Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychoanalytic
Association
http://apa.sagepub.com/
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association can be
found at:
Email Alerts: http://apa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://apa.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://apa.sagepub.com/content/53/4/1257.refs.html
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
jap a
53/4
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1258
infants (with the exception, of course, of his contacts with his own children). He extrapolated his conclusion from the perversions, but even
without observing infants, he was uncannily on the mark. Moreover,
he made sexuality central to psyche. Freuds overarching achievement was to conceptualize what we might now call the mentalization
of biological processes.
I will explore Three Essays from three vantage points: first, Freuds
groundbreaking work in establishing sexuality as integral to childhood
development and his depiction of libido, a concept that evolved into
his articulation of drive theory; second, contemporary perspectives
that build on Freuds original formulations, addressing object relations
theory; third, the role of culture in shaping our ideas about sex. Finally,
I will discuss newer conceptualizations of gender theory, heterosexuality, and homosexuality. I will conclude by advocating for the lasting
importance of Three Essays.
The very f irst two sentences of Three Essays proclaim Freuds
bold thesis that libido is a sexual instinct: The fact of the existence of
sexual needs in human beings and animals is expressed in biology
by the assumption of a sexual instinct, on the analogy of the instinct
of nutrition, that is, of hunger. Everyday language possesses no counterpart to the word hunger, but science makes use of the word libido
for that purpose (1905, p. 135). Freuds major formulations were guided
by his familiarity both with the insights of the leading sexologists
of the late nineteenth century and with Darwins groundbreaking insights into evolution.
Freud acknowledged in a footnote that the information on which
he based the first essay, The Sexual Aberrations, was not firsthand,
but had been derived from the well-known writings of Krafft-Ebing,
Moll, Moebius, Havelock Ellis, Schrenck-Notzing, Lwenfeld,
Eulenburg, Bloch and Hirschfield, and from the sex journal published
under Hirschfields direction (p. 135). The move to sexual modernism
that antedated Freud can be traced back to the very beginnings of
the scientific study of sex in the 1870s. Most of the early studies on
sexuality originated in the German- speaking world, with little attention
paid to normal sexuality with the exception of the biology of reproduction. Their major focus was on masturbation, homosexuality, and
deviance. One of the first phenomena that sexologists attempted to
explain, substituting a medical for a moral perspective, was homosexuality (Sulloway 1979, chap. 8). Earlier in the nineteenth century,
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
sexual deviance had been classif ied as wrong, even perverse, and
as an hereditary, degenerative failure. Ulrichs (18621895), a homosexual lawyer, introduced a theory that homosexuality was not
criminal or insane, but the result of an error in embryonic differentiation that produced a female soul in a male body (Sulloway 1979,
p. 281). This was a crossover idea from the then revolutionary studies
taking place in embryology, and it illustrates how a scientific breakthrough in one field often inspires new ideas in an apparently unrelated
f ield. It is also a classic case of how the liberation of any stigmatized group is most often initiated by members of that group, not by
outside observers.
Krafft-Ebing (18401902), professor of psychiatry at the University of Vienna, the true founder of modern sexual pathology, according to the sexologist Bloch (Sulloway 1979, p. 279) was influenced by
Ulrichs. But he came to a different conclusion, theorizing that homosexuals had failed, due to genetic flaws, to move beyond the stage of
fetal bisexuality. Although this idea was not original with him, it was
influential in changing the approach to homosexuality from moral and
legal condemnation to medical concern. (This newer, medical model of
homosexuality, which posited it as a disease, came to be resented by
homosexuals just as much as the legal model that saw it as a crime.)
In contrast to Ulrich, Krafft-Ebings sympathetic stance was shaped not
by any personal identification as a sexual deviant, but by the example
and mentoring of his maternal grandfather, a criminal lawyer known as
the last help of the damned, who defended homosexuals in the midnineteenth century (Sulloway 1979, p. 280). During the same period in
which homosexuality gradually came to be regarded in a more tolerant
light, masturbation continued to be maligned. In the scientific community, masturbation was widely believed to result in depletion and insanitylifelong degenerative effects that were clinically documented to
the satisfaction of most of the medical profession.
