Explore the ways in which Barker presents the theme of regeneration in Regeneration Barker wrote the novel Regeneration

to retrospectively explore the ways in which men overcame the trauma and shellshock they experienced on the front line of World War I their attempts to regenerate. Barker assesses differing techniques of regeneration, comparing psychotherapy and electric shock treatment in order to investigate not only her own views on these techniques, but also the views that society held of them at the time of setting. Barker challenges these ideas through her presentation of regeneration, implying its purpose in World War I to be immoral, as well as criticising the electric shock method through her portrayal of it. Barker challenges societys views of psychological trauma as evidence of men being sissies, weaklings, failures through her presentation of the regeneration of Prior and Willard thanks to the psychotherapeutic methods of Rivers. The form of a novel here is ideal, for while Barker interweaves historical figures and fictional characters in Regeneration, Prior is a wholly fictional construct that can hold whatever opinions Barker wishes, without the constraints a biographical text would lay down. Barker uses Prior to voice the doubts many had of psychotherapeutic methods during World War I, making him deeply sceptical of the effectiveness of such methods. Prior states I dont think talking helps. It just churns things up and makes them seem more real. Despite Rivers assertion that they are real, Prior maintains this stance. This can be viewed as reflective of the attitudes of society at the time, refusing to believe in shellshock despite there being evidence to suggest it did exist. Barker also uses Priors constant unwillingness to acknowledge his breakdown to show the fear many men had of being viewed as cowards. Prior does not want to admit to knowing why he broke down, claiming: I dont remember. Indeed upon discovering what it was that led to his breakdown Prior becomes beside himself with rage, questioning is that all? Barker has Prior hold these fears of being judged as a coward to show how society, wrongly, viewed psychological trauma as cowardice rather than a genuine condition. She subsequently criticises this view through Rivers opinion that most of us could [break down] if the pressure were bad enough. Willard as a character reinforces this idea, by believing accepting his injury as due to his own fears to be an admission of cowardice. Barker uses the mens unwillingness, due to societal pressures, to admit their problems and therefore solve them, to criticise the attitude many had towards shellshock - one that did not take it seriously as evidenced by Priors father: hed get a damn sight more sympathy from me if he had a bullet up his arse. Barker suggests that the fear of not being viewed as masculine was ultimately harmful to the long-term regeneration of the men; implying societys views were hindering the recovery of the men. The case of Willard demonstrates this, for he never faces what caused his problem, and is at risk of the same outcome... in the future. Prior contrasts this, for despite his initial scepticism towards Rivers methods, Barker presents them as ultimately successful: theres nothing in your [Priors] psychological state to prevent your going back. This contrast between Prior and Willard supports the implication that societys unyielding views were harmful to the regeneration of the men. Barker also explores the regenerative methods of Rivers and Yealland to discern not only how effective they were, but also the morality of them in the environment of the war. These methods differ profoundly, with Rivers focusing on understanding, and Yealland using electric-shock treatment to force the patient into getting better. Yeallands method is portrayed as more immediately effective, healing Callans psychosomatic mutism within one session, whereas it takes Rivers considerably longer to heal Willards psychosomatic paralysis. However, Barker suggests that a lack of understanding as to why there was an

initial breakdown would simply lead to another one, and therefore implies that Yeallands method of using electric shock treatment to overcome psychosomatic injuries would only overcome the problem in the short term, unconcerned with: how the same outcome might be avoided in the future. This is a concept Barker is at odds with, and she uses the voice of Rivers to show her discontent with the idea of regeneration being for the sole purpose of making men fit to serve, instead of healing them long term: Normally a cure implies that the patient will no longer engage in behaviour that is clearly self-destructive. But in present circumstances recovery meant the resumption of actions that were positively suicidal. Barker also negatively portrays regeneration by presenting Yeallands method as highly brutal, creating pathos through the use of pitiful language such as stumbling and shaking to criticise the electric shock treatment method, emphasising in particular Callans lack of choice in the matter: Callan did as he was bid. The likening of it to an oral rape by Rivers later reinforces this, creating a sense of disgust within the reader towards such methods. The juxtaposition of the inhumane acts that make up Callans regeneration, which leave him white and shaking, and Yeallands referrals to Callans duty as a hero of Mons, sheds a negative light upon patriotism, correctly suggesting that the sole reason such acts are being performed is so that the soldier may return to the front, something Barker is criticising. While Rivers methods are presented as outwardly more humane, Barker suggests that the act of regeneration itself is inherently wrong, drawing no distinctions between Rivers actions and Yeallands in the silencing of patients through the dream sequence of Chapter 22, in which Rivers violently shoves a horses bit down a mans throat, in a manner similar to Yealland and the electrode, suggesting there is no difference between the two. However, Barker makes sure to emphasise her discontent with the government in forcing the men to be regenerated, showing how [Rivers] and Yealland were both locked in, every bit as much as their patients were, making it appear the responsibility of the government to the readers. Regeneration is structured so that Yeallands treatment comes near the end of the book, in effect concluding it, by not only shocking the reader into realising the truth of what regeneration meant for many in World War I, but also prompting Rivers to question the morality of his own actions in regenerating the men, resulting in him being the voice of Barkers opinion who believes: A society that devours its own young deserves no automatic or unquestioning allegiance, succinctly summarising Barkers views on some of the techniques and purposes of regeneration in World War I, which she felt ultimately resulted in devouring the young, instead of healing them. Barkers disillusionment with the government of the time is present throughout the book, but is particularly emphasised by the structure having a criticism of the government at the end, which leaves that as the one of the last things the reader thinks about. Throughout the novel Regeneration, Barker addresses the scepticism that was commonplace during World War I of the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic methods to treat shell shock, through the successful regeneration of Prior. More importantly however, Barker presents her own views on regeneration through the comparison of the methods of Rivers and Yealland, suggesting them both to be inherently wrong, with the desired outcome of the processes as opposed to the paths to it being what is morally questionable. Barker attempts to show the reader the immorality of the actions of the government during the war, using Rivers as the medium through which she expresses her views, by having him question his own actions. Bibliography: Regeneration by Pat Barker Word Count: 1223