Psychology

The Oedipus Complex

This essay presents a discussion of the origins of the Oedipus complex, beginning with its Freudian

conception and subsequent Kleinian developments.1 I will give an overview on the evolving

importance of the primal scene (the parental sexual relationship) presenting the argument that the

contemporary understanding of the primal scene as an imagined space allows for an interpretation

of the Oedipal complex that does not succumb to heteronormative bias. I will then compare Freud

and Britton’s differing understandings of the pathogenic potential of the Oedipal complex. Finally, I

will utilise a vignette taken from my work with a three year old boy to demonstrate how an

understanding of the Oedipus Complex can provide insight into a child’s internal world.2

Little Hans and the Freudian Oedipus Complex

Freud situates the Oedipus complex during the phallic phase of psychosexual development, in

which transfer of the libido to the genitals as the main erogenous zone occurs (1905). Freud

demonstrates how the changes associated with this stage can manifest in increasing sexual curiosity

and masturbatory impulses through the depiction of Little Hans’, ‘interest in widdlers’, and

compulsion to ‘touch his member’ (1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.2). Also ‘typical,’ Freud argues,

‘of the sexual development of children,’ is a growing sexual desire for the Mother (1909, SE10, PEP

Archive, p.2). This is presented as a prominent feature of Hans’s behaviour, he is labelled a, ‘little

Oedipus who wanted to […] be alone with his Mother and sleep with her’ (1909, SE10, PEP

Archive, p30). Freud demonstrates how Hans’s sexual feelings towards his Mother, engenders the

fear of his Father’s retaliation; now his rival by necessity, locating what Segal refers to as the,

1 For the purpose of this essay, I will focus on the male Freudian Oedipus complex, a decision informed by the abundance of male Oedipalmaterial in Little Hans, and the overwhelming consensus that the phallocentricity of Freudian understanding of female sexuality is,‘narrow and ignorant’(Klauber, 2019, p.10).

2 All names included have been changed to ensure confidentiality.

‘conflicting impulses, […] anxieties and defences,’ that this engenders as central to the formation of

the Oedipal complex (1989, p.1).

For Freud, this rivalry manifests both as an ongoing castration anxiety that draws its origins in

Hans’s Mother’s threat to ‘cut off your widdler’ (1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.2) , and his

unconscious ‘death wishes’ towards his father (1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.30). Crucially, as Hans

also loves his Father ‘deeply,’ (1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.30), the repression and then

displacement of his negative feelings for his father onto horses, works as a defence, allowing him to

fear and hate a phobic object, without conflict. If Hans’s fear of horses is presented as pathogenic,

the repression of his conflicting emotions surrounding his parents is not. Freud suggests that Hans’s

phobia could even be perceived as advantageous as it ‘directed his parents attention’ to the

‘unavoidable difficulties’ associated with typical Oedipal anxieties (1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.

34).

For Freud, the resolution of the Oedipus complex ‘would go to its destruction […] from the effects

of it’s internal impossibility’ (1924, p.395). As little Hans discovers, ‘the barrier against

incest’ (Freud, 1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.8) , necessitates a repression of his sexual desires

towards his mother, which allows for the internalisation and identification with his father, an

indication of a successful resolution of the male Oedipal complex (1924). Hans’s phantasy in which,

‘the plumber came and first he took away my behind with a big pair of pincers and then he gave me

another, and then the same with my widdler’ (Freud, 1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.25) , is seen as

symbolic of his internalised identification with his father and the resolution of his castration anxiety.

It is pertinent to acknowledge that the presentation of internalised identification as the ideal, betrays

both the heteronormative bias of the social structure contemporary to Freud, and what Wakefield

cites as a phallocentric lack of consideration concerning the role of maternal containment within

Little Hans (2007).

Klein’s Oedipal Situation

Through her psychoanalytic work with infants, Klein reshapes the Freudian Oedipus complex,

alluding to an infantile Oedipal relationship with the parents that occurs prior to the phallic phase,

referred to as the ‘Oedipal situation.’ (Britton, 1989, p. 83). Klein emphasises the importance of the

relationship to the breast, which is experienced as two different part objects, sometimes the loved,

nurturing breast, and sometimes the hated, withholding breast . The manifestation of this state, in

which the perception of the world is split into good and bad, defines what Klein refers to as the

paranoid schizoid phase. Klein states that the aim of this phase, is to work towards acceptance that

the hated breast is also the loved breast, or the depressive position (Fear, 2018).

