are so eager to maintain, the sexual ‘purity’ of children, even if you
can convince me that the infant’s activities had better not be regarded
as sexual. For from the third year onwards there is no longer any doubt
about sexual life in the child; at this period the genital organs begin
already to show signs of excitation; there is a perhaps regular period
of infantile masturbation, that is, of gratification in the genital
organs. The mental and social sides of sexual life need no longer be
overlooked: choice of object, distinguishing of particular persons with
affection, even decision in favour of one sex or the other, and
jealousy, were conclusively established independently by impartial
observation before the time of psycho-analysis; they may be confirmed by
any observer who will use his eyes. You will object that you never
doubted the early awakening of affection but only that this affection
was of a ‘sexual’ quality. Children between the ages of three and eight
have certainly learnt to conceal this element in it; but nevertheless if
you look attentively you will collect enough evidence of the ‘sensual’
nature of this affection, and whatever still escapes your notice will be
amply and readily supplied by analytic investigation. The sexual aims in
this period of life are in closest connection with the sexual curiosity
arising at the same time, of which I have given you some description.
The perverse character of some of these aims is a natural result of the
immature constitution of the child who has not yet discovered the aim of
the act of intercourse.
From about the sixth or eighth year onwards a standstill or
retrogression is observed in the sexual development, which in those
cases reaching a high cultural standard deserves to be called a _latency
period_. This latency period, however, may be absent; nor does it
necessarily entail an interruption of sexual activities and sexual
interests over the whole field. Most of the mental experiences and
excitations occurring before the latency period then succumb to the
infantile amnesia, already discussed, which veils our earliest childhood
from us and estranges us from it. It is the task of every
psycho-analysis to bring this forgotten period of life back into
recollection; one cannot resist the supposition that the beginnings of
sexual life belonging to this period are the motive for this forgetting,
that is, that this oblivion is an effect of repression.
From the third year onwards the sexual life of children shows much in
common with that of adults; it is differentiated from the latter, as we
already know, by the absence of a stable organization under the primacy
of the genital organs, by inevitable traits of a perverse order, and of
course also by far less intensity in the whole impulse. But those phases
of the sexual development, or as we will call it, of the
_Libido-development_, which are of greatest interest theoretically lie
before this period. This development is gone through so rapidly that
direct observation alone would perhaps never have succeeded in
determining its fleeting forms. Only by the help of psycho-analytic
investigation of the neuroses has it become possible to penetrate so far
back and to discover these still earlier phases of Libido-development.
These phases are certainly only theoretic constructions, but in the
practice of psycho-analysis you will find them necessary and valuable
constructions. You will soon understand how it happens that a
pathological condition enables us to discover phenomena which we should
certainly overlook in normal conditions.
Thus we can now define the forms taken by the sexual life of the child
before the primacy of the genital zone is reached; this primacy is
prepared for in the early infantile period, before the latent period,
and is permanently organized from puberty onwards. In this early period
a loose sort of organization exists which we shall call _pre-genital_;
for during this phase it is not the genital component-instincts, but the
_sadistic_ and _anal_, which are most prominent. The contrast between
_masculine_ and _feminine_ plays no part as yet; instead of it there is
the contrast between _active_ and _passive_, which may be described as
the forerunner of the sexual polarity with which it also links up later.
That which in this period seems masculine to us, regarded from the
standpoint of the genital phase, proves to be the expression of an
impulse to mastery, which easily passes over into cruelty. Impulses with
a passive aim are connected with the erotogenic zone of the rectal
orifice, at this period very important; the impulses of skoptophilia
(gazing) and curiosity are powerfully active; the function of excreting
urine is the only part actually taken by the genital organ in the sexual
life. Objects are not wanting to the component-instincts in this period,
but these objects are not necessarily all comprised in one object. The
sadistic-anal organization is the stage immediately preceding the phase
of primacy of the genital zone. Closer study reveals how much of it is
retained intact in the later final structure, and what are the paths by
which these component-instincts are forced into the service of the new
_genital organization_. Behind the sadistic-anal phase of the
Libido-development we obtain a glimpse of an even more primitive stage
of development, in which the erotogenic mouth zone plays the chief part.
You can guess that the sexual activity of sucking (for its own sake)
belongs to this stage; and you may admire the understanding of the
ancient Egyptians in whose art a child, even the divine Horus, was
represented with a finger in the mouth. Abraham has quite recently
published work showing that traces of this primitive _oral_ phase of
development survive in the sexual life of later years.