Around the turn of the century, the narrow interest in pathological
sexuality and sexual physiology gradually gave way to a broader interest in normal sexuality. Whereas part of the shift in focus stemmed from
a psychiatric interest in concepts of normality, it also came about,
ironically, as a result of the contemporary fascination with deviance.
The study of perversion (for example pain dependence in sexual
masochists) necessarily led to the perception that the domain of sexuality extended beyond the genitals. This necessitated an emphasis on the
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1259
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1260
distinction between sex and procreation, and the idea of erotic zones
other than the genitals entered the literature.
Freuds earlier great work, The Interpretation of Dreams, had been
published in 1900, five years before the appearance of Three Essays.
What took him five years to articulate the groundbreaking ideas he
set forth in the latter work? Part of what he was dealing with was
the integration in his own mind of the connection between sexual
life in human beings and what he knew not only of the sexologists
work, but also of Charles Darwins theories of evolution. Darwin certainly figured heavily in Freuds thinking. The literary critic Steven
Marcus pointed out how Freud used an essentially Darwinian or evolutionary model to demonstrate the component nature of the sexual instinct:
Like Darwin, Freud is concerned with the variations in form and
structure that the sexual instinct takes, and he is interested in arranging
or classifying these variations in such a way that both their resemblances and differences be rendered in full account (1975, p. 519).
Freuds use of Darwinian insights is another example of how
insights in one area of science provide new ways of perceiving and
organizing data in other fieldsitself a kind of evolution within the
domain of science. It is not at all unusual to be inspired, on either a
subliminal or a conscious level, by ideas that are first introduced in
fields other than ones own. Indeed, Darwins biographers suggest that
his masterful work, On the Origin of Species, was itself inspired by
Sir Charles Lyells observations about the evolution of changes in
the earths crust (Desmond and Moore 1991, pp. 117118, 131, 185).
But Freud used the idea of evolution with a twist on the Darwinian
concept. What he pointed out in Three Essays was that writers who
concern themselves with explaining the characteristics and reactions
of the adult have devoted much more attention to the primaeval
period which is comprised in the life of the individuals ancestors
have, that is, ascribed much more influence to hereditythan to the
other primaeval period, which falls within the lifetime of the individual
himselfthat is, to childhood. One would surely have supposed that
the influence of this latter period would be easier to understand and
could claim to be considered before that of heredity (Freud 1905,
p. 173). Here he is addressing the psychological evolution within the
individuals lifetime.
Many sexologists achieved great prominence within their lifetimes
and are still remembered for the magnitude of their contributions
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
Freuds discovery of the laws governing unconscious mental life and the
significance of infantile sexuality (expounded in The Interpretation of
Dreams (1900) and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905),
respectively) are generally regarded as profoundly original insights. But
it is also said that Freud discovered what he admitted every nursemaid already knew about the sexuality of children (Mitchell 1974,
p. 17). Not just nursemaids, but a number of sexologists, should be given
priority for the observation that sexuality does not first emerge in adolescence along with maturation of the sex organs, but has a long
antecedent history in childhood. Although Freuds theories were continuous with previous theories (as regards his emphasis on bisexuality and
erotogenic zones), his revolutionary insight was that infantile sexual
development had profound consequences for the adults erotic life and
character structure.
Three Essays begins with a strikingly cogent analysis of the nature
of sexuality in the human being, including sexual aberrations. As I have
noted, Freud proposed that to explain the existence of sexual needs in
human beings and animals one must presume the preexistence of a
sexual instinct, and suggested that libido is to the sexual instinct as
hunger is to the instinct of nutrition. But he recognized that there were
numerous deviations in both the sexual object and the sexual aim, and
that minor perverse elements are frequently present in the lives of
healthy people, not only neurotics. Through his discovery that elements
of both perversions and neuroses occur as minor strains in healthy people, Freud concluded that he had demonstrated a connected series. This
finding led him to propose that perverse wishes are normal components
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1261
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1262
1263
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1264
Despite its vast explanatory powers, the concept of libido is not universally accepted. While some psychoanalysts have argued that Freud
used the concept of instinct in its traditional sense (as preformed behavior), still others propose that Freud used instinct to mean drive (or motivational source) and not inherited patterns for discharge insofar as he
used the word Trieb (drive) rather than instinkt. Although these two
meanings may appear blurred, Ernest Jones (1955) suggested that on
3
Lucille Ritvo (1990) points out that Freud first considered an emphasis on
heredity (Charcot), then on experience (childhood seductions), back to the innate
(Oedipus Complex), to the recognition of the interplay between them (also recognized by Goethe), and that he struggled with the question of the innate versus the
accidental . . . (p. 40).
