Oedipus complex,
免费申请-竞选大队委演讲稿
Oedipus complex
From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
For the species of
salamander, see Oedipina complex.
Oedipus
describes the riddle of the Sphinx, by Jean
Auguste Dominique Ingres, (ca. 1805).
The term
Oedipus complex (or, less commonly, Oedipal
complex) denotes the
emotions and ideas that
the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic
repression, that
concentrates upon a child's
desire to have sexual relations with the parent of
the opposite
sex (i.e. males attracted to
their mothers, and females attracted to their
fathers).
[1][2]
Sigmund Freud, who
coined the term
Oedipus complex is a desire
for the parent in both males and females; Freud
deprecated
the term Electra complexCarl Gustav
Jung in regard to the
Oedipus complex
manifested in young girls. The Oedipus complex
occurs in the third —
phallic stage (ages 3–6)
— of the five psychosexual development stages: (i)
theoral, (ii)
the anal, (iii) the phallic,
(iv) the latent, and (v) the genital — in which
the source of
libidinal pleasure is in a
different erogenous zone of the infant's body.
In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, a
child's identification with the same-sex
parent is the successful resolution of the
Oedipus complex and of the Electra complex.
This is a key psychological experience that is
necessary for the development of a
mature
sexual role and identity. Sigmund Freudfurther
proposed that boys and girls
experience the
complexes differently: boys in a form of
castration anxiety, girls in a form
of penis
envy; and that unsuccessful resolution of the
complexes might lead
to neurosis, pedophilia,
and homosexuality. Men and women who are fixated
in the
Oedipal and Electra stages of their
psychosexual development might be considered
partner who resembles one's parent.
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
o 1.1 The Oedipus complex
o 1.2 Oedipal
case study
o 1.3 Feminine Oedipus attitude
2 Freudian theoretic revision
o 2.1 Carl
Gustav Jung
o
2.2 Otto Rank
o 2.3 Melanie Klein
o 2.4
Wilfred Bion
o 2.5 Jacques Lacan
3
Criticism
4 See also
5 References
Background
[edit]
The
psychologist Sigmund Freud (at age 16) with his
adored mother in 1872.
[3]
Oedipus refers
to a 5th-century BC Greek mythological character
Oedipus, who
unwittingly kills his father,
Laius, and marries his mother, Jocasta. A play
based on the
myth, Oedipus Rex, was written by
Sophocles, ca. 429 BC.
Modern productions of
Sophocles' play were staged in Paris and Vienna in
the 19th
century and were phenomenally
successful in the 1880s and 1890s. The
Austrianpsychiatrist, Sigmund Freud
(1856–1939), attended. In his book The
Interpretation of Dreams first published in
1899, he proposed that an Oedipal desire is a
universal, psychological phenomenon innate
(phylogenetic) to human beings, and the
cause
of much unconscious guilt. He based this on his
analysis of his feelings attending
the play,
his anecdotal observations of neurotic or normal
children, and on the fact that
the Oedipal Rex
play was effective on both ancient and modern
audiences (he also
claimed the play Hamlet was
effective for the same reason).
[4]
Freud described the man Oedipus:
His
destiny moves us only because it might have been
ours — because the Oracle laid the same curse
upon us before our birth as upon him. It is
the fate of all of us, perhaps, to direct our
first sexual impulse
towards our mother and
our first hatred and our first murderous wish
against our father. Our dreams
[5]
convince
us that this is so.
A six-stage chronology of
Sigmund Freud's theoretic evolution of the Oedipus
complex is:
Stage 1. 1897–1909. After his father's death
in 1896, and having seen the
play Oedipus Rex,
by Sophocles, Freud begins using the term
Stage 2. 1909–1914. Proposes that Oedipal
desire is the
neuroses; first usage of
Stage 3. 1914–1918. Considers paternal and
maternal incest.
Stage 4. 1919–1926. Complete
Oedipus complex; identification and bisexuality
are
conceptually evident in later works.
Stage 5. 1926–1931. Applies the Oedipal theory
to religion and custom.
Stage 6.