I can indeed imagine that you will have found this last information
about the sexual organizations less of an enlightenment than an
infliction. Perhaps I have again gone too much into detail; but have
patience! what you have just heard will be of more use when we employ it
later. Keep in view at the moment the idea that the sexual life—the
_Libido-function_, as we call it—does not first spring up in its final
form, does not even expand along the lines of its earliest forms, but
goes through a series of successive phases unlike one another; in short,
that many changes occur in it, like those in the development of the
caterpillar into the butterfly. The turning-point of this development is
the _subordination of all the sexual component-instincts under the
primacy of the genital zone_ and, together with this, the enrolment of
sexuality in the service of the reproductive function. Before this
happens the sexual life is, so to say, disparate—independent activities
of single component-impulses each seeking _organ-pleasure_ (pleasure in
a bodily organ). This anarchy is modified by attempts at _pre_-genital
‘organizations,’ of which the chief is the sadistic-anal phase, behind
which is the oral, perhaps the most primitive. In addition there are the
various processes, about which little is known as yet, which effect the
transition from one stage of organization to the next above it. Of what
significance this long journey over so many stages in the development of
the Libido is for comprehension of the neuroses we shall learn later on.
To-day we will follow up another aspect of this development—namely, the
relation of the sexual component-impulses to an _object_; or, rather, we
will take a fleeting glimpse over this development so that we may spend
more time upon a comparatively late result of it. Certain of the
component-impulses of the sexual instinct have an object from the very
beginning and hold fast to it: such are the impulse to mastery (sadism),
to gazing (skoptophilia) and curiosity. Others, more plainly connected
with particular erotogenic areas in the body, only have an object in the
beginning, so long as they are still dependent upon the non-sexual
functions, and give it up when they become detached from these latter.
Thus the first object of the oral component of the sexual instinct is
the mother’s breast which satisfies the infant’s need for nutrition. In
the act of sucking for its own sake (_lutschen_) the erotic component,
also gratified in sucking for nutrition (_saugen_), makes itself
independent, gives up the object in an external person, and replaces it
by a part of the child’s own person. The oral impulse becomes
_auto-erotic_, as the anal and other erotogenic impulses are from the
beginning. Further development has, to put it as concisely as possible,
two aims: first, to renounce auto-erotism, to give up again the object
found in the child’s own body in exchange again for an external one; and
secondly, to combine the various objects of the separate impulses and
replace them by one single one. This naturally can only be done if the
single object is again itself complete, with a body like that of the
subject; nor can it be accomplished without some part of the auto-erotic
impulse-excitations being abandoned as useless.
The processes by which an object is found are rather involved, and have
not so far received comprehensive exposition. For our purposes it may be
emphasized that, when the process has reached a certain point in the
years of childhood before the latency period, the object adopted proves
almost identical with the first object of the oral pleasure impulse,
adopted by reason of the child’s dependent relationship to it; it is,
namely, the mother, although not the mother’s breast. We call the mother
the first _love_-object. We speak of ‘love’ when we lay the accent upon
the mental side of the sexual impulses and disregard, or wish to forget
for a moment, the demands of the fundamental physical or ‘sensual’ side
of the impulses. At about the time when the mother becomes the
love-object, the mental operation of repression has already begun in the
child and has withdrawn from him the knowledge of some part of his
sexual aims. Now with this choice of the mother as love-object is
connected all that which, under the name of ‘_the Oedipus complex_,’ has
become of such great importance in the psycho-analytic explanation of
the neuroses, and which has had a perhaps equally important share in
causing the opposition against psycho-analysis.
Here is a little incident which occurred during the present war. One of
the staunch adherents of psycho-analysis was stationed in his medical
capacity on the German front in Poland; he attracted the attention of
his colleagues by the fact that he occasionally effected an unexpected
influence upon a patient. On being questioned, he admitted that he
worked with psycho-analytic methods and with readiness agreed to impart
his knowledge to his colleagues. So every evening the medical men of the
corps, his colleagues and superiors, met to be initiated into the
mysteries of psycho-analysis. For a time all went well; but when he had
introduced his audience to the Oedipus complex a superior officer rose
and announced that he did not believe this, it was the behaviour of a
cad for the lecturer to relate such things to brave men, fathers of
families, who were fighting for their country, and he forbade the
continuation of the lectures. This was the end; the analyst got himself
transferred to another part of the front. In my opinion, however, it is
a bad outlook if a victory for German arms depends upon an
‘organization’ of science such as this, and German science will not
prosper under any such organization.
