글번호
250649
일 자
17.11.17
조회
1049
글쓴이
이슬기
제목 : 2017 하반기 제6회 학술세미나 및 강독회(신데렐라 콤플렉스 연구)

2017년 국제문화연구원 하반기 학술세미나 및 강독회

 

6차 학술세미나: 신데렐라 콤플렉스 연구 (3)

 

장소: 국제문화연구원, 시간: 11/16/2017()

 

 

1. 학술활동 내용

 

     1) 이건근 연구원, 게재확정논문(미래영어영문학회, 11월말)의 분석

   2) On the Two Syndromes and the Two Selections around Hollywood Cinderella-Themed Films

   3) 토론: 조이경, 이삼태

 

2. 발표글: 이건근 연구원이 작성하여 위 학회지에 게재확정된 논문

 

On the Two Syndromes and the Two Selections around Hollywood Cinderella-Themed Films

 

Lee, Geon-Geun

 

 

 

1. Introduction

 

A literature critic Lois Tyson blames the story of “Cinderella” for its debilitating effects of patriarchism on both sexes, insisting that the influential role of Cinderella demands women’s submission to and toleration of familial abuse and also men’s unflagging energy and financial burden to make their women happy ever after (88). In spite of the feminism movement prevalent in the late 20th century, the North American women read these sorts of novels at the rate of 20 books a month (Rabine 69). Margaret Jensen writes that female readers already became addictive to Cinderella-themed works (41). Also, Ann Douglas says in her famous article “Soft-Porn Culture” that the romance’s immense popularity “coincided exactly with the appearance and spread of the women’s movement,” and the seemingly anti-feminist content showed a kind of “symbiotic relationship” between romanticism and feminism (26).

On the other hand, in the early 1970s, when heated discussions ensued over Cinderella films as in The Paper Bag Princess (1980), “a picture book hailed as an antidote to Disney” (Orenstein), a forensic psychiatrist P. D. Scott began to publicize an inconvenient truth about child maltreatment by a stepparent or stepparents (Daly and Wilson 33). After that time, evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson theorized the reason of natural parents’ motivation to devote themselves to their children’s wealth, which introduced the idea of discriminative parental solicitude, Cinderella effect. They produced abundant evidence that could verify the validity of a mischievous relationship caused by step-parents through a data archive of the American Humane Association (AHA) holding over twenty thousand reports.

As such, Cinderella fairy tales have said two different kinds of stories (romance and step-family) throughout human history. Even in modern times, Cinderella types of products, such as dramas, TV shows, films, and games, besides literature, have still overwhelmed the whole world. Since Cendrillon (1899), a French film by Georges Méliès, hundreds of Cinderella movies have been and will be released, including a 2006 South Korean horror film by Man-dae Bong and an upcoming Indian psychological thriller one by Ramkumar. Notably, Hollywood films have taken the lead in such a cultural wave of Cinderella romance with their vibrant genres, star actors/-resses, and standardized techniques: Cinderella (1950), Cinderella (2015), Ever After (1998), A Cinderella Story (2004), Elle: A Modern Cinderella Tale (2010), A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song (2011 Video), Ella Enchanted (2004), After the Ball (2015), Another Cinderella Story (2008 Video), The Wonderful World of Disney (1997 TV Series) and other countless commercial spin-offs.

Meanwhile, most of these Hollywood films, unlike Ma’s and Ramkumar’s terrifying stories, have followed the footsteps of describing Cinderella as a gentle and submissive woman waiting for a powerful man to rescue her, which seems to have been affected by Charles Perrault’s late 17th-century patriarchal tale. This trend links up with one Cinderella syndrome called Cinderella complex, women’s unconscious desire to be looked after by others, especially men. On the contrary, there is also another type of Cinderella films, where the heroine is independent enough to survive her miserable situation, worthy of notice and preferred by the feminist audience. This story of strong-willed Cinderella, which Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm’s fairy tale of Aschenputtel (Cinderella in German) seemingly influenced, relates much to Cinderella effect, a higher incident of mistreatment or neglect by stepparents or hard struggle in a stepfamily. 20 Century Fox’s Ever After, except for German Aschenputtel movies, is a rara avis compared to Hollywood’s other typical ones in that it pursues a healthier and more active image of a woman, nearer to the Grimms’ version.

In many countries such as Korea, most researchers have interpreted Cinderella complex shown in TV soap operas in psychological ways or compared the legend with the folktales of the country. However, the two Cinderella syndromesCinderella complex and effecthave not been treated from a comprehensive angle yet, which makes me write this paper. Regarding the cultural phenomena behind the drama, Charles Darwin says a lot of things with his evolutionary approach in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).

I discuss the concepts of Cinderella complex and effect shown in Hollywood films by observing an animation Cinderella and a live-action Cinderella and comparing them with Ever After. In the process, the psychologists Colette Dowling, Martin Daly, and Margo Wilson are consulted because the first person introduced Cinderella complex, and the others developed Cinderella effect most. Next, I apply the theories of sexual and kin selection to the two Cinderella syndromes around the films in the light of Darwin’s The Descent of Man. Through the analysis, it is revealed that sexual selection is to Cinderella complex what kin selection is to Cinderella effect as a theoretical and psychological background, and the evolutionary principle of self-preservation can integrate the two discourses around Hollywood Cinderella-themed films. This research expects the effect of extending the scope of the folk-tale research.

