Mothering, Object-Relations, and the Female Oedipal Configuration Author(s): Nancy Chodorow Reviewed work(s): Source: Feminist Studies,

Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 137-158 Published by: Feminist Studies, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177630 . Accessed: 14/10/2012 12:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Feminist Studies, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

MOTHERING, OBJECT-RELATIONS, AND THEFEMALE OEDIPAL CONFIGURATION

NANCY CHODOROW Many feminists have come to recognize that psychoanalysis, as a theory of the social production of gender and sexuality, must be a central component of feminist understanding.1 My own work within this tradition argued for the importance of the fact that women, and not men, are primary caretakersof children.2 I have suggested that the mother-daughterrelationship contributes in fundamental ways to the character of the feminine psyche, as well as contributing to the creation of a male-dominant psychology in
men.

In this article, I extend my argument: in a new interpretation of the feminine oedipus complex, I suggest that because women mother, the oedipus complex is as much a mother-daughterissue as it is one of father and daughter, and that it is as much concerned with the structure and composition of the feminine relational ego as it is with the genesis of sexual object choice. The father-daughter relationship is constructed during the oedipal period; however, that relationship can be understood only in terms of and in the context of a daughter's continuing relationship to her mother. Heterosexual orientation is for most girls a product of their oedipal experience. But, the principal significance of the feminine oedipus complex consists not only in the construction of this orientation but in the creation of a feminine sense of self-in-relationship that underlies the emergence of sexual orientation itself. I examine the emergence of a relational complexity in the feminine sense of self and women's internal relational stance, and demonstrate that exclusive commitment to men, in spite of behavioral heterosexuality, is never completely established. For Freud and the early analysts, the major oedipal task was preparation for heterosexual adult relationships. Given this, a girl's major "task" is to become oriented to men. In the traditional paradigm, a girl must change her love object from mother to father, her libidinal mode from active to passive, and finally her libidinal
137

138

Nancy Chodorow

organ and eroticism from clitoris to vagina. A boy has to make no such parallel changes.3 There is no question that heterosexual orientation is a major outcome of the oedipal period for most girls, and that the traditional psychoanalytic account of the development of female sexuality, and the growth of the girl's relationship to her father describes this. There is some question, however, about how we should read this outcome. Freud and his colleagues put us in a peculiar position here. On the one hand, they assume that heterosexual orientation and genital (vaginal) primacy is biologically normal, and is women's biological destiny. This assumption, psychoanalyst Roy Schafer points out, is based on an unstated but strong evolutionary value system in which "nature has its procreative plan," "individuals are destined to be links in the chain of survival," and "it is better for people to be 'natural' and not defy 'the natural order.' "4 Only from this evaluative viewpoint can psychoanalysis take all other forms of sexuality to be arrestsin development, illness, inversion, perversion: "we are operating in the realm of societal value systems concerning taken-for-grantedevolutionary obligations; we are not operating in any realm of biological necessity, psycho-biological disorder, or value-free empiricism."5 On the other hand, psychoanalytic clinical findings indicate that there is nothing inevitable, natural or preestablished in the development of human sexuality. Moreover, clinical case materials, and the theory derived from them, indicate that sexual orientation and definition is enforced and constructed by parents. Parents are usually heterosexual and sexualize their relationship to children of either gender accordingly, employing socially sanctioned childrearingpractices (including, with few exceptions, the approval of psychoanalysts).6 We can, then, take the psychoanalytic account to describe the genesis of heterosexual orientation in women. But we must reject any assumption that what this account describes is natural, self-evident and unintended. To the contrary, it seems to be both consciously and unconsciously intended, socially, psychologically and ideologically constructed. And it is not inevitable. The attainment of heterosexual orientation as the psychoanalytic account describes it also involves an identification on the part of children with parents of their own gender-a boy with his father, a girl with her mother. A boy gives up his mother in order to avoid punishment. But he identifies with his father in order to gain the benefits of giving rather than receiving punishment and of being masculine and superior (he develops "what we have come to consider the normal male contempt for women").7 A girl identifies with her mother in their common feminine inferiority and in her

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

139

heterosexual stance.8 (According to the account, she also prepares through this identification for her future mothering role.) The processes in this identification are not necessarily conscious (super-ego formation, for instance), but the choice of parent to identify with clearly is. Both in clinical examples and in theoretical formulations this identification is a learning phenomenon: children learn their gender and then identify and are encouraged to identify with the appropriate parent.9 My analysis here examines how conflictual relationships (objectrelations) during the oedipal period become defensively appropriated and internalized by growing girls so that they transform their internal object world-their inner fantasized and unconsciously experienced selves in relation to others. These object-relations grow out of contemporary family structure and are mutually created by parents and children. I am not so concerned with the traditional psychoanalytic account-with feminine heterosexuality, genital symbolization, sexual fantasy, conscious masculine or feminine identification-as with the kind of social and intrapsychic relational situation in which that heterosexuality and these identifications get constituted. Psychoanalysts, by contrast, in their emphasis upon the difficult libidinal path to heterosexuality, have passed over the relational aspects of the situation. The traditional account, concerned with heterosexual orientation, focuses on a girl's attraction to her father. I demonstrate the continuing significance of a girl's relation to her mother throughout the oedipal period. Sexual orientation is in the background here. My account does give us a fuller understanding of women's heterosexuality in our society, but as part of a more general understanding of women's internal and external relational position. Similarly, I argue that the way gender personality is constituted in the oedipus complex does not have to do only with identification processes-children becoming like, or modifying their egoes to be like, their parents. Rather, the ego in its internal relational situation changes, and changes differently, for boys and girls. Boys and girls experience and internalize different kinds of relationships; they work through the conflicts, develop defenses, and appropriate and transform the affects associated with these relationships differently. These object-relational differences, and their effect on the kinds of defenses, splits and repressions in the ego, better explain important differences in masculine and feminine personality and the important aspects of feminine personality that emerge from the oedipus complex than does the more conscious and intended identification with the same gender parent.