Now you will be impatiently waiting to hear what this terrible Oedipus
complex comprises. The name tells you: you all know the Greek myth of
King Oedipus, whose destiny it was to slay his father and to wed his
mother, who did all in his power to avoid the fate prophesied by the
oracle, and who in self-punishment blinded himself when he discovered
that in ignorance he had committed both these crimes. I trust that many
of you have yourselves experienced the profound effect of the tragic
drama fashioned by Sophocles from this story. The Attic poet’s work
portrays the gradual discovery of the deed of Oedipus, long since
accomplished, and brings it slowly to light by skilfully prolonged
enquiry, constantly fed by new evidence; it has thus a certain
resemblance to the course of a psycho-analysis. In the dialogue the
deluded mother-wife, Jocasta, resists the continuation of the enquiry;
she points out that many people in their dreams have mated with their
mothers, but that dreams are of no account. To us dreams are of much
account, especially typical dreams which occur in many people; we have
no doubt that the dream Jocasta speaks of is intimately related to the
shocking and terrible story of the myth.
It is surprising that Sophocles’ tragedy does not call forth indignant
remonstrance in its audience; this reaction would be much better
justified in them than it was in the blunt army doctor. For at bottom it
is an immoral play; it sets aside the individual’s responsibility to
social law, and displays divine forces ordaining the crime and rendering
powerless the moral instincts of the human being which would guard him
against the crime. It would be easy to believe that an accusation
against destiny and the gods was intended in the story of the myth; in
the hands of the critical Euripides, at variance with the gods, it would
probably have become such an accusation. But with the reverent Sophocles
there is no question of such an intention; the pious subtlety which
declares it the highest morality to bow to the will of the gods, even
when they ordain a crime, helps him out of the difficulty. I do not
believe that this moral is one of the virtues of the drama, but neither
does it detract from its effect; it leaves the hearer indifferent; he
does not react to this, but to the secret meaning and content of the
myth itself. He reacts as though by self-analysis he had detected the
Oedipus complex in himself, and had recognized the will of the gods and
the oracle as glorified disguises of his own Unconscious; as though he
remembered in himself the wish to do away with his father and in his
place to wed his mother, and must abhor the thought. The poet’s words
seem to him to mean: “In vain do you deny that you are accountable, in
vain do you proclaim how you have striven against these evil designs.
You are guilty, nevertheless; for you could not stifle them; they still
survive unconsciously in you.” And psychological truth is contained in
this; even though man has repressed his evil desires into his
Unconscious and would then gladly say to himself that he is no longer
answerable for them, he is yet compelled to feel his responsibility in
the form of a sense of guilt for which he can discern no foundation.
There is no possible doubt that one of the most important sources of the
sense of guilt which so often torments neurotic people is to be found in
the Oedipus complex. More than this: in 1913, under the title of _Totem
und Tabu_, I published a study of the earliest forms of religion and
morality in which I expressed a suspicion that perhaps the sense of
guilt of mankind as a whole, which is the ultimate source of religion
and morality, was acquired in the beginnings of history through the
Oedipus complex. I should much like to tell you more of this, but I had
better not; it is difficult to leave this subject when once one begins
upon it, and we must return to individual psychology.
Now what does direct observation of children, at the period of
object-choice before the latency period, show us in regard to the
Oedipus complex? Well, it is easy to see that the little man wants his
mother all to himself, finds his father in the way, becomes restive when
the latter takes upon himself to caress her, and shows his satisfaction
when the father goes away or is absent. He often expresses his feelings
directly in words and promises his mother to marry her; this may not
seem much in comparison with the deeds of Oedipus, but it is enough in
fact; the kernel of each is the same. Observation is often rendered
puzzling by the circumstance that the same child on other occasions at
this period will display great affection for the father; but such
contrasting—or, better, _ambivalent_—states of feeling, which in adults
would lead to conflicts, can be tolerated alongside one another in the
child for a long time, just as later on they dwell together permanently
in the Unconscious. One might try to object that the little boy’s
behaviour is due to egoistic motives and does not justify the conception
of an erotic complex; the mother looks after all the child’s needs and
consequently it is to the child’s interest that she should trouble
herself about no one else. This too is quite correct; but it is soon
clear that in this, as in similar dependent situations, egoistic
interests only provide the occasion on which the erotic impulses seize.