 

 

2. Cinderella Complex and Effect in Hollywood Films

 

Everyone might know the story of Cinderella, but many people are not aware of its evolution and change into a big screen. Perrault and Grimm brothers contributed to making the oral tradition a literary work in the late 17th and early 19th century each. Over time, more significantly, in the middle of the 20th century, Disney succeeded in animating and extending the fairy tale through cinema although most people already had preconceptions about it. In the process, Disney chose Perrault’s version, which was suited to the socio-economic conditions of the 1950s. The postwar period expected the heroine to have a placid temperament and pro-social behavior as seen in the message at the end of the first animation Cinderella: To “have a friend [to] call,” “courage, industry, and grit” are in vogue at the time (Cinderella 1950).

On the contrary, the Grimms’ version did not find a hearing because of its destructive, abusive, and obscene contents. It is remarkable that Ever After, a rare cinematographic adaptation of the German legend, shows considerably different aspects from Disney’s Cinderella. The harsh story of the film depicts the conflicts between stepparent and stepchild more plainly, including female intrasexual competition between stepsisters. Stepparental care, although cross-culturally ubiquitous, has not been covered as much in other Hollywood Cinderella-themed films as in Ever After. Of course, this is not to say that Perrault’s and the Grimms’ version are separated thematically. Both of them commonly emphasize the message of “sweet after bitter.” However, Disney’s Cinderella films say Cinderella complex more accurately based on Perrault’s version, while Ever After explains Cinderella effect more conveniently.

To begin with Cinderella complex, an American psychologist Dowling, in The Cinderella Complex: Women's Hidden Fear of Independence (1981), defines the syndrome as “a network of largely repressed attitude and fears that keeps women in a kind of half-light, retreating from the full use of their minds and creativity” (31). She writes that the women interviewed by her, regardless of marital status, career type or education level, tend to have a fear of independence, that is, an unconscious desire to be rescued by their men. The patterns are: Some women want freedom desperately, showing “signs of suffering from deep inner conflict“; others struggle intermittently with their anxiety and depression; and still others are ”able to generate new strength“ by ”[facing] up to the truths of their inner selves, triumphing, finally, over the fears [of being alone]“ (Dowling 32).

On the other hand, Daly and Wilson, in The Truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love, conclude that “a child under three years of age who lived with one genetic parent and one stepparent in the United States in 1976 was about seven times more likely to become a validated child-abuse case in the records than one who dwelt with two genetic parents” (27). The psychologists insist that “a child is one hundred times more likely to be abused or killed by a stepparent than by a genetic parent“ (Buss 223). Regarding the statistics, Cinderella effect is summarized into ”the mistreatment of or ambivalence toward one’s stepchild (or children) due to a lack of the selfless love that birth parents are wired to feel from evolution“ (”What Exactly“).

To turn to the films, Disney released another romantic fantasy film Cinderella directed by Kenneth Branagh in 2015. This movie is characteristic of live action after the three animation versions (1950, 2002, 2007) by the same production company. Branagh’s Cinderella is in the list of the highest grossing films of the year (over $543 million worldwide) without losing the aspect of a fairy tale. Also, it is said that the movie has more developed with a little feminist touch than the animation versions. The examples are: The heroine’s mother is shown alive at the beginning; her father just leaves instead of dying; her stepfamily members are not ugly, and the fairy godmother looks younger; there are more details in stepmother’s history such as her first husband’s death, and it has no actual musical properties or anthropomorphized animal characters.

The most significant difference is that the live action version has more romance between the main characters: Ella (Cinderella) meets Kit (Prince Charming) in the woods before the ball, and they fall in love at first sight without knowing their statuses. This context seemingly reflects stronger feminist color and gives their reunion of love more justification. In the same vein, Lily James (the actress for Cinderella in the film) says

 

[Ella] is not waiting for a prince to rescue her. She's not a victim. She's in charge of her own destiny, and that was really important. We wanted to show that not only in her character, and in the fact that she's so strong and open and good, but [also] in the fact that when she does meet the prince, they don't know who the other one is. They meet in the forest, and she rescues him just as much as he rescues her. (Levine, “Disney’s”)

 

However, with all Branagh’s efforts, even the newest Cinderella does not turn off Perrault’s style much enough to be regarded as another creative work. The film still describes the heroine as too passive and one-dimensional, meaning that it “is not a perfect feminist fairy tale” because the director “would not work as just a straight retelling of its animated predecessor,” but could not change “the preexisting, well-known story into something unrecognizable” (Levine, “Disney’s”). More reasonably, Disney with other Hollywood producers does not want an independent and defiant heroine. This attitude is not unrelated to Cinderella complex, emphasizing the transformation story where a friendly and poor girl suddenly becomes a princess.

Strictly speaking, Disney’s Cinderella films have hardly changed their whole plot revolving around a gracile girl despite not a few differences such as more detailed and realistic stories of love as in Branagh’s work. The movies are merely intended to teach the morality of not giving up on dreams by being kind to others. For instance, in the first film, Cinderella says to herself, “They can’t order me to stop dreaming” (Cinderella, 1950), and in the last one, she and other characters repeat, “Have courage and be kind” (Cinderella, 2015). This gender role centralized on female sweet, obedient, and submissive personality means that Cinderella complex “does not disappear much enough because of the gender expectations and the possibility of the ascent of status” through the marriage with Prince Charming (Lee 242).

