Psycho-Sexual Development

 

John W P Phillips

 

19/09/2007

 

 

Sexuality and Sexual Difference

 

One of the most controversial contributions of psychoanalysis has been on the issue of sexuality and sexual difference.  Most famously Freud introduced a new definition of sexuality.  We need to first look at the more traditional one (which still has adherents today) and then examine the nature of the Freudian definition.  The terms on which sexuality is usually defined turn on the relation between notions of normality and notions of perversity.  Freud was at his most controversial when he stated that he had discovered a form of sexuality present in infants.  At this stage the infant expresses his or her sexuality polymorphously (taking many forms)—that is, with no particular fixed object or aim, just a kind of indulgent pleasure.  The meaning of this pleasure is then presented back to the adolescent in a kind of deferred action in which primal fantasies are given a more fixed shape (helped along by the notorious Oedipus Complex) with a socially sanctioned object type and a useful aim in reproduction.

 

 

Deferred Action

Nachtragtlichkeit describes the ways in which an infantile experience that is either incomprehensible or traumatic is nonetheless somehow retained by memory unconsciously and reactivated at a later time in a different context.  The notion comes from an early stage in Freud’s speculations and was used to explain the mechanism of hysteria, in which a traumatic early experience is reactivated in terms of a less traumatic later provocation.  He sometimes explains this with the mildly comic story of a young man infatuated with women.  “A young man who was a great admirer of feminine beauty was talking once of the good-looking wet nurse who had suckled him when he was a baby.  ‘I’m sorry,’ he remarked, ‘that I didn’t make a better use of my opportunity.’” (Interpretation of Dreams 295).  This is not, of course, an example of deferred-action, but it does illustrate the notion by emphasising an inability at the early stage to understand or to act at all on experiences, which are retrospectively activated in later life.  Freud’s commentators have found the notion more useful than he evidently did, in so far as the rhetorical aspect has become much more obvious.  Signification involves the constant reactivation of significant material in new and unpredictable contexts, which thus produces new significance and new meanings.        

 

 

Freud’s Three Essays on Sexuality can be a frustrating read, with its delays and detours and often inconclusive observations.  Perhaps because of this, however, it remains one of the key books on sexuality and sexual difference both within and outside the institution of psychoanalysis.  There are two striking aspects to Freud’s work on sexuality.  The first involves his use of the mainstream professional views of his time.  He doesn’t simply critique these or oppose them and he doesn’t even try to produce a convincing alternative vocabulary to talk about these issues.  So his quite stark departure from mainstream knowledge is made within the terms and the frameworks of that knowledge itself, which is why the standard oppositions like normal and perverse, masculine and feminine, etc. remain part of the vocabulary.  However the system governing the meanings of that vocabulary is both subverted and transformed in Freud’s text.  The second aspect involves his use of evidence in relation to the professional views.  Basically he employs the same hypothetical framework but transforms it through his rigorous and tenacious insistence on the evidence—what happens to the theory when one confronts it with these facts?  The theory changes.  Perversity becomes the general condition of all sexuality per se, where once it had been a category for sexuality gone wrong, a perversion of normal sexuality (like fetishism, same sex desire, bestiality, even masturbation).  Normal desire, on the contrary, which had an extremely narrow definition supported (as it still is) by everyday common-sense assumptions, is now understood as being one of the numerous accidental possibilities of a general perversity.  Thus Freud appears to be saying extremely odd things in a rather traditional language.  In that language, that framework, that vocabulary, however, Freud’s theories remain the only ones that work.   

 

 

Sexuality

 

Freud describes the psychoanalytic theory of sexuality in the following way:

 

Psychoanalysis considers that a choice of object independently of its sex—freedom to range equally over male and female objects—as it is found in childhood, in primitive states of society and early periods of history, is the original basis from which, as a result of restriction in one direction or the other, both the normal and the inverted types develop.  Thus from the point of view of psychoanalysis the exclusive sexual interest felt by men for women is also a problem that needs elucidating and is not a self-evident fact based on an attraction that is ultimately of a chemical nature. (Freud, 1915).

 

In other words, the normal assumption is that normal sexuality involves an exclusive sexual interest felt by men for women.  Both the implicit one way sign [men è women] and the exclusive nature of the interest are present in the traditional notions.  Of course it is obvious that sexual interest ranges all over the place and that women fancy other people as much as men do.  But for the traditional views these would have been problems.  For Freud, that is no less true, but for him the normal version (boxed above) is also a problem and has no clear explanation.  For him the evidence shows that sexuality is grounded in a condition where there is no pre-existing object and no defined aim.  The pleasure principle is unscrupulous.    

