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 lieu of an abstract, I begin with a synopsis. In light of nonlinear dynamic systems theory and recent empirical research, the Oedipus complex is no longer theoretically viable as a posited hard-wired linear phase of development. Oedipal phenomenology, in my view, most aptly refers, in its positive form, to a particular relational configuration in which the child expansively tries on the role of a heterosexual partner of the opposite-gendered parent and variably feels identified with, as well as competitive with, the same-gendered parent. Romantic love, I have proposed, captures more inclusively the phenomenology of loving, erotic experience. With rudimentary implicit procedural beginnings in early childhood, the Oedipal relational configuration gains momentum especially with the hormonally charged onset of sexual attraction around the mean age of 9–10. As an important, but not sole, childhood/adolescent romantic relational configuration, its success as to self-enhancement or depletion and to the consolidation of a heterosexual orientation emerges out of parental responsiveness within the parent–child interaction. Systems theory leads us to believe that, at a process level, there are many possible, and often unpredictable, pathways for the development of romantic love, sexuality, gender, and sexual orientation. Anchored in ongoing implicit and explicit learning, developmental processes in these arenas are infinitely complex and variably interconnected processes. Our focus is now shifting to more detailed studies of what contributes to the development, enhancement, and maintenance of romantic love.
It was 1968. I was 28 and it was my first year of psychoanalytic training at the Postgraduate Center for Mental Health of New York City.1 In those days, the Postgraduate Center was known as an “eclectic Freudian” psychoanalytic institute. I soon learned that eclectic meant id psychology and ego psychology. Although recognition of the pre-Oedipal relationship t