The Castration Complex

What is So Natural About Sexuality?

Mou Sultana

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Topic: Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429840678
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book illustrates that the Castration Complex and the question of the distinction between the sexes are enmeshed in psychoanalytic theories. The subjective negotiation of this distinction impacts the future sexual positions taken up (or not) by the subject, indicating that human sexuality is by no means a given or a natural occurrence in psychoanalysis.

Engagement with the psychoanalytic theory of castration provides the reader with a different perspective on the current society's insistence on gradually dissolving the differences between the sexes. For Freud, castration complex is the key to understanding the psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. For Lacan, castration introduces the subject to his/her very existence as a sexed being. Mou Sultana illustrates how these two revolutionary theorists came to such conclusions by close reading of the core texts, interpreting them and highlighting their relevance both within and outside the clinic of modern times.

CHAPTER ONE

The castration complex for Freud between 1907 and 1909

Introduction

This chapter will illustrate how, between 1907 and 1909, while the castration complex was at its inception stage, Freud perceived it as a moment where one infantile sexual theory of the universal existence of the penis is replaced with another: girls have been castrated (Evans, 1996, p. 21). At this stage, the castration complex was described by Freud as the discovery of anatomical differences that brings the necessary end to the sexual puzzlement of children and paves the way for their further psychosexual development. This is because only the discovery of the sexual differences allows children to enter the stage of the Oedipus complex where, subsequently, they acquire the psychical masculine and feminine characteristics that Freud found impossible to define. This phase in Freud’s formulation is examined by focusing on two Freudian texts from 1907 and 1908, respectively, wherein versions of the castration complex are found in their earliest form.

Castration and childhood sexual researches

Interpretation of Dreams (1900a) and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d) are the foundational texts in psychoanalysis. In particular, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality is considered by most scholars, and readers in general, as a text which redefined human sexuality forever. This text was originally published in 1905, comprising eighty pages. Freud returned to this text throughout his career (even as late as twenty years or more in some instances) in order to edit, add to, and re-edit his theories on sexuality. The current edition of the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality comprises 122 pages. The theory of the castration complex was not included in the original version of the text. In the Editor’s note to “The infantile genital organization” (1923e, p. 140), James Strachey confirmed that the entire Section 5 of the second essay on infantile sexuality, titled “The sexual researches of childhood” (Freud, 1905d, pp. 194–197) and Section 6 of the same, titled “The phases of development of the sexual organization” (Freud 1905d, pp. 197–200) were added to Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality in 1915. According to Strachey’s footnote found in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d, p. 194), these additions were based on Freud’s later findings that are published in two of Freud’s texts, titled “The sexual enlightenment of children (An open letter to Dr. M Furst)” (1907c) and “On the sexual theories of children” (1908c). Most of what has been captured by Freud in these two texts is primarily based on Freud’s observation of children, with one child in particular, Little Hans, contributing a lot. In another footnote to the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d, p. 135), Strachey verifies that during the drafting of these two texts dated 1907 and 1908, respectively, Little Hans’ analysis was, indeed, in progress.

While Little Hans’ case (1909b) carries the first published discussion of the castration complex in Freud’s work (Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973, p. 56), the first ever appearance of the terms “castration complex” and “the threat of castration” was, in fact, in “On the sexual theories of children” (1908c, p. 217). Although the idea of a threat of castration was fleetingly mentioned for the very first time in a single sentence of Freud’s in his Interpretation of Dreams (1900a, p. 619), in relation to Zeus, the term was not discussed until 1908 (see 1908c, p. 217, fn.). This indicates that, while Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d) is the most essential thesis to understand infantile sexuality, it was the case of Little Hans that allowed Freud to conclude the following.