When the little boy shows the most open sexual curiosity about his
mother, wants to sleep with her at night, insists on being in the room
while she is dressing, or even attempts physical acts of seduction, as
the mother so often observes and laughingly relates, the erotic nature
of this attachment to her is established without a doubt. Moreover, it
should not be forgotten that a mother looks after a little daughter’s
needs in the same way without producing this effect; and that often
enough a father eagerly vies with her in trouble for the boy without
succeeding in winning the same importance in his eyes as the mother. In
short, the factor of sex preference is not to be eliminated from the
situation by any criticisms. From the point of view of the boy’s
egoistic interests it would merely be foolish if he did not tolerate two
people in his service rather than only one of them.
As you see, I have only described the relationship of a boy to his
father and mother; things proceed in just the same way, with the
necessary reversal, in little girls. The loving devotion to the father,
the need to do away with the superfluous mother and to take her place,
the early display of coquetry and the arts of later womanhood, make up a
particularly charming picture in a little girl, and may cause us to
forget its seriousness and the grave consequences which may later result
from this situation. Let us not fail to add that frequently the parents
themselves exert a decisive influence upon the awakening of the Oedipus
complex in a child, by themselves following the sex attraction where
there is more than one child; the father in an unmistakable manner
prefers his little daughter with marks of tenderness, and the mother,
the son: but even this factor does not seriously impugn the spontaneous
nature of the infantile Oedipus complex. When other children appear, the
Oedipus complex expands and becomes a family complex. Reinforced anew by
the injury resulting to the egoistic interests, it actuates a feeling of
aversion towards these new arrivals and an unhesitating wish to get rid
of them again. These feelings of hatred are as a rule much more often
openly expressed than those connected with the parental complex. If such
a wish is fulfilled and after a short time death removes the unwanted
addition to the family, later analysis can show what a significant event
this death is for the child, although it does not necessarily remain in
memory. Forced into the second place by the birth of another child and
for the first time almost entirely parted from the mother, the child
finds it very hard to forgive her for this exclusion of him; feelings
which in adults we should describe as profound embitterment are roused
in him, and often become the groundwork of a lasting estrangement. That
sexual curiosity and all its consequences is usually connected with
these experiences has already been mentioned. As these new brothers and
sisters grow up the child’s attitude to them undergoes the most
important transformations. A boy may take his sister as love-object in
place of his faithless mother; where there are several brothers to win
the favour of a little sister hostile rivalry, of great importance in
after life, shows itself already in the nursery. A little girl takes an
older brother as a substitute for the father who no longer treats her
with the same tenderness as in her earliest years; or she takes a little
sister as a substitute for the child that she vainly wished for from her
father.
So much and a great deal more of a similar kind is shown by direct
observation of children, and by consideration of clear memories of
childhood, uninfluenced by any analysis. Among other things you will
infer from this that a child’s position in the sequence of brothers and
sisters is of very great significance for the course of his later life,
a factor to be considered in every biography. What is even more
important, however, is that in the face of these enlightening
considerations, so easily to be obtained, you will hardly recall without
smiling the scientific theories accounting for the prohibition of
incest. What has not been invented for this purpose! We are told that
sexual attraction is diverted from the members of the opposite sex in
one family owing to their living together from early childhood; or that
a biological tendency against in-breeding has a mental equivalent in the
horror of incest! Whereby it is entirely overlooked that no such
rigorous prohibitions in law and custom would be required if any
trustworthy natural barriers against the temptation to incest existed.
The opposite is the truth. The first choice of object in mankind is
regularly an incestuous one, directed to the mother and sister of men,
and the most stringent prohibitions are required to prevent this
sustained infantile tendency from being carried into effect. In the
savage and primitive peoples surviving to-day the incest prohibitions
are a great deal stricter than with us; Theodor Reik has recently shown
in a brilliant work that the meaning of the savage rites of puberty
which represent rebirth is the loosening of the boy’s incestuous
attachment to the mother and his reconciliation with the father.
Mythology will show you that incest, ostensibly so much abhorred by men,
is permitted to their gods without a thought; and from ancient history
you may learn that incestuous marriage with a sister was prescribed as a
sacred duty for kings (the Pharaohs of Egypt and the Incas of Peru); it
was therefore in the nature of a privilege denied to the common herd.