Meeting of the Psychoanalytic Association of New York

DISCUSSION: Dr. Roy Lilleskov questioned some aspects of the authors' method. First, the setting in which their observations were made exposed toddlers to a greater opportunity than usual to observe genital differences, and this was re-enforced by their being observed while observing these differences. This might have stimulated precocious genital interest. Secondly, the theoretical set of the researchers might have led them to interpret behaviors as genital that others might interpret differently. Dr. Lilleskov was more impressed by the child's separation-individuation conflict than by his castration anxiety. The 'fetishistic' use of the inanimate object seemed an attempt to deal with the fear of object loss and self-annihilation, with precocious 'castration' anxiety only a part of the general body image instability. Parental seduction combined with the fostering of dependence on the mother for tension reduction undoubtedly intensified the symbiotic relationship and interfered with the individuation process.

Dr. Jerome S. Silverman felt that the research methodology was extremely convincing as described. He was concerned, however, about the problem of avoiding the genetic fallacy: correlating later psychopathology with earlier observations of its presumed precursors. Anatomic locale does not necessarily imply zonal libidinal phasic development. The paper raised the question of whether such adultomorphic terms as fetish, perversion, or even castration anxiety can be used at such an early developmental period. Dr. Silverman wondered if the fetishistic defenses could be ascribed to sexual rediscovery and castration anxiety at seventeen months. Massive trauma over the first