140

Nancy Chodorow

I will not evaluate here all the debates about "female sexuality" that have taken place within psychoanalysis.10 It is enough to reiterate that there seems to be physiologically only one process of female orgasm, and that psychoanalysts have foundered in all attempts to define activity and passivity unambiguously, or without resort to normative conceptions. Sexual phenomena gain psychological meaning mainly from specific social relationships themselves and the way these are internally appropriated and transformed, and from normative definitions of the sexual situation imposed upon and learned by members of particular societies. In the social (and psychoanalytic) case at hand, the normative definition of the situation is an assumption that heterosexual genitality is a major desired developmental goal and the oedipus complex is the first arena in which that goal is negotiated. In the classical account of the feminine oedipus complex, a girl totally rejects her mother when she discovers that her mother cannot give her a penis: "Whereasin boys the Oedipus complex is destroyed by the castration complex [a boy gives up sexual desires for his mother out of fear of castration by his father], in girls it is made possible and led up to by the castration complex."11 Penis envy-the feminine form of the castration complex-leads a girl to turn to her father exclusively, and thenceforth to see her mother only as a sexual rival. This account stresses the completeness of the girl's turn to her father and rejection of her mother, and the depth of her hostility: "the girl abandons the mother as a love object with far more embitterment and finality than the boy."12 Such a view, though theoretically attractive in its retention of views of the feminine and masculine oedipus complex as mirror opposites, was too simple to encompass even Freud's own clinical findings.13 To begin with, a girl enters the triangularoedipus situation later, and in a different relational context than a boy. Even when she does so, a girl does not give up this preoedipal relationship completely, but rather builds whatever happens later upon this preoedipal base. Freud's characterization of the girl's preoedipal connection to her mother as "attachment," emphasizes this persistence, by pointing to the dual nature of attachment: a girl actively attaches herself, and chooses her attachment, to her mother, and at the same time is passively, and not as a matter of choice, attached-an appendage or extension. Freud's usual termcathexis-implies, by contrast, only activity and direction. A girl, then, retains a sense of self and relation to her mother which has preoedipal, or early developmental, characteristics: She is preoccu-

The Female Oedipal Configuration

141

pied with issues of symbiosis and primary love without sense of the other person's separateness. Girls do not simply remain "preoedipal" longer, however. The relational experience of the oedipus complex itself is not symmetrical with that of boys. According to Freud and other analysts, a girl usually turns from the exclusive relationship to her mother to her father as an object of primary libidinal interest. But all the explanations put forth for this turning testify to the strength of a girl's continuing relationship to her mother as much as to the importance of her relationship to her father. These explanations of the turn to the father are partial accounts of a complex process in which different elements may be more or less primary for different girls.14 They all pay tribute to Freud's original clinical contention that an oedipal girl turns to her father because she is looking for a penis, but they provide different accounts of the nature and causes of her search.15 They all suggest that the feminine oedipus complex is as much a mother-daughter affair as it is a father-daughterone. Karen Homey, Ernest Jones, and Melanie Klein, followed by Janine Chasseguet-Smirgeland Bela Grunberger,give us one polar view of the turn to the father.16 They argue that a girl originally wants a penis (man) libidinally-for sexual gratification-and not narcissistically-for her own sexual organ. They argue that no explanation for a girl's turning to her father is needed; the turn is simply the expression of an innate heterosexuality which a girl develops spontaneously. Homey, for instance, suggests that Freud's penis envy hypothesis and penis-baby equation is a rather complicated explanation for "the manifestation of so elementary a principle of nature as that of the mutual attraction of the sexes." "The causal connection," she suggests, "may be the exact converse
... it is just the attraction to the opposite sex, operating from a

very early period, which draws the libidinal interest of the little girl to the penis."17 Klein and Jones also conceptualize the development of heterosexuality as a natural development. In their terms it grows out of a girl's primary awareness of her vagina, and out of transition from frustrated oral desire for the breast and mother, to oral desire for the paternal penis, to oedipal-genital desire for the penis and for her father. In all these accounts, a girl comes to the oedipus complex primarily through innate feminine heterosexual drives and through the belief that her father will satisfy impulses aroused by maternal oral frustration. Narcissistic penis envy comes after, and is a defensive flight from, these libidinal oedipal desires and her fear of

142

Nancy Chodorow

their consequences (if she had a penis herself, a girl reasons, she would not desire her father sexually, and therefore would not have to fear the consequences of this desire-maternal retaliation,18 the extinction of her sexuality,19 or internal rupture from penetration).20

This account points us in useful directions. We can sympathize with Horney's despair at the contortions of Freud's account, and the logical leaps (a girl's masculinity as the only basis for her femininity) he makes to get a girl to where most people have always been anyway. And Horney's approach does address some problems which Freud's account passes over. In Freud's account, a girl/woman really never does come to be heterosexual, that is, to want heterosexual intercourse for itself. She first wants a penis narcissistically (as her own body organ), turns to her father (develops a "heterosexual orientation") because he will give her one, and then comes to want a baby from him as an alternate narcissistic extension (a substitute for the penis she can never have). Nowhere in this account does she want sex for anything except reproduction and the restitution of her wounded narcissism. In the HorneyJones-Klein account, at least, a woman does want (hetero)sex for for its own sexual sake. There are problems in the account, however, precisely in areas where it does not follow more general psychoanalytic principles and methodology. "The ultimate question," Jones asks, "is wheter a woman is born or made."21 Given the terms in which Freud had set the debate (that all children until the oedipal period are "little men," that, seemingly man is born and woman is made), it seems eminently reasonable to answer, as he and Homey did, that woman was born:22 "I do not see a woman-in the way feminists do [in the way Freud does, would be more appropriatehere] - as un homme manque."23 The clinical findings of psychoanalysis, however, in contrast to Freud's stated claim, demonstrate extensive variations in psychosexual developmental processes and outcomes; final sexual orientation for both sexes is definitely a developmental process influenced by many environmental factors. Moreover, the Horney-Jones-Kleinaccount does not follow what I take to be a fundamental rule of psychoanalytic evidence, that it comes out of clinical experience. It relies on a biological hypothesis of natural heterosexual drives which psychoanalysts have no way of testing or supporting with clinical or observational methods; it has no explanation for how or why these drives should come to the fore when they are claimed to do so. The contribution of the Homey-Jones-Klein account, in contrast to Freud, is that it treats sex and reproduction-even if in too

