THE PHALLIC
CHILD: Its Emergence and Meaning in a Clincal Setting
By James Hunter, MSW
INTRODUCTION
The
classical Freudian understanding of the hegemony of the sex drive in
the psycho social development of the individual has been challenged by
both attachment theory and object relations theory. Bowlby suggests
that concerns related to attachment to significant others derive from
an independent need system that is fundamental, and that attachment
needs are not, as has been more traditionally thought, secondary to, or
derivative from, other need systems. Rather,"attachment behavior is
conceived as a class of behavior distinct from feeding behavior and
sexual behavior and of at least an equal significance in human life."
(Pg. 131 The Making and Breaking...) Although attachment theory may
provide for a much needed correction to certain imbalances or
distortions in the classical Freudian paradigm, it may not account for
the close relationship between sexual concerns and attachment concerns
seen in clinical practice.
Referring back
to the work of Fairbairn, Guntrip summarizes one of the basic tenets of
the object relations approach. "Fairbairn takes a wider view of
libidinal need as not limited to the sexual but embracing all that is
involved in the need for personal relationships, on however simple and
primitive a level at the beginning; the goal of libidinal need is not
pleasure but the object (at first the breast and the mother). (Guntrip,
pg. 67.) Fairbairn, and most object relations theorists after him,
suggest a fundamental modification of psychoanalytic theory on two two
related points: 1. That libidinal need is not exclusively sexual, and
2. That the fundamental aim of libido is not instinctual gratification
but union with the object. To view libido as "embracing all that is
involved in the need for personal relationship," represents a
fundamental shift in the psychoanalytic paradigm , one with radical
implications both for theory and practice.
In this paper I
share some clinical material that emerged in my work with a child. Over
the course of a few weeks during treatment in play therapy, some very
interesting imagery emerged to interpret the meaning that a number of
life events have for the child. As I attempted to understand the
interplay between situation and image, it was evident that the images
were primarily concerned with relationships with significant others and
with internal representations of self and others. Yet the intensely
sexual nature of both the images and his concerns was equally evident.
Questions emerged with regard to understanding the relationship between
the sexual forces within this child's psyche, and his relationship or
attachment needs. After presenting the clinical material, I suggest
that a theoretical formulation along the lines suggested by Fairbairn
and Guntrip is more useful for clarifying the meaning of the clinical
material than either the classical Freudian model, or attachment theory
as articulated by Bowlby and his followers.
FAMILY HISTORY
Eric
(pseudonym) is a ten year old boy I had been seeing in a combination of
individual and family therapy for about six months at the time of the
clinical material recorded in this paper. Due to his becoming
unmanageable in his adoptive home, he was placed in foster care about a
year before I began seeing him. Presenting problems included extreme
oppositional behavior, prolonged displays of rage when frustrated, and
considerable destruction of property in the home.
Eric was
adopted by a Caucasian couple who had one natural child, a girl we will
call Sally. It was when they had trouble having more children of their
own, that Sally's parents adopted Eric and two other boys who, like
him, were of Afro-American decent. Sally was about eight at the time.
We will call the other two adopted boys Jack and Mike. The three
adopted boys were in the first year of life when adopted, but all three
showed evidence of serious attachment problems which the adoptive
parents did not understand, and for which they were not prepared. The
parents therefore tended to blame themselves for the behavioral
manifestations that we know are rather typical of children with
attachment difficulties. (Cite High Risk)
When Eric was
in his sixth year two devastating events occurred in his adoptive home.
In March of that year the house that they had built burned to the
ground. In April of that year Sally, who was now a teen-ager, was
killed in an auto accident.
Despite these
extreme stresses the family managed to struggle along together for a
while longer. The next year they adopted an infant girl of
Afro-American background, whom we will call Nancy. Three years after
they adopted Nancy, the oldest of the adopted boys, Jack, was found
sexually molesting Nancy in a rather aggressive manner. Feeling already
overwhelmed by the stress of events, the parents felt this was more
than they could manage with in their home, and they had Jack placed in
foster care. Shortly after that Eric's negative behaviors escalated
dramatically and, feeling that they could not even provide for
everybody's safety, they had him placed in foster care.
CLINICAL
MATERIAL:
8\12\94
Individual
session with Eric: Playing with the dolls, Eric acts out a scenario in
which a child is abandoned by its mother. He seeks her "all his life."
Finally he is joyously re-united with her. The reference and basic
meaning with regard to his initial abandonment by his birth mother
appears self-evident.
9\16\94
Individual play
session with Eric: Eric assumes the role of a baker, and uses the toy
oven and Play Doh to make cookies. He assigns me the role of a doctor.
