1) This article discusses Freud's text "On Female Sexuality" and how it relates to theories of infantile sexuality, primary object-love, and the meta-psychological status of the Oedipus complex.
2) In the text, Freud acknowledges for the first time the importance of the child's bond to its mother. Both Balint and Bowlby consider it a precursor to their theories of primary object-love and attachment.
3) The text presents an opportunity to discuss the relationship between primary object-love/attachment and sexuality, and reevaluate the universal nature and anthropological significance of the Oedipus complex.
1) This article discusses Freud's text "On Female Sexuality" and how it relates to theories of infantile sexuality, primary object-love, and the meta-psychological status of the Oedipus complex.
2) In the text, Freud acknowledges for the first time the importance of the child's bond to its mother. Both Balint and Bowlby consider it a precursor to their theories of primary object-love and attachment.
3) The text presents an opportunity to discuss the relationship between primary object-love/attachment and sexuality, and reevaluate the universal nature and anthropological significance of the Oedipus complex.
1) This article discusses Freud's text "On Female Sexuality" and how it relates to theories of infantile sexuality, primary object-love, and the meta-psychological status of the Oedipus complex.
2) In the text, Freud acknowledges for the first time the importance of the child's bond to its mother. Both Balint and Bowlby consider it a precursor to their theories of primary object-love and attachment.
3) The text presents an opportunity to discuss the relationship between primary object-love/attachment and sexuality, and reevaluate the universal nature and anthropological significance of the Oedipus complex.
Summary: This article is an attempt to show why and in what respect Freud's famous article, 'On female sexuality' can still be a source of inspiration for a contemporary meta- psychology. n this text, Freud ac!nowledges the importance of the child's tie to its mother for the first time. "oth "alint and "owlby consider this text to be a distant forerunner of their own theories on primary ob#ect-lo$e and attachment respecti$ely. %t the same time, Freud's text contains some elements of a 'theory of generali&ed seduction' as it was de$eloped in the last decades by 'ean (aplanche. 'On female sexuality' therefore presents itself as the perfect point of departure for a discussion of the relation between primary ob#ect-lo$e )and attachment* and sexuality. "ased on our reading of Freud's text, we argue that human sub#ecti$ity is characteri&ed by the lac! of attunement between the world of the adult and the world of the child. This insight allows for a reformulation of the anthropological significance of the Oedipus- and the castration complex. They are no longer interpreted as uni$ersal problems that e$ery child has to face, but as historical and contingent solutions to the lac! of attunement between the child and the adult that is essential to human sub#ecti$ity. +lic! here to download a ,-F copy of the article. .. ntroduction 'On female sexuality' )Freud, ./0.* is one of Freud's most contro$ersial texts. t has been se$erely critici&ed both from within the psychoanalytic mo$ement and from without. Feminist thin!ers repeated for instance time and again - and not without reason - that Freud's $iews on the topic were a biased expression of a culture in which men dominated women )1itchell ./23*. 1oreo$er, his theories would lac! any empirical foundation. Others still re#ected the biologistic o$ertones of Freud's theories on femininity. 'ustified as all these and other criticisms may be, they all too often lead to an absolute re#ection of this and similar texts on the topic. 4owe$er, apart from the 'official' doctrine on femininity, the Oedipus and the castration complex, 'On female sexuality' also contains interesting suggestions that seem to contradict this doctrine or that at least necessitate a reformulation of it. % close reading of 'On female sexuality', in other words, forces us as it were to read Freud against Freud. 'On female sexuality' not only contains a detailed discussion of the female Oedipus complex, but also of the castration complex which explains the difference between the female and the male $ersion of the latter. t is at the same time the only text in which Freud seems to doubt whether or not the Oedipus complex is the nuclear complex of neurosis )./0., p. 556*. n fact, the description of the de$elopment of female sexuality forces Freud to focus his attention on the pre-Oedipal period. t seems less than e$ident that this period can be understood exclusi$ely from the perspecti$e of psychosexual de$elopment. ndeed, 1ichael "alint points out that Freud's description of the pre- Oedipal dynamics between mother and child has much in common with his own notion of 'primary ob#ect-lo$e' which, according to him, characteri&es the original attachment relation to the mother and can hardly be called 'sexual' in the Freudian sense of the word )"alint, ./02*. "owlby e$en refers to 'On female sexuality' as the distant forerunner of his own insights into attachment as primary tendency )"owlby, ./37*. On female sexuality' is therefore ideally suited for a discussion of the status of infantile sexuality and oedipality in human existence and for the understanding of pathology. 1ore specifically, it allows for a critical encounter between Freud's description of the primordial relation to the mother and "alint's )the '4ungarian school' 's* description of it. 'On female sexuality' is, howe$er, also interesting for another reason. n this text we find some elements of what 'ean (aplanche calls a theory of generali&ed seduction )(aplanche ./7/*. n this way, the debate between Freud and "alint gets an added dimension. The reference to the wor! of (aplanche ma!es it indeed possible to define two different, but intrinsically connected problems to which e$ery human child has to gi$e an answer: the ine$itable disillusionment of the primary ob#ect-lo$e and the confrontation with adult sexuality. will interpret the Oedipus and castration complex as a historical as well as a contingent answer to these two problems. n this way, they become much more dependent on culture than Freud could e$er admit. will first compare Freud's $iews on the pre-oedipal period in 'On female sexuality' with "alint's theory of 'primary ob#ect-lo$e'. will then discuss the relation between primary ob#ect-lo$e and infantile sexuality. This discussion includes a confrontation between Freud's insights on this topic and those of "alint and (aplanche. This confrontation also allows for a reassessment of the meta-psychological status of the Oedipus and castration complex in 'On female sexuality'. conclude my exposition with some critical remar!s on the alleged uni$ersality of these complexes. 5. 