Pointing to “girls’ belief that there will always be someone to take care of them,” Dowling insists that “the central problem of feminity” is “the conflict between dependency and independence” (104, 116). Even Branagh’s Cinderella just puts up with her terrible situation without expressing any hostility against her stepfamily. Of course, the heroine is admittedly described to get “excited to have a chance to see [her love] in the ball, not [merely] to attract a Prince,” and high enough to confesses that her stepmother “has not been and will not be [a real] mother” at the last scene (Lee 242). However, she helplessly “stays long enough in a situation in which [she feels she has] no control” (Dowling 114). In this movie, femininity is still in crisis because Cinderella just waits for a man to rescue her with his superiority, an inevitable result of following Perrault’s patriarchal idea.

On the contrary, Ever After is distinguished from other Hollywood Cinderella-themed films, pursuing the Grimms’ view although its plot still does not make its perfect escape from Perrault’s version. Here, the Prince does not choose Danielle (Cinderella) because of her meek and mild personality. She resists any suppression from her stepmother even though her birth mother asked her to be kind even in the face of overwhelming cruelty. Also, she is not judged by her appearance. The beauty of her stepsisters (Marguerite and Jacqueline) is not less than hers. The love affair between Danielle and Henry the Prince is more based on their mental fellowship through several romantic situations. Moreover, Danielle rescues her family estate, her man, and her miserable state for herself against her evil stepmother. She wins more love from her father, which brings about stepmother’s jealousy. Such a point does not appear in Disney’s Cinderella films.

In this sense, Danielle, a strong-willed woman character, resembles the Grimms’ Aschenputtel, who wins her love by fighting actively with her stepfamily. The following is the differences of the Grimms’ version from Perrault’s: Heartless Father ignores her and rather cares for stepsisters to mate with his beautiful wife; the royal festival continues for three nights which is long time to know the Prince; birds in the tree planted in her mother’s grave replaces the fairy godmother; Cinderella herself wishes fancy clothes and golden or silk slippers, not glass slippers; and there is no limit of midnight, which explains that Cinderella can have so much time as to attract the Prince to rescue her.

Cinderella’s activeness and the violent affairs in the Grimms’ version say the struggle between stepfamily members: Her two step-sisters should cut off toe or part of peel to make the slipper fit their feet; the birds pick out the stepsisters’ eyes, punishing them with blindness; and the royal wedding ceremony has more cruel details, meaning a victory over her stepmother. Meanwhile, Daly and Wilson confirm that children living with stepparents have a higher risk of abuse based on the data from an American archive of child-abuse reports in the United States. According to them, stepparents may make efforts to ensure the possibility of reproducing their own child. Like Cinderella’s father in the Grimms’ version, a biological parent’s vigilance, after his or her remarriage, is not relatively as high as before and so tends to place his or her child at greater risk for unintentional injury. This process is likely to bring about stronger or more rebellious children.

To sum up, Cinderella effect has an affinity with kin selection, meaning an evolutionary phenomenon where parents favor reproductive success even by sacrificing their benefits as “a type of natural selection that considers the role relatives play when evaluating the genetic fitness of a given individual” (“Kin selection”). Meanwhile, Cinderella complex is seen to result from sexual selection in that the heroine competes with her step-sisters for access to their popular man, and Prince Charming chooses the most beautiful woman symbolized by glass shoes. Interestingly, the following explains that the two syndromes (Cinderella complex and effect) and selections (sexual and kin) can be integrated into Darwinism though looking different outwardly.

 

 

3. Darwinism Says Two Cinderella Stories Together

 

Most biologists acknowledge that sexual selection in Darwin’s The Descent of Man (1871) is as seminal to humans’ nature and evolution as natural selection in The Origin of Species (1859). The former concept accounts for the process of acquiring mates, and the latter is useful to understand how to survive. Darwin writes that “any character appearing at an early age would tend to be inherited equally by both sexes,” but “variations, which first appear in either sex at a late period of life, tend to be developed in the same sex alone” (Descent 286). The secondary sexual characters, occurring after the power of reproduction is gained, do “not seem to have arisen through natural selection” (Zuk 6). In the same context, George Levine, an American scholar specializing in literature and science, argues that “the characteristics developed by sexual selection have no consequences in natural selection” (194).

The sexual factors, with natural ones, lead to the evolution of the species in two ways. Females tend to pay attention to male traits like bright colored feathers and long tails during courtship (intersexual selection), and males fight for access to females by their weaponsantlers and horns (intrasexual selection). Although sometimes detrimental, not helpful to survival, such sexual traits certainly give them more mates and then more offspring. Also, the competition appears to have two kinds of sexual struggle.

 

[In] the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the male sex, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners. (Campbell 232)

 

Darwin emphasizes “the violence of sexual struggle” consisting of “the male’s sexual eagerness and competition and the female’s choice” (Bender 347). However, Havelock Ellis criticizes that Darwin overestimates the essential concepts such as the males’ jealousy and violence passion and “[injures] an essentially sound principle by introducing into it a psychological confusion” (3: ). Nevertheless, Ellis does not deny the influence of sexual “stimuli to tumescence,” appealing to “four senses: touch, smell, hearing, and above all, vision” (3: ).