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

143

directly biological a manner-as not inextricably linked. It therefore treats heterosexual attraction as a thing in itself and as intrinsically gratifying, rather than simply as a means of access to possession of a penis or baby. (Homey, in answer to Freud, also argues that the experience of childbirth and suckling must be seen as a woman's experience in itself and not as a poor substitute for a penis.) Since the Homey et al. explanation for heterosexual attractionprimary innate heterosexuality-cannot be supported with their methodology, and is undercut by the whole of psychoanalytic clinical experience and interpretation, we need to look elsewhere for how female heterosexual orientation comes about. Psychoanalytic clinical findings suggest that there are two aspects to this. First, a girl's relation to her mother motivates her in a generalized way to look elsewhere for other kinds of relationships and for the powers that a penis might bring her. Second, she is likely to be encouraged to look elsewhere to fulfill these generalized needs by her father, who also lends them a sexualized tone. Psychoanalysts accord normative significance to such behavior: a father is supposed to make himself available (while not making himself available) to his daughter. Social psychologists find that fathers in fact do so. MarjorieLeonard makes the most explicit psychoanalytic argument for the importance of fathers to the development of feminine, heterosexual orientation.24 Leonard argues that the father's role is more crucial to his daughter's development during her oedipal period and during preadolescence and early adolescence (another period when heterosexual orientation is being negotiated). She gives clinical examples of ways a father can be there not enough, which leads a girl to idealize her father and men, or to endow them with immensely sadistic or punitive characteristics-or can be there too much (be too possessive, seductive or identified with their daughter), requiring her to develop defensive measures against involvement with him and with men. Fathers, Leonard argues, must be able to make themselves available as a heterosexual love object and to offer affection without being seduced by their daughters' fantasies or seducing them with their own. Otherwise, she implies, a girl will not develop proper heterosexuality. Whateverwe make of this claim about proper heterosexuality, it seems, from both psychoanalytic clinical reports and from social psychological research, that fathers generally sex-type their children more consciously than mothers along traditional gender-role lines, and that they do encourage feminine heterosexual behavior in their young daughters.25 Psychologists Maccoby and Jacklin

144

NancyChodorow

cite comments by fathers reported by Evelyn Goodenough, when asked to describe daughters two to three years old and to give examples of ways these children are more feminine or masculine: "A bit of a flirt, arch and playful with people, a pretended coyness.... Soft and cuddly and loving. She cuddles and flatters in
subtle ways.... I notice her coyness and flirting, 'come up and

see me sometime' approach. She loves to cuddle. She's going to be sexy-I get my wife annoyed when I say this."26 They point out that it is irrelevant whether or not these descriptions are accurate. What is of interest "is that the fathers appeared to enjoy being flirted with by their daughters," and encouraged these daughters' feminine behavior: "the mothers in the Goodenough study reported instances in which their husbands had put pressure on them to dress their daughters in dresses rather than pants, to keep their hair long, etc., when the mother would not have considered it especially important for their daughters to look dainty and feminine at this young age."27 Maccoby and Jacklin conclude: to Fathers to attracappear wanttheirdaughters fit theirimageof a sexually for withinthe limitsof whatis appropriate a child,and tivefemale person, role their as theyplaythe masculine vis-a-vis daughters wellas theirwives. Thismayor maynot generate between mother daughter, and but rivalry therecanbe little doubtthatit is a potentforcein the girl's development
of whateverbehavioris defined as "feminine"by her father... 28

This sort of account explains the observations of Homey, et al. concerning the seemingly spontaneous generation of a girl's feminine behavior in relation to her father. Such behavior is one side of a father-daughterinteraction, an interaction perhaps initiated by the father. A daughter, for reasons I discuss below, looks for another primary person in her life than her mother, and a father both presents himself as this other person and involves himself with his daughter in ways that encourage stereotypic gender-role, male-oriented behavior. We can understand better both why a girl is open to her father's encouragement of their relationship in the first place, and how she helps to initiate it, by examining other psychoanalytic accounts of the girl's turn to her father. These suggest, not surprisingly,that the roots of her availability and effort to find a new involvement can be found in her previous relation to her mother. The feminine "change of object" both results from, and finds its meaning in, this early relationship. This early relationship to her mother is an ambivalent one, and the girl's turn to her father comes out of both sides of her ambivalence.

The Female Oedipal Configuration

145

In Freud's original account, a girl's accumulated hostility to her mother makes her turn to her father as a primary love object. Freud explains this hostility sometimes by stressing deprivation by the mother and sometimes by stressing ambivalence and anger about powerlessness itself (these, of course, are not unrelated). In the former (more well-known) view, children of both genders blame their mother for not fulfilling (insatiable) oral needs, for transferring her care and breast to a younger sibling, and for arousing and then forbidding sexual desires.29 Jeanne Lampl-de Groot expresses this view: "As long as the children of both sexes have the same love object-the mother, the possibility of satisfying passive as well as active libidinal strivings exists to the same extent (in the oral, anal and phallic phases), and both sexes are subject to the same disappointments in love and the same narcissistic blows."30 However, Freud and his colleagues must account for why a girl turns to her father as a result of these blows when her brother doesn't. Yet their other positions prevent them from creating a satisfactory explanation. First, they do not hold the Homey theory of innate heterosexuality. Second, they are not willing to accord recognition in their theory to the possible part played by a father in wooing a girl, but not a boy, into libidinal cathexis of him. Finally, while recognizing gender differences in the quality and length of the preoedipal period, they have no theoretical notion that these differences might themselves make a girl more likely to turn away from her mother. Instead, Freud develops an explanation in terms of "penis envy": her mother has deprived only the girl in a special way, by arranging matters so that her daughter doesn't have a penis. In an experience contemporaneous with the accumulation of hostility toward her mother, a girl learns of the existence of penises, and of the fact that she doesn't have one. She is outraged and upset, blames her mother for her lack, discovers that her mother hasn't got a penis either, rejects her mother out of anger at her own deprivation and contempt for the mother's "castrated" state, and turns to her father to give her a penis. There are several problems in this account. One again brings us back to Freud's original dilemma-how can similar experiences in boys and girls produce different results? Freud tends to stress contempt even more than anger in a girl's rejection of her mother. Contempt enables a girl to act on her hostility: "with the discovery that her mother is castrated it becomes possible to drop her as an object, so that the motives for hostility, which have long been accumulating, gain the upper hand ... as a result of the discovery of women's lack of a penis they are debased in value for girls. .. ."31

