Psychosexual Development: Criticism of Freud’s theory of psychosexual development

Despite their popularity among psychoanalytical psychologists, ’s psychosexual theories are commonly criticized as being sexist. ’s theories were often informed by his own introspection and self-analysis, and thus were infused with an inherently , resulting in a great deal of criticism from as well as from practitioners. He had difficulty incorporating into his theories and attempted to provide a theoretical explanation for feminine only rather late in his career.[5] He personally confessed a lack of understanding of and did not hold out hope that psychology would ever explain the phenomenon.[5]

For example, stated that young females develop “penis envy” toward the males during their . In response, , a German , argued that young females develop “power envy” instead of “penis envy” toward the male. She also suggested the concept of “” in males, which is defined as jealousy of ability to bear children. However, more modern formulations consider this as an envy of the perceived right of women to be nurturing.[5]

Scientific critique

Over the years, there have been many accusations against the scientific value of the . Even when it would be in the best interests of organized to cite favourable empirical evidence, it has failed to do so. Even so, psychoanalytic thought has proven to be surprisingly heuristic and has probably generated more research than any other theory of personality, and perhaps more than all other theories combined.

A lot of criticism concerns ’s statement in his 1914 paper On that “It is impossible to suppose that a unity comparable to the ego can exist in the individual from the very start”. Ample evidence documents a functioning ego in infants, even in neonates, contrary to ’s speculation. The neonate shows surprising ability to track moving targets, to differentiate a familiar from an unfamiliar stimulus, and to react meaningfully with the care giver. Further, children show signs of superego behaviour earlier than ’s suggestion that it does not arise until after the Oedipal Complex has been resolved.

The stage that has caused the most controversy is the phallic stage. supported his assertions on the Oedipal Complex with a series of clinical observations. In 1909, he published a case study on a boy named “little Hans”, who had hippophobia. connected Hans’ fear for horses to his fear for his father. Hans’s fear and anxiety were thought to be the result of various factors, including the birth of his sister, the desire of his id to replace his father as his mother’s companion and conflicts over masturbation. Hans admitted his want to have children with his mother, which was considered an adequate proof for patient’s sexual attraction for the opposite-sex parent. Little Hans, however, was unable to connect the fear for the horses with his father, and, as admitted, “Hans had to be told many things that he could not say himself” and that “he had to be presented with thoughts which he had so far shown no signs of possessing”, so that one may suggest that manipulated the patients’s mind.

Cultural considerations have largely influenced the assumptions within the . supported that the Oedipal Complex is universal and essential for development. Bronislaw Malinowski, an anthropologist who studied the behaviour of villagers in the Trobriand Islands, challenged common western views such as ’s Oedipus complex and their claim for universality. In the Trobriand society the boys are disciplined by their mothers’ brothers instead of their biological fathers (avunclular society). As he recounts in his work Sex and Repression in Savage Society (1927), Malinowski found that boys had dreams where the target of fears was not their father, but their uncle. Based on this observation, Malinowski argued that power, not sexual jealousy, is the base for the oedipal tension. As a result, Segall et al. hypothesised that ’s theory was based on a misinterpretation of a confounding variable [6].

A survey of scientific research showed that while personality traits corresponding to ’s oral, anal, Oedipal, and genital phases can be observed, they cannot be observed as stages in the development of children, nor can it be confirmed that such traits in adults result from childhood experiences (Fisher & Greenberg, 1977, p. 399)

Related posts

May 31, 2008 | Filed Under Constructs 

Comments

Leave a Reply