Darwin’s evolutionary logic of sexual selection significantly composes Cinderella complex, especially emphasizing female sexual attraction, which is more acceptable in Disney’s films. Cinderella’s miserable situation, where a good girl’s personality, sweet and kind-hearted from Perrault’s angle, is more noticeable, makes the heroine long for male power desperately. That is, it is within bounds to say that if wealthy and happy, Cinderella might not be so appealing at least to patriarchal people. With her need, she is invariably described to be beautiful and gracious, which represents females’ dominant role in mate choice that Darwin discusses in The Descent of Man.

Cinderella’s remarkable transformation, overwhelming all the other women including her step-sisters, rightly deserves to be a reversal of Darwin’s observation that “[male] power to charm the female has been in some few instances more important than the power to conquer other males in battle” (Darwin, Descent 279). This phenomenon is due to the Prince’s prominent position because he does not have to compete with other males. However, indeed unquestionable is Cinderella’s control over the Prince, which is helped by her dress-up. In this connection, Darwin points that “the sexes resemble each other, both being furnished with the same ornaments [or money for humans], which analogy would lead us to attribute to the agency of sexual selection” (Descent 277).

In this way, Cinderella is granted temporarily with an excellent pumpkin coach, “gilded all over with gold”; “a very fine set of six horses of a beautiful mouse colored dapple gray”; and a coachman and six footmen turned from a rat and six lizards (Perrault). This embellishment of fancy is to add to Cinderella’s female attraction, sexually implied with her dress made of “cloth of gold and silver, all beset with jewels,” and “a pair of glass slippers, the prettiest in the whole world” (Ibid.). Notably, the slippers function as a symbol of Cinderella’s sexuality, becoming a bridge between magic and reality. All the other things turn into their original forms, but the slippers do not change or disappear, Godmother’s present for good.

Darwin, in spite of Wallace’s complaint of the strictly scientific view of man as an animal, insists on humans’ discriminative selection of partners, which is not directly related to species survival. This sexual selection requires individuals’ ability to select mates and forms hereditable traits. In the process, the females take the initiative in providing offspring with those characters. In line with the theory of Cinderella complex, Cinderella’s old way to survive is to seduce the Prince as her patron and protector as in female frogs’ choosing their mates that have “the deepest croaks and best territories” (Audesirk 298). Likewise, Darwin writes that “the females, supposing that their mental capacity sufficed for the exertion of a choice, could select one out of several males” (Descent 259).

On the other hand, as another Cinderella syndrome, Cinderella effect can be understood as an aspect of kin selection, which is remarkable in Ever After. It is true that what the primary characters of the film achieve is categorized into “the redundant happily-ever-after,” and so this plot allows “hearers, readers, and viewers to feel a certain confidence in the outcome” (Lukasiewicz 60). However, this work, as stated above, is distinctive of severe confrontation between Cinderella and her stepmother.

The harshness and violence of the Grimms’ version seem to be transferred into the heroine’s self-helping efforts, which claims to be more real than most of the Perrault-style films. For example, at the beginning of Ever After, a Grande Dame, the heroine’s self-proclaimed descendant, invites the Brothers Grimm to her palace and says, “While Cinderella and her prince did live happily ever after, the point, gentlemen, is that she lived” (Ever After). Besides, she shows physical evidence: “not only a Leonardo portrait that is possibly of her Cinderella ancestor but another precious heirloom: the heroine’s ornate and ‘real’ glass shoe“ (Bacchilega and Rieder 23).

The point is how Darwinism accounts for kin selection and Cinderella effect and whether the answer links the Grimms’ story and Ever After together. A British evolutionary biologist William Hamilton introduced the theory of kin selection in 1963 and tried to explain altruism, cooperation, and sociality regarding evolution. The concept of kin selection covers the inclusive fitness as collaboration and altruism in that an individual influences the survival and reproduction of relatives, not to mention his or her interest. Even in the modern social study, kin selection can be appreciated because it can extend an animal’s “self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives” into human activities (“Kin Selection”).

The attributes of kin selection are associated with Cinderella effect, and the two concepts justify her stepmother’s unfair treatment of the heroine because of their stepfamily relations particularly with the stepparent’s biological children. In Ever After, Rodmilla (stepmother) squanders her family fortune to get back to the Royal Court, including adorning her two daughters Marguerite and Jacqueline. On the other hand, Cinderella resists her stepmother by working as a virtual maidservant. Moreover, to ensure her biological children’s more advantage, Rodmilla does not comply with Cinderella’s benefit from marrying the Prince and even slanders her publicly. The reason is that in their caregiver-child relationship, “there is a disconnection between the love a parent should feel for a child and the actual bonding that takes place between the stepparent and stepchild” (“What Exactly”).

Darwin already discussed the concept of kin selection in The Origin of Species, presenting an example of altruism parents have for their progeny. In this case, parents’ altruistic behavior is supposed to “[benefit] other individuals at the expense of the one that performs the action” (“Kin Selection”) and also faces up to the general selfish instinct from natural selection.

 

This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual, and may thus gain the desired end. Breeders of cattle wish the flesh and fat to be well marbled together. An animal thus characterized has been slaughtered, but the breeder has gone with confidence to the same stock and has succeeded. (Darwin, The Origin of Species 193).

 

Also, Hamilton adds that the success of individuals’ sexual relationship (or replicating their genes) is related not only to “personal reproduction” but also to “the survival and reproduction of non-descendant relatives,” explaining parents’ selfless and public-spirited animal behavior as “products of ordinary Darwinian selection” (Daly and Wilson 13-14).