1931–1938. Investigates the
Oedipus
complex
[6]
The Oedipus
complex
[edit]
Oedipus and the
Sphinx, by Gustave Moreau, (1864)
In classical
psychoanalytic theory, the Oedipus complex occurs
during the phallic
stage of psychosexual
development (age 3–6 years), when also occurs the
formation of
the libido and the ego; yet it
might manifest itself at an earlier
age.
[2][7]
In the phallic stage, a
boy's decisive psychosexual experience is the
Oedipus complex —
his son–father competition
for possession of mother. It is in this third
stage
of psychosexual development that the
child's genitalia are his or her primary erogenous
zone; thus, when children become aware of
their bodies, the bodies of other children,
and the bodies of their parents, they gratify
physical curiosity by undressing and
exploring
themselves, each other, and their genitals, so
learning the anatomic differences
between
gender differences between
Psychosexual
infantilism — Despite mother being the parent who
primarily gratifies the
child's desires, the
child begins forming a discrete sexual identity —
— that
alters the dynamics of the parent and
child relationship; the parents become objects of
infantile libidinal energy. The boy directs
his libido (sexual desire) upon his mother, and
directs jealousy and emotional rivalry against
his father — because it is he who sleeps
with
his mother. Moreover, to facilitate union with
mother, the boy's id wants to kill father
(as
did Oedipus), but the pragmatic ego, based upon
the reality principle, knows that the
father
is the stronger of the two males competing to
possess the one female.
Nonetheless, the boy
remains ambivalent about his father's place in the
family, which is
manifested as fear of
castration by the physically greater father; the
fear is an irrational,
subconscious
manifestation of the infantile id.
[8]
Psycho-logic defense — In both sexes, defense
mechanisms provide transitory
resolutions of
the conflict between the drives of the id and the
drives of the ego. The first
defense mechanism
is repression, the blocking of memories, emotional
impulses, and
ideas from the conscious mind;
yet its action does not resolve the id–ego
conflict. The
second defense mechanism is
identification, in which the boy or girl child
adapts by
incorporating, to his or her
(super)ego, the personality characteristics of the
same-sex
parent. As a result of this, the boy
diminishes his castration anxiety, because his
likeness
to father protects him from father's
wrath in their maternal rivalry. In the case of
the girl,
this facilitates identifying
with mother, who understands that, in being
females, neither of
them possesses a penis,
and thus are not antagonists.
[9]
Dénouement — Unresolved son–father competition
for the psycho-sexual possession of
the mother
might result in a phallic stage fixation that
leads to the boy becoming an
aggressive, over-
ambitious, and vain man. Therefore, the
satisfactory parental handling
and resolution
of the Oedipus complex are most important in
developing the male
infantile super-ego. This
is because, by identifying with a parent, the
boy internalizes Morality; thereby, he chooses
to comply with societal rules, rather than
reflexively complying in fear of punishment.
Oedipal case study
[edit]
Female Oedipus attitude:Electra at the Tomb
ofAgamemnon, by Frederic Leighton, (c.1869).
In Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy
(1909), the case study of
the equinophobic boy
Little Hans
— of horses and of his father —
derived from external factors, the birth of a
sister, and
internal factors, the desire of
the infantile id to replace father as companion to
mother,
and guilt for enjoying the
masturbation normal to a boy of his age. Moreover,
his
admitting to wanting to procreate with
mother was considered proof of the boy's sexual
attraction to the opposite-sex parent; he was
a heterosexual male. Yet, the boy Hans was
unable to relate fearing horses to fearing his
father. As the treating psychoanalyst, Freud
noted that
had to be presented with
thoughts, which he had, so far, shown no signs of
possessing
[10]
Feminine Oedipus
attitude
[edit]
Initially, Freud
equally applied the Oedipus complex to the
psychosexual development of
boys and girls,
but later modified the female aspects of the
theory as
attitude
[11]
yet, it was his
student–collaborator Carl
Jung, who, in 1913,
proposed the Electra complex to describe a girl's
daughter–mother
competition for psychosexual
possession of the father.