That way we can mutually meet each others needs. He can feed me when I
am hungry and I can fix him when he is hurt or ill. He makes cookies
and has the stuffed lion bring them to me. Here he has split the image
of the nurturing adult he needs into its two primary
functions---feeding, which refers to my nurturing role in general, and
healing, which refers to my specific role as his therapist. The lion is
a cuddly rather than a ferocious creature, both in its appearance and
in terms of Eric's use of him. On one level Eric may be expressing his
desire to feed me, and thus to bring some sense of reciprocity to our
relationship. I think, however, that his role as the baker represents
his identification with me, and his hungry self is projected onto me.
This idea is supported by the manner in which, in a different session,
he had me carry out the role, through lion, of a hungry animal who
couldn't wait. He was in a similar nurturing role, making cookies.
All at once the
Baker has a "heart attack." In previous sessions we had talked about
the hurt place in his heart, and associated this with the injury that
was left there when his mother left. Eric is doing two things here. He
is seeking a closer, nurturing contact with me in the play room, and is
announcing the issue he feels the need to explore. I pick him up and
carry him to the couch. Using something from the doctors bag as a heart
reviving machine (imitating the paddles that everybody has seen at some
time or other on t.v. to revive people whose heart has stopped), I
revive him. He jolts back into life dramatically, and announces that he
had a bad dream. I ask him what it was. He says that in ten minutes a
snake will bite him and he will die. There is nothing we can do. This
is a magic pre-cognitive dream. I get a stuffed snake from the cabinet,
and act out the scenario that he dreamed. The snake bites him, and he
dies. I assume that the snake is a phallic symbol, and refers to the
destructive capabilities of his phallic impulses in the present
situation. He might lose his home, just as his brother did, and this
would surely result in death. I am able to revive him with an injection
of anti-poison serum. He comes back to life. I wish to say something to
him within the play format. I tell him that the snake had a special
poison\medicine that gives you magic powers if you survive it. He now
has magic powers. My message, of course, is that his sexual energies
are magic. They are powerful, but not bad. They become dangerous only
if they get out of hand. This appeals to him. He jumps up and runs
around the room, a very energized and powerful person. I talk with the
lion about these magic powers. I emphasize the need to use magic powers
in the right way so that people are helped and not hurt. My talking to
the lion, and talking about general principles, is to provide some
indirection and distance in the communication process, so that my bit
of moralizing is more likely to be accepted. Lion and Eric both seem to
take in what I am saying with interest.
Then Eric gets
some Play Doh, and forms it into a roughly spherical mass about the
size of his fist. He sticks his index finger into this mass, and his
finger emerges from the mass as a new figure. It has no name, but is
simply a worm of some sort. It wants to make friends with me. I make
friends with the worm, and the session is over.
In this last
sequence Eric presented a representation of his penis to me. In terms
of our relationship, there is probably an element of seduction in this.
In so far as this is true, however, I do not think his primary intent
is to draw me into sexual activity with him, but in a more general
sense, to have me love him. Specifically he needs an adult with whom he
can bond who will be friendly to his sexuality---who will affirm his
right and need to have a penis, and who will affirm the essential
goodness of the energies associated with it. He is also affirming his
need for help with this aspect of his life.
10\7\94
Team meeting,
followed by team conference with Eric and then an individual session:
Immediately prior to the play session we held a team meeting in which
the foster parents and the adoptive parents were both present, along
with the case manager. During this session the adoptive mother related
an incident that concerned her deeply. She said the when Eric was
visiting a neighbor's house during his last visit home, he was playing
with an eight-year-old girl. In the course of the play the girl began
hitting Eric in a provocative manner in his genital region. Both
children were excited by this play, but adults in the home intervened
and put an end to it before it escalated to anything more serious.
According to the reports it was the girl who initiated this play, but
Eric responded in a way that encouraged her. Later on the girl showed
her mother a note she had received from Eric. It said "Me and Willie
would like to play with you." The girl did not see anything more in
this note than a friendly, although somewhat cryptic, message.
It was the
reference to "Willie" that concerned the adoptive mother. We had
learned from the foster mother during a previous team meeting that
"Willie" is the name that Eric gave to his penis. This was shortly
after he watched the movie "Free Willie." On one level I wondered
whether this might represent his wish to be free of the social
constraints that were being put on his sexuality, and this is probably
partially correct. However, the movie is about a foster child who is in
a state of denial about that fact that his mother abandoned him. This
boy makes friends with a killer whale named "Willie" who is in
captivity, and who longs to return to his family in the ocean. Eric's
reasons for identifying with both the boy and the whale are obvious, as
they share his deep longing to return to his "real" parents. The denial
on the foster child's part serves both to preserve the image of the
idealized lost mother, and to avoid the damage to his self image as the
child who is thrown away. As with many foster children, his anger is
then re-directed at the "State" who removed him, as he sees it, without
good reason. Probably any foster child would identify deeply with
Willie. What was curious in this case was Eric's identification of his
penis with Willie.