146

Nancy Chodorow

A girl, in this view, loved her "phallic," active mother; this mother she can simply "drop." If we follow this logic, a boy, who also has reasons for hostility, and who also comes to debase and disparage his mother for not having a penis, should give women up as love objects as well.32 Brunswick suggests that his contempt may lead a boy at this time to give up his mother as a love object and turn his attention to superego formation and sublimations, but she never implies that this abandonment has implications for his more general sexual orientation. What we need to understand is why a girl, but not a boy, seems to be looking for an excuse to "drop" her mother. We also have to understand why the discovery that she doesn't have a penis is such a trauma to a girl in the first place. As Schafer reminds us, again pointing to Freud's inconsistencies, "Freud was remarkably incurious about the background of these reactions."33 This lack of curiosity must be more than accidental, more than a simple oversight: "We cannot have a simple, self-evident shock theory of the girl's extreme mortification and consequent penis envy... It was [Freud], after all, who taught us how to establish through psychoanalysis the historical background and determination of psychological traumata."34 To answer these questions, we have to look at what came beforeto the preoedipal period, and to other strands in the traditional account. Freud, Ruth Mack Brunswick and Lampl-de Groot stress the intensity and ambivalence of the girl's early relationship to her mother. They also argue that any first love relation is "doomed to dissolution"35 just because of its ambivalence and intensity, and because of the restrictions and compulsions which the child must undergo to maintain it: "the mother-child relationship is doomed to extinction. Many factors militate against it, the most potent perhaps its primitive, archaic nature. Ambivalence and passivity characterize every primitive relation and ultimately destroy it."36 This latter claim points to that feature of a girl's situation which accounts for her anger and rejection of her mother. The special nature of the preoedipal mother-daughterrelationship-its intensity, length, and ambivalence-creates the psychological basis for a girl's turn to her father. Mothers tend to create boundaries in relation to sons and to treat them as a differentiated other.37 By contrast, an omnipotent mother perpetuates primary love and a primary sense of oneness in relation to her daughter. When this occurs in a nuclear family setting, a girl's father is likely to become a symbol of freedom from this dependence and merging. A girl is likely to turn to him, regardlessof his gender or sexual orientation,

The Female Oedipal Configuration

147

as the most available person who can help her to get away from her mother. Whateverits sexual meaning, then, the turn to the father also concerns emotional issues of self and other. A girl deals with these issues in relation to persons in roles that are systematically gender-linked (mothers who overwhelm; fathers who seem to be an escape from mother), not because of qualities inherent in persons of either gender, but because of family organization. This interpretation is supported by Chasseguet-Smirgel'sreformulation of female development, which stresses both the commonalities in the relationship of children of either gender to their mother, and the unsatisfactory nature of the girl's early relationship to her mother.38 Chasseguet-Smirgelexpands upon the suggestions of Freud, Brunswick, and Lampl-de Groot that the preoedipal mother, simply as a result of her omnipotence and activity, causes a "narcissistic wound" (threats to ego and body-ego integrity, a sense of powerlessness and dependence) in children of both sexes.39 This narcissistic wound creates hostility to the mother in a child. Children of both sexes, even with kind mothers, often maintain a fearsome unconscious maternal image, as a result of projecting upon it the hostility derived from their own feelings of impotence. (They may simultaneously have an image of an omnipotent protective mother-thus the witch and the fairy godmother.) A preoedipal girl already feels "painfully incomplete" then, but "the cause of this feeling of incompleteness is to be found in the primary relation with the mother and will therefore be found in children of both sexes."40 All children must free themselves from their mother's omnipotence and gain a sense of completeness. Insofar as a boy achieves this liberation, he does so through his masculinity and possession of a penis. A boy's mother, living in a male-dominant society, and in a family where her husband is not around as much as her son, cathects him heterosexually precisely on account of his maleness. (This also has costs for the boy.) His penis and masculinity both compensate a boy for his early narcissistic injuries and symbolize his independence and separateness from his mother. A girl's experience is likely to be different on two counts. A daughter does not have something different and desirable with which to oppose maternal omnipotence, as does a son. Equally important, however, is that "the mother does not cathect her daughter in the same way that she cathects her son"41 in the first place: She does not cathect her as a sexual other, but as part of a narcissistically defined self. One reaction on the part of a girl, in her attempt to liberate herself from her mother, is the development of penis envy, or desire

148

Nancy Chodorow

for the penis (in Chasseguet-Smirgel's view, also a dual, narcissistic and libidinal, affair). Early narcissistic injuries and anger at maternal omnipotence provide the preoedipal history and psychodynamic specificity which make a penis and masculinity important to a girl. A girl without a penis has "nothing with which to oppose the mother, no narcissistic virtue the mother does not also possess. She will not be able to 'show her' her independence. So she will envy the boy his penis and say that he can 'do everything.' I see penis envy not as 'a virility claim' to something one wants for its own sake, but as a revolt against the person who caused the narcissistic wound: the omnipotent mother.... The narcissistic wound aroused by the child's helplessness and penis envy are closely related."42

This view places the narcissistic desire for the penis on the proper metaphoric level: the penis, or phallus, is a symbol of power or omnipotence, whether you have one as a sexual organ (as a male) or as a sexual object (as her mother "possesses" her father's). A girl wants it for the powers which it symbolizes and the freedom it promises from her previous sense of dependence, and not because it is inherently and obviously better to be masculine: "Basically, penis envy is the symbolic expression of another desire. Women do not wish to become men, but want to detach themselves from the mother and become complete, autonomous, women."43 A girl's wish to liberate herself from her mother engenders penis
envy.44

There is also an internal dynamic in a girl's turn to her father here. A girl, having internalized a preambivalent (where "good" and "bad" are still not undifferentiated) preoedipal mother-image in relation to herself, splits this internal image into good and bad aspects. Because she wants to justify her rejection of her mother, and because she experiences her mother as overwhelming, she then projects all the good qualities of her internalized mother-image, and the inner relationship to her, onto her father as an external object and her relationship to him. She retains all the bad characteristics for her mother, both as internal object and external. Secondarily, she also splits her image of her father, transferringall its bad aspects onto her mother as well. interpretation here illuminates the way in Chasseguet-Smirgel's as Freud claims, a girl's attachment to her father grows out which, of and depends upon her attachment to her mother. It points to ways that the feminine oedipus complex is as much a change in a girl's inner relational stance toward her mother as it is a change from mother to father. Moreover, it suggests that the feminine oedipus complex is only secondarily, or derivatively, concerned