[12]
In the
phallic stage, a girl's Electra complex is her
decisive psychodynamic experience in
forming a
discrete sexual identity (ego). Whereas a boy
developscastration anxiety, a girl
develops
penis envy rooted in anatomic fact: without a
penis, she cannot sexually
possess mother, as
the infantile id demands. Resultantly, the girl
redirects her desire for
sexual union
upon father, thus progressing to heterosexual
femininity, which culminates
in bearing a
child, who replaces the absent penis.
[13]
Furthermore, after the phallic stage,
the
girl's psychosexual development includes
transferring her primary erogenous zone
from
the infantile clitoris to the adult vagina.
Freud thus considered a girl's negative
Oedipus complex to be more emotionally intense
than that of a boy, resulting, potentially, in
a woman of submissive,
insecure
personality;
[14]
thus might an unresolved
Electra complex, daughter–mother
competition
for psychosexual possession of father, lead to a
phallic-
stagefixation conducive to a girl
becoming a woman who continually strives to
dominate
men (viz. penis envy), either as an
unusually seductive woman (high self-esteem) or as
an unusually submissive woman (low self-
esteem). Therefore, the satisfactory parental
handling and resolution of the Electra complex
are most important in developing the
female
infantile super-ego, because, by identifying with
a parent, the girl
internalizes morality;
thereby, she chooses to comply with societal
rules, rather than
reflexively complying in
fear of punishment.
Freudian theoretic
revision
[edit]
When Sigmund Freud
(1856–1939) proposed that the Oedipus complex was
psychologically universal, he provoked the
evolution of Freudian psychology and
the
psychoanalytic treatment method, by collaborator
and competitor alike.
Carl Gustav
Jung
[edit]
The Electra complex:
thematricides Electra and Orestes.
In
countering Freud's proposal that the psychosexual
development of boys and girls is
equal, that
each initially experiences sexual desire (libido)
for mother, and aggression
towards father,
student–collaborator Carl Jung counter-proposed
that girls experienced
desire for father and
aggression towards mother via the Electra complex
— derived from
the 5th-century BC Greek
mythologic character Electra, who plotted
matricidal revenge
with Orestes, her brother,
against Clytemnestra, their mother, and Aegisthus,
their
stepfather, for their murder of
Agamemnon, her father, (cf. Electra, by
Sophocles).
[15][16][17]
Moreover,
because it is native to Freudian psychology,
orthodox
Jungian psychology uses the term
psychosexual development.
Otto
Rank
[edit]
Oedipus complex: Otto
Rank behindSigmund Freud, and other psychoanalysts
(1922).
In classical Freudian
psychology the super-ego,
formed as the infant
boyinternalizes the familial rules of his father.
In contrast, in the early
1920s, using the
term Otto Rank proposed that a boy's powerful
mother
was the source of the super-ego, in the
course of normal psychosexual development.
Rank's theoretic conflict with Freud excluded
him from the Freudian inner circle;
nonetheless, he later developed the
psychodynamic Object relations theory in 1925.
Melanie Klein
[edit]
Whereas Freud
proposed that father (the paternal phallus) was
central to infantile and
adult psychosexual
development, Melanie Klein concentrated upon the
early maternal
relationship, proposing that
Oedipal manifestations are perceptible in the
first year of life,
the oral stage. Her
proposal was part of the Controversial discussions
(1942–44) at the
British Psychoanalytical
Association. The Kleinian psychologists proposed
that
more primitive relationships with the
Oedipal couple
[18]
Moreover, Klein's work
lessened
the central role of the Oedipus
complex, with the concept of the depressive
position.
[19][20]
Wilfred
Bion
[edit]
Wilfred Bion (1916)
–Kleinian Bion, the myth of Oedipus concerns
investigatory curiosity — the
quest for
knowledge — rather than sexual difference; the
other main character in the
Oedipal drama
becomes Tiresias (the false hypothesis erected
against anxiety about a
new
theory)
[21]
Resultantly,
insistence on
knowing the truth at all costs
[22]
Jacques Lacan
[edit]
From the
postmodern perspective, Jacques Lacan argued
against removing the Oedipus
complex from the
center of psychosexual developmental experience.