The whale being
black and white adds another interesting dimension to this picture. In
a recent play session Eric identified very deeply with a black and
white Panda bear who was so jealous of everybody that he couldn't
maintain any friendships because people always wanted to have friends
in addition to him. I suspected that this fantasy was at least in part
provoked by the fact that I would be developing relationships with his
brother and sister as we began doing family work. However, the choice
of the black and white animal was also of interest. Eric is bi-racial,
from a physical point of view. I suspect that it is not specifically
the mixed racial background that the black and white animal alludes to.
On the basis of his appearance Eric would carry the social identity of
"black" or African American. Culturally, however, he was raised and
socialized by whites. Thus he, like the orc and the Panda bear, is both
black and white. It is the physical vs. the cultural dichotomy that the
black and white animals allude to.
All the adopted
children in this family are of mixed racial background, and with all
the children this has become a focal point for the issue of "belonging"
which is, of course, a universal one with foster children even when
racial factors are not involved.
In response to
the adoptive mother sharing her concern regarding Eric's behavior, we
reviewed some recent incidents that the foster parent told us about. A
few weeks ago Eric took off all his clothes so that he could be seen
naked by the foster children in a respite home. This didn't appear to
be more than an inappropriate bit of exhibitionism, but in the context
of his history and the history of the family, it was cause for anxiety.
Obviously it raised concerns in the adoptive mother's mind about his
ability to behave appropriately with his younger sister.
Understandably, she did not want Nancy to be molested again by one of
her older brothers.
The other
problem of a sexual nature that was related by the foster mother
concerned how he showed affection to her. At times he seemed just like
any other affectionate little boy, wanting hugs and a chance to snuggle
etc. She was appropriately accepting of this affectionate outreaching
on his part. At other times he would rub up against her in very
suggestive ways and talk about loving her in a pseudo-adult, seductive
tone of voice. She would rebuff him for this and insist that he not
touch her again until he was able to do so in an appropriate manner.
She had once previously sat down with me and told me about this pattern
in his presence.
Appropriate
behavioral interventions were decided upon for use in the foster home
and the adoptive home. Basically they would respond to this kind of
behavior in the same way as any other inappropriate behavior, (say
stealing food), and not permit it to be an occasion for a lot of focus
on sex. In addition, however, we decided that these incidents needed to
become a part of the material that I processed with Eric in play
therapy. In order to accomplish this it was decided to have Eric join
me and the adoptive and the foster mothers just before our session, and
have them describe their concerns in my presence, without a lot of
extensive discussion. This happened, and I then began my individual
session with Eric.
I serve snacks,
as usual, and while we eat our sweets and juice, I talk with him about
the incidents. I mention that his foster mother had told me that he
called his penis "Willie." He confirms this. I spend some time going
over material that we had previously discussed in the context of
reading the "Curiosity Book." This is a book that was prepared for our
program to serve four purposes: 1. To validate and satisfy the child's
curiosity about bodies and the things bodies can do. 2. To create a
positive attitude toward the body, and reduce shame. 3. To open up
discussion between therapist and children. 4. To spell out some of the
most basic social rules about how we use our bodies, let others use
them, and about how we treat others. The basic thrust of what I was
saying, as it pertained to the present situation, was boiled down to
the idea that he really does need to take the rules seriously or he
will endanger some of the things he very much wants in life, just as
Joseph did. I go on to suggest, however, that if he lets Willie have
some good feelings in ways that are harmless and private, then Willie
might be willing to be more compliant with regard to society's rules.
This entails, of course, permission to masturbate. In reviewing this I
once again run up against negative attitudes about the body. He denies
ever playing with himself, or even understanding how one might go about
doing it. As we discuss this I mention how a boy sometimes gets an
erection. He denies that this ever happens to him. I express mild
surprise, and suggest that I think it happens to all boys. He says that
is gross. I say that it is not gross, only private. I am quite
insistent. Although skeptical, he is obviously interested in what I am
saying.
He then signals
his wish to move away from the discussion format and move into a play
format. He picks up a toy gun and very carefully aims it at one of my
fingers. Then he aims it, equally carefully, at the end of my nose. He
is not shooting randomly, or simply to kill me, but to sever an
appendage. "If I shot you here," he asks, indicating my finger, "would
it blow it off?" Although the obvious association in my own mind has to
do with castration anxiety, I am not at once clear what this means in
the present context, or how I should best respond. Keeping it focused
on a non-interpretive level I simply answer that I supposed it would
depend on the size of the gun. I think he might be experiencing the
attack on some of "Willie's" behavior as a kind of castration. It also
occurs to me that our conversation about very intimate and sexual
things may have raised concerns on his part that he might be at risk of
sexual advances from me, and thus he might feel the need to disarm me,
(or disfinger me so to speak). As I am wondering about all this, he
moves on to the next phase of play.