 

 

Some rudimentary definitions of sexuality don’t much help.  The standard definitions of sexuality grow out of husbandry.  Sexuality has the following related meanings: the condition of being sexed; being male or female; having sexual characteristics; feelings or desires to a specified degree (over-, under-, etc.); the condition of having a sex.  Thus the sexuality of someone (their being one or other of the sexes) gets extended to also signify behavioural characteristics.  You might begin to expect certain types of behaviour from one or the other sex and you can justly express shock or concern when people behave outside those norms.  So what is a sex?  The dictionary tells us that Sex is that by which an animal or plant is male or female; the quality of being male or female; either of the divisions according to this, or its members collectively; the whole domain connected with this distinction.  (In so far as I am sexed, my sex is male; I share this quality with the whole of the male sex; but I share the quality of being sexed with the entire human race as well as the animal and plant kingdoms).  It seems that we are not going to get very far without encountering some aspect of our universally shared sexual difference.  This is all very well if you are mating chicks or growing violets.  In that case the distinctions have a practical and functional purpose.  This is the female and this is the male.  Put them together in these particular ways and they will produce.  In so far as people reproduce in these ways too, a kind of loose analogy emerges, conferring specific meaning upon each relation that may or may not have a sexual aspect (in the biological sense).  The idea that biology is at the root of human sexual relations, and thus explains human sexuality, is at best grounded in the loosest of analogies.  Psychoanalysis has played an important role in helping to undo these narrow and ungrounded assumptions.  Along the way it has revealed a tangle of problems. 

 

 

Psychoanalysis, without departing from the traditional vocabulary, develops an extended and transformed understanding of the concept of sexuality.  Before Freud, sexuality was most likely to be defined as an instinct with a predetermined object and aim.  The object was a member of the opposite sex.  The aim was for union of the genital organs in coitus.  The sole function was considered to be reproduction.  Any kind of sexuality or sexual behaviour that does not aim for reproduction is considered to be perverse.  Again the influence from cultivation and husbandry is clear.  What is the good of a stud that won’t mount the mare? But psychoanalysis questions the notion of perversity.

 

 

Freud takes one of the most influential and highly respected authorities on the matter, Krafft-Ebing, as an example of the normative explanation.  This is Krafft-Ebing:

 

During the time of maturation of physical processes in the reproductive glands, desire arise in the consciousness of the individual, which have for their purpose the perpetuation of the species (sexual instinct) [...] with opportunity for the natural satisfaction of the sexual instinct, every expression of it that does not correspond with the purpose of nature, i.e. propagation—must be regarded as perverse.

 

According to this view, nature somehow makes itself felt in the consciousness of the mature adult, in the form of a conscious desire to mate with a member of the opposite sex.  Nature, in this sense, is simply the need for the reproduction of the race (that peculiarly nineteenth century notion of evolution is evident here).  The only “natural” satisfaction of this itch, this desire, would be subordinated to the purposes of nature.  Anything that does not obviously lead to reproduction is not natural (“it’s not natural!”), because it would be a perversion of nature’s aim.  As usual with scientific views of this time, purpose itself, the Greek telos, is the unanalysed aspect underlying these assumptions.  Krafft-Ebing, it is important to remember, is merely representing the popular views in scientific discourse.

 

 

Freud responds explicitly to these views at the beginning of his “Three Essays on Sexuality”:

 

Popular opinion has quite definite ideas about the nature and characteristics of this sexual instinct.   It is generally understood to be absent in childhood, to set in at the time of puberty in connection with the process of coming to maturity and to be revealed in the manifestations of an irresistible attraction exercised by one sex upon the other; while its aim is presumed to be sexual union.  [...] We have every reason to believe, however, that these views give a very false picture of the true situation.  If we look into them more closely we shall find that they contain a number of errors, inaccuracies and hasty conclusions.

 

In the “Three Essays” Freud doesn’t substitute a new theory for the old ones.  Rather he extends and transforms the popular and scientific notions of sexuality by correcting the errors, clarifying the inaccuracies and rethinking the hasty conclusions that make up what he calls the “false picture.”  A new picture thus emerges out of the ruins of a now transformed vocabulary.

