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.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Robert Dickes commented on the relation of the coprophagic phenomena described to the oral and phallic phases of libidinal and aggressive development. He felt that Dr. Tarachow's concept of coprophagia and its derivatives as not representing object relationship could be reconciled with the apparently opposite viewpoint that the stool can function as an object.
Dr. Melitta Sperling felt that in our culture the repression of anality seems stronger than the repression of orality. She described clinical material illustrating the role of the mother in the child's bowel training. She disagreed with the conclusion that coprophagic derivatives do not represent an object relation; even in narcissistic withdrawal, an ambivalent relationship to the feces continues.
Dr. Jan Frank said that in his experience with patients exhibiting many of the characteristics described by Dr. Tarachow, all had suffered a significant break in the early relationship to the mother and that subsequent coprophagic behavior and related attitudes could be seen as an eternal search for the lost, loving mother.
Dr. Gustav Bychowski described a patient who put his nose pickings in potted plants. He commented on smearing, which he viewed as an attempt at reunion with the mother. Hair pulling and eating are often associated with bulimia and these patients sometimes equate food with feces. Dr. Bychowski agreed that the coprophagic's relation to the stool represents a narcissistic regression and not an object relation.
Dr. Alan Eisnitz felt that Dr. Tarachow had overstressed the libidinal aspects involved in the material. Some of the habits described were not necessarily