8e-reading 'On Female Sexuality' 5... The relation to the mother in Freud and "alint 'On female sexuality' is the first text in which Freud une9ui$ocally underlines the importance of the original relation to the mother. 4ere female sexuality sets Freud on the right trac!. %ccording to him, female sexuality is characteri&ed by two tas!s that set it apart from male sexuality )./0., p. 553*. On the one hand, the woman has to replace the most important genital &one from her childhood, the clitoris, with the $agina. On the other hand, she also has to exchange the original mother ob#ect for the father. :hat is stri!ing here, Freud continues, is that women with a strong paternal attachment - of which there are many - ha$e experienced a period in their early childhood during which the exclusi$e attachment to their mother was as strong as the later attachment to their father )./0., p. 553*. Freud adds that the duration of this exclusi$e attachment to the mother has always been underestimated. t can last until the age of four or fi$e )./0., p. 556*. %s a result of this, the pre-Oedipal period gets a decisi$e meaning for the de$elopment of female sexuality. ts disco$ery, writes Freud, is as surprising as the disco$ery of the 1inoan-1ycenaean culture 'behind' the ;ree! culture )./0., p. 556*. %lthough Freud mainly underlines the significance of this period for women, it is clear that it is e9ually significant and has the same meaning for both sexes in at least one respect. The fundamental determinations of the ob#ect choice are after all, according to Freud, identical for both sexes )./0., p. 557*. The way in which Freud describes the problem of ob#ect choices in the pre-Oedipal period is sexually neutral. To be sure, the outcome of this period is different for the girl than for the boy. 4owe$er, Freud maintains that, with the exception of castration, all the disillusions that the relationship with the mother has in store for the little girl, and which also ha$e to explain why the child exchanges the mother for the father as lo$e ob#ect, hold for both sexes )./0., pp. 50<- 503*. The mother is the small child's first lo$e ob#ect. %ccording to Freud, the child becomes attached to the mother because it is dependent upon her for food and care )./0., p. 557*. The attachment to the first ob#ect is, in this sense, primarily a problem of the dri$e for self-preser$ation from which it is deri$ed ontogenetically. t is therefore a secondary phenomenon. %ccording to Freud, the child becomes attached to the mother because it needs her to sur$i$e. %t the same time, Freud underlines the sexual nature of the first tie to the mother. n other words, both the relation to the mother and the satisfaction that the child deri$es from it are determined by the libidinal phases through which the little child passes )./0., p. 506*. The criticism le$elled by "owlby and the attachment theorists against this $ision is well !nown: attachment is according to them a primary and phylogenetically determined phenomenon= its moti$ation should not be sought in the indi$idual life history. To be attached to something or someone is something entirely different from being dependent upon it>them. For example, children can also be attached to people that are not responsible for the satisfaction of their needs or to parents that abuse and neglect them )"owlby, ./6/= Fonagy, 5??.*. %ttachment, moreo$er, is not of a sexual nature. "owlby and his followers con$incingly demonstrate that attachment and sexuality are two different - though closely related - beha$ioral systems )"owlby, ./6/, p. 500= Fonagy, 5??., pp. /-.?*. :e !now that for Freud the pre-Oedipal phase carries more weight in the case of the little girl than in that of the little boy )./0., p. 50?*. :e are already familiar with Freud's clinical arguments in fa$our of this point of $iew. @pon closer analysis, the strong paternal attachment found among many women can be traced bac! to a strong maternal attachment that preceded it. Freud's fundamental argument is howe$er, as is often the case, not clinical but theoretical. +ontrary to the man, the woman faces the tas! of ha$ing to exchange the mother ob#ect for the father. The reasons for this substitution cannot be sought in the Oedipal problematics, because it precisely mar!s the beginning of this episode. The pre-Oedipal period must conse9uently ma!e something possible for the little girl - the change of ob#ect - which is not necessary for the boy. Freud then goes on to loo! for the reasons for this change in the disillusionment that ine$itably accompanies the original relationship with the mother, and in the hostility that follows from it.A.B 4e connects this hostility with what he calls 'the general dissatisfaction' of children )./0., p. 50<*. On the one hand, infantile lo$e !nows no bounds and demands the exclusi$e possession of the ob#ect. t wants it all. On the other hand, this lo$e has no real aim. t is incapable of complete )orgastic* satisfaction. t is therefore doomed to end in disappointment )./0., p. 50.*.A5B Freud furthermore mentions the common reproach that 'the mother ga$e the child too little mil!' and did not suc!le her long enough. n our culture, writes Freud, this complaint may often enough be true, but it is probably e9ually common in cultures in which infants are weaned much later. n other words, the infantile libido ne$er gets enough )./0., p. 50<*. The disillusionment conse9uently not owing to external factors. The original relationship with the mother is, of its own accord and for structural reasons, dissatisfying. 1ichael and %lice "alint sei&e these passages to introduce the notion of 'primary ob#ect- lo$e' )1. "alint, ./02, pp. /. ff.*. This primary ob#ect-lo$e is an una$oidable and necessary stage in the psychic de$elopment. t is an original phenomenon that cannot be deri$ed from something else - from the satisfaction of the dri$e for self-preser$ation, for example. t is determining for all later ob#ect-relations )./02, p. .?.*. ,rimary ob#ect- lo$e is not only the most archaic form of attachment to the mother )%. "alint, ./0/, p..50*, but also characteristic of the mother's relationship to her child )./0/, p..5?*. %s a matter of fact, this primiti$e attachment has a biological basis in the mutual dependence of the mother and the child )1. "alint, ./02, p. .?5*. ,regnancy and gi$ing birth, but also lo$ing physical contact with the child are, according to %lice and 1ichael "alint, instinctual urges of the mother which she satisfies with the help of the newly born child: ',hysical proximity lasting as long as possible is pleasurable to both mother and child' )%. "alint, ./0/, p. ../*. The primiti$e relation to the mother is go$erned by the principle, 'what is good for me is also good for you', and it ma!es no distinction between self-interest and the interest of the other.A0B The primiti$e ob#ect-lo$e accepts no claims from the ob#ect that undermine the supposed harmony and which, in this way, would introduce the reality principle. On the contrary, such claims lead to se$ere anxiety attac!s and fits of rage )./02, p. .??