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.
I was very pleased to read Dr Peter Tatham's response to my contribution, ‘Klein's archaic Oedipus complex and its possible relationship to the myth of the labyrinth’, and regret that I was unaware of his own similar endeavour in The making of Maleness (Tatham 1992, London & New York: Karnac & New York University Press). I am in essential agreement with each of the points he makes in his response. If I could epitomize his point of view, it would be as follows: Myths are syncretic constructs with a universal psychological application which help mediate and organize the chaos (pristine ‘un-formation’, the as yet unmentalized aspects of our awareness). They help to organize and construct mythems about this chaos so as to prepare the un-mentalized elements for symbolic transformation, the beast within us becomes acculturated and civilized; wildness becomes tamed and insane being becomes thinkable. Further, since myths are syncretic, they have myriads of applications and should not be concretized. They must always be seen contextually. Since myths emerged originally from the oral tradition, they are subject to narrative thematic variations; consequently, we should not literalize any particular feature of a mythic narrative. If my summary does justice to Dr Tatham's explications of myths, then I am in agreement with him.
In his critique of my contribution, he points out that many of the features of my analysand's dream do not strictly correspond to the structure of the myth of the labyrinth, for example, ‘there were no twists, turns, or divisions in the pathway, no ease of entry and difficulty of egress …’ This is true. He also points out that the menacing eel-like creature in the dream differs significantly from the emotional contour of the Minotaur. This is also true. However, I believe that the infinite qualities of each of these creatures can be understood as being a ‘symmetrizing’ feature in which intimidation, stress, and implied quasi-human nature converge.