longer repressed, and his desires are met, if only for a moment. This feeling does not last. Coming down from the horse means conformity. It means that Alan’s desires are now repressed again.

Working at the stables years later allows Alan to reunite with horses – which symbolize both his oppression and yearning for escape. His secret outings with the horses after work hours suggest his gradual attempt to understand and accept himself. In looking into the horse’s eyes, he sees his true self. This moment of mirroring “is a decisive moment” since it “is the source of not only for what follows but also for what precedes. It produces the future through anticipation and the past through retroaction” (Gallop 121). This critical moment reminds Alan of the freedom he felt the first time he saw a horse and the years of repression he has felt since. This chaotic moment offers freedom since it allows him to feel that initial sense of escape. Freud frequently talks about this “primal moment we are driven to return” as “static, inorganic, and inanimate;” Lacan, conversely, “focuses on the way it is also dynamic and even chaotic in order to construct a freedom grounded on that chaos” (Garber). The horses’ eyes do not refuse desire. Even though this freedom is temporary (and anything that’s temporary is also repressed), “it also creates freedom by being the authentic world we inhabit” (Garber). The world which is seen in the horses’ eyes is Alan’s authentic world, for it is the only place he can be himself without worrying about the outside influences and controlling elements surrounding him.

Years of repression lead Alan to commit an act of unthinkable violence towards the very thing that offered him freedom to begin with. Freud would have a field day with this. He would argue that the blinding of the horses is a form of psychological regression, and he would certainly have a point. It is indeed a form of regression. It is a temporary release and escape to something he has felt before – freedom. Because his desires have been repressed, the act of blinding the horses serves as a way to destroy this repression. Its violent act offers Alan a sense of control over his own life. In blinding the mirrors, he is blinding everything that’s been in the way of his true self: judgments, suppression, familial control, and societal influences. The eyes – mirrors -- provide Alan a medium in which to see things clearly. In this clear image, he is better able to understand what he is, but also, what he has not been allowed to be. Lacan argues that “We have only to understand the mirror stage as an identification, in the full sense that analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image” (442). For Alan, the horse’s eyes offer a medium for self-identification. In them, he sees the subject of himself; thus, there is finally a correlation between the object and the subject and in this connection, the whole self is revealed.

Because “psychoanalysis is not only a theory of the human mind, but a practice for curing those who are considered mentally ill or disturbed,” it is equally important to discuss Dysart’s role as a psychiatrist (Eagleton 138). His job is to help bring Alan to “normalcy” and a healthy state of mind. Of course, the argument “that psychoanalysis as a medical practice is a form of oppressive social control, labeling individuals and forcing them to conform to an arbitrary definition of ‘normality’” exists (141). It is this very argument that makes Dysart wonder whether his duty as a psychiatrist is really helping Alan. In a powerful passage, Dysart tells Hesther:

[Alan] will be delivered from madness. What then? He’ll feel himself acceptable! What then? Do you think feelings like his can be simply re-attached, like plasters? Stuck on to other objects we select? Look at him! … My desire might be to make this boy an ardent husband – a caring citizen – a worshipper of abstract and unifying God. My achievement, however, is more likely to make a ghost! (Shaffer 108).

Clearly, Dysart questions his role (and thus the role of psychiatrists) in “normalizing” individuals. By “helping” Alan, he is hurting the very essence that makes him who he is. His job, essentially, is to repress Alan’s sexuality. He is to make Alan act “acceptable” within the rules of society, but at what expense? He is killing the very spirit that makes Alan. He is killing the passion that exists within him. He observes, “Passion can be destroyed by a doctor. It cannot be created” (109). Alan’s passion (his sexuality) is a part of him, so by “curing” him, Dysart is figuratively killing Alan.

In terms of psychoanalytic theory, Equus examines the relationship between the mentally ill and the healer of the mentally ill. Both terms and roles are socially constructed, and Peter Shaffer’s play questions these constructions. In addition, Lacan’s mirror-stage provides a way to understand Alan’s actions. The blinding of the horses is much more than the physical act entails; it is the refusal to conform, the frustration to accept a façade, and finally, the destruction of it all. It is an act of escape and an attempt to be free. The mirror-stage lets Alan see the world in a clear, new light. In the reflection of the horse’s eyes, Alan understands his role within society. Instead of accepting it, however, he chooses to destroy it. In the chaotic act of rebellion and violence, Alan feels freedom.