*. 1ichael "alint connects this primary ob#ect-lo$e which tolerates no frustration with Freud's insight that the infantile libido ne$er gets enough and that the mother ne$er ga$e enough mil! )./02, p./.*. 4e agrees with Freud that the original relation to the mother is ine$itably dissatisfying.A<B There are ne$ertheless also important differences. "alint re#ects the idea that the primiti$e ob#ect-lo$e is connected to a specific erotogenic &one - and in particular to the oral &one )./02, p. .?.*. The primiti$e ob#ect-lo$e has a status of its own that cannot be reduced to other forms of 'lo$e': auto-eroticism, narcissism or acti$e )genital* lo$e )./02, p. .?.*. %nd when "alint writes that the satisfaction of the instinctual urges of the child ne$er goes beyond the le$el of fore-pleasure, then he understands fore-pleasure - contrary to Freud and inspired by Ferenc&i's distinction between an )infantile* language of tenderness and an )adult* language of passion )Ferenc&i ./00* - not as a lesser form of )orgastic* end-pleasure. On the contrary, fore-pleasure operates according to its own regime and dynamics.A3B t is of the order of play )"alint, ./06= Ferenc&i ./00*. t is, says "alint, 'a tran9uil, 9uiet sense of well-being' )1. "alint, ./06, p. 7<* that, in principle, can go on fore$er. %ccording to "alint primary lo$e is thus not sexual. f anything, it rather refers to what Freud called aim-inhibited instincts )"alint ./03, p. 6.*. Following 4ermann )4ermann ./06* "alint states that primary lo$e is related to tendencies such as clinging that can hardly be reduced to sexuality. n this way, "alint, in disagreement with Freud, underlines the primordial, non-sexual status of the first attachment relations. This is why his theory of primary ob#ect-lo$e comes much closer to "owlby's theory of attachment then Freud's description and interpretation of the original relation to the mother.A6B Freud wants to explain why the little girl exchanges the mother for the father as lo$e ob#ect. n order to do so he ultimately refers to a 'general dissatisfaction' and hostility towards an ob#ect that disappoints us. n the same $ein, Freud writes that the bond with the mother is ruined because it was the first and therefore the most intense: great lo$e is ine$itably attended by great hatred )./0., p. 50<*. The change of affect in the original relation to the mother originates in the ambi$alence which ine$itably - 'naturally' - characteri&es the archaic instinctual life of both boys and girls. :hat then according to Freud, explains the different outcome of the pre-Oedipal period for the boy and for the girlC 5.5. The castration and Oedipus complex in 'On Female Sexuality'. Freud's analysis of the pre-Oedipal period is meant to explain why the little girl turns away from the mother and ta!es the father as lo$e-ob#ect. Det, all the reasons that he gi$es for the hostility that ine$itably creeps into the relationship between mother and daughter also apply to the little boy. (i!e "alint's notion of primary ob#ect-lo$e, Freud's discussion of the pre-Oedipal period is sexually neutral. nitially there is no difference between the little boy and the little girl. %ccording to Freud, this changes howe$er with the growing reali&ation that the girl does not ha$e a penis. This means that castration is the only factor that determines the di$ergent course of the Oedipal complex in boys and girls. The strongest moti$e, Freud writes, for the girl's turning away from the mother is the reali&ation that the latter failed to gi$e the child an ade9uate sexual organ. The girl interprets castration as an in#ustice that her mother has inflicted upon her )./0., p. 50<*. This explains why she will henceforth turn to the father to still try and get what she lac!s. Thus, the disillusionment that characteri&es the relation of both the boy and the girl to the mother can only be a sufficient reason for the girl to turn away from the mother from the perspecti$e of castration, that is, on the basis of a deferred AnachtrEglichB interpretation )./0., p. 502*. :hat does this mean with regard to the metapsychological status of castrationC %s we already !now, Freud writes that e$ery possible reason for #ustifying the little girl's hostility towards her mother actually falls short. t either follows from the nature of infantile sexuality itself and is conse9uently not specific enough, or it is a rationali&ation which explains the change of affect )./0., p. 50<* that originates in the ambi$alence which characteri&es the archaic instinctual life. n this way, the hostility towards the mother becomes an ultimate gi$en that cannot be analysed any further )./0., p. 503*. This of course does not exempt the child from ha$ing to gi$e this primiti$e hostility a place in its psychic life.A2B Freud does not specify which of the stated explanations for turning away from the mother he himself considers to be rationali&ations. "ut is it too bold a statement to say that the problematics of castration - and by extension, the Oedipus complex - falls under this rubricC s castration not a rationali&ation for the archaic ambi$alence that Freud in$o!es as the ultimate explanation for the child's hostility towards the motherC +astration does indeed pro$ide a reason - in the sense of 'FachtrEglich!eit' or 'aprGs coup' - for the little girl's hostility towards the mother, which would otherwise remain an 'obscure instinctual impulse' that the child cannot understand )./0., p. 502*.A7B +astration pro$ides an answer to a problem that the little girl could not sol$e and towards which she could initially merely remain passi$e. t is, in other words, already a )defensi$e* translation of a more fundamental problem - the hostility towards the mother - which, according to my reading of Freud's text, ma!es up the actual core of the unconscious. lin!ed this hostility earlier on to the idea of a 'general dissatisfaction of children' that plays a crucial role in the wor! of both Freud and "alint )Freud ./0., p. 50.= "alint ./02, p. /.*. :hat holds for the problematics of castration, perhaps e9ually applies to the )female* Oedipus complex that it initiates. Freud writes that the hostile attitude towards the mother does not result from the Oedipal ri$alry, but stems, on the contrary, from the preceding period. The hostile attitude is 'reinforced and exploited' by the Oedipal ri$alry )./0., p. 50.*. Of particular importance is the reference to the fact that the original hostility is 'exploited'. Freud is referring to a hostility which originates in the archaic instinctual life itself, and which is incomprehensible 'at the $ery moment it appears' )./0., p. 502*. -oes the Oedipal ri$alry not precisely ma!e this hostility 'psychically exploitable' by pro$iding an explanation for it: ' hate my mother, because she possesses my father'C The Oedipal ri$alry 'binds' a more original hatred by gi$ing it a place in psychic life. %s mentioned earlier, according to Freud, the first instinctual impulses only become conscious and get a psychic meaning through their deferred AnachtrEglicheB interpretation )./0., 502*. n this way, the little girl's Oedipal ri$alry appears as a )defensi$e* translation of a problem that originates in the instinctual life itself. 