4
While Freud advocated some sexual reform, he believed that there is an
inevitable conflict between instinctual (sexual) life, on the one hand, and civilization,
on the other, and that cultural pursuits depend on sexual sublimation. This is at the
heart of his tragic vision, perhaps more fully elaborated in Civilization and Its
Discontents (1930).
the whole, the word [Trieb] in Freuds writings more often means
instinct in our sense and that this definitely implies an inborn and
inherited character (p. 317).
What is the source of libido or the sexual drive for Freud? In one
passage in Three Essays, Freud addresses this central question. He
points out that at a time at which the first beginnings of sexual satisfaction are still linked with the taking of nourishment, the sexual
instinct has a sexual object outside the infants own body in the shape
of his mothers breast. It is only later that the instinct loses that object,
just at the time, perhaps, when the child is able to form a total idea of
the person to whom the organ that is giving him satisfaction belongs. As
a rule, the sexual instinct then becomes auto-erotic, and not until the
period of latency has been passed through is the original relation
restored. There are thus good reasons why a child sucking at his mothers
breast has become the prototype of every relation of love. The finding of
an object is in fact a refinding of it (1905, p. 222). To some degree,
this passage antedates some future critiques of Freud in that it projects
two different concepts of drive: on the one hand, libido as an independent force; on the other, as inevitably tied to early object relations.
Kardiner, Karush, and Ovesey (1959), in an early critique of libido
theory, pointed out that libido has two different sets of connotations,
an appetitive component and an energic one. As for to the first, they
regarded sex as a physiological need, like that for food, water, oxygen,
or warmth. Their quarrel with Freud was not only that he equated
appetite (instinct) with drive, but that he regarded the behavior which
brings gratification as instinctual (p. 502). While they acknowledged
that the goals of such needs [for food, sex, etc.] are not learned, and
one may, if one wishes, call them instinctual (p. 503), they nonetheless maintained that the route to satisfaction of those needs is learned.
They rejected the idea that there is an inborn need either for a sexual
object in general or for a sexual object of a particular gender (p. 507).
They argued that although libido cannot be observed, it was used to
explain different intensities of behavior, even while these different
intensities were said to demonstrate the existence of libido. Thus, they
viewed the concept as tautological, and believed it had been of little
value in formulating testable hypotheses.
Some psychoanalysts think of libido or drive as instinctual, as analogous to the instinct of hunger, as proposed by Freud. Others theorize
the sexual drive as the end product of the mental consolidation of
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1265
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1266
mental life. The earliest bonding between mother (or surrogate) and
child takes place in the experiential context of the tactile-sensual
modality. We now know that physical skin contact between human
infant and caretaker is essential to the infants emotional and cognitive development (Lichtenstein 1977; Ross 1979; Spitz 1945, 1946).
Because sensuality arises directly from body surfaces that are not
primarily of a sexual nature, sensual and sexual experiences may
become symbolically interlocked with nonsensual activities or aims,
and provide an important component of sexuality (e.g. the stroking of
an arm to soothe a baby or an adult, or to arouse an erotic partner).
Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) follow these earlier theorists, but
make the case for drive as opposed to libido even more forcefully:
At the beginnings of life the sexual drive as a unified, organized motivational force has not yet come into existence; the infant is a creature
of independently operating component drives. As these partial sexual
drives, through their anaclitic relationship with the self-preservative
drives, are carried outside of the infants own body (as autoeroticism
is gradually replaced), the infant accrues a set of satisfying and frustrating experiences. These experiences, particularly the satisfying ones,
lead him to form an image of what satisfaction is like. The association
of these satisfactions with the conditions under which they were experienced leads to object formation (p. 41).
