Epilogue

If one could find a single concept on which contemporary psychoanalysts with different theoretical persuasions might agree, it would probably be Pine's (1985) comment that “human developmental phenomena are endlessly complex” (p. 146). This is perhaps also one theme that runs through contemporary thinking about feminine and masculine gender identity and that can be found in the seven articles in this issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry.

The papers detail some of the complex constellations of dynamics involved in masculine and feminine gender identity. Although the various authors might disagree on some of the specifics, they all seem to agree that a variety of factors affect the gender identity of any single individual. Some of the authors have focused on the possibility that, while core gender identity may be established quite early, there is broader sense of what it means to be a man or a woman that changes over time, as an individual engages in the many developmental tasks that continue to affect her or his sense of self throughout the life cycle. To paraphrase (and extend) a concept of Steiner-Adair (1989), men and women in our culture struggle with numerous different images of feminine and masculine identity, and must find a way to satisfy “a quest for identity based on personhood rather than on gender-prescribed roles” (Steiner-Adair, 1989, pp. 155-156).

Contemporary research such as that described by Robinson and Biringen indicates that there are some specific innate behavioral differences between infant boys and girls, and that these differences may influence masculine and feminine gender identity. Yet they point out that it is not always easy to determine just how much of this behavior is constitutional and how much is influenced by the parents' (often unconscious) attitudes and expectations. (In some of her studies of toddlers, Olesker, 1984, has also wondered how much the parents' behavior toward the child is influenced by cues from the child—often not ev