0. Further reflections on the metapsychological status of the castration and Oedipus complex: Freud, "alint and (aplanche 0... 'Seduction' in 'On female sexuality' The disco$ery of the pre-Oedipal period had Freud doubting for a moment whether or not the Oedipus complex is the nuclear complex of neurosis )and of the unconscious as such*. This period, #ust as the Oedipal period that follows it, does indeed gi$e rise to repressions and fixations that could account for specific pathologies )Freud ./0., p. 556*. 4owe$er, Freud immediately seems to discredit his own misgi$ings. The Oedipus complex can in reality be extended to all of the child's relationships towards its parents. The significance of pre-Oedipality for the little girl can also be explained in such a way that she only accedes to the normal, positi$e form of the Oedipus complex, after she has o$ercome its negati$e form in which hostility towards the mother dominates )./0., p. 556*. 4owe$er, our reading of 'On female sexuality' suggests that there is in Freud also a tendency to understand the castration and the Oedipus complex as an answer to a more fundamental problem that is not itself 'oedipal' and that is essential to the dynamics of the dri$es. ndeed, Freud also suggests that they are rationali&ations that ma!e it possible to 'exploit' psychically and to explain a more fundamental hostility towards the mother. This line of thought, according to which the Oedipus complex is an answer to a more fundamental problem, has in recent years been de$eloped in a $ery interesting way by 'ean (aplanche in the context of his theory of an 'original and generali&ed seduction'. The notion of an original and structural seduction refers to the fact that the adult without wanting to - and often without reali&ing it - sends the child sexual messages - at an age at which it does not yet possess the intellectual, physical or affecti$e capabilities to understand them. :hen we wash and cuddle a child, we are in$ol$ed as corporeal sub#ects whose experience of the body is ine$itably imbued with conscious as well as unconscious sexual significance. To gi$e an example: those who experience the bodily openings or the genital &one as 'gross' will ta!e care of their children differently from those who thin! that masturbation is the appropriate means to !eep their children calm or cause them to fall asleep. % pregnant mother communicates a sexual message to her child that it does not understand, and yet must attempt to process. )(aplanche .//5, pp. .56- .52* 4owe$er, (aplanche not only emphasi&es the impossibility for the child to respond ade9uately to these messages, but also underscores the impenetrable character of these messages for the adult himself>herself )(aplanche ./7/, p. .56*. This is why (aplanche calls them 'enigma's' rather than 'riddles'. n contradistinction to 'riddles' to which at least one of the two parties in$ol$ed !nows the correct answer, the meaning of an enigma is unclear to both the sender and the recei$er. The little child has to translate these messages into a language it understands. n Freudian terms we could say that it has to ma!e these enigmatic messages 'psychically exploitable' by pro$iding an explanation for them. :e shouldn't, of course, conclude from all this that (aplanche and Freud are saying exactly the same thing. The enigmatic messages (aplanche is tal!ing about primarily come from the other )the world of the adult*, whereas this ob$iously isn't the case for the fundamental hostility towards the mother that Freud is thin!ing of. The original seduction thus refers to the idea of a constituti$e asymmetry between adult and infantile sexuality that was already strongly emphasi&ed by Ferenc&i and the "alints. t would howe$er be a mista!e to say that the theme of seduction is completely absent from 'On female sexuality'. n this text, Freud indeed calls the mother the 'first seducer' )Freud, ./?3= Freud, ./0., p. 505= p. 507*. n the nurturing interaction with the child, the mother - but also the wet nurse or the nanny, for example - cannot a$oid to arouse the experience of pleasure in the $arious erotogenic &ones - and in particular in the genital &one. The child then tries to repeat this experience of pleasure autonomously. %ccording to Freud, this is one of the reasons why the original relation to the mother is ine$itably disillusioning for both the little boy and girl. "y arousing infantile sexuality and the experience of pleasure, the mother e$o!es the hope for satisfaction, which the child is not yet capable of )Freud, ./0., pp. 50.-505*. %ccording to Freud, infantile sexuality is after all aimless: it !nows no orgasmic release )Freud, ./0., p.50.*.A/B :e should not deduce from this that Freud, li!e (aplanche, systematically focuses his attention on the influence and impact of adult )parental* sexuality on children. On the contrary, in 'On female sexuality', Freud defends a rather 'physiological' $iew on the seduction by the mother. The mother only causes the infantile experience of pleasure in an external way, which then continues to de$elop autonomously. n other words, the mother is here sexually neutral. t is as if Freud presumes that the mother only has the $ital urges of the child in mind when satisfying these urges. %s if the mother's, and more generally, the adult's in$ol$ement with the child, is not also always determined by his or her own experience of sexuality. Freud was ob$iously aware of this problem. Thus he writes for instance in his 'Three Hssays': 'Iall the more because the other - usually the mother - endows the child with feelings originating from her own sexual life: she caresses, !isses and cradles it and uses it unmista!ably as surrogate for a full-fledged sexual ob#ect' )Freud, ./?3, p. .36*. Freud ne$ertheless also lea$es an opening in 'On female sexuality'. The first relation to the mother is after all not only disillusioning because the mother creates the expectation of an experience of pleasure, which the small child is not capable of. %ccording to Freud, it is also disillusioning because the auto-erotic satisfaction that the motherly care e$o!es is simultaneously forbidden. Freud writes that the prohibition on masturbation affects both the little boy and the little girl, and has the same effect on both: hostility towards the mother )Freud, ./0., p. 505*. "ut why does the mother forbid masturbationC t is hard to belie$e that this prohibition does not refer to the problems of adult sexuality in any way. From the standpoint of infantile sexuality, there is in fact not a single reason to institute this prohibition. n and through the prohibition on masturbation the infant is, in other words, confronted with a world of meaning for which there is no place in the infantile experience of pleasure.A.?B ,ut differently, the prohibition on masturbation introduces a world of meanings to the child - adult sexuality that is guilt ridden, orgasmic and passionate - which it is not ready for. "ut is this 'contamination' only due to the prohibition on masturbationC +an the mother - the adult in general - pre$ent these meanings, which stem from her own conscious or unconscious experience of sexuality, from playing a role in the bodily contact with the childC H$en the most 'innocent' caresses, writes "alint, are essentially sexual acts that cause sexual excitation and express adult genital sexuality )"alint, ./05, p. .6?