Works Cited

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Print.

Gallop, Jane. “Lacan’s ‘Mirror Stage:’ Where to Begin.” SubStance 11.4 (1983): 118-28. JSTOR. Web. 7 March 2010.

Garber, D. L. “The Surprising Thing About Lacan.” Literature and Psychology 44. 1-2(1998): 54-69. WilsonWeb. Web. 7 March 2010.

Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin ad Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print.

Shaffer, Peter. Equus. New York: Scribner, 1973. Print.

Simon, John. “Hippodrama at the Psychodrome.” The Hudson Review 28.1 (Spring 1975):97-106. JSTOR. Web. 16 February. 2010.

Annotated Bibliography

Gallop, Jane. “Lacan’s ‘Mirror Stage:’ Where to Begin.” SubStance 11.4.37-8 (1983):118-28. JSTOR. Web. 7 March 2010.

The focus of the “self” that is presented in this article will prove to be a helpful source in analyzing and understanding Lacan’s “mirror stage.” Gallop makes the distinction between the inside and the outside, and relates this to the mirror – the mirror stage, thus, becomes a turning point between the “self” and the projected self. This argument will be useful in analyzing Alan’s behavior in Equus.

Garber, D. L. “The Surprising Thing about Lacan.” Literature and Psychology 44.1-2(1998): 54-69. WilsonWeb. Web. 7 March 2010.

Garber claims in this article that Lacan’s work cannot be independent from Freud’s and vice versa. He insists that the two cannot be easily separable, and devotes the argument to comparisons between the two theorists. For instance, there is a fascinating comparison in the difference between Lacan and Freud’s ideas about the primal moment of the “mirror stage.” This, I believe, will be helpful to anyone writing about this important moment and its connection with desire, freedom, and the self.

Pelt, Van Tamise. “Lacan in Context: An Introduction to Lacan for the English-Speaking Reader.” College Literature 24.2 (1997): 57-70. JSTOR. Web. 7 March 2010.

This article puts Lacan’s work in context with the historical moment. Pelt offers a good way for readers to see Lacan’s work in a more holistic manner, which in turn provides for a deeper understanding. Since most of Lacan’s works are translations, this article is a good background for the English-speaker to fully grasp all of the background moments which contribute to Lacan’s theories.

Simon, John. “Hippodrama at the Psychodrome.” The Hudson Review 28.1 (1975):97-106. JSTOR. Web. 25 February 2010.

In this article, John Simon discusses Peter Shaffer’s Equus. He addresses the play in terms of homosexuality and psychoanalysis. There is an outline of the failed heterosexual relationships presented in the play, and how this furthers the notion of it as homosexually based. Most useful for my purposes, however, is the discussion of the horses eyes as a substitute throughout the play. For a paper focused on Lacan’s mirror stage, this particular part in the article will prove to
be quite useful.

Vasseleu, Cathryn. “The Face before the Mirror-Stage.” Hypatia 6. 3 (1991): 14-55.JSTOR. Web. 7 March 2010.

This article addressing Lacan’s mirror-stage is an important one, as it discusses the reflected image as an object. The topics of self-origin, psyche, and repression, which the author addresses, are useful for an argument based on Peter Saffer’s Equus (in comparing the horse’s eyes as mirrors for the main character, Alan).

Wright, Elizabeth. “Another Look at Lacan and Literary Criticism.” New Literary History 19.3 (1988): 617-27. JSTOR. Web. 7 March 2010.

The relevance of this article rests on the discussion of Lacan’s notion of the signifier and the signified. In this argument, Wright relates the inner private experience of the body to the outer public interpretation of it. This makes for a unique relation to Alan’s (the protagonist in Equus) grisly act in terms of his inner experience and the interpretation of it by the outside world.