Talk:Oedipus complex

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)

I've added some criticism by Adolf Grünbaum, per your advice. What I've been able to find is about psychoanalytic claims in general, rather than about the Oedipus complex in particular. I invite anyone with more specific information to improve upon this. Jno.skinner (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (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)

I removed this banner after expanding the section, and per your advice, recategorizing the contents. Now the headings are focused on the thrust of the criticism rather than the category of thought to which it belongs. Thanks for your suggestion! Jno.skinner (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2021 (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.

Thanks for your input! I have tried to contextualize the portion you raised a concern about (both in the lead and in the body) by delineating Freud's earlier formulation of the complex from the later stuff. I introduced a rather lengthy quotation from A Special Type of Choice of Object made by Men to give that early context. I hope it's not too long. Jno.skinner (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

I agree that this is not a supported claim. I have removed it. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Section in Criticism

In the Postmodern criticism section it says: "Scientific and technological advancements have allowed same-sex couples to start families through adoption or surrogacy."

How exactly does technology and science help in the adoption process? I don't want to change it right now in case I'm misunderstanding something.

--Bobross1846 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree this this is confusing, and I find it wanders from the topic somewhat. I have removed a part of the statement. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Eribon

There's something wrong with the second quotation from Eribon, where the article reads:

According to Didier Eribon, the book Anti-Oedipus (1972) by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari is "a critique of psychoanalytic normativity and Oedipus ..." and "... a setting oedipinianisme devastating issue of ... ".[52]

There must be something missing or a mistranslation.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. I have removed that portion of the quotation and re-written the paragraph. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mommy issues

Should mommy issues really redirect here? I dont know, it just seems to me that the oedipus complex is something completely different. Unknown... (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Mommy issues" is a vague term. Oedipus complex is a specific theory from a specific historical context. They're not very similar. I agree, the redirect should be removed Jno.skinner (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Misapplication of Oedipus Greek text

Can a sourced criticism addition be made given that Oedipus married his mother without either of them knowing their mother child relationship? No such desire of killing his father to sleep with his mother existed in the Greek story.

contriving on Fred’s part to make a nice thesis? 2600:1700:D591:5F10:1C87:111E:1C4D:ED35 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias

there is an organized group (around an administrator) which writes articles concerning psychoanalysis in a not very encyclopedic way, an unscientific way !

please review the differences here

--BrainNiouSecondHand (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You have removed statements like "There is very little scientific evidence in support of the Oedipus complex." I think it's odd for you to call this "not very encyclopedic" when the claim is cited to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Do you have another reason for removing material that appears to me to fit Wikipedia policy? Jno.skinner (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not well supported by empirical evidence

Editor Harold the Sheep has removed the phrase "the existence of the Oedipus complex is not well supported by empirical evidence" with the argument "Freud, and many others, would disagree."

It is trivial to observe that Freud agreed with his own ideas. The relevant question, instead, is if there is a scientific consensus on this empirical claim. In WP:SCICON it says: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought." As the statement is sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica, I believe it represents a scientific consensus.

More broadly, Harold the Sheep, you've been removing sourced criticism of Oedipus from the article in spite of the several requests above for a more fleshed-out criticism section. Is there a reason for this other than "Freud would disagree"? Jno.skinner (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You've misrepresented the argument. The argument was actually that the phrase is presented as a fact, when in reality it's an assertion from a particular perspective. The observation is obviously not that "Freud agreed with his own ideas", it is that Freud and many others, particularly practicing psychoanalysts, would argue that there is considerable empirical evidence supporting the existence of the Oedipus complex. It is therefore a disputed point of view, and should not be asserted as a fact in wikivoice, any more than Freud's theoretical concepts, drawn from his own clinical experience and designed for a particular purpose, should be presented as absolute facts. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I take your point that it shouldn't be in wikivoice. I propose the wording "Modern science has found little empirical evidence to support the existence of the Oedipus complex."

You mention practicing psychoanalysts who argue there is empirical evidence. Though I don't doubt such psychoanalysts exist, I don't see them discussed or sourced in the article. Do they mount a serious challenge to the scientific consensus? Jno.skinner (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A statement like "Modern science has found little empirical evidence to support the existence of the Oedipus complex" is just as problematic because you would have to define who and what is meant by the incredibly general term "modern science", and also who and what is excluded. Practitioners, theoreticians and researchers in the field of psychology, as well as historians of science and observers of culture, do not necessarily exclude Freud from modern science. The problem is that psychology is an inherently uncertain field because it is the science of the mind, the science of subjectivity. The mind or soul or psyche is not merely an 'object' to be studied, it is also the locus of the inner subjective experience of a living human being. Fixed and definitive objective answers are much harder to come by because we are dealing with, essentially, a complete mystery - the mystery of consciousness and the human psyche. Freud's theoretical concepts were necessarily drawn from the phenomena he encountered in analysis, and were unfinalized but (he and others would argue) empirical-evidence-based attempts to understand those phenomena and provide a conceptual framework for continued progress toward a science of subjectivity. Other well-known psychoanalysts and theoreticians like Jacques Lacan and Melanie Klein are discussed in the article, but there is certainly work that could be done to improve coverage. Such analysts are not seeking to mount a challenge to what you call the "scientific consensus": they are simply, like Freud, operating from a different perspective in an inherently uncertain field, and their work, also based in the evidence of their clinical practice, should not necessarily be excluded from "modern science".

My apologies Jno.Skinner, I probably won't be able to contribute much to this discussion over the next week or so. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Evidence section

It seems to me that the link to the topic of the article is not done by the sources cited, and the link to the complex is done only by a press article. It seems mostly personal interpretation to link the conclusions of the papers to psychoanalysis. Am I wrong ? If not it should be deleted. TomT0m (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right with regard to the second paragraph; maybe not the first. Harold the Sheep (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is sourced by a press article which uses the article "Positive sexual imprinting for human eye color", which is on Bioarxiv and seems to be only a preprint, so not peer reviewed : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Positive+sexual+imprinting+for+human+eye+color&btnG= . It’s probably unpublished as far as I can tell, so it’s weak in the first place. Besides, the full text does not mention neither psychoanalysis nor oedipus complex, so it’s even more weaker. I did not look at the anthropologist work in the second sentence yet but … TomT0m (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The section doesn't add much to the article anyway, so it might be a good idea to remove the whole thing. Harold the Sheep (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. TomT0m (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)