Latency: Fact or Fiction?

We owe the basis of our understanding of childhood sexuality to Sigmund Freud, who rocked the world in his day with his theories of infantile and childhood sexuality. When Freud described the impact of a child's experience on his adult character, the world was made to take cognizance of the universality of sexual activity and learning in children. In his theory of infantile sexuality, Freud described the erotic lives of infants and young children. In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality Freud established the critical periods of psychosexual development and described the various stages of sexual development during the first four years of life.

Freud reconstructed the early sexual experiences, responses and fantasies of his adult patients, and it was this data that provided the framework for a developmental theory of childhood sexuality. The genius of Freud is not to be denied. Today, however, psychoanalytic theory is often the recipient of aggressive criticism concerning the validity and derivation of its concepts. All too frequently we, as members of the analytic community, respond defensively, tenaciously holding onto the learned analytic principles.

The organicists challenge psychoanalysis on the basis that so much of the theory is derived from case studies that are detailed but too few in number. At present, psychoanalytic concepts stand or fall on these limited case histories. If we are to consider psychoanalysis as a science, it is important to scientifically validate, or if need be, invalidate, our theories. Little primary research in this field has been initiated. Difficult as such research may seem, it need not be considered impossible. If psychoanalysis is to survive as an important and respected theory and treatment modality, then its theories must be justified. To theorize from five to ten case reports leaves psychoanalysis open to justly earned criticism.

This study investigates the concept of latency as a paradigm for beginning psychoanalytic research.