How can Hills Like White Elephants by Ernest Hemingway be analyzed through psychological theories about relationship dynamics?
Direct Answer:
Ernest Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants can be effectively analyzed through psychological theories of relationship dynamics, particularly using attachment theory, transactional analysis, and cognitive dissonance theory. The story portrays a couple at a critical emotional juncture, revealing underlying patterns of avoidance, dependence, and communication failure. Through the lens of attachment theory, Jig demonstrates anxious-preoccupied attachment, while the American exhibits avoidant-detached behavior, creating an imbalance that drives their emotional disconnect. Transactional analysis further exposes the power struggle in their dialogue, where the American manipulates through a “Parent” ego state and Jig responds from a conflicted “Child” state. Cognitive dissonance explains their internal conflict between emotional desires and moral choices. Hemingway’s minimalist style and subtext amplify these psychological tensions, turning a brief conversation into a profound exploration of human intimacy, control, and fear of loss.
Author Information
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction: Hemingway and the Psychology of Human Relationships
Ernest Hemingway’s short story Hills Like White Elephants (1927) stands as a quintessential exploration of emotional tension and unspoken conflict within a romantic relationship. Written in the post–World War I context, it captures the disillusionment and detachment of the “Lost Generation.” Yet, beyond its cultural implications, the story also offers rich ground for psychological interpretation. Through its sparse dialogue and symbolic setting, Hemingway exposes the fragility of intimacy when individuals confront conflicting needs and values.
Psychological theories—especially attachment theory, transactional analysis, and cognitive dissonance—help unravel the invisible mechanisms shaping the couple’s interaction. These frameworks illuminate how emotional insecurity, power dynamics, and internal contradictions govern their communication. As Baker (1969) notes, Hemingway’s art lies in “the omission of the visible to reveal the emotional.” Thus, Hills Like White Elephants becomes a study not just of moral choice but of human psychology under pressure, reflecting universal struggles between love, autonomy, and control.
Attachment Theory and Emotional Dependency
Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby (1969) and expanded by Mary Ainsworth (1978), provides an effective lens for understanding the emotional tension between Jig and the American. The theory categorizes attachment into secure, anxious-preoccupied, avoidant, and disorganized types—patterns that emerge from early relational experiences and shape adult intimacy.
In Hills Like White Elephants, the couple’s conversation reveals incompatible attachment styles. Jig’s remarks—“And if I do it you’ll be happy and things will be like they were?”—reflect anxious-preoccupied attachment, characterized by fear of abandonment and the need for reassurance. Her identity revolves around emotional closeness, yet she senses her partner’s detachment. The American, conversely, exhibits avoidant behavior. He repeatedly insists, “It’s perfectly simple,” attempting to minimize the emotional weight of the situation. His emotional withdrawal and preference for rationalization suggest discomfort with vulnerability.
According to Hazan and Shaver (1987), such pairings—anxious and avoidant—produce cyclical conflict. The anxious partner pursues connection, while the avoidant partner retreats, intensifying emotional distance. Hemingway encapsulates this dynamic through pauses, silences, and evasive dialogue. The couple’s inability to connect emotionally illustrates how attachment insecurities undermine communication and intimacy, a reflection of Hemingway’s broader theme of isolation in love (Reynolds, 1989).
The American’s Avoidance and Fear of Commitment
The American’s behavior demonstrates classic avoidance rooted in a desire for control. Psychologically, avoidance serves as a defense mechanism to minimize anxiety by evading emotional confrontation (Freud, 1937). He rationalizes the abortion as “a simple operation,” masking his internal fear of responsibility and long-term attachment. This emotional detachment aligns with Hemingway’s “code hero” archetype—characters who suppress emotion to maintain control in an uncertain world.
However, his avoidance also exposes insecurity. According to Bowlby (1982), avoidant individuals devalue closeness to protect themselves from perceived threats of dependency. The American’s linguistic strategy—using calm repetition and dismissive phrases—serves to maintain dominance while silencing Jig’s emotional expression. He constructs a façade of rationality to conceal his emotional cowardice.