*. n this regard, (aplanche spea!s of an 'original seduction' and of a constituti$e asymmetry between adult and infantile sexuality )(aplanche, ./7/, pp. 7/-.3.= (aplanche .//5*. The prohibition on masturbation is perhaps not so much 'traumati&ing' because it detracts from an earlier 'promise' )Freud*, but because the child is in this way exposed to the )sexual* passions of the adult which it does not understand. 0.5. Seduction in the wor! of "alint This is probably a good place to return once again to the wor! of 1ichael and %lice "alint on ',rimary ob#ect-lo$e'. The "alints introduce this notion in order to correct Freud's all too narrow $iews on the original relation to the mother. This relation doesn't ha$e a secondary character and it cannot be understood from the perspecti$e of adult sexuality, as Freud thought. The "alints agree with Freud that the relation is characteri&ed by a fundamental disappointment, which is due to the absence of the reality principle, but they gi$e a completely different and a more subtle description of it. They underline that primary ob#ect-lo$e operates according to its own regime and dynamics. Furthermore, this dynamics is fundamentally different from the one go$erning Freud's dri$e of self- preser$ation, which he usually defines $ery narrowly in terms of hunger and thirst. The disillusionment, which is ine$itably part and parcel of the original relation with the mother, may howe$er not be associated exclusi$ely with the absence of the reality principle. n fact, %lice "alint gi$es an additional reason that is of particular importance for our discussion )%. "alint, ./0/*. The relation between mother and child is indeed, from a structural point of $iew, not simply reciprocal. H$en if the small child fulfils the instinctual urges of the mother, e$ery child can, according to %lice "alint, in principle be replaced by another. The in$erse is howe$er not the case: 'The mother is uni9ue and irreplaceable' )./0/, p. .55*. n this way, a fundamental asymmetry slips into the original relation to the mother, which might be the underlying, structural reason why this relation cannot but end in disappointment. :hat is the connection between the asymmetry %lice "alint themati&es, and the ine9uality between the )infantile* regime of fore-pleasure, which "alint refers as one of the characteristics of primary ob#ect-lo$e, on the one hand, and that of the )adult* end- pleasure mentioned earlierC Fore-pleasure is of the order of play and !nows no orgasmic release. n principle it can go on fore$er. t is also identical in both sexes. Hnd-pleasure, on the other hand, has, according to 1ichael "alint, a dramatic and e$en tragic character. t cannot continue indefinitely and is associated with a specific erotogenic &one. Hnd- pleasure's dramatic character is firstly tied to the fact that it has two distinct forms depending on the sex=A..B and secondly, to the fact that adult )genital* sexuality is ine$itably accompanied by aggressi$eness and feelings of guilt )1. "alint, ./06*. n this way, the child's fundamental replaceability appears in a different light. :hy would the mother's desire stop at 'other children'C -oes the mother not also desire the father or other men and women, for exampleC -oes this not imply that the child is already, in the attachment relation, confronted with meanings that it does not understand and which ha$e bearing on adult sexuality, on the regime of end-pleasure in other wordsC 1oreo$er, can one pre$ent these meanings from ha$ing an impact on the mother's fundamentally corporeal dealings with her childC nfantile fore-pleasure is not guilt ridden and it is sexless. "ut is this also true for the mother that cares for and cuddles her childC %lice "alint seems to doubt it. She writes, for example, that the sexual significance of the child for the mother ceases to exist long before the child reaches sexual maturity, that is, long before the child could become a potential partner for the mother )./0/, p. .5.*. 1ichael "alint adds that parents li$e out an important part of their own repressed sexuality in the relationship with their children )./05, p. .6.*. +an it be stated any clearer that primary ob#ect-lo$e and attachment - e$en if it has its own dynamics that can theoretically be distinguished from sexuality - is ine$itably complicated by the presence of sexual meanings introduced by the mother - the adult as suchC 4ere we encounter once again the problematics of seduction as it has been themati&ed extensi$ely by 'ean (aplanche )(aplanche, ./7/*. 0.0. % hypothesis on the anthropological significance of the Oedipus and castration complex: (aplanche and "alint Our reading of "alint taught us that primary ob#ect-lo$e cannot be understood independently of an 'original seduction'. The asymmetry that go$erns it is out of itself and ine$itably lin!ed to the asymmetry between child and adult which characteri&es human sexuality. (aplanche further specifies the confrontation of the child with adult sexuality in terms of enigmatic messages the child has to translate into its own language. "ut why can these messages ha$e such an impact on the little childC :hy is it so interested in themC :hat is it that ma!es them so intriguing and 9uite often troublingC :hat causes the impact (aplanche ascribes to themC (aplanche's own answer to this 9uestion is clear: 'because they are enigmatic'. The little child is, of its own accord, 'auto-theori&ing' )(aplanche ./7/, p. .05*. The human is a being that incessantly attempts to put what befalls it into a language it understands. The intrusion of enigmatic messages thus also forces the child to embar! on a 9uest to decipher their meaning. t tries to translate these messages so that it can assign a place to them in its own world of significance. True as this may be, it seems to me that %lice and 1ichael "alint's account of the relation to the mother allows us to illuminate still further the impact of the enigmatic messages of the adult on the little child. 