He sets the gun
down beside me and goes to the play house. There he takes an adult male
doll and acts out a scenario in which this doll begins tearing up the
house. Acting out the role I think he wants from me, I pick up the gun
and shoot it at the man. (I cannot recall what he did or said that made
me think he wanted me in this role, but I was trying to follow his
intentions. Whether I introduced a new element in the play here, or
responded to some sign on his part that I don't remember, I'm not
sure.) He seems to be pleased with this development. The man dies in a
very dramatic manner. Eric then finds a baby doll.
"Now he comes
back to life as a baby," he explains.
My speculation
is that the man I shot represents the merging of the phallic and
aggressive impulses that we saw in his sexualized approaches to his
foster mom, and that Eric witnessed in Joseph's molestation of Nancy.
It was the same combination that was under attack by his foster and
adoptive mothers before the session. It has the potential of destroying
the home. With Joseph this had happened. This personality construct is
dangerous to himself as well as to others. It is akin to the aggressive
self that got him put into foster care earlier and may, at least in his
mind, have done irreparable damage to his adoptive home. The man cannot
simply be killed once and for all, however. It contains aspects of
himself that must be preserved if he is to attain an integration that
includes his whole self. These aspects of his self re-emerge in the
image of the child.
At this point
his instructions were quite clear. I am to shoot at the baby. I do so,
but always only hit an object close to it. Then he begins hiding the
baby in various places. First under the bed, then behind a chest of
drawers etc. Each time, I shoot at the object. He knocks the object
away, and the baby goes and hides again. This goes on for quite some
time. He becomes especially pre-occupied with hiding the baby in the
toilet. First it is in the toilet bowl, and then in the space down
below the toilet bowl. This is repeated several times. Finally it goes
to the refrigerator and hides in the freezing compartment.
I feel that
this new figure, the persecuted infant, is, like Willie, a composite
figure. It is a representation of his own unsatisfied infantile longing
to return to his original mother, and get from her what he never had,
and at the same time it is a representation of his penis. I make no
interpretation to him, but in my own mind I understand the
penis-presenting-as-an-infant to signify the return of his love
energies to their deepest infantile center.
The toilet also
seemed significant. One could point out that the baby hid behind or
under almost every object in the house, and that to dwell on the toilet
bowl is to over-interpret, as those of us interested in symbolic
communication may be prone to do. However, the time and attention given
to hiding in this particular object was significantly greater than any
other place, so perhaps some speculations on the toilet's significance
might be in place. The toilet is, of course, associated with the penis
as the place where one urinates. But the entire baby was crammed into
the toilet, in every way imaginable. I think the primary reference is
to the baby who was thrown away by the mother. Garbage and shit are
thrown away. I think that foster children often think of themselves as
being worthless like shit, and that this is a major source of the
pervasive low self esteem that one regularly encounters in them. Thus,
the baby is found in the place where shit is discarded. This is the
devalued and long ago discarded infant coming back to fight for life.
But now, by virtue of being associated with a forbidden phallic charge
of eros, which he says is "gross," the baby is contaminated anew.
Furthermore, the baby is not only that which his mother threw away, but
that aspect of himself which he also threw away, its being too painful
to dwell on its pain, its identity, and its unfulfillable longings.
Nobody, it seems, wants this baby.
Up until this
point I have tried simply to follow his lead. Here, however, I want to
say something. At the same time I want to remain within the language
and the sequence of the play situation he created. So I stop shooting
and say, "I don't feel right shooting at this baby. I want to make
friends with him." And I refuse to shoot him anymore. This is my effort
to say I am in some sense on the side of the libidinal self, and that
this true even though, in the previous hour with two mothers, I was
also on side of mothers in so far as they were insisting on acceptable
social behavior. The baby comes out of the play house, gets the gun,
and shoots me, expressing his anger at me, probably for allowing him to
be embarrassed by letting his mothers confront him on the sexual
matters in my presence, and for affirming with them the need for firm
social limits. I think he shoots me also as an expression of his
mistrust of my sincerity in trying to align with his needs.
Then Eric
stands in the center of the room, holding the baby, and looking sort of
lost. He says, speaking for the baby, "I want my mother...I mean my
magic." The slip that he immediately corrects expresses his deeper
longing for the lost mother---probably both his adoptive mother, where
he cannot presently live, and his biological mother. Here we are very
close to an open acknowledgment of the needs of his innermost
self---what Guntrip refers to as the "lost heart of the self." But the
slip also suggests that it is his sexuality, his "magic" that is tied
up with the longing for mother.