The sexual researches of children are not only essential to an understanding of human psychosexual development but also, the theories that children develop in these researches have an impact (1) “upon later neuroses”, (2) affect the outcome of their sexual researches, and (3) influence the development of the child’s intellectual capability (see 1905d, pp. 195–196, fn. 2). As Hans’ analysis progressed, Freud documented most of his theories on the subjects of infantile sexuality and children’s sexual researches in these two texts (1907c, 1908c). This might explain why Freud often interchanged the order of the two great questions that children are perplexed by at an “unexpectedly early age”: the origin of babies and the distinction between the sexes (1907c, p. 134). The following sections are close readings of these two texts that will illustrate how the concept of castration is enmeshed with the childhood riddles of sex.

In “The sexual enlightenment of children (An open letter to Dr. M Furst)” (1907c), Freud responded to three questions: (1) should children be given the facts of sexual life, (2) if so, then at what age should this be communicated to them, and (3) in what manner should this be communicated? While Freud admitted that the second and the third questions certainly require further discussion, he could not to see any valid reason behind “difference of opinion on the first point” (1907c, p. 131). Referring to the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d), and especially to his theories on infantile sexuality, infantile polymorphously perverse disposition, and auto-erotism, Freud argued that

except for his reproductive power, a child has a fully developed capacity for love long before puberty; and it may be asserted that the “mystery-making” merely prevents him from being able to gain an intellectual grasp of activities for which he is psychically prepared and physically adjusted. (1907c, p. 134)

This is the first instance of Freud placing the question of origin as second to the problem of “distinction between the sexes” (see 1907c, p. 135, fn. 2).

According to Freud, the primacy of the male organ, the penis, in childhood is responsible for children’s negligence of the anatomical differences between the sexes: “attributing to everyone, including females, the possession of a penis, such as the boy knows from his own body” (1908c, p. 215). Freud highlights this problem of “sex distinction” in children and its tormenting effect by illustrating some of the significant moments from Little Hans’ case history (1909b). The first example that Freud provided was the illustration of Hans’ “liveliest interest” in his “widdler”: “When he was only three he asked his mother: ‘Mummy, have you got a widdler too?’ His mother answered: ‘Of course. What did you think?’ He also asked his father the same question repeatedly” (1907c, p. 134).

Freud did not comment on the mother’s part in the muddling up of the sexual distinction at this stage and he carried on illustrating other examples of Hans’ widdler curiosities. Why did Freud not comment on the mother’s response? At the end of the paragraph, he made an overall comment that is crucial in understanding what “sex distinction” means for Freud in Little Hans’ case. Freud noted that

Little Hans is not a sensual child or at all pathologically disposed. The fact is simply, I think, that, not having been intimidated or oppressed with a sense of guilt, he gives expression quite ingenuously to what he thinks. (1907c, p. 135, my italics)

The very use of the word guilt indicates the presence of an act that is mischievous, naughty, or perhaps forbidden. Perhaps it is an enjoyment that has remained uninterrupted. Perhaps the words guilt, intimidated, and oppressed indicate the very existence of an enjoyment in Hans which is in need of regulation. In the case history, it seems that the father within the family failed to establish a sense of guilt in Little Hans, while the mother was left in her position to continue to be the source of (guilt-y) pleasure for Little Hans. This is a question of differentiating the role of the father from that of the mother’s. Such differentiation of roles would allow a twofold-function to occur: (1) interrupt the enjoyment of both the child and the mother, and (2) install “guilt” in the child so that the child can learn to express “what he thinks” more dis-“ingenuously” in future. In other words, Freud is alluding here to the fact that it is the father who draws the line in the sand, but he does not use the term “father”. Moreover, Hans’ parents must have been perceived by Freud as neither intimidating nor oppressive, as the above quote suggests; rather, Freud described them as “understanding parents” (1907c, p. 134). It can be argued that Freud’s future emphasis on the role of the father that would later become the nucleus of the castration complex in fact finds its roots right here in this comment.

