Re-Evaluation of the Rôle of the Oedipus Complex1

It seems appropriate that a symposium on this topic should include an analysis of the myths and dramas from which the Oedipus complex derives its name—the more so since Dr. van der Sterren has also made some re-evaluations. He has called our attention to various references in the text to the preoedipal elements in the drama. He has demonstrated how the tendentious ambiguity of certain translators has screened the expression of the son's hostility to the mother as well as the father. He has established the parallelism between Jocasta and the bisexual Sphinx and shown the child's need to divide his ambivalence towards his mother. And finally, à propos of our discussion, he has said: 'The question may arise whether the emotions of the positive Oedipus complex are really so very clearly expressed (in the drama) because behind them the enmity towards the mother must be kept concealed.'

This question is of essential importance. In it is latent the issue of the relationship of pregenitality to the Oedipus complex. It suggests also the possibility of pregenital activity behind the oedipal scene as a factor in the major operations of the personality. These are among the problems which we should like to clarify to-day.

We have looked upon the superego as the heir of the Oedipus complex. Is the Oedipus complex similarly the successor to the several instincts, in a synthesis which focuses on the phallic organization, while subordinating earlier libidinal organizations? Or is it to be seen as the arena for the play of the component instincts? Is it the nuclear complex of neurosis and character formation? Is it only one factor among a series? Or is it possible, as Dr. Lampl-de Groot asks, that the 'central conflict lies in the preoedipal relationship to the mother'?

The last two decades have seen these problems crystallized around the findings and theories of a number of English analysts following the teachings of Melanie Klein. We have heard Dr. Heimann's lucid exposi