Eric's magic is
his phallic power. He retrieves this and, seeming to regret having shot
me, he uses the magic powers of the baby to heal me (he simply points
at me and says "zap'" and I am healed). His love makes me well (I am
re-instated as a benign and helpful object in his world). We are
friends. In terms of my agenda, he and I have at this point made a
therapeutic alliance to try to help the phallic boy with his needs for
love, acceptance and security, even though this must be balanced by an
affirmation on my part that he must meet his needs within an acceptable
social framework.
Although I am
not at this point identified with the persecutory anti-libidinal
object, that figure doesn't simply dissolve into thin air. Eric creates
a loud, very aggressive man, whom he enacts. He gets the gun and shoots
both me and the baby. I am killed but the baby is able to defend itself
from this attack with its own magic. This baby has control of all the
magic power. He is a phallic baby. The baby shoots back at the man with
magic power and after a long and terrible struggle in which the baby is
wounded to the point of death several times, the baby emerges
victorious, and kills the man. Then he revives me again with his magic
power. Baby has the power of reviving me when I am shot. The magic
power of the baby can, as I suggested to him, be used either
aggressively or as a healing power.
The hostile man
comes back to life. We try to make friends with him. He seems to go
along with this, but he is lying to us. At the first opportunity he
betrays us and starts shooting us again. There is a new battle much
like the old one. I think at the time that this man represents the
anti-libidinal forces of the outside world. Probably he also represents
one aspect of a split image of myself, that correspond to his
unresolved ambivalence about whether he can really trust me. The theme
of betrayal suggests this to me.
Then Eric says
something about "Willie in my head." This is not very clear, and my few
attempts to get clarity are rejected. Without the aid of associations
or further clarifications from him with regard to the meaning of this
odd comment, I can only speculate. Willie as a representation of his
inner-most, needy self is, in my mind, almost identical to the phallic
boy---is simply a different metaphor representing the same psychic
reality. Willie may have come into his head at this point simply
because of his strong association with the baby. It is in part this
association that gives me some confidence in my interpretation of the
baby as a phallic child.
Returning to
the hostile man, it seems likely that this is a composite image not
just of the anti-libidinal others, but also includes that aspect of
himself that would attack the infant. Why would some aspect of himself
wish to do this? Beyond his identification with important loved adult
figures who have to some extent taken an anti-libidinal position, he
has reason to fear his own lost heart. Fear of making himself
vulnerable to a world he does not trust to be responsive to his inner
needs would be the primary reason for this fear. No one wishes to
experience the pain of acknowledging a need that one fears can never be
met. The deepest defense against the pain of not having enough food is
the denial of hunger. Additionally, in Eric's case, acknowledging the
denied inner needs of the self means to re-experience the pain caused
by those life experiences that thwarted these needs being met in the
past. It also entails the risk of letting oneself love real people,
both therapist and significant others in Eric's case. In view of past
abandonments, this is a dangerous matter indeed. The fear of living
within one's deepest needs, I believe, leads to the libidinal energies
detaching themselves from their true and deepest wishes and aims, and
to their fusing with an angry deprived self to produce a figure who
both attacks the inner child\phallus, and seeks gratification in an
unsocialized manner. This is the beginning of an asocial false self.
Finally the
baby and I succeed in killing the hostile man. Our time is up for this
session.
THEORETICAL
IMPLICATIONS
I would have us
focus on the child\phallus that emerged as the dominant figure in the
10\7\94 session. How are we best able to understand this curious
figure? We have described him as being both phallus and innermost needy
self. He is "Willie" in a slightly different guise. He is both Eric's
penis and his desire to return to his lost love, the mother who
abandoned him.
Trying to
understand the phallic child in the classical freudian manner, as a
physiological tension needing discharge is grossly inadequate. The
phallic child seeks to restore a lost relationship---it wants mother,
he is not seeking just any object to discharge himself upon.
Furthermore he doesn't want just any mother. It wants the "real
mother." The one beloved. Willie also points to the desire to escape
captivity, and to return to his own people. Here, not only the broken
attachment with the mother is suggested, but the desire to discover his
emotional, cultural and racial roots. To reduce all this rich imagery
to a desire for the reduction of physiological tension clearly requires
us to disregard most of the obvious meanings contained in the images.
We cannot build a truly scientific psychology on the basis of limiting
our understanding of the data by narrowly pre-conceived notions of what
the data can and cannot mean. The imagery that Eric presents us with
overflows the Freudian container at every point.