He considered
Oedipus complex — in so far as
we continue to recognize it as covering the whole
field of
our experience with its signification
. . . [that] superimposes the kingdom of
culture
the person, marking his or her
introduction to symbolic order.
[23]
Thus power independent of itself is as it goes
through the Oedipus
complex . . . encountering
the existence of a symbolic system independent of
itself
[24]
Moreover, Lacan's proposal
that
liberates the –mother relationship proved
useful to later psychoanalysts;
[25]
thus, for Bollas, the
complex is that the
one's own mind . . . discovers the
multiplicity of points of view
[26]
Likewise, for Ronald
Britton,
child's mind
. . . this provides us with a capacity for seeing
us in interaction with others,
and . . . for
reflecting on ourselves, whilst being
ourselves
[27]
As such, in The Dove that
Returns, the Dove that Vanishes (2000),
Michael Parsons proposed that such a
perspective permits viewing
challenge . .
. [with] new kinds of Oedipal configurations that
belong to later life
[28]
In 1920,
Sigmund Freud wrote that psychoanalytic studies
the
importance of the Oedipus complex has
become, more and more, clearly evident; its
recognition has become the shibboleth that
distinguishes the adherents of
psychoanalysis
from its opponents
[29]
thereby it remained
a theoretic cornerstone of
psychoanalysis
until about 1930, when psychoanalysts began
investigating the pre-
Oedipal son–mother
relationship within the theory of psychosexual
development.
[30][31]
Janet Malcolm
reports that by the late 20th century, to the
object
relations psychology avant-garde, the
events of the Oedipal period are pallid and
inconsequential, in comparison with the cliff-
hanging psychodramas of infancy. . . .
ForKohut, as for Winnicott and Balint, the
Oedipus complex is an irrelevance in the
treatment of severe pathology
[32]
Nonetheless, ego psychology continued to maintain
that — roughly three-and-a-half to six years —
is like Lorenz standing
in front of the chick,
it is the most formative, significant, moulding
experience of human
life . . . If you take a
person's adult life — his love, his work, his
hobbies, his ambitions —
they all point back
to the Oedipus complex
[33]
Criticism
[edit]
Certain
contemporary psychoanalysts agree with the idea of
the Oedipus complex to
different degrees; Hans
Keller proposed it is so
[34]
and
others consider that ethnologists already have
established its temporal and geographic
universality.
[35]
Nonetheless, few
psychoanalysts disagree that the
Oedipal phase
. . . [which] involved an acute awareness of a
complicated triangle involving mother, father,
and child
negative Oedipal themes are typically
observable indevelopment
[36]
Despite
evidence
of parent–child conflict, the
evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo
Wilson note that it is not for sexual
possession of the opposite sex-parent; thus,
in Homicide (1988), they proposed that the
Oedipus complex yields few testable
predictions, because they found no evidence of
the Oedipus complex in people.
[37]
In
No More Silly Love Songs: A Realist's Guide to
Romance (2010), Anouchka
Grose says that
Freud's Oedipus
complex is defunct . . .
'disproven', or simply found unnecessary, sometime
in the last
century
[38]
Moreover, from
the post-modern perspective, Grose contends that
Oedipus complex isn't really like that. It's
more a way of explaining how human beings
are
socialised . . . learning to deal with
disappointment
[38]
The elementary
understanding
being that
with being
something for the rest of the world
[39]
Nonetheless, the open question
remains whether
or not such a post–Lacanianinterpretation
complex to a point where it almost doesn't
look like Freud's any more
[38]
Parent-
child and sibling-sibling incestuous unions are
almost universally forbidden.
[40]
An
explanation for this incest taboo is that
rather than instinctual sexual desire, there is
instinctual sexual aversion against these
unions (See Westermarck effect). Steven
Pinker
wrote that
as the silliest thing they have
ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to
Freud, who
wrote that as a boy he once had an
erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing.
But
Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have
experienced the early intimacy that would
have
tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud
was his mother.