In this same 1907 text, Freud further added that “the origin of babies” is the second great problem with which children struggle (1907c, p. 135). Freud changed this view subsequently, in 1908, and wrote that “the first, grand problem of life” is a question the child asks himself, “Where do babies come from?” (1908c, p. 212). In 1909, Freud again reverted and acknowledged that the origin of babies is the first great problem that children encounter (1909b, p. 133). In 1915, Freud added that not only is this the first riddle that a child is faced with, but also this first problem is in line with the drive’s origin (1905d, p. 195) because it is the arrival of a new baby that makes the child fearful of losing his place. Subsequently, in 1925, Freud changed his mind again, based on his clinical observations, and published an article initially titled “Anatomical sex-distinction” (1925j, p. 247), which is, essentially, a synthesis of his theories on sexual development from various stages of his career. Interestingly, the central theme of the 1925j text is castration and a detailed reading of this text is provided in the following chapter. Already, it is becoming evident that there is an intimate connection between sex distinction, sexual distinction (i.e., distinction between the sexes), and the theory of castration.

Freud was working on providing a theoretical framework in which to situate his findings on human sexuality. At this early stage of his formulation, Freud was not only struggling to put the two questions in their right order, but he also had a further layer of complexity to contend with: separating boys and girls into two discrete categories of sexual positions. The biggest obstacle to his formulations was the question of the feminine. The lack of a penis in girls was proving to be a difficult concept to integrate into the theories of castration. In 1908, Freud wrote that, due to “unfavourable circumstances, both of an external and internal nature”, the observations documented in “On the sexual theories of children” can be applied only to the question of sexual development of boys (1908c, p. 211). Freud did not stop there, but continued on his quest. On a long, winding path of discoveries and postulating theories on female psychosexual development, there are times when he assumed that the psychology of women is parallel to men’s and, later on, there were others that proposed a very different and complicated route to sexual development for women. This sentence is a reference to the succinct summary of Freud’s development on the theories of female sexuality written by Strachey, found in the Editor’s note of “Some sexual consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes” (1925j, pp. 243–247). Albeit, Freud found women more enigmatic than men as Jones suggested (Jones, 1955, p. 468, cited in Freud, 1925j, p. 244, fn. 1) and it is truly captured in Freud’s comment, “… the sexual life of adult women is a ‘dark continent’ for psychology” (1926e, p. 212).

Typical sexual theories of children

In this book, as we progress, it will be evident that the question of the feminine sex is one that brings the subject closer to a confrontation with the real in the Lacanian sense. Real is the domain where symbolisation fails, signification does not hold, and, despite every effort at defining the object, something of the definition always escapes. Such is evident in Freud’s comment, documented by Jones, “the great question that has never been answered and which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘what does a woman want?’” (Jones, 1955, p. 468). Freud is not alone here. This is probably echoed by most of human civilisation. But, as we shall see, it finds its primitive expression in childhood sexual researches.

This is also echoed by Lacan, who wrote in his Seminar III on the psychoses that “When Dora finds herself wondering, What is a woman?, she is attempting to symbolize the female organ as such” (Lacan, 1993, p. 178). “Becoming a woman and wondering what a woman is are two essentially different things” (Lacan, 1993, p. 178), according to Lacan, but is it only a question posed by the male sex? This question will be further explored in the last chapter of this book, where we closely examine Lacan’s position with regard to castration and its relation to the acquisition of sex. For now, it is essential that we highlight the following.

The question of the feminine identity is not just a woman’s question but every hysteric’s question, irrespective of their anatomical sex and it is not surprising that it is the very question that Freud was himself puzzled by throughout his career. The term “hysteric”, in this context, is not to be mistaken for a colloquial demeaning term. It is referred to here in the sense of the clinical structure of the subject (for details, see Chapter Seven). At a very structural level of hysteria lies the question “what is a woman?” and the same seems to be Freud’s question, too. The hysteric also asks “Am I a man or a woman?” which, it can be argued, is a refined version of the same question of the feminine sex. Moreover, “Who am I?” and “Where do I come from?” “How did I get here?” are the most existential questions of all. These are questions of “being”, questions of our very existence and questions of procreation.

