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.
In discussing the incest prohibition, Freud indicated there can be no complete identification with the father, because sexual intercourse with mother is reserved for the father and forbidden for the son. Thus, there are two opposite mandates: "be like your father" and "do not be like your father." Chiozza goes beyond Freud's formulation, indicating that in reality the son is not forbidden from doing something the father is allowed to do. The father has the same prohibition against his own incestuous wishes for his mother. In this way, a complete identification with the father reinforces the incest taboo. From a clinical point of view Freud's formulation is validated because the child and the neurotic experience sexual permission and prohibition with the same woman. The capacity to distinguish between two different roles in the same woman, "the mother" and "the wife," is an acquisition which is the product of object relations and their internalizations. The confusion between the different objects ("mother" and "wife") which are expressed in the physical presence of the same woman, a confusion which exists in the son when he thinks that the father can do what he cannot, has its genetic origin in the persistence of a primitive type of thought in the service of a wishful fantasy. This primitive thought has social and psychoanalytic implications, in that son and father, patient and analyst, share as brothers the same taboo imposed by an evolutionary process called culture.