Running head: AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 1 The Dark Sides of Affectionate Communication and Attachment Theories As Shown Through Shakespeare s A Midsummer Night s Dream Emily A. HagenBurger The University of Tennessee
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 2 It s fairly easy to recognize various communication theories in canonical literature, but how well can a field as modern as communication studies really relate to literature that is more than 400 years old? By using the four friends stuck in a love rectangle in William Shakespeare s A Midsummer Night s Dream Lysander, Hermia, Demetrius, and Helena as examples of close relationships, I would like to show that communication theories are relevant even in literature from the 16 th century. The theories I will be looking at are the attachment theory and some theories that fall under both the bioevolutionary and sociocultural approaches of affectionate communication. Through these, I would like to show that even these classical characters in a drama, otherwise out-of-touch with our modern world, share characteristics and motivations for their actions and communication with those in modern studies, using recent research on the theories. These four characters, in their adventures through the woods, offer a wonderful opportunity for a discussion on the dark sides of attachment and affectionate communication within close relationships. A Midsummer Night s Dream is a great background for applying the attachment theory because the four lovers directly correspond to the four styles of attachment laid out in chapter one of Cupach & Spitzberg s The Dark Side of Close Relationships II. Hermia and Lysander have a secure attachment with each other there is low and anxiety and low avoidance in their relationship. Helena and Demetrius are more interesting; Helena loves Demetrius but he does not love her, and instead loves Hermia. Helena has a preoccupied attachment with Demetrius, where it is shown to be high in anxiety and low in avoidance, leading Demetrius to have a fearfulavoidant attachment towards Helena-high in anxiety and avoidance-while also being preoccupied with Hermia. Hermia and Demetrius, therefore, both have a dismissing avoidant attachment towards their unrequited lovers (Demetrius and Helena, respectively), where they are both low in
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 3 anxiety and high in avoidance (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2011). Demetrius s dismissing avoidant attachment with Helena can be easily seen in his line to her: I ll run from thee, and hide me in the brakes,/and leave thee to the mercy of wild beasts (2.1.227-8). Not only is he avoidant of her (enough to literally hide in the bushes to get away from her), but he is dismissive to the point that he doesn t care if she lives or dies. We can take this assessment further by adding in a study by Lavy, Mikulincer, & Shaver (2010) in which they outline hyperactivation, deactivation, and pursuer-distancer relationships in respect to the attachment theory. Helena and Demetrius s relationship is obviously a pursuerdistancer one, in which one partner intensively seeks closeness and reassurance and the other responds with...intensified efforts to maintain autonomy and independence" (Lavy et. all, 2010, p. 553). Helena also exhibits hyperactivation in her behavior towards Demetrius and their relationship, including a preoccupation with Demetrius s interest or disinterest in her, and clingy, intrusive behavior, while Demetrius responds with deactivation, or avoidance of intimacy and strong efforts to remain self-reliant (Lavy et. all, 2010, p. 553). Helena wrote the book on clingy: she follows Demetrius into the woods even though she knows he is only trying to follow Hermia and consistently tells him of her love for him, while Demetrius only responds with scorn. While Hermia and Lysander s secure attachment shows a lighter side of close relationships, Helena s obsession with Demetrius and his with Hermia creates tension within the group and leads to negative behaviors such as lying, deception, and betrayal, showing the corresponding dark side. Hermia, Lysander, Demetrius, and Helena s attachment styles directly relate to how they communicate affectionately with each other. How they view each other relationally dictates how they communicate; in this case, all four are concerned with the risk of losing face because they
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 4 all want to avoid one person and show off to another, which shows in their communication. For example, Helena asks Hermia what it is she does that has gained Demetrius s attention. The more I hate, the more he follows me, Hermia says, to which Helena replies, The more I love, the more he hateth me (1.1.198-9). Hermia wishes to remain autonomous from Demetrius (negative face), and tries to protect this image throughout, while Helena just wants to be liked by Demetrius (positive face); this face is put at risk by how Demetrius treats both of them, either by threatening Hermia s autonomy or Helena s value (Knobloch, Satterlee, & DiDomenico, 2010). This has to do with Affection Exchange Theory (AET) because while it argues that affectionate messages enhance relational bonds, it can also include darker communication behavior, such as manipulation, jealousy-evoking