Talk:Oedipus complex

Template:Vital article

misleading intro: uncertainty unmentioned

The introduction speaks of the Oedipus complex as a certainty whereas the section “Criticism” speaks of it as hypothetical. The introduction should mention its hypothetical character.--Anareth (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree that the introduction is misleading on this basis. The introduction frames the Oedipus Complex as a “concept” - brainchild of Freud. Nowhere does the intro imply otherwise. Marcus Ecks (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section not representative of Freud scholarship

I'm not qualified to offer substantial improvements, but I'm familiar enough with the range of 20th and 21st century criticism on Freud to know that a full paragraph devoted to discussion of Grose's No More Silly Love Songs doesn't make sense. This in no way implies criticism of Grose's book - only that there are very influential critical discussions of the Oedipus Complex that should take priority here: Richard Wollheim, Jonathan Lear, Adolf Grunbaum, etc. WilhelmFliess (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of Criticism

The Criticism section of the article has a banner by Wikipedia that states that the section needs expansion. It has been there since October of 2015. I suggest that the criticism section should be categorized into different sections so that readers and users can better find information on criticism of theory.--Surrealistic Ego (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the description of the Oedipus Complex

I come back here periodically and I'm concerned by the part of this article which describes the Oedipus complex as such: "The positive Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent and hatred for the same-sex parent. The negative Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the same-sex parent and hatred for the opposite-sex parent."

This is not really an accurate description of the Oedipus complex in Freud. It is unclear to me whether or not the goal of this article is to accurately represent the concept in Freud himself, or to present the ways in which it has changed over the course of psychoanalytic theory. As it stands, though, it is unclear what it is presenting.

Freud focuses initially on the Oedipus complex in boys in the Interpretation of Dreams, arguing that boys wish to sleep with their mothers and kill their fathers. He initially hyothesizes a parallel process in girls without going into detail about it. In his later work, however, he goes into much more detail, with the Oedipal process operating as follows:

In both children, the child is considered undifferentiated from the mother and forming a deep connection with her. The observation of the absence or presence of a penis is recognized either literally or symbolically. In girls, there is a recognition of the lack of a penis, and a sense that they have been castrated. This results in 'penis envy' which results in the girl identifying with the mother and desiring to reclaim the penis through attraction to the father. The boy meanwhile recognizes that his penis can be lost, experiences 'Castration anxiety' and comes to view the male parent as both someone to identify with and a potential threat or competitor with the mother.

Or to put it another way, in Freud, the Oedipus complex refers to the way children of BOTH SEXES experience connection with the mother, and fear of the father (not attraction for the opposite sex parent) but which are resolved differently via penis envy and castration anxiety.

There is no concept in Freud of a negative Oedipus complex, or of an Electra complex of any kind. These concepts are later and should be specifically described as distinct versions of the theory. As it stands, this page seems to be a misrepresentation of the concept.

I have attempted to edit this page with corresponding evidence from Freud and from supporting psychoanalytic works in the past, but every time, the description is returned to one that seems fundamentally incorrect. I'm not sure how to progress, so I'm writing an extensive comment here in the hope that someone can check into this and fix things appropriately.

Problematic Statement

The following statement is highly problematic and somewhat irrelevant on a page that should surely be devoted to the explication of the Oedipus Complex (I think has it was conceived and how it has evolved over time and is currently used):

"Freud resisted subjecting theories such as this one to scientific testing and verification, as did his followers[8]. As evidence-based investigations proceeded in disciplines like cognitive psychology, many of Freud's ideas appeared to be unsupported or contradicted by evidence, and are not used in evidenced-based treatments.[8]"

The above statement is clearly biased along guild lines. Apart from being a dig at Freud (everyone's favourite pass time) and implicating all psychodynamically and psychoanalytically derived treatments as "Not evidence-based" (just wrong), it adds nothing to the reader's appreciation of the topic at hand and falsely declares the idea as dead. Granted, there are many valid critiques which will usefully reshape the concept as they are answered. This is the nature of theoretical development.

The Oedipus complex is bigger than Freud and remains relevant in many schools of psychoanalysis (which continue to exist and develop).

1 - it still refers to an element of the developmental process through which we move from dyadic to triadic functioning 2 - offers a rich tradition of thought that helps clinicians grapple with the psychological impact people experience as they come to terms with the facts like a. your parent existed before you, b. they are in a relationship that will forever excluded you, c. others also have relationships that exclude you (even with themselves). 3 - there are indeed many cases where we see clients unconsciously acting out scenes that are sometimes usefully understood in Oedipal terms. 4 - as a symbolically rich metaphor that helps both clinician and client to grasp or find meaning in elements of their experience, fantasies, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzosinisi (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Keeping Up With the Times

"It is necessary for the psychoanalytic theory to change to keep up with the times and remain relevant."

What is the source for this claim? Why does the theory need to "change to keep up with the times?" This sounds like an opinion born out of a perceived necessity for political correctness. Tpkatsa (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)