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.
In these two papers Andrew Samuels's focus is on the roles occupied by fathers—both in our theoretical constructions and in family life. If somewhat distilled, Samuels's contribution is certainly timely, given current preoccupations about the negative father as expressed in child sexual abuse. He contends there is a need for creative debate about the positive aspects of good-enough fathering, noting that the
general fascination in cases of sexual abuse carries an interest in the roles fathers play in the development of their children.
Linking his argument to Jung's view of the unconscious aim of incest fantasy—i.e., rebirth of oneself through contact with the ‘parental soil’—Samuels states: ‘The psychological function of incestuous sexuality is to facilitate the closeness of love.’ (Part i, p. 417). He is clear in saying that if incestuous sexuality is acted out, it has a debilitating, disturbing effect; if not, it provides a most potent fuel for closeness between parent and child, and hence for the growth of the child. Samuels puts the father in quotes to note that he defines the ‘father’ as a created relationship, in contrast to the biological basis of the relationship between mother and child. Further, he locates the father-child relationship in the context of two other relationships—those of man and woman, and mother and infant. The value of this construction is that it affords space to see that the relationship with ‘father’ has particular psychological and cultural significance in the development of a child's gender identity. Hence ‘father’ as gender. The notions of ‘gender certainty’ and ‘gender confusion’ are noted as positions in a process where the father's capacity to be flexible—to find a position of animated moderation—becomes critical: ‘How to find a way of not being too gender certain or too gender confused—somewhere in the middle, just a little mixed up.’ (Part 1, p. 424.)
Samuels's argument centres on the need in families for sexuality to have its t