This pattern reflects post-war masculine identity crises, where men struggled to reconcile vulnerability with strength. As Meyers (1985) explains, Hemingway’s male characters often fear intimacy as it threatens autonomy. The American’s avoidance is thus both personal and generational—a symptom of modern disillusionment where emotional detachment masquerades as freedom.
Jig’s Ambivalence and Emotional Conflict
Jig’s psychology reveals a deeper struggle between dependency and autonomy. She oscillates between compliance and rebellion, reflecting internalized conflict typical of anxious attachment. Her repeated questioning—“Doesn’t it mean anything to you?”—shows her search for emotional validation. Yet, she also demonstrates perceptive awareness, recognizing the futility of her partner’s logic.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, Jig’s ambivalence arises from cognitive dissonance—the discomfort of holding conflicting desires (Festinger, 1957). She loves the American and wants to preserve their relationship, but she also senses moral discomfort about the abortion. Her statement, “We could have all this… and we could have everything,” reveals her longing for emotional wholeness, yet her tone implies resignation.
Oliver (1999) interprets Jig’s silence as psychological defense—a withdrawal into passivity when faced with male authority. Hemingway’s minimalism magnifies this inner conflict; her thoughts are implied rather than spoken. The barren landscape, with its “white hills” and “dry fields,” symbolizes her psychological state—a mixture of purity, emptiness, and suppressed desire. Through Jig, Hemingway captures the psychological toll of love reduced to negotiation rather than mutual understanding.
Transactional Analysis: Power and Communication
Eric Berne’s (1961) theory of transactional analysis (TA) offers a powerful framework for examining the couple’s dialogue. TA posits that human communication operates through three ego states: Parent, Adult, and Child. Healthy relationships rely on balanced Adult-to-Adult communication; dysfunction arises when individuals oscillate between controlling or submissive roles.
In Hills Like White Elephants, the American often adopts the “Parent” ego state—patronizing, authoritative, and emotionally detached. His repeated assurances (“I don’t want you to do it if you don’t want to”) appear considerate but are manipulative, as they subtly impose pressure. Jig, in turn, vacillates between the “Child” (seeking approval) and “Adult” (asserting autonomy) states. Her shift in tone—“Would you please please please stop talking?”—marks an attempt to reclaim agency.
Berne’s model illuminates how their communication is transactional rather than relational. They engage in power negotiation rather than emotional dialogue. As Benson (1990) argues, Hemingway’s characters often “talk to control rather than connect.” The TA framework clarifies how linguistic patterns mirror emotional imbalance: one partner dominates through pseudo-rationality, the other resists through silence. This interplay transforms their dialogue into a psychological duel, exposing how control undermines love.
Cognitive Dissonance and Emotional Rationalization
Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance explains how individuals justify conflicting beliefs or actions to maintain psychological equilibrium. In Hemingway’s story, both characters experience dissonance—between their emotions and their rationalizations.
For the American, dissonance arises from self-justification. He perceives himself as caring and supportive, yet his insistence on the abortion contradicts genuine empathy. To reduce discomfort, he frames the decision as “simple,” aligning his reasoning with moral detachment. His denial of emotional consequence reflects an effort to protect his ego from guilt.
Jig’s dissonance stems from the clash between love and conscience. She desires to please her partner but feels instinctive resistance to the operation. Her shifting perception of the landscape—from fertile valleys to barren fields—symbolizes her internal struggle between nurturing life and relinquishing it. As Waldhorn (2002) notes, Hemingway externalizes emotion through setting, making the physical landscape a psychological mirror.
Cognitive dissonance explains why the conversation remains unresolved. Both characters seek emotional harmony through avoidance rather than confrontation. In psychological terms, they reduce tension by suppressing moral awareness—an act that ultimately erodes intimacy. Hemingway’s brilliance lies in capturing this process without explicit commentary, allowing readers to sense the unspoken emotional cost.
Emotional Suppression and Hemingway’s Minimalism
Hemingway’s “iceberg theory” complements psychological analysis, revealing how emotional suppression functions as both narrative and psychological strategy. According to Reynolds (1989), Hemingway’s minimalist prose mirrors his characters’ repressed emotions. What is left unsaid carries more significance than what is spoken.