1ore specifically, it explains why this demand for a translation 9uite often gets a passionate character.A.5B These messages indeed fundamentally come into conflict with the uni9ueness and irreplaceability that, according to %lice "alint, characteri&es the child's relation to its mother. They are li!e permanent reminders of the fact that the mother has interests outside the child it is ta!ing care of. They disturb the fundamental presupposition on which this relation is based and therefore ha$e to be neutrali&ed. The little child can only reach this goal by translating these messages in a way that reduces their 'strangeness'. %ll of this means that e$en if primary ob#ect-lo$e has its own dynamics that can )and should* theoretically be distinguished from sexuality, in practice it is always and ine$itably infiltrated by adult sexuality. This implies that e$ery child is una$oidably placed before two different, but intrinsically connected problems: the disillusionment of the primary ob#ect-lo$e and the confrontation with adult sexuality for which it has to find a solution.A.0B ,erhaps we can best summari&e this situation as follows: e$ery child has to find an answer to the lac! of attunement between the world of the adult and the world of the child.A.<B This lac! of attunement can be considered to be an anthropological a priori no human child can escape from. This idea also obliges us to re-consider the status of the Oedipus and the castration complex. suggested in my reading of Freud's 'On female sexuality' that these complexes might be answers to a more fundamental problem. n 'On female sexuality' Freud himself defines this problem in terms of an original hostility towards the mother. Our reading of "alint and (aplanche ma!es it possible to further articulate this problem in terms of a constituti$e 'confusion of tongues' )Ferenc&i* between the child and the adult. :hy does my mother always let me down and what is it that always dri$es her to the other again and againC To be sure, the small child does not !now sexual difference, but it is, at the same time, ine$itably confronted with it $ia the world of the adult and has to gi$e it a meaning. The shortcomings of the first attachment ob#ect and adult sexuality are an enigma )(aplanche* for the small child, an enigma which it has to answer and which it has to translate into its own life world. The castration and the Oedipus complex come to its aid in this regard. They are rationali&ations that ma!e it possible to create order in the original confusion and incomprehension which ine$itably characteri&e the infantile experience of attachment and exposure to adult sexuality. One can imagine that the child thin!s that it is being let down by the mother because she also lo$es the father and that the child soon suspects - albeit in a confused way - that this has something to do with sexual difference which it tries to interpret in terms of castration. "y way of a conclusion, will try to de$elop these ideas about the anthropological significance and status of the Oedipus complex somewhat further. They also ma!e it possible to reconsider the problem of its supposedly uni$ersal character. 3. +onclusion: 4ow uni$ersal are the castration and the Oedipus complexC :e started out from the imperfect mutual attunement of the world of the adult and the world of the child. 4owe$er, the world of the adult does not only confront the child with a problem= it also offers the solutions to this problem. From the time of its birth, the child is exposed to the entirety of parental - and by extension adult - desires and phantasms in which it functions as ob#ect itself. The Oedipus and the castration complex are, in the first place, the Oedipus and castration complex of the parents or the adult. The child thus gets the 'forms', in which the original enigmas can be translated, handed down from the world of the adult. The child is not only confronted with a problem which it cannot sol$e= it is at the same time in$ited to #oin a world of )cultural* symboli&ations which enables it to gi$e this problem a place in its psychic life )(aplanche, .///*. 4owe$er, does the reference to ')cultural* symboli&ations' not at once imply that the castration and Oedipus complex, as they were formulated by Freud, ha$e a historical and contingent character and that they cannot be uni$ersal, as Freud thought based on a highly contestable theory of e$olutionC -oes e$ery culture not gi$e its own answer to the imperfect attunement of the world of the child and the world of the adultC For that matter, who can deny that the Oedipus complex in its Freudian formulation draws a lot from the traditional nuclear family and the emphasis on the decisi$e role of the )law of* the father which characteri&es itC %lso, Freud's themati&ation of the phallic phase implies a number of theoretical decisions that cannot be understood apart from the culture in which he li$ed. Freud states, for example, that the little girl has no bodily sensations that would ma!e her aware of the existence of the $agina )Freud, ./00, p. ..7*. This statement is highly problematic, to say the least, but also essential to Freud's reasoning. ndeed, by denying that the little girl has any $aginal experiences, Freud de facto introduces a primacy of $isual experience with regard to the infantile interpretation of sexual difference. %t the same time, he silently assumes that the adult in no way inter$enes in the efforts of the little child to cope with this enigma. %t no point does Freud spea! of the effects of the parental discourse on the $isual experience of the body. %ccording to his logic, this discourse would not ma!e any difference anyway since it does not correspond to the little girl's own bodily experience. n a culture steeped in misunderstandings and pre#udices with regard to female sexuality and in which the bodily experience is not a topic to be discussed openly, it is understandable that the little child interprets sexual difference in terms of the presence or absence of a single organ. 4owe$er, it is less than e$ident that this is a uni$ersal phenomenonI t is clear that most cultural symboli&ations of sexual difference do not correspond to the binary logic of presence and absence that Freud considers to be a structural feature of the castration complex. n a discussion with ;roddec! and "ettelheim on the meaning of circumcision rituals, (aplanche points out that in certain so called primiti$e societies the symboli&ation of sexual difference often has a much more ambiguous character )(aplanche, ./7?, pp. 563-567 and passim*. 1any of these rituals in$ol$e not only the remo$al of the fores!in, but also an incision that symboli&es femininity. n this way, these 'primiti$e' rituals imply not only the affirmation of a single sex by remo$ing that which is reminiscent of femininity )the fores!in*, but they also immediately correct the unilateral character of circumcision by ways of an incision which ser$es as symbol of femininity. The latter can also be understood as an affirmation of bisexuality )(aplanche, ./7?, pp. 5</-53?