They go on to argue that formation of the whole object depends
upon the integration of the discrete currents of childhood sexual
impulses (each of which has generated its own part object) into a single
current of genital sexuality which can, by its nature, cathect a whole
object (pp. 4142). They differ with Freud insofar as they insist that
sexuality and object relations are inevitably intertwined in the sequential elaboration of sexuality.
For Kernberg too, Libido is a drive: hunger is an instinct. He suggests that the Strachey translation links Freuds drive concept too
closely with biology, inhibiting psychoanalytic research into the nature
of the mediating processes that bridge biological instincts with drives,
defined as purely psychic motivation (1992, p. 4).
An unusual case supports the proposition of sexual drive as
distinct from instinct (hunger). A well-known sex therapist, the late
Helen Kaplan, treated a woman patient whose chief complaint was
that she had no sexual pleasure whatever, whether masturbating or
in lovemaking with her husband or anyone else. She could not be
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1267
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
sexually aroused by any form of stimulation. Her neurologist eventually established that she lacked innervation of her clitoris and vagina.
Kaplan (personal communication) concluded that her patients anatomical abnormality foreclosed the sensual pleasure that normally gets
consolidated into a sexual drive/instinct. While one case is not definitive, this one suggests that elaboration of the sexual instinct depends
on sensory input from various parts of the body. The idea of libido as
a drive rather than an instinct facilitates our understanding of the
various ways sexual drive intersects with early object relations. Let
me suggest, however, that this stance may create something of a conundrum. Many of us who propose that libido is in part the product of
experience (that is, is not entirely innate) simultaneously hold to
the position that sexual object choice, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is innate. I doubt that we can have it both ways.
FREUDS PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND
OBJECT RELATIONS THEORY
1268
of drive ( pp. 2021). Greenberg suggests instead that object relations are
intrinsic to sexuality and so proposes a rapprochement between drive
theory and object relations theory (pp. 117118). As he puts it, the mind
is exposed to many stimuli and human experience is the result of those
stimuli filtered through the psychological tendencies that [he] calls the
drive (p. 118). However, the relation between drive theory and object
relations theory is still debated. For example, Andr Green, in 1996,
wrote a paper titled Has Sexuality Anything to Do with Psychoanalysis? as a plea to avoid the kind of desexualization that appeared
to him to be part of contemporary theory. Muriel Dimen, too, fears that
psychoanalysis has become de-sexed (1999, p. 135).
The peremptory nature of sexuality is certainly linked to the intense
pleasure it provides. But sexuality is also stoked by its links to other
motivations. A clear expression of the union between sexual and nonsexual motives can be observed in clinical instances in which an individual feels driven by compulsive sexual acts that incorporate other ends.
Just as Don Juan experiences power in his sexual conquests, so does pain
play a significant role for the masochist. Insofar as sexual pleasure
becomes a major vehicle for establishing object ties, sexuality encompasses an enormous variety of nonsexual motives, among them dependency and hostility. Sexual release can also be used in the service of
stabilizing ones sense of self, assuaging anxiety, or restoring self-esteem.
Eagle (1984) emphasizes Kohuts idea that compulsive sex is often mobilized in the service of countering feelings of a fragmented self (p. 31).
While all psychoanalytic theory acknowledges the internalization
of external values and prohibitions in the formation of ego ideal and
superego, there is more emphasis in object relations theory on the way
subjectivity (relatedness, fantasies, wishes, desires) is influenced by the
experiential. But the psychological power of both libido theory and
object relations theory rests on the observation that sexuality is registered in the mind, and that it partners sexual longing with other desires
(whether with connectedness, love, merger, intimacy, aggression,
humiliation, or, at the extreme, with sadomasochism and even murder).
CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON SEXUAL FANTASY
Fantasy is an important element in our sexual lives. More than an amalgam of objects tied to pleasure, sexuality is stoked by desire, which
draws on fantasy. Fantasy, in turn, draws not only on the sum of ones
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1269
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1270
1271
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1272
Freud gave us a basic theory of sexuality, accompanied by a methodology with which to enlarge and modify some of his precepts.
Contemporary contributions address theories of gender; heterosexuality,
homosexuality, and bisexuality; and the spectrum between normal and
perverse. We need to take account both of the f lexibility of gender
and of the looseness of the fit between instinct and object.
Gender
(Money 1956; Money et al. 1955a,b). They demonstrated that the first
and crucial step in gender differentiation is self-designation by the
child as female or male in accordance with sex assignment and rearing.5
Gender differentiation is prephallic, observable by the end of the first
year of life, and generally immutable by the third year.
In order to distinguish between the sex of the genitalia and spontaneous erotic activities, on the one hand, and sex roles and activities that
are culturally and historically prescribed, on the other, Money and his
associates (Money et al. 1955a,b) distinguished between biological sex
and gender. They originated the term core gender role, defined as all
those things that a person says or does to disclose himself as having
the status of a boy or man, girl or woman, respectively, including, but not
restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism (1955a, pp. 301302).
While the term gender role was intended to be all-inclusive, it drew
criticism because of a distinction between what a person knows and
feels about him- or herself and what an outside observer perceives. In
response, Money suggested two terms, gender role and gender identity:
Gender identity is the private experience of gender role, and gender
role is the public expression of gender identity (Money 1973, p. 397).
Stoller sharpened the distinction between femaleness and maleness
(sex) and femininity and masculinity (gender) when he originated the
term core gender identity, meaning self-identification as female or
male.6 Gender plays an organizing role in psychic structure much like
other modalities of cognition such as self-object differentiation, space,
time, and causation. Why core gender is of such crucial importance in
organizing personality and why there are only two gender possibilities
were long considered open questions. But Freud was prescient in sensing the limitations to theorizing two genders, as his acknowledgment
of bisexuality demonstrates. Our knowledge of transvestites and transsexuals demonstrates that internalized identifications may be split or
contrary to anatomical markers.
Even so, core gender generally orders sexuality.7 It is usually (but
not invariably) irreversible by eighteen months, and generally complete
5
There are exceptions in which sex assignment fails to establish the appropriate gender identity for the child.
6
Ovesey and I altered the term gender role to gender role identity to make
it parallel with core gender identity, thus wearing on its face the fact that gender
role, too, is a form of self- identification (Ovesey and Person 1973).
7
For example, genetic males misdiagnosed as females and reared as female
most often (though not inevitably) grow up dreaming the dreams of women.
1273
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1274
insofar as not all gay men are feminine, nor all lesbians masculine.
Nor, of course, are all heterosexual men masculine and all heterosexual women feminine. However, these exceptions to the dominant
mind-set were not noted; instead, it was reasoned that a gay mans
object choice demonstrated his femininity, a lesbians her masculinity, and so ona bit of circular thinking that gave priority to
sexual object choice in defining gender role identity.
This thinking has been effectively revised in recent years. Observations on the interrelation of biological sex, sexual orientation, and
gender identity in a group of intersexed patients demonstrate that sex
and gender are separate, though sometimes intersecting, developmental pathways, more subject to change over time than was previously thought. However, even when we acknowledge the complexity
of the interrelation between sex and gender, the argument for essentially unlimited fluidity over the life cycle is exaggerated. Chodorow
(1994) points out that any heterosexuality [like any homosexuality]
is a developmental outcome [that] results from fantasy, conf lict,
defenses, regression, making and breaking relationships internally
and externally, and trying to constitute a stable self and maintain selfesteem (p. 294).
Traditionally, psychoanalysts had regarded homosexuality as a
distortion of the normal drive to be heterosexual. However, Freud
was always of two minds. He viewed everyone as bisexual in the
beginning of life. In a footnote in 1920, he described a lesbian patient
as in no way neurotic (p. 158, n. 2). He wrote to an American mother
about her gay son that homosexuals were no more or less ill than
anyone else and pointed out that they had vastly contributed to the
civilization. Yet it was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric
Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, and homosexuality come to be understood as a
natural variant.
