the ages of three and five, childhood sexuality becomes focused on the genitals. In the fifth year, according to Freud, at the height of development of childhood sexuality, that focus comes close to that reached in maturity. The difference between childhood and adult sexuality is that the former lacks the elements of penetration and ejaculation, the reproductive aspects of sexuality. Childhood sexuality is, therefore, a surface phenomenon. Freud described it as phallic rather than genital. This distinction is valid if we recognize that phallic refers to a rise in excitation rather than a discharge. Adult sexuality is characterized by its emphasis upon the latter. However, the feelings associated with childhood sexuality can hardly be distinguished from those relating to the adult form.
Although the Oedipus complex is regarded as a normal development for all children in our culture, this does not mean that it is biologically determined. We must distinguish between two different phenomena. One is the preliminary blooming of sexuality, which occurs at this time and which is manifested in masturbatory activities and a heightened sexual curiosity. It is also reflected in the child's sexual interest in the parent of the opposite sex. Evidence for this early blooming is provided by patients’ dreams and memories. It can be confirmed by any observant parent, since children make no effort to hide their sexual feelings. And medical research has shown that there is an increased production of sexual hormones during this period. This preliminary awakening of sexuality is generally followed by a quiescent period, the latency period, which lasts until puberty, when both hormonal and sexual activity begin to assume their adult form. Another biological phenomenon parallels this double flowering of sexuality, and that is the development of teeth. We have two sets of teeth; the first, or baby teeth, reach their fullness at about the ages of six to seven, when they fall out and are replaced by the permanent teeth. It is also around this time, six years of age, that most children begin their formal education.
The other phenomenon is the creation of a triangle in which the mother is a sexual object for both father and son, or the father a sexual object for mother and daughter. When this happens, as it invariably does in our culture, we have to deal with the parent's jealousy and hostility to the child. It may be quite natural for a boy to feel some jealousy over his father's sexual relation with his mother. This jealousy in no way threatens the father. It is quite another story when the father becomes jealous of his son because he senses that his wife favors or prefers the boy. This situation is fraught with real danger for the child. In the same way the mother's jealousy of her daughter poses a serious threat to the girl. This aspect of the Oedipus complex is culturally determined. “In this sense,” according to Fenichel, “the Oedipus complex is undoubtedly a product of family influence.”6 Its specific form will depend, therefore, upon the dynamics of the family situation.
Another element, namely, sexual guilt, also enters into this complex. Although all parties are involved in the triangle, the child is made to feel guilty about his sexual feelings and behavior. He acted innocently, following his instinctual impulses, but in the parents’ eyes any sexual expression by the child is “bad,” “dirty,” or “sinful.” Parents project their sexual guilt upon the child. Thus, the Oedipus complex of the child generally reflects the unresolved oedipal conflicts of his parents. The child's feeling of guilt about his sexuality derives less from what his parents say or do but, as Fenichel points out, even more from “the general attitude of the parents toward sex, which is constantly manifested by them, with or without their knowledge.”7
But this statement only locates the problem in the preceding generation. To understand how this guilt arose in the first place, we must study the origin of those cultural forces that created the oedipal situation. In a subsequent chapter we will undertake this study by analyzing the mythology and history of ancient Greece. We can anticipate its result by saying that fear and hostility between parents and children and sexual guilt are both results of the change from the matriarchal to the patriarchal principle of relationships. That change occurred at the beginning of civilization, when mankind gained power over nature. The acquisition of power led to a struggle for power that goes on to this day in all “civilized” societies.
Finally, the complex also includes a murderous rage on the part of the child toward the parent of the same sex. The child wants to kill the parent, but is more afraid that he will be killed by the parent. Because of the great fear, the rage is suppressed and comes out only in death wishes against the parent or as fear that the parent will die or be killed in an accident. In the end, the child is made to feel guilty about his hostility toward the parent.
The Freudian position has been that the child's rage and hostility against the parent is directly related to and associated with his incest wishes. Thus, Erik Erikson writes, “The ‘Oedipus’ wishes (so simply and so trustingly expressed in the boy's assurance that he will marry his mother and make her proud of him and in the girl's that she will marry her father and take much better care of him) lead to secret fantasies of vague murder and rape. The consequence is a deep sense of guilt-a strange sense, for it forever seems to imply that the individual has committed a crime which, after all, was not committed but would have been biologically quite impossible. This secret guilt, however, helps to drive the whole weight of initiative toward desirable ideals immediate practical goals.”8 This view supports the idea that the Oedipus complex is not only biologically determined but essential to the continued progress of culture. Doesn't it seem strange that such lovely feelings on the part of a child for a parent could lead to “secret fantasies of vague murder and rape”? It makes more sense to me to assume that it is only after the child is made to feel guilty about his incest wishes that the secret fantasies of murder and rape arise.
This was also the view of my teacher, Wilhelm Reich. In his study, Der Triebhafte Charakter (The Impulsive Character), published in 1925 while he was still a member of the psychoanalytic movement, he writes, “The Oedipal phase is among the most meaningful in human experience. Without exception its conflicts stand at the core of every neurosis and mobilize powerful guilt feelings…These guilt feelings develop with particular intensity into attitudes of hate, which are part and parcel of the Oedipus complex.9 Note that the hate is derived from the guilt, not the other way around. Reich also had a different view of the value of the guilt feelings. Erikson saw them as furthering cultural progress. For Reich, they stemmed from a sex-repressive upbringing, the function of which “is that of laying the foundation for authoritarian culture and economic slavery.”10
Having delineated the Oedipus complex, we are interested next to learn its fate in the personality. How are the conflicts contained within it resolved? If it was merely a question of the sexual feelings of a child for his parent, these, being infantile in nature, would be superseded in the course of natural growth. No child hangs onto its baby teeth forever. They are pushed out by the permanent teeth as the latter emerge. The same should be true for infantile sexual feelings. With the onset of mature sexuality in puberty, the young person would direct his sexual feelings toward objects outside the family. Unfortunately, in our culture this natural development does not occur without disturbance. The infantile sexual feelings are too entangled with feelings of guilt, fear, and hatred for such a simple resolution to occur. The whole complex is repressed.
The repression of the Oedipus complex takes place under the threat of castration. In this, both Freud and Reich are in accord. The boy gives up his striving to be sexually close to his mother and his hostility to his father out of fear of castration. Freud says specifically that “the boy's Oedipus complex succumbs to the dread of castration.”11 The child is afraid that his penis will be cut off or taken away. When children are threatened with punishment for masturbation, this threat to the genitals is often explicitly stated. But even where neither parent makes such an overt threat, the fear of castration is not absent. The boy is aware that he is competing with his father, and he can sense the latter's hostility. Since the penis is the offending organ, it is only natural to assume that it will be injured or cut off. Human castration was practiced in past times. People had their hands cut off for stealing. It is not difficult to see why boys would develop this image of the threatened punishment. Many people have typical anxiety dreams about this possibility. A patient of mine related one from his youth. He dreamed that