*. The incision conse9uently does not so much remo$e something )the phallic logic*, but it creates an opening. t creates a female organ as it were. n this way, the primiti$e ritual of circumcision introduces a logic of di$ersity that cannot be e9uated to Freud's logic of difference )(aplanche, ./7?, p. 0.?*. 4ere sexual difference is symboli&ed by a couple of elements, each with the same positi$ity, and not necessarily by the opposition of the presence and absence of something. On the contrary, what is at sta!e is a symboli&ation of sexual difference, which is much more complex and ambiguous in nature. The cultural relati$ity of the Freudian Oedipus and castration complex does not necessarily imply, howe$er, that this complex does not ha$e a uni$ersal core that can be articulated independently. n fact, numerous authors understand the Oedipus complex as a structure )e.g. ;reen .//5, pp..57-.5/= 8. ,erron J 1. ,erron-"orelli, .//<*. The Oedipus complex, they claim, unco$ers the constituti$e elements of sub#ecti$ity. t goes without saying that in different societies it is not always the same characters that ta!e the $arious roles upon themsel$es that are determined by this structure, but this does not change their function. %s there are different languages and religions that can all be classified under a common denominator, so there are different 'Oedipus complexes' that all comply with the same structural characteristics );reen, .//5, p. .<3*. n other words, the role of the father can #ust as well be played by an uncle or by $arious characters simultaneously, while still being able to tal! of an Oedipus complex. n this way, these authors hope to unco$er the uni$ersal core of the Oedipus complex independently of its cultural particulari&ations. s this 'structural' approach really as )culturally* neutral as these authors would li!e it to beC ;reen, for example, calls the family the place of the Oedipus complex ).//5, p. .57*. 4e sums up its fundamental and structural meaning as follows: 'From the $ery beginning one has to posit this open triangular structure in which the mother occupies the place of the central lin!, for she is the only one who has a double bodily relation with both the father and the child. To me, what is essential seems to be situated in the moment of transition when the fusional relation of the dyad - doubled or complemented by the thought of the father in the mother's mind - is followed by the moment when he effecti$ely appears in reality'A.3B );reen .//5, .<. - my translation*. 4owe$er reliable this description might sound to us, does ;reen not fall prey to the 'familialism', which, along with 'binarism', characteri&es most psychoanalytic theoriesC ndeed, e$en if there are historical and biological grounds for it, it remains essentially a contingent fact that a child is raised by his>her parents )(aplanche, ./7/, p. .5<*.A.6B There is no necessary reason why the transition from birth to life in a community should ta!e place in a family or in an institution that imitates the basic features of our family life.A.2B Finally, does ;reen not, in this way, run the ris! of ma!ing our law of the father and the psychic effects that this law has on us, the model for e$ery lawC 1aybe we should not loo! for the uni$ersality of the Oedipus complex in the type of solution it offers, but in the type of problem to which it pro$ides an answer. H$ery human child is confronted by the same problem that it has to sol$e in order to gain access to the human community. n this regard, we referred to the imperfect attunement between the world of the child and the world of the adult. Two mutually connected lines of force inform this problem. On the one hand, the child has to renounce the mother. '1other' has a paradigmatic meaning in this context. t is a term that designates a certain type of relation of the infant with the nurturing en$ironment, which is not in itself sexual. This first attachment relation is always to a greater or lesser extent disillusioning. To a$oid getting stuc! in a potentially destructi$e dynamics, the child has to assume a place of its own, which simultaneously frees it from what it experiences as the arbitrariness of the world of the adult. Sometimes it is immediately ta!en care of, sometimes not. 4owe$er, this arbitrariness is only apparent. :hat the little child experiences as arbitrariness has in fact its rationality in the desires of the adult. The nurturing en$ironment not only desires a child, let alone this child. %lready in the attachment relation itself, the child is being confronted with meanings which it does not understand and which bear on adult sexuality, that is, on the orgasmic and guilt ridden regime of end-pleasure which is go$erned by sexual difference. H$ery child and e$ery society must come up with an answer to this double problem. The uni$ersal core of the Oedipus complex is perhaps nothing other than this human - all too human - tas!. 8eferences "alint % )./0/*. (o$e for the mother and mother lo$e. n "alint 1 ).//<* ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic techni9ue, (ondon: Karnac, pp. .?/-.52. "alint 1 )./05*. +haracter %nalysis and Few "eginning. n "alint 1 ).//<*, ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic techni9ue, (ondon: Karnac, pp. . "alint 1 )./03*. +ritical Fotes on the Theory of the ,regenital Organisations of the (ibido. n "alint 1 ).//<*, ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic techni9ue, (ondon: Karnac, pp. </-25. "alint 1 )./06*. Hros and %phrodite. n "alint 1 ).//<*, ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic techni9ue, (ondon: Karnac, pp. 20-7/. "alint 1 )./02*. Harly de$elopmental states of the Hgo. ,rimary Ob#ect-(o$e. n "alint 1 ).//<*, ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic Techni9ue, (ondon: Karnac, pp. /?-.?7. "alint 1 )./<2*. On ;enital (o$e. n "alint 1 ).//<*, ,rimary (o$e and ,sychoanalytic techni9ue ,(ondon: Karnac, pp. .57-.<?. "owlby ' )./37*. The nature of the child's tie to his mother. nt ' ,sychoanal 0/: pp. 03?- 020. "owlby ' )./6/*. %ttachment and (oss, $ol .: %ttachment. Few Dor!: "asic boo!s. -eleu&e ;, ;uattari F )./25>./20*. ('anti-Oedipe. +apitalisme et schi&ophrLnie. ,aris: Hditions de 1inuit. ;eys!ens T J Man 4aute ,h )5??0*. Man doodsdrift tot hechtingstheorie. 4et primaat $an het !ind bi# Freud, Klein en 4ermann. 1eppel: "oom. Ferenc&i S )./00* +onfusion of tongues between adults and the child, in Selected writings, (ondon: ,enguin, pp. 5/0-0?0. Fonagy , )5??.*. %ttachment theory and psychoanalysis. Few Dor!: Other ,ress. Freud S )./?3*. Three essays on the theory of sexuality. S.H. 2. Freud S )./0.*. On female sexuality. S.H. 5. Freud S )./00*. On Feminity. S.H. 55 ;reen % ).//5*. Oedipe, Freud et nous. n ;reen % ).//5*, (a -Lliaison, ,aris: 4achette, pp. 6/-.<2. 4ermann )./06*. Sich %n!lammern- %uf die Suche gehen, in nternat. Neitschrift fOr ,sychoanalyse 55: pp. 0</-02?. Klein 1 )./35*. Some theoretical conclusions regarding the emotional life of the infant. n Klein 1 )./7<*, Hn$y and gratitude and other wor!s, Few Dor!: The free press, pp. 6.