 

 

The evidence against holding to the false picture is available in everyday life.  Freud also draws explicitly from his fund of analytic experience, in many cases with distressed men and women of the inherently conservative European bourgeoisie, who had never been able to voice their discomfort about their own apparently perverse desires.  The distinction between normal and perverse is so riddled with overlaps that it is impossible to extricate the two.  There are numerous perversions and they are common (though not explicitly talked about in Freud’s time).  Not only are there numerous varieties of different object but also there are uncountable and creative methods for achieving satisfaction.  On the model of means and ends, the normal view holds that sexuality manifests in activities designed to achieve the aim of reproduction.  The end is reproduction; the method is union of the male and female genitals.  However in Freud’s experiences with his patients, the methods often overlap between the normal and perverse.  In other words very similar kinds of activities occur whether there is an obviously reproductive function or not.  Men and women will have “sex” in all kinds of ways including “normal” coitus.  The ends are as various as the means.  Furthermore, same sex relations, as well as masturbation and the fantasies of all kinds that accompany it, each exhibit similar routes to satisfaction, in terms for instance of flirting and foreplay.  Even a comfortably heterosexual couple will use a creative variety of methods, including coitus, to achieve satisfaction.  So what is consistent in all this is not the function of reproduction at all but the function of satisfaction.  Thus the reproductive teleology has no ground in evidence at all.    

 

 

Evidence against Normativity

 

 

The distinction between the normal and the perverse is riddled with overlaps.

 

A great diversity of sexual “perversion” not only exists but is common.

 

This diversity involves not only the choice of sexual object but also the type of activity used to obtain satisfaction.

 

In the popular view, the “normal” type of sexual activity involves only coitus between members of the opposite sexes with the aim of reproduction.

 

But the “normal” and the “perverse” are not so easily separated.

 

For instance, the usual form of satisfaction may become temporarily impossible, so a “perverse” satisfaction may replace it.

 

And the sort of foreplay leading up to normal sexual behaviour is usually also found leading up to perverse types as well.

 

 

 

Freud often found that repressed wishes and desires are of a sexual kind and that the repressed wish in these cases is a perverse sexual wish.  He concluded that the so-called normal types of behaviour belong with the forces of rational and socially acceptable convention defensive of the desiring and creative agency.  In other words the normative version of sexuality is socially rather than biologically determined.  There is a biological difference but—like all difference—it is meaningful only in terms of the institutions that organize experience is specific ways.  And we are back in the rhetorical dimension.  The libido is thus a kind of undetermined force that becomes bound by the various kinds of restriction, paradigmatically the Oedipus Complex, that represent the institutions of culture and society. 

 

 

Oedipus

 

Freud was struck by the similarity between the myth of Oedipus and his own discoveries of unconscious processes.  The myth is most clearly dramatised in the plays of Sophocles (who was a contemporary of Socrates).  In Sophocles’ drama the unfolding of the tragedy involves Oedipus’ gradual discovery of his own guilt.  He discovers that he has in ignorance killed his father and that the woman he loves and has married is none other than his mother.  As a consequence of his discovery he blinds himself and exiles himself from his home.   In fulfilling the oracle that begins the story he fails to escape his predestined fate.  This is Freud’s explanation: “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” (Interpretation of Dreams 364).  Freud argues that the power of this artwork lies in the ability of the poet to force us into a transferred recognition of what he calls “our own inner minds.”  Those same impulses (to patricide and incest with the mother) are still lurking yet “suppressed” within all of us.  Oedipus’ unconscious guilt (which is literal—he is not at first conscious of his guilt) stands figuratively for our own unconscious guilt.  “Like Oedipus, we live in ignorance of these wishes, repugnant to morality, which have been forced upon us by Nature, and after their revelation we may all of us well seek to close our eyes to the scene of our childhood” (Interpretation of Dreams 365).  This last sentence has many resonances.  Freud points out in a footnote to a later edition that it is this part of his theory that has provoked the most embittered denials, fiercest opposition and the most amusing distortions (100 year later we are often led to suspect that this is still the case).  Thus the blinding scene is a metaphorical indication of the vicious resistance to the insights that psychoanalysis offers.  Freud also, significantly, likens not the myth itself but the action of the play to the processes of psychoanalysis.  He says that it “consists in nothing other than the processes of revealing, with cunning delays and ever-mounting excitement—a process that can be likened to the work of a psycho-analysis” (363).  It places Freud firmly within the canon of arguments about false-consciousness (along with Plato, Descartes, Marx and Wittgenstein).  But we need to ask, what is the so-called “Nature” that the Oedipus myth actually represents (the truth behind the false and blinded consciousness).  Freud’s use of he word Nature in fact already illustrates how he is replacing the traditional biological ground of sexuality (the cultivation/husbandry ground) with an alternative in the Oedipus complex. 

