Biology And The Oedipus Complex
Richard C. Friedman, M.D. and Jennifer I. Downey, M.D.
Recent observations in the behavioral and neurosciences have raised questions about the ubiquity of the oedipus complex as well as about its significance for psychological development. The authors argue that the construct Freud called the oedipus complex in males is best examined in its component parts. One component— the incestuous wish—does not occur in all individuals. Another component—the boy's urge to engage competitively with other male figures, including the father—does appear to be biologically based in testosterone's effect on the brain and to be manifested in childhood rough and tumble play behavior. It is proposed that reexamination of the oedipus complex in light of recent findings about the brain and behavior is indicated and that play, in particular, can usefully be considered as a separate developmental line.
I venture to say that if psycho-analysis could boast of no other achievement than the discovery of the repressed Oedipus complex, that alone would give it a claim to be to be included among the precious new acquisitions of mankind.
Freud (1940, pp. 192-193)
INTRODUCTION
Freud's personal investment in the validity of the oedipus complex as a fundamental building block in psychological development was intense and lasted his entire life (Freud, 1905, 1933, 1940; Masson, 1985). Psycho-analysis as a system of thought has
- 234 -
largely retained the primacy of the oedipus complex as Freud described it. Thus, the vast majority of practitioners today still rely heavily on psychodynamic formulations that rest on the validity of the oedipus complex construct (Greenberg, 1991). Numerous therapists find that their clinical experience is organized and made coherent by such formulations. For the practicing psychoanalyst, oedipal conflict is “experience near.”
Recent observations in the behavioral and neurosciences have raised questions about the ubiquity of the oedipus complex as well as about its significance for psychological development. These new findings have led us to re-examine Freud's original oedipus complex construct.
In a review of anthropological and sociobiological data, Erickson (1993) argued that secure bonding during infancy is associated with incest avoidance later in life. Only when early bonding is disrupted is incest likely to occur. Although Erickson did not study fantasy, he pointed out that Freud had viewed castration anxiety as the major motivation for incest avoidance. Erickson questioned Freud's emphasis on innately determined incestuous desire and suggested that the motivation to commit incest might not in fact be intense, or even present, among children who have experienced consistently secure early bonding. Incestuous motivations and fantasies might be evidence of disruption of early bonding and therefore psychopathological.
Freud's hypothesis that the oedipus complex was a biologically determined, phase-specific phenomenon had earlier been challenged by Horney (1937), who hypothesized that it was shaped by sociocultural influences. Chodoff (1966) pointed out that Freud's ideas about childhood sexuality were not based on solid empirical evidence. He doubted the accuracy of Freud's psychosexual developmental theory, and he raised serious questions, as have other psychoanalysts (Schrut, 1993), about whether erotic attraction to parents should be considered a norm for children. Lidz and Lidz (1989) recently discussed cultural influences on the oedipus complex and questioned its universality.
Another reason for taking a fresh look at the oedipus complex
- 235 -
derives from research on the etiology of psychopathological disorders. Freud (1940) hypothesized that unresolved oedipal conflicts were major, if not determining influences in the etiology of neuroses. Among the conditions once considered “neuroses,” however, are a variety of anxiety and depressive disorders as well as other psychiatric illnesses. Genetic, constitutional, neurophysiological, and psychosocial influences on the etiology of these diverse disorders have been elucidated recently. Thus, the oedipus complex does not appear to be as central in the etiology of mental disorders as Freud thought.
The same type of criticism applies to the concept of the superego. Freud emphasized the mechanism of identification with the same-gender parent as necessary for oedipal conflict resolution, believing that this identification results in the formation of the superego (1923, 1933, 1940). Today, the model of superego functioning generally accepted by psychoanalysts has been modified: identifications with both parents as well as other cognitive and psychosocial influences lead a child to develop moral values (Gilligan, Ward, and Taylor, 1988; Kagan, 1984; Kohlberg, 1976, 1981; Tyson and Tyson, 1990), which contribute crucially to superego genesis. Revision of Freud's hypothesis concerning superego formation parallels criticism of his model of female development and psychosexual functioning (Schafer, 1974).
Freud's psychosexual developmental theory was further weakened by empirical research in the area of gender identity development. Stoller (1968) and Money and Ehrhardt (1972) established that core gender identity—the sense of being male or female—is established prior to the onset of what had traditionally been thought of as the oedipal phase. Gender identity is a psychological construct, yet influenced by constitutional biological factors, cognitive development, and psychosocial learning. The relationship between core gender identity and genital knowledge is complex (Bem, 1989). Formation of core gender identity, however, is not dependent upon perception of the genital
- 236 -
difference in the way that Freud thought, nor is it primarily motivated by castration anxiety (Coates, 1992; Fagot, 1985; Fagot, Leinbach, and Hagan 1986; Yates, 1993). It is likely that establishment of core gender identity precedes and organizes the way in which a child experiences oedipal conflict, not the reverse (Tyson, 1982).
Another area of profound change in psychoanalytic theory in recent years has been that of sexual orientation. Most contemporary psychoanalysts have accepted revision of a model generally adhered to during the two and a half decades following World War II in which homosexuality was equated with psychopathology (Socarides, 1978; Panel, 1986; Friedman, 1988; Isay, 1989). Yet most have also continued to believe in the fundamental importance of the oedipus complex in psychological functioning. The new ideas about homosexuality, however, raise fundamental questions about the role of the oedipus complex in development. How can “normal” resolution of oedipal conflicts result in homosexuality? Isay (1989) recently suggested that homosexual men are biologically predisposed to be erotically attracted to their fathers in a manner analogous to heterosexual men, who are predisposed to be attracted to their mothers. This speculation remains to be validated.
Thus, superego development, gender identity, sexual orientation, personality structure, the etiology of the neuroses (and the psychoses)—all seem to be subject to influences other than oedipal conflict resolution or failure thereof. The questions then are: What specifically is the role of the oedipus complex in development? Is the oedipus complex biologically determined or even strongly biologically influenced or not?
Although it is not possible to answer these questions completely at this time, we shall discuss recent developments in psychoneuroendocrinology and sexology which indicate the need for revision in basic ideas about the oedipus complex and psychobiology originally put forth by Freud and still influential today.
- 237 -