Similar to the question of the feminine sex, procreation is also another definition that slips away and escapes symbolisation (see Chapter Seven). “How do I tell them apart?” and “Where do babies come from?” are the two most troubling questions of children in their sexual researches. I argue that, at a fundamental level, the hysteric’s questions and the existential questions of the human race in general are, essentially, more sophisticated versions of these infantile questions. What happens to these questions as we grow up? In the process of these questions becoming more sophisticated, do they effect our “being”? If yes, then how do these question influence the very construction of our subjectivity, our individuality, and our sexuality? Most importantly, how do we answer these questions?

For both Freud and Lacan, the neurotic subject is divided. Freud uses the term Spaltung to highlight the separations of the psychical apparatus, such as conscious/pre-conscious-unconscious, or divisions between agencies such as id, ego, and superego. Splitting is described as a result of the subject’s inner conflicts (Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973, p. 428). Lacan denotes it as $, the barred subject. Lacanian theorist Verhaeghe (2000, p. 136) suggests that these moments of division occur when children are confronted with existential questions which are threefold in nature: (1) sexual differences, especially female sexual identity, (2) the origin of the subject, that is, the role of the father or the question of authority, and (3) the sexual relation between the parents. These three moments that Verhaeghe (2000) outlined as fundamental moments of subject formation correspond with the three typical sexual theories that Freud outlined in the current text in hand, “On the sexual theories of children” (1908c). The following section illustrates the connections between them.

At this early phase of conceptualising the theory of castration, Freud associated the castration complex with the primacy of the penis in both sexes. Although the term “phallic stage”, which is central to the theory of the castration complex, made its first appearance only in 1923, one of the earliest versions of the phallic stage is illustrated in this 1908 text. The phallic stage is elaborated in Chapter Two, where the discussion focuses on Freud’s formulation of the castration complex between 1923 and 1925. For now, very briefly, the phallic stage in this Freudian context is described as the stage where partial drives become unified “under the primacy of the genital organs” (Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973, p. 309). This is a phase where, irrespective of his or her anatomical sex, the child knows only one genital organ, the penis.

The following is the beginning of the formation of the phallic stage. Freud noted that infantile sexual theories begin from the neglect of the differentiation between the sexes and the child attributing a penis to everyone. He explained that this is because, for the boy, the penis is “the leading erotogenic zone and the chief auto-erotic sexual object” and this is reflected in the boy’s “inability to imagine a person like himself who is without this essential constituent” (1908c, p. 215). The fact that children attribute a penis to everyone at early years of their lives is evident in Hans’ following comment regarding his sister, Hanna, “But her widdler’s still quite small … When she grows up it’ll get bigger alright” (1909b, p. 11). Freud insisted that his father must tell Hans that women do not possess a penis. Freud’s insistence indicates the beginnings of the formulation of his theory of castration.

Freud’s later formulation of the phallic stage confirms that he equated children’s knowledge of the anatomical differences as the effect of castration (Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973, p. 309). Hence, Freud’s insistence that the father enlighten Hans on sexual differences can be considered as Freud insisting that Hans’ father take up the position of the castrating father.

In the case of the girl, however, Freud was not so clear in his formulations. He suggested that the clitoris is equivalent to a small penis and, similar to the boy, the clitoris “becomes the seat of e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• About the Author
• Introduction
• Chapter One The castration complex for Freud between 1907 and 1909
• Chapter Two The castration complex for Freud in 1925
• Chapter Three Freud’s theories of castration in “Female sexuality” (1931b)
• Chapter Four A brief introduction to bisexual disposition and its place within Freud’s psychoanalytic theories
• Chapter Five New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (1933a): Lecture XXXIII, “Femininity”
• Chapter Six Castration for Lacan: Seminar IV (1956–1957)
• Chapter Seven The fate of infantile sexual research questions
• References
• Index