Christine Glover wrote: >In many ways, I do see attachment theory as an operationalization > of Freud (our childhood haunts us).�
Christine, could you please explain what you mean by attachment theory being �an operationalization of Freud�. What Freud �uncovered� about our childhood, from analysing the Unconscious of his patients and extrapolating a bit, were the Oedipus complex, castration complex, penis envy, censored wishes that �appear to rise up out of positive Hell� (�New Introductory Lectures�), and more on similar lines. I omit the birth trauma from this list, because although many analysts, e.g., Ferenczi, started to �discover� it frequently in their patients after it was postulated by Otto Rank, mostly they ceased to do so after Freud discounted Rank�s theory. (See Esterson, A., *Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud*, 1993, pp. 199-200.) On the question of the influence of specific childhood events on future adult life, the most significant of these for Freud was the �second phase of infantile masturbation� (i.e., that which occurs around age 3-5). The �unconscious impressions� left behind by this early childhood masturbation �determine the development of [an individual�s] character, if he is to remain healthy, and the symptomatology of his neurosis, if he is to fall [neurotically] ill after puberty� (�Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality�, 1905, SE 7, p.189). Incidentally, Freud�s analytic researches also led him to �discover� that the first �libidinal attachment� of an infant girl is to her father. He retained this view until 1925, and then for some strange reason he made an abrupt turn-around and declared that the first libidinal attachment of infant girls is to the mother. Odder still, although in 1925 he was still asserting that �in both cases [boys and girls] the mother is the original [libidinal] object� (1925, SE 19, p. 251), in �New Introductory Lectures written a few years later he told his readers, �We knew, *of course*, that there had been a preliminary stage of attachment of [infant girls] to the mother�� (1933, SE 22, p. 199, my emphasis). Freud made the change in the period 1925-1926, and wrote opposite statements on this issue in those years. Nowhere in his later writings on female sexuality did he explain how he could have been so mistaken for the first thirty years of his psychoanalytic career. (For a discussion of Freud�s ideas on female infantile sexuality, see my *Seductive Mirage*, pp. 140-149.) Another interesting question (not unrelated) concerns Freud's in a 1935 footnote appended to �An Autobiographical Study�: �The information about infantile sexuality was obtained from the study of men and the theory deduced from it was concerned with male children� (1925, SE 20, p. 36, n.2). The question is: How is it that Freud�s patients in the first years of psychoanalysis, when he was developing his fundamental theories, were predominantly women, yet, on his own admission (and as is transparently evident in his writings), the theories about infantile sexuality were �obtained from the study of men�? For the best answer that exonerates Freud�s research methodology, I�m prepared to offer two nights free bed and breakfast in London to enable the lucky TIPSter to visit the Freud Museum in Hampstead, the house in which Sigmund lived with his daughter Anna in 1938 and 1939. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 ---------------------------- Christine L. Glover wrote on Sat, 20 Mar 2004: Hello, I am one of the people who wrote their dissertations on attachment (and evolutionary psychology) so I thought I'd pass along a little information on this topic. In many ways, I do see attachment theory as an operationalization of Freud (our childhood haunts us). However, some of the research is quite compelling, and I would say the best source I've seen is the Handbook of Attachment (edited by Shaver). It is really a comprehensive resource covering both adult and child attachment, measurements issues, etc. Additionally, if you are interested in longitudinal research, Alan Sroufe has done a lot of interesting work following children to adulthood, and there are others. Unfortunately, the field of attachment is somewhat segmented into those who are developmentalists (who usually study parents and children) and social psychologists (who study romantic relationships). Hopefully that distinction has started to break down and will continue to do so. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Christine L. Glover 2351 W. Wilson Ave., #306 Committee on Human Development University of Chicago Chicago, IL 60625 University of Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
