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 -
BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES AND DRIVE INSTINCT THEORY
Freud's (1905) ideas about drive/instinct theory included three concepts which many psychoanalysts believe are intrinsic to the notion of “biological” influence. The first is that instinctive behavior has an imperative, peremptory quality that is associated with a feeling of being “driven” (Rapaport, 1959). The second is that biologically “driven” motivational influences originate in the id (Freud, 1923, 1940). The third idea, a derivative of the second, is that sociocultural and biological influences on behavior are basically in conflict with each other. The relationship between nature and nurture is fundamentally adversarial. Internalization of social constraint on behavioral tendencies that are biologically influenced leads to continuous tension that must be mediated by intricate intrapsychic mechanisms (Fenichel, 1945; Freud, 1930).
In this article we explain why we believe that these ideas about psychobiology and culture have become outdated. The psychobiology of testosterone figures prominently in the discussion, and an understanding of current knowledge of the relationship between testosterone and behavior is necessary. We suggest that many of the ideas that Freud put forth about drive/instinct theory could profitably be reframed as ideas about the activational effects of testosterone. One important finding of behavioral science research has been that the pubertal and postpubertal activational effects of testosterone occur much later in the life cycle than prenatal (and in some species neonatal) organizational effects. Freud was unaware of this, since the organizational effects of testosterone on behavior were described only after his death (Money and Ehrhardt, 1972).
Organizational effects of testosterone occur prenatally and influence the structure and function of the brain. As we discuss below, certain types of childhood behavior are strongly influenced by the organizational effects of testosterone. Activational effects of testosterone influence only the frequency and intensity
- 238 -
with which certain behaviors are experienced and expressed (Gorski, 1991; McEwen, 1983). The distinction between organizational and activational effects of sex steroids on the brain and on behavior is crucial for psychoanalytic theory, since the need for revision of outdated models of psychobiological aspects of sexuality is based on this distinction.
Freud was drawn to the Oedipus myth for personal reasons long before he had created psychoanalytic psychology (Gay, 1988; Masson, 1985; Sulloway, 1979). It is striking that despite radical changes in other aspects of his theory, Freud's view of the centrality of the oedipus complex in normal development and in deviance remained rock solid. Seduction theory came and went. Anxiety was initially attributed to “dammed up libido,” then seen as a signal that mobilized defenses. Childhood sexual conflicts, once viewed as the central influence in psychopathology, gave way to the dual instinct theory. The topographic model was succeeded by the structural model. No matter how wrenching the change in metapsychology, however, the oedipus complex remained for Freud the central, crucial psychological construct of childhood. This is important because the often cataclysmic changes in other dimensions of his theory raise the possibility that revision of the oedipus complex concept might also have occurred. In fact, it is difficult to see any change in Freud's ideas about the oedipus complex published between 1897 and 1940. He considered it to be as fundamental as his description of the mental mechanisms that are expressed in dreams, symptoms, and parapraxes, the phenomena of transference and resistance, and the usefulness of free association as a method of psychological exploration.
IS THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX A UNITARY ENTITY?
Freud and subsequent clinicians have considered the oedipus complex to be a psychological unit. According to this view, the manifestations of the oedipus complex are experienced in a typical
- 239 -
narrative structure. In this article we will discuss the oedipus complex in male development only, since we believe that the intermediate biopsychological mechanisms that influence the way in which the complex is experienced and expressed are fundamentally different for males and females. In the boy's case the incestuous wish for his mother is considered to be biologically programmed to occur during a particular phase of development. Between ages three and six the child's sexual drive becomes more intense and object-directed. The boy's erotic desire leads to a parricidal wish. The combination of erotic and aggressive fantasies leads to fear of retaliation from his stronger, more powerful adversary. This is experienced as castration anxiety. The boy copes with the “complex” of unacceptable wishes and terrifying fears by identifying with his father. This strengthens the structure of his personality. He is now able to keep the entire oedipus complex from conscious awareness.