In Hills Like White Elephants, this suppression becomes a defense mechanism. Both characters repress emotion to avoid pain, resulting in a sterile relationship dynamic. The unspoken topic of abortion exemplifies repression—the very word is omitted from the text. This omission intensifies psychological tension, compelling readers to infer emotional subtext.
Freudian psychology identifies repression as the cornerstone of neurosis; what is denied consciously returns through symbols or behaviors (Freud, 1937). The landscape, divided between fertility and barrenness, manifests this repressed conflict. Jig’s shifting perception of the hills—first beautiful, then ominous—represents the surfacing of unconscious anxiety. Hemingway’s minimalist style thus aligns with psychological realism, illustrating how repression distorts communication and emotion.
Power, Gender, and Emotional Manipulation
Hemingway’s story also reveals psychological power dynamics shaped by gender roles. The American uses linguistic manipulation to maintain dominance, reflecting patriarchal conditioning. His calm demeanor disguises coercion, while Jig’s compliance reflects internalized subordination.
Psychological theories of relational control, such as those by Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967), describe how dominance in communication establishes emotional hierarchy. The American’s insistence that “I only want what’s best for you” exemplifies paradoxical communication—an emotionally manipulative strategy that invalidates Jig’s autonomy. His persuasion appears supportive but imposes conformity.
Jig’s resistance marks psychological awakening. Her silence at the story’s end is not submission but self-protection—a withdrawal from manipulation. As Oliver (1999) suggests, Hemingway’s female characters often achieve “psychological victory through silence,” reclaiming inner strength even when outwardly defeated. In this light, Hills Like White Elephants transcends its apparent simplicity to expose the psychology of gendered power and emotional dependency.
Symbolism as Psychological Projection
The setting and symbols in Hemingway’s story function as externalizations of the couple’s inner states—a process akin to projection in psychoanalytic theory. The barren hills, dry valley, and contrasting riverside represent the duality of life and death, choice and denial.
Projection, according to Freud (1937), involves attributing one’s internal conflicts onto external objects. The American’s focus on the physical landscape reflects his avoidance of emotional introspection, while Jig’s shifting perception of the scenery mirrors her psychological turmoil. The “white hills” symbolize purity and potential motherhood, but they also evoke emptiness—her ambivalence toward the abortion decision.
Hemingway’s descriptive precision transforms the environment into a psychological map. As Young (1978) observes, “The world outside Hemingway’s characters becomes the reflection of their souls.” This symbolic landscape underscores how emotional repression shapes perception. The psychological projection within Hills Like White Elephants transforms a simple setting into a mirror of existential anxiety and relational fracture.
Conclusion: The Psychology of Emotional Distance
Through psychological theories of attachment, transactional analysis, and cognitive dissonance, Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants emerges as a profound exploration of relationship dynamics. The story transcends its minimalist surface to reveal the hidden mechanisms of emotional avoidance, dependency, and repression. Jig and the American embody the universal struggle between love and autonomy, intimacy and fear. Their failure to communicate mirrors the human tendency to seek control rather than vulnerability in relationships.
Hemingway’s psychological insight lies in his restraint. By showing less, he reveals more—the silences, evasions, and landscapes become expressions of the subconscious. As Reynolds (1989) concludes, Hemingway “writes the psychology of absence.” In Hills Like White Elephants, that absence is love drained of trust, intimacy replaced by negotiation. The story thus stands as both a psychological case study and a timeless reflection on the complexities of human connection.
References
-
Baker, C. (1969). Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
-
Benson, J. (1990). Hemingway: The Writer’s Art of Self-Defense. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
-
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press.
-
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
-
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss, Sadness, and Depression. New York: Basic Books.
-
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
-
Freud, S. (1937). New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. New York: Norton.
-
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). “Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
-
Meyers, J. (1985). Hemingway: A Biography. New York: Harper & Row.
-
Oliver, C. (1999). Hemingway and the Nature of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Reynolds, M. (1989). The Young Hemingway. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
-
Waldhorn, A. (2002). A Reader’s Guide to Ernest Hemingway. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
-
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton.
-
Young, P. (1978). Ernest Hemingway: A Reconsideration. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.