Infantile sexuality, primary object-love and the meta-psychological status of the

Oedipus complex: Re-reading Freud's 'On Female exuality'

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