You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
ANALYSTS AND ANTHROPOLOGISTS ARE BOTH ACCUSTOMED to dealing with naturalistic, qualitatively complex configurations, not with abstracted, quantitatively contrived statistics. Thus, the single case of Freud's Little Hans is so self-consistent that, in a sense, we hardly need the N = 2 "confirmation" of Ferenczi's Little Arpad. Similarly, a single properly reported tribe, as with George Devereux's Mohave Indians, has a self-consistent validity all of its own.
Folkloristically-oriented analysts have existed ever since the time of Rank, Jones, Róheim, and Freud himself. And yet there are still problems in the intellectual cooperation of analysts and anthropologists. For example, Malinowski's report on a trivial variation in the Trobriand-Islander Oedipus complex has been too quickly seized upon as totally invalidating the universality of the Oedipus. And yet, so long as Trobriand father sleeps with mother, and brothers and sisters do not, and siblings do not sleep with one another, then Trobrianders still have the Oedipus—even though adult male authority derives from the uterine brother-sister bond and not from the conjugal nuclear-family bond. Because many