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.
This is a reprint of Dr. Chodoff's article which was printed originally in The American Journal of Psychiatry in 1966. In 're-examining' the theory of infantile sexuality, the author suggests that Freud's convictions about sexuality were imposed upon his clinical material, and he doubts the objectivity of psychoanalytically trained child observers or clinicians, whom he implies will find only what they already believe to be true in the data of observation. In support of this cautionary note about objectivity, the author quotes out of context a passage from Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein which comes from an article (The Function of Theory in Psychoanalysis, 1953) whose thesis is diametrically opposed to Chodoff's views. He also suggests that infantile amnesia may be no more than a reflection of the immaturity of the child's mental apparatus. Recent biological research is quoted to cast doubt upon the constitutional basis of sexual development, but the later papers on female sexual development, for example, where Freud's theoretical formulations are based upon clinical psychological grounds, are not mentioned at all. Taken in toto, the article will present to analysts of freudian persuasion only a rehashing of familiar but unconvincing objections, while it will be greeted with more enthusiasm by those whose convictions are such that any challenge to classical concepts seems welcome and refreshing.