At first glance
attachment theory appears more promising as conceptual structures that
might be adequate to bring clarity to Eric's imagery. Clearly, lost
attachments are at issue. But the attachment perspective does not seem
to do justice to the central place of sexuality in this situation. The
connection between both "Willie" and the baby to the phallus and to the
desires of the phallus is unmistakable. Nor, I think, can we simply say
that Eric is using sexual imagery to symbolize things that are not
intrinsically sexual. Everything points to the central role of the
sexual drive in the dynamics of Eric's life struggles. The sexualized
behavior, the nature of the imagery, and the fact that this imagery
emerged in the context of a session in which we had just been
addressing the issue of his channeling his sexual energy in acceptable
ways, all point in this direction.
Freudian theory
and attachment theory each shed light to some degree on the meaning of
the phallic child. Yet when we try to remain true to the data, each of
these theories falls short. It seems to me that this dilemma can an be
resolved only when it is understood that sexual desire itself carries
within itself the desire for specific types of object relations. As
Fairbairn suggests, the goal of libidinal striving is not pleasure but
the object. The fantasies and inner mental representations of self and
others motivated by the sexual drive are not produced by the psyche
simply to provide an occasion for the discharge of physiological
tension. Nor are the others, themselves, sought after simply as
occasions for instinctual discharge. From birth onward sexuality seeks
union with the beloved. In terms of attachment theory, the sexual drive
is intrinsically concerned with exactly those things that Bowlby
describes as characteristic of attachment needs: specificity, duration,
engagement of emotion, and organization in relation to a bond with
another human being. (Footnote, pp 130, 131 Bowlby, The Making and
Breaking....) In all healthy sexuality it is precisely this connection
between desire and object relations that is observed. Sexuality must be
conceived of, then, as a vehicle or an instrument that serves a larger
purpose in the personality. It is a phenomenon that must be understood
in a larger context. Fairbairn, and Guntrip following him, refer to
this larger purpose as "libido." In taking the liberty of re-defining
this basic term from Freudian theory, they take the entire structure of
psychoanalytic thought, and place it on a new foundation. What can be
said of this "libido," this larger purpose, or this broader context?
Even a brief
glance at ethology suggests something of the nature of the larger
purpose. Clearly, sexuality in other species is best understood as just
one aspect of a total motivational pattern involving courting a spouse,
coitus, birthing, preparing a home for the young, feeding the young,
protecting the young, and teaching the young. The total pattern looks
quite different, obviously, from species to species, but at least when
animals have reached the level of mammals or birds, the sex drive can
only be adequately understood as a part of an entire motivational and
behavioral pattern. If a bird or a deer became fixated on the pleasure
provided by the act of mating, and did not move on the engage itself in
the unfolding of the entire behavioral sequence, we would suggest that
the animals normal behavioral sequence, the entire gestalt of its
behavior, had somehow been sidetracked. I would suggest that this is
true even when the animal is a human being.
In a similar
manner, the motivational and behavioral sequences observed with regard
to oral desires in infants must be understood is part of a larger
gestalt. Infantile oral libidinal striving seeks an entire pattern of
experiences in the context of a relationship with particular others who
feed, protect, groom, and comfort it, and who provide it with a secure
base from which to venture forth to explore the world. Data on the
marasmus babies show us that when the baby fails to establish itself in
this entire relationship gestalt, it dies. (Foot notes on Sptiz, first
year of life and Montagu, Touching.) Neither food, nor oral stimulation
by itself, suffices. I would go on to suggest that, as the child
matures, libidinal urges provide the motivational energy for new
behavioral sequences until, in the adult, it motivates the parent to
attach to the young and provide it with the behavioral responses that
complement the child's own striving.
There are
advantages and disadvantages to retaining the word, "libido," with a
new definition to designate this multifaceted seeking for loving
relationships. I would suggest that it might be preferable to use the
word "Eros" to designate the larger "purpose," "drive" or motivational
urge we are pointing to. (Footnote--Eros and Wholeness) Eros can be
defined as the desire for attachments that facilitate the survival and
development of the self. As object relations theory has made clear, for
example in Kohut's concept to the "self-object," development of the
self takes place only in the context of committed, particular and
intimate relationships with others. Another way of putting it is that
eros is the desire for self-completing attachments, or, ultimately, the
desire for wholeness. It is simultaneously the desire for self
development and the desire for establishing a satisfying network of
relationships around the self. Guntrip summarizes the matter nicely.
"The deepest thing in any human being must be, to use Bergson's term,
an elan vital, a life force, a positive dynamic 'will to live'
expressing itself in what psychoanalysis has called 'libido'. The
'libido' is too narrowly conceived if held to connote simply 'sexual
libido' which is only one aspect of the living whole of the person. In
Fairbairn's view 'libido' must be regarded, not as a thing-in-itself,
but as the object-seeking drive of the primary natural ego or psychic
self. The basic drive to object relations is at the same time the drive
to self-development and self-fulfillment as a person. The importance of
object-relations lies in the fact that without them the ego cannot
develop." (Italics in the original.) Guntrip pg. 91.