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

149

with sexual orientation; more fundamental is its concern with feminine self-esteem and the feminine ego. An oedipal girl's "rejection" of her mother is a defense against primary identification (a sense of merging, or oneness), hence her own internal affair as much as a relalational affair in the world. Insofar as a girl is identified with her mother, and their relationship retains qualities of primary identification and symbiosis, what she is doing, in splitting her internal maternal image, is attempting by fiat to establish boundaries between herself and her mother. She does this by projecting all that feels bad in their unity onto her mother and retaining all that is good for herself (to be brought into other, good relationships). She arbitrarilytransfers these good and bad aspects of a fused internal object onto two different people in relation to split aspects of herself. We have here part of the necessary historical account: a girl's preoedipal experience of self, and of self in relation to mother, leads her to look for a symbol of her own autonomy and independence, and a relationship which will help her to get this autonomy. But Chasseguet-Smirgel'saccount reproduces a Kleinian blindness to the positive components of object relationships. Oedipal daughters, in Chasseguet-Smirgel'sview, are not even ambivalent about their mothers, but simply hate and fear them. There is no place here for for a little girl's love for her mother, a love which Freud and most analysts probably take for granted, even while talking of hostility. An alternate view of how a girl comes to envy the possession of a penis and to turn to her father, speaks to this other side of a girl's ambivalence to her mother. Alice Balint, Brunswick, Lamp-de Groot, and anthropologist Gayle Rubin all suggest that love for the the mother, rather than, or in addition to, hostility toward her, leads directly to penis envy.45 All agree that a girl's castration complex is an important step in the development of her heterosexuality; however, we cannot assume that the origins of this castration complex are self-evident. Chasseguet-Smirgelhas pointed to the origins of penis envy in the development of a girl's selfesteem, sense of autonomy, and experience of self. These theorists embed the origins of penis envy in more immediately object-oriented causes: "the person of the mother herself has a special significance here. It is the love for the mother that causes the gravest difficulty for the little girl."46 Envy and narcissistic grievance, experienced by children of both genders, are insufficient to account for the strength of a girl's anger at her mother, especially if the girl knows that her mother hasn't got a penis either. What a girl comes to realize is that her common

150

Nancy Chodorow

genital arrangementwith her mother does not work to her advantage in forming a bond with her mother, does not make her mother love her more. Instead, she finds out her mother prefers people like her father (and brother), who have penises. She comes to want a penis, then, in order to win her mother's love: that ... if the little girlcomesto the conclusion suchanorgan really is of in she to the possession the mother, experiences addition indispensable of common children bothsexes,stillanother to to the narcissistic insults of a feelingof inferiority hergenitals.47 blow,namely, not but Thewishto be a boy stemstherefore only fromhurtnarcissism,
perhapseven more from the woundedlove of the little girlfor her mother,

whomshewantsforherself asmuchas a boy does.48 just assume that this inequality between boys and Psychoanalysts girls is inevitable, because they assume heterosexuality. But Rubin rightly reminds us that a mother's heterosexuality is not an inevitable given: It has also been constructed in her own development one generation previously. It is not simply "the person of the mother herself," but the heterosexual person of the mother, who leads a girl to devalue her own genitals: "If the pre-Oedipal lesbian were not confronted by the heterosexuality of the mother, she might draw different conclusions about the relative status of her genitals."49 In the view of Balint et al., a girl turns to her father in defense, feeling angry, like a rejected lover. She wants from her father both the special love which she can not get from her mother and a penis which will allow her to get this love-both wants her father and wants her mother too. These accounts still stress that the intensity and ambivalence of her feelings cause a girl to turn from her mother to her father, but they emphasize the positive side of her ambivalence and her feelings of love, rather than its negative aspects. She gives up her mother and her conscious attachment to women because this mother has made clear that lesbian advances will be rejected. Psychoanalysts offer various interpretations of the girl's turn to her father, but all these accounts share an important argument. They all claim that the oedipal situation is for a girl at least as much a mother-daughter concern as a father-daughterconcern. A girl generally does turn to her father as a primary love object, and does feel hostile and rivalroustoward her mother in the process. This "change of object" may be partly a broadening of innate sexuality, and it is probably in part a reaction to her heterosexual father's behavior and feelings toward her and his preoccu-

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

151

pation with her (hetero)sexuality. The turn to the father, however, is embedded in a girl's external relationship to her mpther and in her relation to her mother as an internal object. It expresses hostility to her mother; it results from an attempt to win her mother's love; it is a reaction to powerlessness vis-a-vismaternal omnipotence and to primary identification. Every step of the way, a girl develops her relationship to her father while looking back at her motherto see if her mother is envious, to make sure she is in fact separate, to see if she can in this way win her mother, to see if she is really independent. Her turn to her father is both an attack on her mother and an expression of love for her. The structural and affective form of the girl's oedipus complex grows out of the structural and affective form of her preoedipal object relations. These relations, rooted in a particular family structure and ideology, center on her mother:
it is not difficult to see that the maternalcomponentsof both the internal over the paternalcompoobjects have, so to speak, a greatinitial advantage nents; and this, of course, appliesto childrenof both sexes ... a sufficientrevealsthat this situation ly deep analysisof the Oedipussituation invariably is built aroundthe figures of an internalexciting mother and an internalrejecting mother.50

A girl's "rejection" of her mother, and oedipal attachment to her father does not mean the termination of the girl's affective relationship to her mother. Rather, a girl's dual internal and external mother-infant world becomes triadic. This process is encouraged by her father's role. He has probably interacted with her in ways that encourage her forming a heterosexual/feminine attachment to him. At the same time, because of his extra-familial involvements, his own personality, and socialization as a father, he is not as likely to be involved in the family and in constant contact with his children as is his wife. Nor is the quality of this developing relationship to his daughter likely to have the same overwhelming impact on her as the earlier relation to her mother, since it does not concern whether or not she is a separate person. Thus, a girl is likely to maintain both her parents as love objects and rivals throughout the oedipal period. Freud calls this a "complete Oedipus complex," and suggests that a boy also goes through phases of cathecting his father and wanting to replace his mother.51 However, for most boys, this variant is but a weak echo of the reverse and does not really compete with it. In both cases, a boy is faced with the same choice between giving up his penis and giving up his parental object (since he can only take a "feminine" stance vis-a-vishis father if he is already castrated). In both cases he

