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.
Lampl-de Groot makes the criticism that sometimes two phenomena which are connected with each other genetically, are in analytic literature looked upon as identical. Pregenital conflicts which are reflected in the later specific Oedipus
complex, are not yet an Oedipus complex. A little boy, who at the age of two loved his mother in a passive-receptive way and behaved like a little girl, at the age of four turned into a little man who hated his father as his rival; only then was it justifiable to call it an Oedipus complex. Lampl-de Groot warns against other 'adulto-morphisms'. Terms which imply differentiated states in later ages are sometimes reprojected and used for integrated early states. 'Superego' and 'projectedly misunderstood object' are not the same. Psychotics have regressed but that does not mean that infants are psychotics. Some analytic authors, it seems to Lampl-de Groot, did not understand the differentiation in development, but she thinks it justified to state of such authors: 'Just as preanalytic psychology denied that there was such a thing as the unconscious, so do they deny that there is such a thing as the dynamic development of the personality under the influence of external forces'.