behaviors, face loss, deception, and rumination on past relational transgressions (Horan, 2010, pg. 110). Again using Lavy et. all s study, we see that Helena is a by-the-book intrusive personality, which can cause attachment anxiety, but is also correlated with this need for positive face (Lavy et. all 2010). All of the rest of the bioevolutionary and sociocultural theories of affectionate communication also apply in A Midsummer Night s Dream. The norms of reciprocity dictate that both Hermia and Demetrius are expected by society to return the feelings of Demetrius and Helena, respectively. This was obviously ingrained, to some degree, into Shakespeare s society as well and not just our modern one, since he felt the need to intervene with magic in order to have Demetrius finally reciprocate Helena s feelings. AET dictates that the need to survive and procreate spurs our need to exchange affectionate communication and create bonds the play does end with the happy newlyweds leaving the scene with the instructions Lovers, to bed for nightly revels and new jollity (5.1.347,351). Ending on sexual allusions, the play gives the message that this is the true motivation and reason for their affectionate communication
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 5 exchanges. Social exchange theory (SET) is definitely seen as a viable concept for the citizens of Athens-especially Hermia s father-who see Demetrius s love for Hermia as more beneficial and therefore of a higher value than Lysander s (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2011). While the four lovers are in the woods, they experience the rest of the affection exchange theories: Helena portrays the need to belong theory (NBT) by forcing herself into this love triangle, while the tend-and-befriend theory (TBT) allows all of the lovers to get over their traumatic experience with Puck s love-juices and love-switching in the woods through renewed, rejuvenated vows of their love to each other at the end. Expectations are certainly violated while the lovers are in the woods; according to expectancy violations theory (EVT), we desire to be able to predict and explain the behavior of others so that we know how to respond, and when these expectations are violated it creates distress. When Puck switches around who loves who, it creates much distress between the characters because they no longer follow their expectations; for example, Helena is wounded when Demetrius professes his love for her, thinking that he is making fun (3.2). Finally, cognitive valence theory (CVT) is more especially for affectionate communication, and we see the effect of norms of affectionate communication in Hermia and Lysander s previously secure relationship being violated after he is made to love Helena instead. Lysander scorns her, calls her names, and says he hates her, and Hermia does not know how to react, only saying, confused, Am not I Hermia? Are not you Lysander? (3.2.274). All of these examples show that affectionate communication can be perceived as insincere or meant insincerely, and unexpected affectionate communication can cause distress and face threats (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2011). By analyzing Hermia, Lysander, Demetrius, and Helena s communication throughout A Midsummer Night s Dream, we see outlined examples of the attachment theory and the
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 6 bioevolutionary and sociocultural approaches of affectionate communication. Not only do these modern theories still apply to Shakespeare s 16 th century masterpiece, but the characters relationships and communication fall in quite easily with these theories. Helena, for example, is identified by being intrusive in her attachments, which leads to a pursuer-distancer relationship between herself and Demetrius. Lysander and Hermia, while their attachment is secure, go through a period where their expectations are violated, and they do not know how to respond, given their previous norms of affectionate communication. All this goes to show that humanity, since the 1500s, has not strayed from at least some of the basic motivations for and pressures of attachment and affectionate communication.
AFFECTION AND ATTACHMENT THEORIES IN SHAKESPEARE 7 References Cupach, W.R., & Spitzberg, B.H. (Eds.). (2011). The Dark Side of Close Relationships II. New York, NY: Routledge. Greenblatt, S., Cohen, W., Howard, J.E., & Maus, K.E. (Eds.). (2009). The Norton Shakespeare: Essential Plays & The Sonnets (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Horan, S.M. (2012). Affection Exchange Theory and Perceptions of Relational Transgressions. Western Journal of Communication, 76(2), 109-126. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2011.651548 Knobloch, L.K., Satterlee, K.L., & DiDomenico, S.M. (2010). Relational Uncertainty Predicting Appraisals of Face Threat in Courtship: Integrating Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Politeness Theory. Communication Research, 37(3), 303-334. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362527 Lavy, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2010). Autonomy proximity imbalance: An attachment theory perspective on intrusiveness in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 552-556. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.004