152

Nancy Chodorow

makes his choices fast. Usually he opts for his penis, which means that he opts for mother over father, and for repression, so that he won't be subject to castration by his father. For a girl, however, there is no single oedipal mode or quick oedipal resolution, and there is no absolute "change of object." A girl's libidinal turning to her father is not at the expense of, or a substitute for, her attachment to her mother. Nor does a girl give up the internal relationship to her mother which is a product of her earlier development. Instead, a girl develops important oedipal attachments to her mother as well as to her father. These attachments, and the way they are internalized, are built upon, and do not replace, her intense and exclusive preoedipal attachment to her mother and its internalized counterpart. If there is an absolute component to the change of object, it is at most a concentration on her father of a girl's genital, or erotic, cathexis. But a girl never gives up her mother as an internal or external love object, even if she does become heterosexual. The male and female oedipus complexes are asymmetrical. A girl's love for her father and rivalry with her mother is always tempered by love for her mother, even against her will. According to Brunswick, a girl, embittered and hostile toward her mother, does "seek to transfer her libido to the father," but "this transference is beset by difficulties arising from the tenacity of the active and passive preoedipal mother-attachment."52 Thus, a girl's relational ambivalence toward her mother continues. This is also true for a girl's internal defensive operations, like object-splitting and projection.53 The internal relation and connection to the mother tend to persist in spite of her daughter's defensive maneuvers. Analysts stress the lack of "final success" in the girl's turn to her father and heterosexual stance. Deutsch says that the girl does normally make a tentative choice in favor of her father, turning to him "with greater intensity, although still not exclusively."54 Brunswick explains the possible variations in this outcome. She points to the number of adult women who come for analytic treatment who have "total lack of contact with the man," and suggests that this situation is only an exaggeration of the typical girl's oedipal resolution:
Between the exclusiveattachmentto the mother on the one hand and the complete transferof the libido to the fatheron the other hand, the innumerable gradationsof normaland abnormaldevelopmentare to be found. It might also be said that partialsuccessis the rule ratherthan the exception, so greatis the proportionof women whose libido has remainedfixed to the mother.55

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

153

Brunswick, Deutsch and Freud here conflate several separable elements: heterosexual erotic orientation-what we usually mean by "heterosexuality," that is, being sexually attracted to people of a different gender; heterosexual love-forming an emotional attachment to a person of a different gender with whom one is sexually involved; and nonsexualized emotional attachments and their internalized object-relational counterparts-which do not speak to sexual involvement or attraction. They focus their concern on sexual orientation, and the possibility of women becoming erotically lesbian. What they are really describing, however, is not so specifically the genesis of sexual orientation, as the genesis of emotional commitments and possibilities for love and emotional satisfaction. A girl's father, even as he puts himself forth as a sexual object, does not break her maternal attachment. He remains physically and emotionally too distant, and though a girl may feel a desperate need to separate from her mother, she also simultaneously loves her. Although fathers in most cases do activate heterosexual genitality in their daughters, they do not activate exclusive heterosexual love or exclusive generalized attachment. Girls, even when they rerepress or give up homosexual libidinal goals, still remain emotionally attached to and involved with their mother, and later with other women. This "failure" is because of a father's own emotional qualities; because he is not his daughter's primary caretaker, but comes on the scene after his daughter's relationship to this caretaker (her mother) is well established; and because he is not that involved with his children, however idealized and seductive he may be. A father is a different-and less available-oedipal object than a mother, and the differential involvement of the two parents with their daughter produces her dual, and differently constructed, attachments. A girl's internal oedipus situation is multi-layered. Her relationship of dependence, attachment, and symbiosis to her mother continues, and her oedipal (triangular,sexualized) attachments to her mother and then her father are simply added. The relationship to the father is at most emotionally equal to that of the mother; the relationships which compose the oedipus situation compete for primacy. The oedipal girl alternates between positive attraction to her father as escape from her mother, and reseeking of her mother as a safe and familiar refuge against her father's frustrating and frightening aspects. As Deutsch puts it: "analytic experience ofoffers abundant evidence of this bi-sexual oscillation between father and mother.56

154

Nancy Chodorow

A girl does "turn" to her father, and experiences her mother as a rival. This change of object, however, is founded upon a lack of change. It is based in a girl's relation to her mother, both as this has become part of her internal object world and ego defenses and as this relationship continues to be important and to change externally, as much as, or maybe more than, her relationship to her father. This "turn" cannot be absolute, because of the depth of her maternal attachment and because of the emotional and physical distance of her father (now and previously). A girl does not turn from mother to father, but comes to include her father along with her mother in her primary object world. Because a father presents himself seductively and encourages traditional feminine gender-role behavior toward him, moreover, a girl's oedipal relationship to him is liable to focus narrowly on stereotypic femininesexual elements rather than to consist, like her relation to her mother, in a multi-faceted affective involvement that includes but but does not center on erotic attraction. Two things stand out here. One is the external and internal relational complexity of the feminine oedipus complex, and the resulting complexities of cathectic orientations. A boy also may experience a "complete" oedipus complex, but his oscillation is usually not so pronounced, nor his heterosexual resolution so chancy. (Both treatment as a sexual other and his mother's generally greater emotional involvement with her children mean that he is likely to get emotional satisfactions and involvements, as well as heterosexual genitality, from her that a girl doesn't get from her father.) Secondly, fathers, given the normal situation of parenting and masculine and feminine personality, do not become the same kind of emotionally exclusive oedipal object for girls that mothers do for boys: "It is only in male children that we find the fateful combination of love for the one parent and simultaneous hatred for the other as a rival."57 A girl's family setting creates a different intrapsychic situation for her than that same family setting creates for a boy, and contributes to the quality of women's relational capacities and needs. The oedipus complex constitutes heterosexual orientation for women and thus prepares them for their participation in marriage, that is, for participation in an institution that gives men rights in women's sexual and procreative capacities. Heterosexuality is a dual result of a girl's father's seductiveness and her heterosexual mother's sexual rejection and transmission of a taboo on lesbian relationships. But this heterosexuality is not smoothly or exclusively constituted, and it arises as much through a girl's relation to her mother as it does through her relation to her father. As a

