The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat

While reading a clinical study done by Dr. Oliver Sacks, titled "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", a study about a patient with visual agnosia, I was struck by the similarity between the way Dr. P, the afflicted patient, viewed the world, and its connection with the New Criticism theory. Dr. P was unable to identify people solely by looking at their face as a whole; it was all part of the disorder at hand. When shown pictures of his family, he recognized nobody, lest they had a distinguishing characteristic. For example, he could identify a picture of Paul, not by looking wholly at his face, but by taking into account "that square jaw" and "those big teeth." In essence, Dr. P's disorder was the new criticism theory brought alive as a disorder in an actual patient. As the theory ordains, one with this particular disorder relied heavily on analyzing detailed parts of a whole.

Just like the new criticism theory, which required close analysis of details, Dr. P used it to identify and verify certain objects he could not visualize. For example, when shown a rose, he went into great depth describing it, as an object "about six inches in length, a convoluted red form with a linear attachment", but he was unable to actually identify it as a rose until he smelled it. In another instance, when he was presented a glove, he again went into great depth describing what we would normally perceive as a simple object. He defined it as having "a continuous surface infolded on itself" and containing "five outpouchings." Dr. P acknowledged that it could contain contents, maybe a hand, but he had no realization what it actually was until he tried it on and discovered that it was a glove. Just as the new criticism theory ordains the reader to identify intimate and specific details, Dr. P also does so, but instead of perceiving the object or work as a whole, then breaking it down, Dr. P works from the bottom up, using descriptive detail to allow himself to identify the object.

Dr. P's visual processes were intact, but there was a deficit in his visual object recognition, which was the reason why he relied heavily on his other senses. As a music professor, he especially had a strong inclination to rely on his hearing to operate in the outside world. It is touching and admirable that Dr. P did not allow his affliction to affect his outlook on life. To the end of his day, he lived and taught in a world of music.