However, as “in most cases, it is scarcely possible to distinguish between the effects of natural and sexual selection” (Darwin, Descent 257), the boundaries of sexual and kin selection often look ambiguous within the limit of self-preservation. As sexual factors “depend on the will, choice, and rivalry of the individuals of either sex” (Ibid. 258), the effects of kin selection and Cinderella effect on people do not come into view quickly. According to evolutionary psychologists, “Cinderella effect probably stems from one person choosing a mate based on the evolutionary desire to pick someone with whom the best possible genetic progeny would be produced” (“What Exactly”). Besides, animals including humans make love “as ways of indicating [their] species and communicating [their] physiological preparedness to breed” (Daly and Wilson 14).

To recap briefly, Darwinism explains Cinderella complex and Cinderella effect together with its concepts of sexual and kin selection, and Hollywood films reflect these two syndromes. Disney’s movies elucidate Cinderella complex, influenced by Perrault’s view that a woman attracts a man to be rescued. On the contrary, in Ever After, the heroine is not such a weak person as to depend on her sexual attraction and rather plays an active role in winning the Prince’s love with more romantic stories. At this point, this film resembles the Grimms’ version: For example, Cinderella goes to her tree three times a day and prays and so “a white bird [comes] to the tree every time, and whenever she [expresses] a wish, the bird [throws] down to her what she [wished] for” (Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm).

Moreover, Ever After explicates Cinderella effect better by providing Cinderella’s stepmother with a minimum reason of maltreating her step-daughterthe failure in her previous marriage and jealousy over her husband’s favor to Cinderella when he dies. She commits a crime of lying publicly and manipulates situations for her daughters to be closer to the Prince. Her parental care, seemingly altruistic to protect her posterity, can be easily observed when considering kin selection “as a means of insuring their genetics are passed on to future generations” (“Cinderella Effect: the Startling Truth of Stepfamily Parenting Style”).

 

 

4. Conclusion

 

Humans, including animals, have peculiar sexual traits that were not vital to their survival. Sexual selection hinges on the ability to select mates like the survival viability, while kin selection manifests itself when an individual sacrifices him-/herself to benefit the genetic fitness of his or her relatives. The two phenomena function to preserve the same genes or species. Therefore, they are seen to be a type of natural selection even if the latter is different from the former, not requiring that all individuals should share a given genotype. Kin selection contributes to studying the social behavior in modern times and becomes more meaningful considering a lot of harsh and violent accidents occurring repeatedly in stepfamilies. Compared with it, sexual selection does not have too much significance if the human population is distributed equally between the sexes.

Next, sexual and kin selection, as stated above, are the foundations of the syndromes of Cinderella complex and effect even if they can extend beyond the relationship between parents and their offspring. All the four concepts can be consolidated under the principle of self-preservation based on the notion that individuals are supposed to struggle for perpetual existence. Regarding sexual selection, it is assumed that the mates should be healthy enough to produce the most vigorous offspring, leading to the maximum survival prospect of their genes. Also, Darwin emphasizes gender-equal values by saying, “The preservation of the males and females would be equally important for the existence of the species and for the character of the offspring” (Descent 406).

All in all, Cinderella-themed Hollywood films are observed from the angle of sexual or kin selection and show various styles depending on which aspect is more portrayed and emphasized. Notably, the movies about the conflicts in a stepfamily narrow down to the stepparent-stepchild relationship, whether they are like Julia Roberts’s comedy-drama film Stepmom (1998) or Elizabeth Banks’s psychological horror film The Invited (2009). What is clear is that their central themes, in a greater or less degree, correspond with Darwin’s evolutionary theory where the two Cinderella syndromes and selections with the relatively displeasing quality of step-relationships.

<Chosun University>

 

 

Works Cited

 

Audesirk, Gerald, Teresa Audesirk, and Bruce E. Byers. 2016. Biology: Life on Earth with Physiology. London: Pearson. Print.

Bacchilega, Cristina, and John Rieder. 2010. “Mixing it Up: Generic Complexity and Gender Ideology in Early Twenty-first Century Fairy Tale films“ in Fairy Tale Films: Visions of Ambiguity. Pauline Greenhill and Sidney Eve Matrix (eds.). UP of Colorado. 23-41. Print.

Bender, Bert. 1996. The Descent of Love: Darwin and the Theory of Sexual Selection in American Fiction, 1871-1926. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania. Print.

Bettleheim, Bruno. 1977. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales. New York: Vintage. Print.

Buss, David. 2015. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. London: Psychology Pr. Print.

Campbell, Bernard Grant, ed. 2006. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: The Darwinian Pivot. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Print.

Cinderella. 1950. Dirs. Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske, and Clyde Geronimi. Narr. Betty Lou Gerson. Walt Disney. Film.

_______. 2015. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Perf. Cate Blanchett, Lily James, and Richard Madden. Walt Disney. Film.

“Cinderella Effect: the Startling Truth of Stepfamily Parenting Style.” 2015. Motherhood in Point of Fact. Motherhood in Point of Fact. 4 May. Web. 12 June. 2017. <http://motherhoodinpointoffact.com/dev/cinderella-effec t-and-stepfamily-parenting-style/>

Daly and Wilson. 1999. The Truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love. New Haven, CT: Yale UP. Print.