-/0. (aplanche ' )./7/*. Few foundations for psychoanalysis. Oxford: "lac!well. (aplanche ' ).//5*. Hssays on Otherness. (ondon: 8outledge. (aplanche ' )./7?*. +astration, symboli&ations ),roblLmati9ue *. ,aris: ,@F. 1itchell ' )./2<*. ,sychoanalysis and feminism. Freud, 8eich, (aing and :omen. Few Dor!: Mintage boo!s. ,erron 8 J ,erron-"orelli 1 ).//<*. (e complexe d'oedipe. ,aris : ,@F. Man 4aute , J ;eys!ens T )5??<*. % +onfusion of tongues. The primacy of sexuality in Freud, Ferenc&i and (aplanche. Few Dor!: Other ,ress. :idlocher -, (aplanche ' e.al )5???*. SexualitL infantile et attachment.,aris: ,@F. Fotes .. Freud also mentions $arious other reasons that might explain the little girls hostility: e.g. the prohibition on masturbation and the fact that the mother creates the expectation of an experience of pleasure, which the child is not yet capable of. :e will discuss these reasons - none of which is specific enough to explain the change of ob#ect - later, where we introduce the problem of seduction. (et us here note already that all these reasons apply e9ually for boys and girls. 5. Freud's argument here implies that infantile sexuality is only a lesser form of adult sexuality. %s we will see further, "alint claims, under the influence of Ferenc&i )Ferenc&i ./00* that infantile sexuality is of a different nature then adult sexuality. 0. 'Ithe two are dependent on each other, but at the same time they are turned to each other= each of them satisfies himself by the other without the compulsion of paying regard to the other' )1. "alint, ./02, p..?5*. <. "alint e$en calls Freud's description of the early relation to the mother and more particularly Freud's idea of a 'general dissatisfaction of children' 'acceptable to e$eryone' )"alint ./02, p. /.* 3. :hat is undoubtedly at play in the bac!ground here is the distinction, introduced by Ferenc&i, between an infantile language of tenderness and an adult language of passion. ndeed, "alint's distinction between end- and fore-pleasure repeats Ferenc&i's distinction between the )childish* language of tenderness and the )adult )language of passion )Ferenc&i ./00*. 6. n a famous article on 'primary lo$e and infantile sexuality' :idlPcher e$en ta!es "alint's insights on primary ob#ect-lo$e as a starting point for his own reflections on the relation between attachment and infantile sexuality ):idlPcher 5???*. 2. One cannot, of course, but thin! here of the wor! of 1elanie Klein. Fot only does the idea of an original hostility towards the mother anticipate Klein's insights on an innate hostility towards the breast, but also the idea of the Oedipus complex being a way of dealing with this hostility might well anticipate Klein's theory of the Oedipus complex. Klein writes for instance: 'n the process of wor!ing through the Oedipus conflicts and achie$ing genital primacy, the child becomes able to establish his good ob#ects securely in his inner world and to de$elop a stable relation to his parents. %ll this means that he is gradually wor!ing through and modifying persecutory and depressi$e anxiety' )Klein ./35, p.70*. 7. Freud writes e.g. 'It is difficult to gi$e a detailed account of these )oral, sadistic and phallic trends towards the mother* because they are often obscure instinctual impulses which it was impossible for the child to grasp psychically at the time of their occurrence, which were therefore only interpreted by her later, and which then appear in the analysis in forms of expression that were certainly not the original ones' )./0., p. 502*. /. 4ere we encounter a fundamental opposition between Freud and (aplanche. The reference to the absence of 'orgasmic release' as one of the main differences between adult and infantile sexuality, seems to imply that Freud thin!s of infantile sexuality as primarily hereditary and endogenous. %nd this is precisely what (aplanche emphatically denies. .?. n this regard, Freud writes: ':ith the first inter$ention of the prohibition )on masturbation*, the conflict is there, and from now on it will accompany the de$elopment of the sexual function' )Freud, ./0., p. 500*. ,erhaps this conflict is in the first instance the conflict between adult and infantile sexuality. ... 'Ifor it is only when orgasm follows surely upon excitation that the youth becomes a man and the girl a womanI')1. "alint, ./06, p. 27*. .5. am not suggesting that (aplanche reduces the child's effort to translate the enigmatic messages that it is confronted with to a purely theoretical acti$ity. 4e definitely is not. 1y point is much more that he doesn't gi$e a specific explanation of the sometimes passionate character this acti$ity. The reference to "alint's notion of 'primary ob#ect-lo$e' is thus complementary to (aplanche's more 'philosophical' idea of the human being as essentially 'autotheori&ing'. 4owe$er this implies that one reali&es that "alint's theory of primary ob#ect-lo$e is not a de$elopmental psychology but a theory of the dri$e ):idlocher 5???, p./*. .0. t goes without saying that the relati$e importance of both factors will $ary depending on the clinical picture. The aetiology of mood disorders will be situated more on the $ector of attachment than the aetiology of classical neurosis, for example. The elaboration of this problem would howe$er far o$erstep the bounds of this article. .<. n this regard, also see Man 4aute J ;eys!ens 5??0 J 5??<. .3. 'l faut poser au dLpart cette structure triangulaire ou$erte oQ la mGre occupe la place du maillon central parce 9u'il n'y a 9u'elle 9ui entretienne une double relation charnelle a$ec le pGre et a$ec l'enfant. ('essentiel me paraRt se situer du cStL du passage oQ T la relation fusionelle de la dyade, doublLe ou complLmLntLe par la pensLe du pGre dans l'esprit de la mGre, succGde le temps oQ celui-ci se manifeste dans l'effecti$itL' .6. t is clear that (aplanche at this point repeats the criti9ue of Freud and (acan formulated by -eleu&e and ;uattari in their '+apitalisme et Schi&ophrLnie. ('%nti- Oedipe' )./25>./20*. The elaboration of the relation between (aplanche and -eleu&e on this point would howe$er far o$ersteps the bounds of this article. .2. ;reen defends himself against this accusation: '('oedipe n'est pas le familialisme mais tout le contraire, la passage par la mediation de la famille, de la naissance T la $ie de la sociLtL'. "ut isn't -eleu&e's - and (aplanche's C - criti9ue precisely that this mediation is less structural and less ine$itable than we thin! )-eleu&e, ./25>./20, pp. 6?-.65= pp. ./3-5.2*C
Willy Apollon, Danielle Bergeron, Lucie Cantin, Robert Hughes, Kareen Ror Malone After Lacan Clinical Practice and The Subject of The Unconscious Suny Series in Psychoanalysis and Culture 2002
(Contributions To Phenomenology 19) Judith Butler (Auth.), Steven Galt Crowell (Eds.) - The Prism of The Self - Philosophical Essays in Honor of Maurice Natanson-Springer Netherlands (1995)