Epilogue

It is evident from the preceding papers that, as in most psychoanalytic matters, we are indebted to Freud for opening the door to our understanding of female psychology and development. It is also evident from these papers that we have progressed well beyond Freud in our understanding of the female psyche, and we must continue to do so. Freud was limited by the phallocentric view of his times, which he adopted. He failed, as Elizabeth Young-Bruehl points out, to revise his theories of female development in the light of his later theoretical conceptualizations in other important areas. As the present time lag in utilizing new insights into the female psyche demonstrates, it is not easy to depart from previously established ideas and theories.

In addition to problems posed by his own personal conflicts, experiences, and biases, Freud did not have the advantage of being influenced by modern culture with its changes in the role of women, or of the systematic studies utilizing infant and child research observations, the accumulated data from adult analysis over many years, and information derived from child analysis. Freud recognized the importance of preoedial influences on the female and her relationship with mother, for example, but he did not utilize these ideas in his theories.

The new findings represented in the modern literature, as well as in the papers in this issue, have important theoretical implications. As such, they also are significant for the psychoanalytic treatment of women. Interpretations based upon the older model could