Klein posits the depressive position as central to the development of the Oedipal situation because

recognition of the Mother as not a ‘sole and permanent possession’ engenders a ‘recognition of the

parental sexual relationship.’ (Britton, 1989, p. 84). In this way Klein connects Freud’s concept of

mourning, where the phantasy version of an ideal world must be surrendered to achieve a realistic

understanding of the world (1917) , with the process of working through the Oedipus complex,

where the infantile version of the ‘ideal’ Mother must be surrendered. However, Klein, also betrays

a heteronormative bias as she corroborates Freud’s theory that Oedipal resolution is ultimately

achieved through identification with the parent of the same sex (Fear, 2018).

The Evolving Importance of the Primal Scene

Fear states that Freud ‘believed the child to have a knowledge of the primal scene’ (2018, p. 16).

However, in Little Hans, it is contextualised as important in relation to the Oedipal complex

predominantly because it reveals Hans’s unconscious knowledge of the sex act, and is utilised as a

means to strengthen the argument that Hans wants to ‘take possession of his mother,’ as his Father

does (Freud, 1909, SE10, PEP Archive, p.8).

For Klein the primal scene features more centrally in the Oedipal situation. What Klein refers to as

the epistemophilic impulse, or desire to know what the parental couple excludes the infant from, is

key in her resolution of the Oedipal situation (Fear, 2018). Knowledge of the primal scene places

the child in the position of the ‘observing third,’ a position that when tolerated, engenders the

understanding that it is possible to be alone but not abandoned, crucial for development and

learning. (Fear, 2018, p.26).

Britton expands on the importance of the primal scene, stating that an acceptance of the link

between the Oedipal couple can lead not only to a crucial understanding of the difference in the

relationship between parents and children, but the possibility of a beneficial perception of parental

intercourse which is not just excluding but creative (Britton, 1989). Britton also refers to the primal

scene as ‘the place where [in it’s perpetual absence] the object spends its invisible existence.’ (2003,

p. 20). Here, Britton presents a configuration of the primal scene that is representative of an

imagined space rather than a literal act, a metaphor that describes the need for infantile recognition

of the mother or primary carer’s existence outside of the mother-infant dyad. Crucially, this does not

rely on a heteronormative familial configuration, or even an Oedipal couple. Therefore, Britton

shifts the centrality of the Oedipal drama away from heteronormative ideals and gender

identification, towards the separation anxiety of the infant and the ability to tolerate being alone.

Pathological potential

Freud emphasises the enduring affects of the Oedipal complex in the phallic stage, as an ‘infantile

trace’ that helps determine an individual’s sexuality in adolescence (1905, p. 363), arguing that the

‘finding of an object’ in puberty (1905, p. 357) is heavily influenced by the Oedipal complex, ‘this

first and most significant of all sexual relations’ (1905, p. 358). Freud therefore signposts the

‘detachment from parental authority’ (1905, p. 361) at adolescence as an essential factor in

preventing ‘disturbances of psychosexual development’ (1905, p. 362).

However, Freud states that at ‘every stage in the course of development […] a certain number are

held back’ (1905, p. 361), individuals who regress, or remain fixated on their childhood libido

object choice may experience a pathogenic expression of their Oedipal complex during later life

(1905). While Freud’s pathology of sexual inversions, such as homosexuality proves controversial

for the contemporary reader, his understanding of the Oedipal complex’s crucial role in adulthood

neurosis paved the way for developments in contemporary psychoanalytic thought.

Britton disagrees with Freud in that he argues, ‘each new life situation, at each stage of

development, and with each major addition to experience or knowledge’ requires a re-working of

the Oedipus complex (1992, p. 38). This is not presented as pathogenic in itself, but as essential to

development. However, Britton also cites the importance of the Oedipal complex in relation to

neurosis, referring to Oedipal illusions as ‘defensive organisations’ that seek to ‘deny the psychic

reality of the parental relationship’ (1989, p. 99). Britton utilises Bion’s concept of containment to

discuss when an unresolved Oedipal complex becomes pathogenic, arguing if the mother has an

‘existing precarious status’ as a container, the further threat of acknowledging the relationship with

the father could ‘spell disaster’ (1989, p. 90).

