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. Aaron H. Esman felt that the authors' data were impressive and fascinating, but he found fault with a too ready leap from observed behavior to presumed mental activity, which risks the errors of adultomorphism, reductionism, and misattribution. Certainly the data offered are susceptible to alternative interpretations. The authors seem to pay scant attention to ego developmental and object relations perspectives, tending to assign primacy to the area of sexual development. Dr. Esman expressed the hope that the authors will use their data to explicate the interrelationships of psychosexual development and object relations development. Dr. John McDevitt saw a need to integrate Mahler's studies on separation-individuation with the authors' wealth of data on psychosexual development. He noted that much of the data must have been obtained by questioning the parents. What effect might this have had on the parents and what influence might it have had on their observations and answers? He would expect a wider range of individual differences in development. He felt also that the boys' reaction to observations of genital differences is more complicated than just denial. He found very interesting the positive relationship between the us of denial and the capacity for symbolic elaboration. Other variables may be important as well—for example, the nature and degree of elaboration of symbolic play. The boys' play may be equally symbolic but less rich and accessible, thereby giving the appearance of less fantasy elaboration.