The FemaleOedipalConfiguration

155

result, most women retain primary emotional, if not erotic, commitments to women as well as to men. Perhaps more fundamental than sexual orientation in the feminine oedipus complex is the genesis of women's sense of self in relationship. Traditionally, psychoanalysis has understood women as appendages of their libido; it has not examined the construction of the feminine ego. My account here suggests that for a girl, autonomy and separation from her mother, along with ambivalent attachment to her, are central to the feminine oedipus complex. Sexual orientation becomes an issue in the context of these larger ego and relational issues, because fathers sexualize their relationships to daughters. A girl's relational ego develops in and through her oedipal relationships, and these relationships are much more complexly constructed and more consistently engaged than boys' relationships during the same period. Penis envy, the oedipus complex, motherdaughter relationships and the construction of heterosexual desire for a girl's father are ego issues as well as sexual issues. Women's relational sense of self is a core of feminine personality. Women are expected to find relational fulfillment in relationships with men. But as long as these relationships are gender-sterotyped and narrowly sexual, they will not fulfill women's relational needs. Moreover, women remain involved (albeit often ambivalently) with women as well as with men as they grow up, and retain a sense of relational self preoccupied with mother-daughter issues. Women have sought to recreate and work through this involvement in friendships with women, continuing closeness to mothers and sisters, and relationships with their own children. But these involvements become harder to sustain: women are less likely to live near female kin; the ambivalence of women's early overwhelming relationship to their mothers continues in later life; friendships with women, as well as relations to female kin, are normatively expected to carry much less emotional weight and not to interfere with relationships to men; and relations to children cannot carry the emotional loading of lack of gratification in all other relations. The dissatisfactions of contemporary women stems not only from their experience of social, political, and economic inequality, it stems from their continuing sense of unmet emotional and relational possibilities as well.
NOTES Thisarticleis adaptedfrom NancyChodorow,TheReproduction Mothering:Psychoof of Press,1978). analysisand the Sociologyof Gender(Berkeley: University California

156

Nancy Chodorow

1See, for example,Juliet Mitchell, and Psychoanalysis Feminism(New York: Pantheon Books, 1974) and Gayle Rubin,"TheTrafficin Women: Notes on a 'Political ed. an Economy'of Sex,"in Toward Anthropologyof Women, RaynaReiter(New York: MonthlyReviewPress,1975), pp. 157-210. in and 2See NancyChodorow,"FamilyStructure FemininePersonality," Woman, and (Stanford: StanCulture, Society, eds. MichelleZ. Rosaldoand LouiseLamphere and ford University Knots," Press,1974) and "OedipalAsymmetries Heterosexual SocialProblems23, no. 4 (1976): 454-68. of 3See SigmundFreud,"SomePsychicalConsequences the AnatomicalDistinction Editionof the Complete Betweenthe Sexes," 1925, TheStandard PsychologicalWorks SE), ed. and trans.JamesStrachey(London: The Hogarth of SigmundFreud(hereafter Press,1964), 19: 243-58; Freud,"FemaleSexuality,"1931, SE, 21: 223-43; and Freud, NewIntroductoryLectures,1933, SE, 22: 3-182. in Journalof the Ameri4Roy Schafer,"Problems Freud'sPsychologyof Women," can Psychoanalytic Association22, no. 3 (1974): 469. 5Ibid., p. 471. SexualMorality Modern and Nervousness," 6See, for example,Freud," 'Civilized' of 1908, SE, 9: 179-204; Freud,"Fragment an Analysisof a Caseof Hysteria,"1905a, SE, 7: 3-122; Freud,"Analysisof a Phobiain a Five-Year-Old Boy," 1909, SE, 10: 3-149. in For fullerdiscussionsof these tendencies,see, especially,Schafer,"Problems Freud's Psychology,"and Rubin,"TheTrafficin Women." Phaseof the LibidoDevelopment,"1940, 7Ruth MackBrunswick, "ThePreoedipal Universities ThePsychoanalytic Reader,ed. RobertFliess(New York: International Press,1969), pp. 231-53. accountsdo not discussa girl'soedipalidentificationwith her 8Psychoanalytic motherwith the kind of attentionto processand outcome that they directto a boy's identification,if they mentionit at all, anddo not tell us why or how it happens. Grootis on the moreexplicit side, as is Brunswick.(JeanneLampl-de Lampl-de Groot, of "Re-evaluation the Role of the OedipusComplex," International Journalof Psycho"ThePreoedipal Phase.") Analysis33 (1952): 335-42; Brunswick, 9Thisorderof eventsis implicitin the psychoanalytic account,but is explicit in modelsof gender-role identification. See Lawrence cognitive-developmental Kohlberg, "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysisof Sex-RoleConceptsand Attitudes,"TheDevelopmentof Sex Differences(Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press,1966), pp. 82-173. 10Forexample,debatesover whetherlittle girlsexperiencevaginalsensationsand awareness why this matters; and debatesover Sherfey'sattempt to integrateMasters's and Johnson'sresearch into psychoanalytic theory;and so forth. See MaryJane Sherfey, "The Evolutionand Natureof FemaleSexualityin Relationto Psychoanalytic Association14, no. 1 (1966): 28Theory,"Journalof the American Psychoanalytic 128. On the physiologyof femaleorgasm,see William Masters VirginiaE. H. and Johnson,HumanSexualResponse(Boston: Little, Brown,andCompany,1966). On the activity-passivity in debate, see Schafer,"Problems Freud'spsychology.' 1 Freud, "SomePsychicalConsequences," 256. p. "ThePreoedipal 12Brunswick, Phase,"p. 238. See also JeanneLampl-de Groot, "Problems Femininity," of 2 Psychoanalytic Quarterly (1933): 489-518, for an interpretationof the feminineoedipuscomplex stressing completerejectionof the mother. of 13See, for example,Freud,"Fragment an Analysis." 14Forhelpfuldiscussions the development these explanations, Janine of of see Introduction FemaleSexuality,ed. JanineChassequet-Smirgel to Chassequet-Smirgel, of (Ann Arbor: University Michigan Press,1970), originally publishedin 1964; Zenia OdesFliegel,"FemininePsychosexual in Development Freudian Theory: A Historical The 42 Reconstruction," Psychoanalytic Quarterly (1973): 385-408;and Roy C. Caloand of gerasand FabianX. Schupper, "Origins EarlyFormulations the OedipusCom-