Oedipus complex within a Nursery setting

To further elucidate an understanding of the Oedipal complex, I will look in detail at a moment

from my work in a Private Nursery with a 3 year old, ‘Tom.’ I have been working with Tom for

eight months. This vignette is taken from the week in which Tom was informed that his Mother is

five months pregnant with her second child. Tom’s parents are a married heterosexual couple.

Extract:

‘What are you going to draw?’ I ask Tom. ‘My house!’ he says, reaching for a crayon and

drawing a large connected circle. ‘Next, he draws a small stick figure inside the circle.

‘This is Tom and Mummy!’ He draws a much larger stick figure next to the Tom figure.

‘What are mummy and Tom doing in the house?’ I ask. ‘Resting on the sofa!’ says Tom.

‘What about Daddy?’ I ask. ‘In the garden!’ says Tom, and he draws a stick figure outside

of the circle. ‘He loves digging up the plants!’

I found the symbolic potential of Tom’s drawing illuminating. The placement of his figures, with

him and his Mother inside the house, and his father outside seemed suggestive of an Oedipal

phantasy; the desire to be alone with his Mother and remove his Father. In light of his Mother’s

recent pregnancy, the large containing circle could be symbolic of a womb-like space. If Britton’s

suggestion that, ‘each new life situation,’ requires a re-working of the Oedipal complex (1992, p.38)

is considered, it could be argued that Tom is demonstrating an unconscious desire to regress to the

Mother-infant dyad as a defence against the Oedipal anxieties engendered by the prospect of a

sibling.

Tom’s depiction of his Father’s digging could be indicative of Tom’s unconscious knowledge of his

role in the primal scene. More likely, I feel that it represents the way in which Tom may have

unconsciously attributed the perceived destruction of his family to his Father. Tom may be

projecting his anger into his Father; perhaps as a regressive form of splitting that acts as a defence

against the knowledge that his Mother has decided to have another child, and therefore does not

solely belong to him. By attributing the blame to his Father, the ‘good mother’ is protected. It seems

that Tom is working through his Oedipal anxieties through the medium of symbolic play, playing

out his unconscious phantasies.

The concept of the OedipalComplex can therefore be beneficially utilised as a way to understand

childhood behaviour. While the resolution of both the Freudian and Kleinian Oedipus Complex

focus perhaps detrimentally on gender identification, by bringing childhood and infantile

unconscious phantasy about the parental couple into the forefront, their theories paved the way for a

contemporary understanding of the Oedipus complex as a means to understand separation anxiety

and how to be tolerate being alone. These issues are crucial to the development of the mind, both in

childhood and adulthood.

Bibliography

Britton, R. (1992). ‘The Oedipus situation and the depressive position’ In R. Anderson (Ed.), New

library of psychoanalysis, 14. Clinical lectures on Klein and Bion (pp. 34-45). New York, NY, US:

Tavistock/Routledge

Britton, R. (2003) Sex, death and the Superego. London: Karnac Books.

Britton, R. (1989) ‘The missing link: parental sexuality in the Oedipus complex’ in R. Britton,

Feldman M and O’Shaugnessy, E (1st ed.) The Oedipus complex today. Clinical implications.

London: Karnak Books, pp. 83-101.

Fear, R. (2018) The Oedipus complex : solutions or resolutions?. London: Routledge

Freud, S. (1909) ‘Analysis of a Phobia in a 5 year old boy (Little Hans)’ , in The standard edition

of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. vol.10. Viewed on PEP Archive [online]

via EBSCOhost (authenticated resource) , pp.1-42

Freud, S. (1905 ) ‘Three essays on the theory of sexuality’ in The essentials of Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud London:Vintage, 2005, pp. 277-375.

Freud, S. (1924 ) ‘The Dissolution of the Oedipus complex ’ in The essentials of Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud London:Vintage, 2005, pp. 395-401

Klauber, T. (2019) ‘The Oedipus Complex (and touching on the super-ego). Introducing the

concept of the Oedipus complex and developments in thinking about it since Freud’ , M7:

Working with children, young people & families: a psychoanalytic observational approach. The

Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation. Unpublished.

Wakefield, J. (2007) ‘Little Hans and Attachment Theory: Bowlby’s Hypothesis Reconsidered

in Light of New Evidence from the Freud Archives’, The psychoanalytic study of the child,

62(1), pp. 61-91

A reasonably coherent presentation that follows an argument or line of thinking.