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.
“Oedipus complex” and “castration anxiety” are words; the psychic realities which they represent are infinitely various.
In introducing the panel, chair Nancy Kulish observed that through psychoanalytic theories of female development have changed over the years, our theoretical language by and large has not. Pleas for changes in our theoretical language regarding gender development have for the most part fallen on deaf ears. This panel was conceived in order to explore questions about the forces that keep us rooted in language that no longer conveys the depth of our understanding of female experience. Why have we been so wedded to our traditional psychoanalytic lexicon, including terms such as phallic phase, castration anxiety, and female oedipal, in spite of persuasive arguments that these terms may not apply to women?
One of the panelists, Henri Parens, recommended more than twenty-five years ago that the term phallic or phallic-oedipal phase for girls be replaced by the term first genital phase. This recommendation, largely ignored, was based on his observational research with little girls. Similarly, as argued by Kulish and Holtzman , the term female oedipal may not capture certain aspects of girls’ triangular conflicts. Nonetheless, Kulish noted, phallocentric language has continued to dominate our theoretical lexicon, often lending a pejorative cast to our writing and thinking regarding female development. This lag in the development of our language has impeded development of our theories, as well as our ability to listen to our patients with the depth and breadth