International Psychoanalysis.net Op-Ed
Judith Logue, Ph.D. © April 2014
An Oedipal Sandwich and the Handicap of the Good Daddy …Free Associations about Clinical Work with Men, Primary Femininity, the Genital/Electra/Oedipal Phase, and Culture
I was taken by surprise when Dr. Richards invited me to do an Op-Ed piece for International Psychoanalysis.net, based on an “off the top of my head” post on our psychohistory Clio’s Psyche listserv. My ideas were prompted by colleagues who commented on the topics of gender, Oedipus dynamics, culture, and psychohistory. It had not occurred to me that my postwould be of sufficient interest or stimulate further dialogue beyond our listserv. Although the ideas in this Op-Ed are “old hat” to me, perhaps others will add new ones which will challenge or modify them.
Clinical Treatment of Men:
As a female clinician–who currently sees more men patients than women – I have had some amazing and wonderful experiences doing psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. I also recently contributed the only psychoanalytic chapter on a book for female clinicians working with men. (“Gender Matters: Transference, Countertransference and Men: A Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic Perspective, “ in Gender in the Therapy Hour, Voices of Female Clinicians Working with Men, edited by Holly Barlow Sweet, Routledge, 2012.)
The men I see talk about almost everything: money, sex,Oedipal dynamics, sexist and non-politically correct feelings and thoughts, murderous wishes, competition, pornography, dominance-submission dynamics, perversions, politics, and even bowel habits. Once they discover and believe I can handle listening to these topics, and with more encouragement and less silence than in my classical training in the 1960s, they open up beyond my expectations.
New Perspectives on Gender Determination
In response to an essentialist perspective on men and women and the gender differences (binary gender perspective and nature or biological emphasis), I want to add the constructivist perspective that gender is determined by culture. Not only and not always. I believe in nature, constitution and biology!
To generalize:
In our middle and upper middle class heterosexual/heterosexist American culture, older men often perceive younger men as “more feminine.” On the other hand, younger men often perceive the older men as stodgy, uptight, and homophobic. However,this is so culturally affected and determined.
Generations ago, as most of us know, what was feminine and masculine were different. A recent NY Times Magazine article (March 20),The Scientific Quest to Prove Bisexuality Exists, by Benoit Denizet-Lewis, reflects quite a cultural change. It has been a long time since bisexuality was acknowledged as anything but homosexuality in drag. As the piece highlights, bisexuality is still unacceptable and bi-phobia is common in gay cultures in the United States.
Primary Femininity
With regard to women: I think contemporary psychoanalysts, especially women, would argue for an emphasis on primary femininity. Harriet Lerner’s classic paper criticizes the misnaming and incomplete labeling of the genitals. She disagrees with the culture’s preference for using the word vagina, and refusal to use the term vulva, which includes the clitoris and labia. Lerner suggests this may have a critical effect during the pre-oedipal and early oedipal phases of development. Because the girl discovers her clitoris as the prime source of sexual stimulation and gratification during these years, Lerner believes this miseducation is a contributing factor for wanting what boys have and to validate and have “permission” for female sexual organs.
Lerner’s concern extends this to the inhibition and denial of essential aspects of females and the potential to inhibit pride in femininity and sexual responsiveness. (Harriet F. Lerner, “Parental Mislabeling of Female Genitals as a Determinant of Penis Envy and Learning Inhibitions in Women,” in Female Psychology: Contemporary Psychoanalytic Views, Harold Blum, MD, editor, NY: International Universities Press, 1977, pp. 269-283).
Back in 1970, I was sick and tired of our profession’s refusal to acknowledge my connection to my own genitals. I could not relate to the emphasis on a wish for a penis attached to me outside. All I could think of, unless it had to do with urinating freely in the woods, was that I wanted a penis inside, thank you very much.
Lesbians whom I have analyzed and known as colleagues and friends also describe wanting to be filled genitally – if not by an actual phallus but digitally or by a sex toy. I often read that women seek “penetration.” However, I have not heard women use that term – only men.
In the 1960s, a most helpful perspective came from Dr. Reuben Fine (deceased), my psychoanalytic institute teacher. He stated that both genders “want it all.” Boys and men and girls and women,he said, sometimes want what the other gender has. I question whether our culture now acts on this idea. We not only have “psychosurgery,” a familiar term used in the 1950s-1980s, but now we also have reconstructive surgery to make it possible for us to actually have and do what the other gender has and does.
Is a Rose by Any Other Name Still a Rose?Genital/Oedipal/Electra Phase
I prefer using “genital” phase rather than Oedipal or Electra because it affects how we think about things, and how we practice. I am comfortable with the less modern words because I have grown up with them, and use them easily myself. But, I am not sure that the different names imply exactly the same thing.
I think when we use genital phase instead of Oedipal phase, it is inclusive of females in a way that FEELS more accurate and includes us. Electra is essentialist and gender specific, so at least it acknowledges our gender. But, for lesbian and gay women, I do not think it fits well. For bisexual women, it applies in part. For transgender people, none of the terms seem relevant or helpful.
My colleague and dear friend, Dr. Lynne Harkless, an APsaA psychoanalyst in Miami, has been working on a theoretical paper, since her 2005 presentation in Washington, D.C., at our Division 39 (Psychoanalysis), Section III (Women, Gender and Psychoanalysis) program. She differentiates between the subject of desire and the object of desire, and our multiple identifications with each gender and each parent. It is non-heterosexist. She received a standing ovation when she gave her presentation.
I have longed to find a paper in our literature regarding female genital phase dynamics about what I term: “The Handicap of the Good Daddy.” When one has had a good daddy, i.e. a warm and ethical strong father, the genital phase (Electra/Oedipal) dynamics can be intense. The girl usually has real difficulty separating emotionally from her father and finding and loving a man who is (to her) of equal worth. She might be more likely to marry a man who is not so good, or “beneath” her, or even abusive, in order to maintain her true love and idealized or ideal man, her father. That is, until, usually with professional treatment, she analyzes her genital phase.
The Oedipal (Electra/Genital Phase) Sandwich
It is also possible if the girl is equally in love with her mother, and equally as attached, that bisexuality dynamics would be prominent. Then the wish is to be in a “sandwich” – not to kill or compete with the parent of the opposite sex (in this case, the mother).
Psychodynamics and Culture
I have separated the psychodynamics of the genital phase for purposes of discussion. Add in cultural influences and the changes over time – even if only the last 70 years – understanding the effects of culture on psychological development becomes complex. When one considers the cultural history of my parents’ generation from the early 1900s through the 20th century, understanding the interaction between culture and psychodynamics and psychological development is even more complicated and fascinating.
A childhood memory when I was ten years old was my first conscious introduction to the Oedipus complex. My late father told me that when he was three years old,and his mother and father were kissing, he would get between them and try to break them apart.
Women were left out a lot in psychoanalysis for multiple reasons. Unfortunately, we were in the background and peripheral until the 1970s. Despite luminaries such as Helene Deutsch, Karen Horney, Sabina Spelrein, and others, women were not so prominent in psychoanalysis as today.
Finally, it is no longer disputed that psychodynamics are influenced and affected whenthere are changes in the cultural and socioeconomic variables of class, ethnicity, geography, geopolitical, and political factors. I am not the only one who has difficulty weeding out the variables. Researchers consistently discuss how research is so connected and affected by the researcher, funding, time, place, and subjects.
In conclusion, these are loosely connected associations prompted by comments from colleagues on gender, Oedipus phase dynamics, culture and psychohistory. I hope they engender further discussion.