The Female Oedipal Configuration

157

Association20, no. 4 (1972): 751-75. plex,"Journalof the American Psychoanalytic 15Theydo not claim,like Freud,that penisenvy has a crucialeffect on the rest of a woman'slife, however,but only that it is partof a girl'soedipalsearch. 16KarenHomey, "The Flight FromWomanhood:The Masculinity Complexin Womenas Viewedby MenandWomen,"1926, FemininePsychology(New York: W.W. Nortonand Company,1967); ErnestJones, "The EarlyDevelopment FemaleSexualof 8 Journalof Psycho-Analysis (1927): 459-72; ErnestJones, "The ity," International International JournalofPsycho-Analysis14 (1931): 1-33; and Ernest PhallicPhase," International Journalof Psycho-Analysis (1935): 16 Jones, "EarlyFemaleSexuality," Journal 263-73; Melanie Klein,"EarlyStagesof the OedipusConflict,"International 7 of Psycho-Analysis (1928): 167-80; Melanie Klein,ThePsychoanalysis Children, of trans.Alix Strachey(London: HogarthPress,1959), originally publishedin 1932; JanineChassequet-Smirgel, "FeminineGuiltand the OedipusComplex,"in Female "Outlinefor a Studyof Narcissism Female in Sexuality,pp. 94-134; and Grunberger, Sexuality,"in FemaleSexuality,pp. 68-83. 17Horney,"The Flightfrom Womanhood," 68. p. 18in Klein'sformulation 19in Jones'sformulation 20in Horney'sformulation 21Jones, "EarlyFemaleSexuality,"p. 273. here with Mitchell's 22I disagree that Freudcorrectlyunderstands femthat argument and ininity is made(see Mitchell,Psychoanalysis Feminism). If Freudhad assertedthat genderand sexualorientationfor both sexes is a socialproduct,that childrenwere orgiher would makemoresense. But Freudholds the inconsisnally ungendered, argument tent and sexist position that manis born, while womanis made. On the otherhand,it is ironic that feminists-should turnto Homey as a majorfounderof the "culturalschool" for supportfor claimsabout the socialoriginsof femininity,penis envy, etc., when her positionis so biologicallybased. 23Jones,"EarlyFemaleSexuality,"p. 273. R. of in 24Marjorie Leonard,"Fathersand Daughters:The Significance 'Fathering' the Psychosexual of Journalof Psycho-Analysis Development the Girl,"International 47 (1966): 325-34. 25For psychoanalytic reports,see, for example,Freud'scasesof "Dora"("Fragment of an Analysis")and "LittleHans"(Analysisof a Phobia"). For reviewsof the social literature whichdemonstrates psychological this, see Miriam Johnson,"Sex Role Learning in the NuclearFamily,"ChildDevelopment34 (1963): 319-34; and Miriam Johnson, and "Fathers,Mothers Sex-Typing," Sociological Inquiry45, no. 1 (1975): 15-26;and EleanorMaccobyand CarolJacklin,ThePsychologyof Sex Differences(Stanford: StanfordUniversity that fathersmay not stop Press,1974). For one study suggesting at sex-typingand covertseductiveness, JudithHerman LisaHirschman, see and "FatherDaughter Incest,"Signs 2, no. 4 (1977): 735-56, who arguefrom theirclinicalexperience that father-daughter incest is usuallya productof paternalseduction;hence, an extensionof normalpaternalbehavior, ratherthan a qualitatively differentformof behavior. 26FromEvelynGoodenough,1957, cited in Maccobyand Jacklin,ThePsychologyof Sex Differences,p. 329. 27Ibid. and 28Ibid. See also Johnson,"Sex Role Learning," Johnson,"Fathers,Mothers," and HenryB. Miller,Father,Child,and Sex Role (Lexington: D. C. Heathand Company, 1971). 29See, for example,Freud,"SomePsychicalConsequences,"; Freud,"FemaleSexuality,"; Freud,New IntroductoryLectures;Lampl-de of Groot, "Problems Femininity"; and Brunswick, "The Preoedipal Phase."

158

Nancy Chodorow

of 30Lampl-de Groot,"Problems Femininity," 497. p. 31Freud,New Introductory Lectures,pp. 126-27. 32See Brunswick, "ThePreoedipal Phase"; Freud,"SomePsychicalConsequences'; Freud,New IntroductoryLectures. in 33Schafer,"Problems Freud'sPsychology,"p. 473. 34Ibid.,pp. 474-75. 35Freud,New Introductory Lectures,p. 124. "ThePreoedipal 36Brunswick, Phase,"p. 247. 37She also allowshim greater whichis not dealt with in the psychoindependence, analytictradition. "FeminineGuiltand the OedipalComplex." 38Chassequet-Smirgel, mother"phallic."Herdiscussion,how39Followingthem, she also calls the preoedipal ever,suggeststhat beingphallicis a way of talkingabout power,and not so mucha characteristic a motherwho will then come to be recognizedas what of physiological she reallyis, that is, "castrated." 40Ibid.,p. 112. 41Ibid., p. 115. 42Ibid.,pp. 115-16. 43Ibid., p. 118. 44As I noted earlier,Chassequet-Smirgel agreeswith Homey, Klein,and Jones that a and girlalso comes to desireandlove her fatherbecauseof innateheterosexuality, not only as a secondaryreactionto her realdesireto be masculineandpossessa penis. 45Alice Balint,TheEarly Years Life (New York: BasicBooks, 1954); Brunswick, of "ThePreoedipal Phase,"JeanneLampl-de Groot, "TheEvolutionof the OedipusComplex in Women,"1927, ThePsychoanalytic Reader,pp. 180-94;Lampl-de Groot, "Reevaluation the Role";and Gayle Rubin,"TheTrafficin Women." of 46Alice Balint,TheEarly Years Life, p. 85. All four theoristsagreeon this comof of ponent in the development penis envy thoughthey varyin how they weighit in comis basis parisonto other components. Brunswick closest to Freud,in seeingthe original of penisenvy as narcissistic, with an "objectroot" addedon. Balintand Lampl-de Groot tend to put moreemphasison the object-relational root, and to assumeequivalentnarcissistic threatsto childrenof both genders. Rubinassignsto penisenvy an almostexclusively root. object-oriented of Groot, "Problems Femininity,"p. 497. 47Lampl-de 48Alice Balint,TheEarly Yearsof Life, p. 86. 49Gayle Rubin,"TheTrafficin Women." 50W.R. D. Fairbairn, in Structure Considered Termsof Object1944, "Endopsychic An Relationships," Object-Relations Theoryof the Personality(New York: BasicBooks, 1944), p. 124. 51Freud,TheEgo and the Id, 1923, SE, 19: 3-59. "ThePreoedipal 52Brunswick, Phase,"p. 238. 53Thissplittingand projectioncan neverbe a permanent solutionto experiencedmergit the ing (as Alice Balintsuggests, maintains connectionwith a negativesign). 54HeleneDeutsch,Psychologyof Women(New York: Gruneand Stratton,1944), p. 32. "ThePreoedipal 55Brunswick, Phase,"pp. 250-51. 56HeleneDeutsch,"OnFemaleHomosexuality," 1932, ThePsychoanalytic Reader, p. 225; and HeleneDeutsch,Psychologyof Women. 57Freud,"FemaleSexuality,"p. 229.