The Macho Don Juan: A Reply to Javier and Yussef

Javier and Yussef (1995) recently underscored in this Journal that culture and ethnicity intimately influence moral development, yet the direct rather than implied attention that these factors have received in psychoanalytic theories is limited. In their view, however, a complete moral meaning of the human equation can only be reached by permitting “the coexistence of the ‘Universals,’ including the ‘Categorical Imperatives’ of Kant (1959), and the ‘Particulars’ (culturally based norms)” (p. 82). By focusing on the significance of “Particulars,” they attempted resolution of a great Freudian paradox: Freud held the belief that regardless of ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic and sociopolitical status, the cognitive and emotional experience of an individual could be explained via the universality of certain principles of mental functioning. By proving Freud's case, “it could be said that he became the greatest social reformer of our time, a social equalizer” (Javier and Yussef, 1995, p. 82). Nevertheless, by denying the relevance of these just-mentioned factors in Freud's theories, his writings serve to support the belief that psychoanalytic technique is only appropriate to treat a limited population of special persons—the analyzability of those with special qualities—“the ‘new class'” (Javier and Herron, 1995, p. 82; see also Javier and Herron, 1992; Eissler, 1953). “With regard to Latino patients, such a position has influenced the extent to which psychoanalytic formulations are seen as relevant and applicable to the understanding of their reality (Javier, 1990; Ruiz, 1981)” (Javier and Herron, , pp. 82-83).

Javier and Yussef then focused on the “Particulars” of some ethnic and cultural influences in Latino moral development, including the role of religiosity and gender differences in moral expectations, while warning that the characteristics described are hardly applicable in the same manner to all Latinos; generalizations