Sexuality in Old and New Psychoanalysis

We have seen how Freud's grand theory of sexual drives and the Oedipus complex were invented by him as defences against his traumatic attachment history. Far better to imagine himself as a young warrior—an Oedipus—in combat with a king-like father, then the helpless little boy he had been, overwhelmed with fears of loss, a child whose actual father was a failure. Unfortunately, his sexual theories became the shibboleths of classical analysis and were forced on patients no matter what their actual life experiences had been.

The case of Jessie is the clearest example of the destructive effects of classical psychoanalysis as treatment. She was told that the sexual molestation at age eight was brought on by her sexual fantasies, the effect of having a mother who resented and did not love her was not dealt with, her husband's mistreatment ignored, and her legitimate desire to realise her intellectual potential labelled "penis envy". Lest the reader think this example is an exaggeration, in many respects it was typical of the practice of many classical Freudians. In her wonderful memoir, The Last Good Freudian, Brenda Webster recounts her experiences with several prominent psychoanalysts during the same era. The worst was Anna Maenchen, who had been analysed by Anna Freud in Vienna, and was cold and critical with Webster, her version of analytic "neutrality" and "abstinence". She completely ignored the reality of both her childhood with a deeply disturbed, suicidal mother, and her marriage to an emotionally abusive man. All was interpreted with the usual Freudian formulae: "For years Maenchen had told me that my guilt and bad feelings about myself came from penis envy which, she said, provided much of the energy behind my drive to work" (Webster, 2000, p. 151).

The case of Frank illustrates how contemporary psychoanalytic ideas better explain the dominance of sexuality in his life. It was not due to a powerful libidinal drive, nor to Oedipal rivalry. Or, to take another of Freud's invalid ideas—for example, in his analysis of Schreber—Frank's preoccupation with sexuality was not a defence against latent homosexual impulses. Rather, the evidence revealed that his quest for sexual pleasure of a particular type was an attempt to obtain the maternal love he missed as a small child. As he said at one point, what he learned to do to survive his barren childhood was now the cause of trouble in his adult life. Ideas from attachment theory, as well as an understanding of the emotional-physical mode of thought characteristic of the earliest years, were crucial in understanding the sexualisation of his relationships with women.

And, finally, in my own case, we see how the individual complexities of my family experience must be understood to explain the sexual and related inhibitions that I struggled with. For all these cases, no one grand theory or law could be applied: each case had to be understood in its uniqueness. Sexual conflicts, and all other psychological disturbances and adaptations, must be individually worked out over time.