Authentic bisexuals appear to constitute a signif icant minority.
Most bisexual men have been aware of their dual dispositions from
early in life, as have many female bisexuals. But among women,
some conver t from heterosexuality to homosexuality in midlife, with no previous awareness of any dual attraction (Person
1998, pp. 226227). Moreover, bisexuality can be viewed in two
ways, either as a sexual interest in both sexes or as a sense of being
both male and female.
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1275
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1276
Any viable theory of sex and gender must encompass early life experiences or lack thereof (including feelings experienced in the sexual
organs), object relations as the internalization of early life relationships, the role of cultural beliefs and injunctions, and the disconnect
that can occur between sex and gender. In theorizing the development
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
1277
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1278
femininity to passivity, he left enough roomthrough the observation/theory of bisexualityto address a variety of disparate adaptations. Thus, a masculine-appearing woman may be completely heterosexual, just as an effeminate man may be heterosexual. Bisexuality
appears to be a universal possibility, the expression of which is as
much tied to personal experiences and cultural constructs as to biological givens. As I have noted, contemporary theorists have raised
the question as to whether bisexuality consists of attraction to both
sexes or to a sense of experiencing oneself as both male and female.
Freuds observation on the way the feelings attached to sexuality
infuse mental life cannot be altogether usurped by object relations
theory. It may be more productive to view sexuality and object relationships as intertwined from earliest life, and to acknowledge the
importance of sensuality as intrinsic to sexual life and both sensuality
and sexuality as critical in the development of object relations. Such a
perspective need not be dependent on libido theory, but must acknowledge the importance of drives or some biological thrust (that is, some
innate components) and their development in early life. Essentially,
Three Essays traces developmental protomental origins (Michels
1999, p. 190). Its major contribution is that it proposes a unified theory
of mind.
Freuds breakthroughs in understanding the nature of sexuality and
its intrinsic relation to psychic life constitute an extraordinary achievement. What prevented Freud from going even further in his studies of
sex and the mind was his essentially ahistorical analysis, which set
limits to his understanding of a number of subjects, chief among them
the psychology of women. Paradoxically, even though Freud drew
heavily on Darwin, he seemed relatively unaware that his own culture
was but one variation in the cultural evolution of the human species
this despite the fact that he must have known something of the sexual
variations expressed in Weimar Germany.
Nonetheless, we should take heed of Freuds ability to make use
of data from dif ferent sources and acknowledge the usefulness of
an interdisciplinary approach in addressing a variety of psychoanalytic questions. Data from any one time frame can never answer all
our questions about sex and gender. In fact, the wide cultural swings
in what is allowed and what is prohibited in various cultures may be
fueled by the fear of unbridled sexuality on the one hand, or the resentment of a too puritanical mind-set, on the other.
Downloaded from apa.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2013
To the degree that we have in the past taken the wrong turn in some
of our appraisalsfor example, in our failure to recognize homosexuality as a natural variant and in our corollary proposition that it
could and should be cured, and in our low expectations of the female
potential for achievementI would argue that our theories were based
on too little evidence, a little like to trying to write the history of
England through reading Victorian novels. It took gay liberation and
the womans movement to provide the wake-up call.
Freuds studies on sexuality were interdisciplinary at the inception,
and they should remain so. Few of us can push aside the values of
the culture at any given moment. (I by no means consider myself
immune from that failing.) But we would do well to follow Freuds
example and supplement the crucial information we glean from the
couch with information garnered from the street, as well as from
dif ferent historical epochs, different cultures, and other academic and
scientific disciplines, information that is relevant to fine-tuning our
observations and ever changing theories.
REFERENCES
1279
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
1280
1281
E t h e l S p e c t o r Pe r s o n
Pantheon.
SULLOWAY, F. (1979). Freud, Biologist of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.
135 Central Park West, Suite 11S
New York, NY 10023
Fax: 2124969593
E-mail: espersonny@aol.com
1282