Darwin, Charles. 1996. The Origin of Species. Ed. Gillian Beer. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.

_______. 2013. The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Vol. 1. 1871. London: Wordsworth Classics of World Literature. Print.

Donahue, Anne T. 2015. “9 Cinderella Stories You Might Not Know.” Refinery29. 14 Mar. Web. 10 Sept. 2016. <http://www.refinery29.com/c inderella-origins>

Dowling, Colette. 1981. The Cinderella Complex: Women's Hidden Fear of Independence. New York: Pocket. Print.

Douglas, Ann. 1980. “Soft-Porn Culture.” New Republic 30: 25-29. Print.

Ellis, Havelock. 1929. Man and Woman: A Study of Secondary and Tertiary Sexual Characters. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Print.

Ever After. 1998. Dir. Andy Tennant. Perf. Drew Barrymore, Anjelica Huston, and Dougray Scott. 20th Century Fox. DVD.

Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. 1998. Cinderella. U of Pittsburgh. Trans. D. L. Ashliman. 11 June. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. <http://www.pitt.e du/~dash/grimm021.html>

Jensen, Margaret. 1984. Love's Sweet Return: The Harlequin Story. Toronto, Canada: Women’s Educational Pr. Print.

“Kin Selection.” n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

Lee, Geongeun. 2016. “Understanding the Materialized Sexuality in Cinderella on Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics of the Sexual Will.” Story & Image Telling 12: 235-255. Print.

      [이건근. 2016. 쇼펜하우어의 성()의지 형이상학에 기초하여 <신데렐라>에 나타난 물화(物化)된 섹슈얼리티를 이해하기. 󰡔스토리앤이미지텔링󰡕 12: 235-255.]

Levine, George. 2006. Darwin Loves You: Natural Selection and the Re-Enchantment of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Print.

Levine, Lauren. 2015. “Disney's New Cinderella Isn't A Perfect Feminist Fairy Tale, But It's A Start.” Refinery 29. 11 Mar. Web. 24 Mar. 2017. <http://www.refinery29.com/2015/03/83584/cinderella-feminist-fairy-tale-review>

Lukasiewicz, Tracie D. 2010. “The Parallelism of the Fantastic and the Real: Guillermo del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth/El laberinto del fauno and Neomagical Realism.” in Fairy Tale Films: Visions of Ambiguity. Pauline Greenhill and Sidney Eve Matrix (eds.). UP of Colorado. 60-78. Print.

Orenstein, Peggy. 2006. “What’s Wrong With Cinderella?” The New York Times. 24 Dec. Web. 14 Feb. 2017.

Perrault, Charles. 1891. Cinderella; or, The Little Glass Slipper. Ed. Andrew Lang. U of Pittsburgh. 11 June. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. <http://ww w.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510a.html#perrault>

Rabine, Leslie W. 1985. Reading the Romantic Heroine: Text, History, Ideology. Ann Arbor, MI: U of Michigan P. Print.

Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill, NC: U of North Carolina P. Print.

Tyson, Lois. 2014. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. New York: Routledge. Print.

“What Exactly Is The Cinderella Effect.” 2015. NOBullying.com. 22 Dec. Web. 12 Mar. 2017. <https://nobullying.com/cinderella-effect/>

Zuk, Marlene. 2002. Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn about Sex from Animals. Berkeley, CA: U of California.

 

 

<Abstract>

 

On the Two Syndromes and the Two Selections around Hollywood Cinderella-Themed Films

 

Lee, Geon-Geun

 

 

The Cinderella legend has come a long way through the human civilization history. However, the psychological background of the fairy tale has not been covered much in a systematical way. This paper aims to study the two syndromes of Cinderella complex and Cinderella effect by using Hollywood films and consolidate them with the two concepts of sexual and kin selection. First, I observe an animation Cinderella and a live-action Cinderella and then compare them with Ever After. During the process, I refer to some remarkable psychologists. For example, Colette Dowling first described the Cinderella complex as a woman’s desire to be rescued by others, particularly a man. Also, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson developed Cinderella effect as a phenomenon of a stepparent’s persecution of stepchildren. Next, I apply the theories of sexual and kin selection to the two syndromes in the light of Darwin’s The Descent of Man. This analysis argues that the evolutionary principle of self-preservation can integrate the discourses around Cinderella syndromes and expects to extend the scope of the folk-tale research.

 

Key Words : Cinderella complex, Cinderella effect, sexual selection, kin selection, Colette Dowling, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, The Descent of Man

 

 

 

 

3. 토론 1: 위 발표문에 대한 비평 (이삼태)

 

본 논문은 신데렐라 이야기의 헐리우드판 영화들에 대한 분석에서 신데렐라 콤플렉스와 신데렐라 효과라는 두 증상들을 적용하여 그러한 두 증상들을 진화론적 관점에서 성선택과 친족선택개념과 연결하려는 것에 목적을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 이러한 목적을 위하여 남성에 의해 구원받고자 여성의 욕망을 신데렐라 콤플렉스라는 말로 처음 묘사한 Colette Dowling과 의붓자식에 대한 계모, 계부에 의한 박해의 현상을 신데렐라 효과라는 용어로 만든 Martin Daly Margo Wilson 의 이론을 다윈의 인간의 유래에서 보여지는 진화론적 관점에서 성선택과 친족선택이론에 부합하는 것으로 해석한다.