Eros or
"libido" channels itself through oral, phallic and and tactile
pathways. It may involve itself in the reduction of tensions related to
hunger, or to the fear of dangerous environmental situations. But as a
motivational urge, Eros is first and foremost about establishing the
protective, nurturing and facilitating relationships Eros, whether it
is momentarily occupied with physiological tensions, hunger, safety
needs, or the need for personal validation, is primarily and
intrinsically social in nature. It is precisely when eros becomes
unhinged from the desire for attachment to specific significant others
that psychopathology enters into the situation. It is only in
disturbances of the personality that sexual energies detach themselves
from their true aims, fuse with aggressive energies, and pursue aims
that are both anti-social and alienated from the libidinal needs of the
true self. In making a similar point about seeking out sexual partners
simply for the reduction of physiological tension rather than for
significant attachments, Viktor Frankl says, "this brings to mind the
well-known phenomenon observed in cases of sexual neurosis. We often
hear such patients speak of 'masturbating on a woman' by which they
mean they sometimes 'use' their partners simply for the purposes of
reducing sexual tension. ....It must not be forgotten, however, that
such cases are neurotic and, hence, abnormal."
We have
postulated the existence of a holistic, relationship and self
development seeking force at the core of the personality, and have
labeled this "eros." We have gone on to suggest that this force finds
expression in a variety of ways, or that it is channeled through a
number of pathways. Specifically we have mentioned genital desires,
tactile desires, the desire to be fed or to feed, and the desire for
safety.
There are two
ways in which we can conceptualize the relationship between eros and
the need systems with which it typically becomes connected. First, we
can think of it as an independent force in the personality that seeks
to organize various other independent components of one's self and
situation into a larger meaningful pattern. In that case our needs for
food, touch, sexual discharge, and safety are viewed as having a life
and meaning of their own even though they may, at times, become
vehicles for the expression of Eros. Eating would be a good example.
One can seek union with the mother at her breast, or one can simply eat
a hamburger because one's belly is empty. Physical hunger then, can be
an arena for the expression of eros between mother and child, but in
its own essence it is separate. The same could be said of each of the
other specific expressions. Seeking safety may be, when the child
cuddles in the protective arms of mother or father, an occasion for
strengthening the bonds of eros, but in itself, the desire for safety
is more concerned with not being eaten by tigers than with bonding with
the significant other. Likewise, sexual desires would, in the Freudian
sense, be in their essence simply the felt need for discharge of
painful tension, but might also be the occasion for the development of
a deeper bonding with the one who gives pleasure.
Perhaps a cigar
is sometimes just a cigar. At times, even, a hamburger may just be a
hamburger. Perhaps sometimes a need for sex is just a need for sex,
even though at other times it can be integrated into a larger purpose.
But there is reason to doubt this. I think that this first way of
looking at the relationship between the need systems doesn't do justice
to the profound manner in which all specific need systems are infused
with the energies of Eros. It is true that one can eat alone, get one's
tactile needs attended to by putting a quarter in the machine that
vibrates the bed, protect oneself by a mechanical lock at the door, or
masturbate in the privacy of one's own bed. But one wishes to be fed,
to feed, or at least to eat with others. To eat and cook by oneself and
for oneself is lonely. One wishes to be touched by another, conscious
human being. One wishes to be protected by another, or to protect
others, or a least to huddle together for mutual protection. And
masturbation itself is hardly possible without images in one's mind of
the longed for significant other. To have any of these needs satisfied
outside the context of meaningful human relationships is always
experienced at best as something one settles for. It is never the
experience most deeply longed for. In fact what we observe is that from
birth onward all of our need systems are deeply infused with social and
erotic meaning. We wish for all our needs to be met in the context of
stable relationships with significant others. To settle for less always
reflects a disturbance of our deepest needs.
There would
seem to be little justification for asserting that the social needs
emerge out of our experience of having other needs met in a social
context. We observe, rather, this longing for satisfying all needs in a
meaningful social context from the beginning of the developmental
process. We are born with the desire to re-establish a lost unity with
another human being, a unity that is sought from a new base of
differentiation in a baby now outside the mother. To seek this new
balance between unity and individuality is the very essence of
infantile oral sexuality. The social needs are never absent.