 

 

The Phylogenetic Hypothesis

Freud returned many times to the question of innate disposition and perhaps the most outrageous, yet most consistently held, version is the hypothesis of phylogenesis, which follows a somewhat Darwinian trend.  Here, at its most extreme, the argument suggest that in human pre-history a great tribal father was actually killed by the jealous horde and that all of us are born with traces of this pre-historical guilt carried through the genetic phylum (like hair-colour in the chromosomes).  One thing is constant here.  There is a constitutional anxiety (the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaarde had in the previous century coined the phrase “anxiety over nothing”) that is related unconsciously to a desire for the death of the father and a desire for union with the mother.              

 

 

 

Sexual Difference

 

It is Freud’s account of the Oedipus Complex and its modes of resolution that really grounds the psychoanalytic theory of sexual difference.  As such the theory is diagnostic only in so far as it attempts to lay bare the underlying structures that lead to certain tendencies in the relations between people.  Unlike the traditional notions there is no sense of what men and women should or should not be like, how they should live in terms of their sexual differentiation.  It attempts, instead to find out how people come to be as they actually are in the first place.

 

 

In classical psychoanalysis the father represents a third term which must break the imagined dyadic unit of mother and child.  Until the “father” interrupts it, the mother-child unit—a perfect self-contained dyad—is asocial.  The father stands for social symbolisation.  In terms of this structure the distinction between men and women exists but it only has meaning symbolically. Lacan provides the following witty diagram, based upon the story of the two children, a boy and a girl, in a train who, on arriving at a station see this sign:

 

                                 

 

 

The boy exclaims, “we are at Gentlemen.”  The girl responds by saying, “no we’re not, we’re at Ladies.”  The two doors indicate the ways in which boys and girls are given the choice of two alternatives—each of which has intractable meaning in terms of the other—as to where they each are in the social topography.  The doors are themselves just signifiers as are the different sexes.  Sex (male and female) is always subject to identifications, which tell me who I am in terms of my gender.   In traditional terms sex would be the empirical or real dimension of sexuality (its signifier) and gender would be the system of abstract connotations that gives us its meaning.  As we have already indicated, however, the distinction between the signifier and the signified is already extremely problematic, so we are going to have to find some way of dealing with the difference itself.

 

 

In Lacan’s version of the triangulated Oedipus complex (mother—child—father), he combines Freud’s theory with structural linguistics, which he adopts from the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure.  The relationship between the child and mother is imagined in the infant’s unconscious as something that was once self-contained and entirely satisfying but has since been broken up.  The post-break-up (which is a psychoanalytic version of the fall from grace, mankind now banished from its eternal Garden of Eden) is in fact the child’s beginning.  Its prehistory is nothing but an imaginary desire.  In other words the child’s experience begins with a feeling of something having been lost.  The symbol of this loss is like a third term that has come between the mother and the child—the father who (in a literal version) comes home from work at the end of an otherwise perfect day ordering his dinner and smelling of pipe smoke and the intrusive outside.  Lacan calls this “third term” the symbolic because it “symbolizes” all relations.  Freud had called this third term “the father,” perhaps because of the specific nature of his own upbringing, his dreams, and the dreams of most of his patients (who were mostly bourgeois Europeans).  But the father is just a symbol too (anything can represent it).  Symbolization works because we make imaginary identifications, which are based upon proximity and immediate experience (the contiguous axis, or metonymy).  What we imagine to be the case is always to be understood symbolically and that makes it seem real (the paradigmatic axis, or metaphor).  Symbolization thus acts as an introduction to the world that is at the same time an introduction of lack.   The introduction of a meaningful element disrupts the perfect unity of the imaginary relation, which only has the sense of a perfect unity by virtue of the meaningful element that excludes perfection.  The experience of lack is therefore the very thing that gives us the sense that there was something to lack in the first place—it gives meaning to my partial relations and opens my experience to the other—which, of course, I cannot experience at all. The real in Lacan’s theory is a plenum.  A plenum is something complete in itself, so full that nothing need be added to it.  However because experience is determined by the relation between the symbolic and the imaginary (Lacan’s complicated version of the transcendental and the empirical) the plenum is figured only as an impossible outside.  It can therefore appear as a horrifying mysterious thing (enter the house of horror) that sometimes threatens to break open the illusion (our social reality) brought about by the symbolization of our imaginary desires.