In structural terms, the incestuous wish arises as a result of pressures from the id. The fear of retaliation leads ultimately to internalization of representations of the father. These result in completion of the structure of the superego. The structured superego is able to support the ego in its repression of the incestuous and parricidal wishes, and the resultant fears. The child's behavior becomes regulated by an internal judge rather than by fear of punishment (castration) delivered by an outside agency (Engel, 1962; Fenichel, 1945; Freud, 1923, 1933).
We suggest that the oedipus complex for males may be thought of as a mental experience composed of several component elements. We consider these to be the incestuous wish, rivalrous competitive feelings directed at the father, parricidal fantasies, and fear of retaliation by the father in the form of castration. We focus in this article on only one of the multiple components of the oedipus complex and discuss below biological influences on the dominance-aggression father-son mental representations. Our purpose here is to summarize evidence that indicates there is an innate, biologically determined tendency for sons to feel rivalrous, competitive, and frequently
- 240 -
although not invariably “aggressive” toward their fathers, and vice versa. What Freud considered to be a concrete parricidal wish is but one example of this general tendency and is not universally experienced. The biological influences on competitiveness and aggressiveness are not invariably associated with or reactive to erotic desire for the mother, although the two may often be linked. The erotic component of Freud's oedipus com- plex is, in our view, more variable than the dominanceaggression component, which is experienced and expressed from toddlerhood and which follows a developmental line of its own. We conjecture that the dominance/aggression component of the oedipus complex begins to be expressed during toddlerhood and is associated with language acquisition and increased mobility. As the boy becomes older, his capacity for language expression, mobility, and the elaboration of fantasy increases. This enhances the visibility of the expressions of his fantasy life. Thus, he has earlier experienced dominant/aggressive feelings, but these become expressed more openly as he grows older.
We turn now to consideration of the relationship between prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain and play and aggression during childhood. Whereas the empirical data base on childhood sexual activity is sparse, the data base on childhood play is substantial. The rationale for introducing the subject of play in a discussion of the oedipus complex is explained below.
CHILDHOOD ROUGH AND TUMBLE PLAY AND PLAY FIGHTING
The social organization of many species of mammals is similar in certain ways to the social organization of human beings. Such similarity invites the hypothesis that similar influences have led to similar social behaviors, despite dramatic differences in many other forms of behavior that appear to be species-specific.
In light of Freud's dramatic demonstration that childhood fantasy of imagined events or fantasied elaborations of actual
- 241 -
events may have profound and lasting effects on psychological functioning, it is particularly helpful to contemplate forms of juvenile activity that humans share with other species. One such crucial area is the development of childhood play. Freud did not devote great attention to this subject. As a scientist and healer, he was more interested in love and work; and as an essayist and man of letters, in sex and death. It remained for other psychoanalysts to systematically discuss childhood play (Piers, 1972; Winnicott, 1965, 1971
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING CHILDHOOD PLAY
Human beings are the only species to create objects for their offspring to play with. Artificially created childhood toys may be thought of as tools to facilitate the play function (Fagen, 1981). Because of the capacity for sophisticated cognition, human play is often highly intricate and complex. Despite some uniquely human features, much play of children, however, is quite similar to the play of the young of other mammals..
Lumsden and Wilson, 1983). In the words of one biologist who has studied animal play, “Young animals have chasing and wrestling matches. They play elaborate games resembling human tag, hide and seek, king of the castle, and blind man's buff. Young primates even enjoy being tickled. There are undeniable parallels between animal and human play” (Fagen, 1981, p. xi). Fagen also points out that “play behaviors represent structural transformations and functional rehearsals, or generalizations of behaviors, or behavioral sequences. In other contexts, these behaviors
- 242 -
yield relatively specific and immediate beneficial effects. Winning a disputed resource, obtaining a food item, escaping a predator, using a tool are examples of such effects” (p. 4). In humans, childhood play serves multiple adaptive functions, and the fantasy life of children is typically expressed in play (Cohen and Solnit, 1993).
Fagen, 1981). These behaviors plus competition for territory or for hierarchical rank are commonly termed “rough and tumble play” (RTP).
SEX DIFFERENCES IN PLAY