Half a Century Later: Current Status of Freud's Controversial Views on Women*

The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the issues, first raised in the 1920s, around Freud's formulations on feminine development. During the intervening period, the historic controversy around this subject was seemingly all but forgotten, with classical literature generally reflecting an unquestioning acceptance of the validity of Freud's views. It is only with the current reexamination of this area of psychoanalytic theory that earlier questions and dissents among psychoanalysts have been rediscovered. References to Horney and Jones, the central figures in the original controversy, are now almost routine in papers on this subject, although there is great variation in the way they are referred to, and in what aspects of their views are chosen for citation. Relatively few Freudian analysts, even if in substantial disagreement with Freud in this area, acknowledge any merit to the views of the early analytic dissenters. Yet the latter's influence is felt indirectly: often, nuances in current formulations (which range widely) can be better understood when related to the earlier history and to earlier polarized positions. Further, Freud's own formulations can best be grasped in that same light, since they were forged in the context of the early polemics.11

In a recent paper, Irene Fast comments that although major propositions of Freud's theory of femininity have proved to be untenable, “This theory has remained dominant in psychoanalytic psychology. It has not been discarded and … [it] is not ignored.”8a Though factually justified, Fast's position overlooks certain important realities.