 

Recommended only if you are interested, is my fuller version of this page: Jacques Lacan, Language and Sexuality

 

Or, if you really have time to spare, the whole series:

Freud and Psychoanalysis

The Rhetoric of the Dreamwork

Jacques Lacan, Language and Sexuality

The Return to Melanie Klein

Bibliography for Psychoanalysis

 

 

 

Psycho-Sexual Development (Recap)

 

 

 

Psycho-Sexual Development

Freud and Psychoanalysis

Traditional Notions and Freudian Redefinitions

Polymorphous Perversity

Delayed Action:

 

 

Nachtragtlichkeit describes the ways in which an infantile experience that is either incomprehensible or traumatic is nonetheless somehow retained by memory unconsciously and reactivated at a later time in a different context.  The notion comes from an early stage in Freud’s speculations and was used to explain the mechanism of hysteria, in which a traumatic early experience is reactivated in terms of a less traumatic later provocation.  He sometimes explains this with the mildly comic story of a young man infatuated with women.  “A young man who was a great admirer of feminine beauty was talking once of the good-looking wet nurse who had suckled him when he was a baby.  ‘I’m sorry,’ he remarked, ‘that I didn’t make a better use of my opportunity.’” (Interpretation of Dreams 295).  This is not, of course, an example of deferred-action, but it does illustrate the notion by emphasizing an inability at the early stage to understand or to act at all on experiences, which are retrospectively activated in later life.  Freud’s commentators have found the notion more useful than he evidently did, in so far as the rhetorical aspect has become much more obvious.  Signification involves the constant reactivation of significant material in new and unpredictable contexts, which thus produces new significance and new meanings.

 

 

Standard Oppositions:

normal and perverse

masculine and feminine

 

Perversity becomes the general condition of all sexuality per se, where once it had been a category for sexuality gone wrong, a perversion of normal sexuality (like fetishism, same sex desire, bestiality, even masturbation).  Normal desire, on the contrary, which had an extremely narrow definition supported (as it still is) by everyday common-sense assumptions, is now understood as being one of the numerous accidental possibilities of a general perversity.

 

 

"Psychoanalysis considers that a choice of object independently of its sex—freedom to range equally over male and female objects—as it is found in childhood, in primitive states of society and early periods of history, is the original basis from which, as a result of restriction in one direction or the other, both the normal and the inverted types develop.  Thus from the point of view of psychoanalysis the exclusive sexual interest felt by men for women is also a problem that needs elucidating and is not a self-evident fact based on an attraction that is ultimately of a chemical nature." (Freud, 1915).

 

 

The idea that biology is at the root of human sexual relations, and thus explains human sexuality, is at best grounded in the loosest of analogies.  Psychoanalysis has played an important role in helping to undo these narrow and ungrounded assumptions.  Along the way it has revealed a tangle of problems.

 

 

“Popular opinion has quite definite ideas about the nature and characteristics of this sexual instinct.   It is generally understood to be absent in childhood, to set in at the time of puberty in connection with the process of coming to maturity and to be revealed in the manifestations of an irresistible attraction exercised by one sex upon the other; while its aim is presumed to be sexual union.  [...] We have every reason to believe, however, that these views give a very false picture of the true situation.  If we look into them more closely we shall find that they contain a number of errors, inaccuracies and hasty conclusions.” (Freud)

 

Evidence against Normativity

The distinction between the normal and the perverse is riddled with overlaps.

Ø A great diversity of sexual “perversion” not only exists but is common.

Ø This diversity involves not only the choice of sexual object but also the type of activity used to obtain satisfaction.

Ø In the popular view, the “normal” type of sexual activity involves only coitus between members of the opposite sexes with the aim of reproduction.

Ø But the “normal” and the “perverse” are not so easily separated.

Ø For instance, the usual form of satisfaction may become temporarily impossible, so a “perverse” satisfaction may replace it.

Ø And the sort of foreplay leading up to normal sexual behaviour is usually also found leading up to perverse types as well.

 

 Oedipus and Language

“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” (IoD 364). 

 

“Like Oedipus, we live in ignorance of these wishes, repugnant to morality, which have been forced upon us by Nature, and after their revelation we may all of us well seek to close our eyes to the scene of our childhood” (IoD 365). 

 

Jacques Lacan: The Unconscious is Structured like a Language"

 

Lacan’s version of the triangulated Oedipus complex (mother—child—father) combines Freud’s theory with structural linguistics, developed particularly from the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralist linguistics.

 

Lack in the signifier:

The Father is a "Symbolic" power, an empty Signifier.

The Relation to the Mother (and the object) is "Imaginary" (an image standing in for what is not there).

 

Woman as Lack