논자는 신데렐라효과는 주어진 유전적 형질의 적합성을 평가할 때 종 내에서 벌어지는 번식경쟁의 설명에서 부모들이 자신들의 유전형질을 가진 자식에 대한 사랑을 번식 성공을 원하는 진화론적 현상을 의미하는 친족 선택과 관련되는 것으로 본다. 또한 신데렐라 콤플렉스는 주인공이 인기 있는 남자에게 접근하기 위해 자신의 의붓 자매들과 경쟁한다는 점에서 이러한 신데렐라의 행동은 성선택의 진화론적 관점으로부터 온 결과로 보고 있다. 그리고 신데렐라효과와 신데렐라 콤플렉스 이 두 증상들은 친족선택과 성선택이라는 다윈의 진화론으로 설명될 수 있다고 서술하고 있다. 사실 다윈의 성선택은 진화에 있어서 자연선택과 더불어 제시한 메커니즘 중의 하나이다. 아름다운 생명체들은 천적의 눈에 잘 띄어 생존에는 불리할 수 있지만 번식 시에는 암컷에게 매력적으로 작용해 자손번식에 보다 유리한 고지를 차지하게 되고 이는 곧 개체 수의 증가로 이어진다는 진화론의 논리를 남자에 의해 구원을 받으려는 무의식적 욕망을 가지고 자신의 의붓 형제들과 경쟁하는 수동적인 여성의 욕망을 일컫는 신데렐라콤플렉스와 연결시키고 있다. 그리고 디즈니가 선택하는 Perraut의 버전이 신데렐라 콤플렉스와 관련성을 가지고, Grimms의 버전은 신데렐라효과와 관련된다는 것과, 또한 성선택과 신데렐라 콤플렉스와의 관계는 친족 선택과 신데렐라 효과와 같다 라는 논리로 연결되고 있다.

먼저 이 논문에서 신데렐라의 헐리우드 영화들에 대한 분석에서 사용되는 신데렐라효과와 신데렐라 콤플렉스라는 두 용어는 신데렐라의 오리지널 이야기에서 보여지는 매력적인 외모와 착한 심성을 가진 주인공 신데렐라와 계모와 의붓 형제들의 잔인성에 대한 전형적인 인간의 특징적인 행위를 설명하기 위해 고안되어진 용어이다. 따라서 본 논문에서 시도되는 이러한 용어의 적용은 단지 신데렐라의 여러 헐리우드영화가 신데렐라 콤플렉스를 강조하는가 아니면 신데렐라 효과를 강조하는 가의 문제에 대한 분류 만을 보여주고 있으며, 또한 신데렐라에 대한 텍스트의 의미에 있어서도 이러한 신데렐라 콤플렉스와 신데렐라 효과가 진화론적 입장에서 볼 때 당연한 인간의 행위인 것으로 해석되고 있다. 단지 오리지널 버전의 신데렐라이야기에 대해 만들어진 용어를 영화로 각색한 내용에 적용하는 것은 전혀 새로운 해석을 보여주는 시도가 될 수 없다. 또한 논자의 논문에서 논의되고 있는 신데렐라콤플렉스의 개념은 독자에게 혼란을 초래하고 있다. 왜냐하면 신데렐라 콤플렉스라는 용어를 어떤 부분에서는 Colette Dowling이 여성들에게서 볼 수 있는 증후군으로 지적한 여성 콤플렉스로 어릴 때는 부모에게, 어른이 된 후에는 애인이나 남편에게 의지하는 자신의 인생을 뒤 바꿔 줄 왕자를 기다리며 꿈을 깨지 못하는 정서적 의존성을 가진 여성을 의미하는 것으로 사용하고 있는데, 이러한 소극적인 신데렐라가 어떻게 자신의 생존을 위해 적극적으로 성을 선택하는 성선택이라는 진화론적 개념과 연결될 수 있는가에 대한 명확한 설명이 본 논문에서는 주어지지 않고 있다. 단지 왕자라는 남성의 관점에서 아름다운 외모를 가진 여성이 남성에 의해 아름다운 외모 때문에 선택당하는 것이 성선택이라는 진화론적 관점에서 유리하다는 식의 설명은 신데렐라가 가진 성격적인 특성, 예를 들면, 부지런함, 배려, 친절함과 같은 가치들은 전혀 왕자가 신데렐라를 선택하게 되는 요인으로서 중요한 의미를 지니는 것이 아니라는 관점이 내포되어 있다. 만약 왕자가 신데렐라에게 외모 때문에, 즉 다윈의 성선택이라는 것으로 설명될 수 있는 외모적인 특성 때문에 이끌렸다고 가정한다고 해고 만약 신데렐라가 왕자에게 어필할 수 있는 정서적, 사고적인 자질들을 가지고 있지 않았더라면 서로의 교감과 소통은 불가능했을 것이다. 단순히 신데렐라의 외적인 아름다운apperance 로 인해 왕자에 의해 단지 다윈의 성선택 때문에 신데렐라가 왕자에 의해 선택되었다고 해석하는 논리는 설득력이 없을 뿐더러 논리를 너무 단순화시켜 비약한 것으로 밖에 보이지 않는다. 물론 외모가 화려하면 선택당할 기회는 못생긴 개체들보다 훨씬 더 많다. 그러나 우리 인간은 외모도 중요하지만 내적인 영역의 성격적 자질들에 의해 상대방의 매력에 매혹될 수 있다. 그러한 내적인 자질들은 외적인 매력보다 훨씬 더 강력한 영향력을 발휘한다는 점을 본 논문에서는 고려할 필요가 있다. 따라서 신데렐라의 외모 때문에 성선택이라는 다윈의 진화론적 관점에서 신데렐라에 대한 왕자의 선택이 당연한 것으로 논지가 전개되는 것은 문학작품의 해석으로서의 타당성을 가지기에는 과도하게 단순화된 논리이다. 이 논문에서 시도되고 있는 모든 작업은 새로운 것이 아니라 오리지널 버전에서 파생된 용어들, 신데렐라 콤플렉스와 신데렐라 효과를 신데렐라를 각색한 영화들이 강조하는 내용에 따라 양자 중 어떠한 점이 강조되는가 만을 분류하는 단순작업으로 밖에 보여지지 않는다. 또한 인간의 어떠한 사악한 행위도 생존을 위해 선택할 수밖에 없는 행위라는 논리로 진화론적 관점으로 단순화시킨 점은 문학텍스트에 대한 심도 있는 해석과는 거리가 멀게 느껴진다는 점을 말하지 않을 f수 없다. 신데렐라이야기의 모든 인간의 행위를 다윈의 진화론적 관점에서 종의 번식과 생존경쟁으로 설명될 수 있다는 논자의 논리는 약육강식과 인간의 잔인성, 그리고 폭력성, 외모우선주의 등을 조장할 수 있는 것으로서 인간의 비인간적 행위를 정당화시켜주는 것에 진화론의 논리가 이용되고 있다는 생각을 하게 된다.