Eros, the need
for self-completing human relationships, can best be conceived of as
primary in human experience. All other need systems are partial and
incomplete expressions of Eros that find their true meaning and
fulfillment only in the context of our relationships with beloved
others. People will not normally commit suicide for lack of back
scratches, for lack of opportunities for sexual gratification, in
response to physical danger, or even because of deprivation of adequate
food. People can, and do in fact, waste away or commit suicide because
they are alienated from meaningful relationships with others even when
all other needs can be readily satisfied. This perhaps, suggests that
hunger, sex, safety and tactile needs are the secondary needs, and are
instrumental to the larger purposes of Eros. They are like limbs on a
tree. The trunk and root that gather and supply the energy to the other
need systems is Eros.
Sexuality, as
one aspect or manifestation of Eros, is intrinsically informed with the
deepest yearnings of the person for those meaningful human
relationships in which he or she can develop the full potentialities of
the self, and provide others with a similar opportunity. This insight
provide the clue to reconciling the Freudian notion that sexuality is
the primary drive that brings us into relationship and attachment
theory's idea that the primary longing is for satisfactory, stable
attached relationships disappears.
Eros, the fount
of all desire in the human psyche, is social and relationship-seeking
from birth, and in normal development, continues to be so throughout
the life cycle. To believe that a seething cauldron of a-social powers
in a primitive Id is at the deepest level of the human psyche is to
believe in a boogie man in the closet where none exists. This image is
created by our own fears. It reflects a profound mistrust of the
ultimate nature of sexuality and of human nature itself, and is based
on observations of human beings who have already been deeply hurt and
distorted in their capacity to love.
With this
modification of theory, perhaps we are now better able to understand
Eric and his image of the child\phallus. Eric does not want to rape
anybody. He does not long for adult sexual relationships with a woman.
The child phallus is, rather, a powerful symbol of Eric's love, as it
exists on the deepest level. It is a love that so pervades his whole
being that he is himself phallic in his totality. It speaks of his wish
to be re-united with the lost mother, the first beloved who abandoned
him so painfully so many years ago.
Eric's
libidinal feelings are also tied up in his feelings about me, as his
therapist. But again, he is primarily seeking here neither discharge of
physiological tension, nor adult genital relations. He seeks in me to
find a transitional secure base from which to explore his loses, his
needs and his loves. He desires a guide who will help him strategize a
way to get his developmental process back on track after it has been
de-railed by traumatic events. With regard to both his mother and me,
his libidinal strivings are not primarily about release of
physiological tension, or about adult genital aims; his strivings in
each case are about being united with a secure human base in the
context of which he can continue to develop as a human being.
To the extent
that repression is a factor in this case, Eric is not repressing a
violent Id who wishes to roam the countryside raping and pillaging in
defiance of society's rules. He is repressing very fragile and human
longings for relationships. He is attempting to protect himself against
a vulnerability that previously received grievous injury. Certainly on
one level Eric is the hostile child who is angry about his injuries.
But on a deeper level he is a mistrustful child who longs for the
beloved in whose arms he can grow. To understand Eric through his image
of the child\phallus is not to deny the central importance of libidinal
strivings in his life; it is to understand these libidinal strivings in
terms of their true developmental, interpersonal and human meanings. A
careful merging of Freudian, object relations, and attachment theories
will facilitate this kind of understanding of Eric and other clients
like him.
Summary
The nature of
the drive toward forming and maintaining intense attachments with other
human beings has been examined in the light of case material from the
play therapy sessions of a ten year old boy. The primary question
addressed concerns the relationship of the attachment drive to other
drive systems. Freudian theory, object relations theory, and attachment
theory present competing paradigms for understanding the relationship
between the drives. The Freudian paradigm sees human attachment as
derivative from other drives, especially the sexual drive. In
developing his attachment theory, Bowlby broke from the classical
Freudian view. He postulated attachment as a primary and autonomous
drive. Object relations theory, by contrast, sees sexuality as one
manifestation of a more fundamental drive that is intrinsically
relationship seeking. Each of these traditions has contributed to our
understanding of human reality. A careful examination of the clinical
material, however, strongly suggests that a drive toward relationship
is intrinsic to libidinal energy. It is therefore concluded that the
understanding of the relationship between the drives based on object
relations theory provides us with the most adequate framework within
which to understand the clinical material.
References
Bowlby, J.
(1979). The
Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. New York:
Routledge.
Guntrip, H.
((1968). Schizoid
Phenomena, Object Relations, and the Self. New York:
International Universities Press.
De Waal, F.
(1989). Peacemaking
Among Primates. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Spitz, R.
(1965). The
First Year of Life: A Psychoanalytic Study of Normal and Deviant
Development of Object Relations. New York:
International Universities Press.
Monagu, A.
(1978). Touching:
The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Harper and
Row.
Hunter, J.
(1981). Eros and Wholeness. Journal
of Religion and Health, 22, 175-190.
Frankl, V.
(1960). Beyond Self-actualization and Self-expression. Journal
of Existential Psychiatry, 1, 5-20.