 

 

4. 토론 2: 위 발표문에 대한 비평 (조이경)

1. 두 번째 줄에서 신데렐라의 영향력 있는 역할이 가족의 학대에 대한 여성의 복종과 인내를 요구하고 자신들의 여성들을 행복하게 살게 만들기 위한 남성들의 지칠 줄 모르는 에너지와 재정적인 부담을 요구한다고 주장하면서, 남성과 여성 모두에게 가부장제도를 약화시키는 효과 때문에 신데렐라라는 작품의 이야기를 Lois Tyson은 비난한다라고 논자는 쓰고 있는데 가부장제도를 강화하는 효과라고 표현해야 논리적으로 맞는 것 아닌가요?

2. 이 논문의 눈에 띄는 결함은 필자를 ’(me 혹은 I)라고 쓰고 있는 것에 있습니다. 예를 들면 p. 3에서 “which makes me write"과 논문 초록에서 발견되는 주어 ‘I'에 있습니다. 논문의 작성법에 있어서 기본적인 작성법은 “I()”를 쓰는 것은 되도록 지양되어야 하고 수동 문장으로 표현하여 주관성 보다는 객관성을 확보하는 방향으로 논지가 서술되어야 합니다. 특히 논문 초록에서 "I"가 계속해서 주어로 사용되고 있어서 반드시 수동 문장으로 수정되어야 한다고 생각합니다.

3.논문 초록의 결론 부분의 문장을 그대로 번역하면 이러한 분석은 자기 보존이라는 진화의 원칙이 신데렐라 신드롬을 둘러싼 담론을 통합하여 민속적인 이야기 연구의 영역을 확장해 나갈 것을 기대한다.”라고 되어 있는데, 만약 이러한 분석이” expects 라는 동사의 주어로 쓰여진 것이라면 (문법 구조상 그렇게 볼 수밖에 없네요) “This analysis argues(동사) that the evolutionary principle of self-preservation can integrate the discourse around Cinderella syndromes, and expects(동사) to apply this principle to (the extent of )the scope of the folk-tale research 로 수정하는 것이 논자가 의도하는 것에 부합하지 않을 까요? 논자가 의도하는 것은 논자의 이러한 분석이 다른 이야기 분석에까지 적용되는 것을 기대한다는 의미인 것으로 생각됩니다. 또한 주어가 This analysis로 쓰인 것이 논리적으로 무리가 있는 것 같습니다. 차라리 수동문장으로 쓰는 곳이 좋을 것 같습니다. 예를 들면 “It is expected that applying this principle to the criticism of the scope of the folk-tale can produce more abundant interpretations of those literary texts." 로 하면 어떨까요?

 

4. 본 논문의 초록에서는 본 논문의 목적과 이러한 목적을 위해서 어떠한 방식으로 신데렐라 이야기를 분석한다 라는 부분은 밝히고 있지만 이러한 이론들의 적용을 통하여 신데렐라의 이야기가 어떻게 이해될 수 있는 지에 대해서는 전혀 언급이 없습니다. 따라서 논문의 초록에서 논자의 이러한 분석을 통하여 신데렐라 이야기가 어떻게 해석될 수 있는 가에 대한 본 논문의 분석 결과를 몇 줄로 요약해서 밝혀주는 것이 좋을 것으로 생각됩니다.

 

첨부파일 첨부파일 (파일 명이 길 경우 브라우저 특성상 파일명이 잘릴 수 있습니다.)

2017년 하반기 제6회 학술세미나 및 강독.hwp

목록으로
다음글 2017 하반기 제7회 학술세미나 및 강독회(신데렐라 이펙트 연구)
이전글 2017 하반기 제5회 학술세미나 및 강독회(신데렐라 이펙트 연구)