Careful! Your Oedipal Complex is showing.

One of the most well-known aspects of Freud's theory of the psychosexual stages of development is the Oedipal Complex, named for the title character in the Sophocles's ancient Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex. It states that many young boys between the ages of 3 and 5 feel desire for their mother and therefore feel anger and animosity toward their father, a competitor for their mother's love.

In the years since Freud published his theory, much application of his ideas has taken place in conjunction with modern and past literature and history-- psychologists and anthropologists like Clyde Kluckhohn, Weston La Barre, and Margaret Mead have expanded and applied this theory to the early history of man and to traditional folklore, involving everything from the development of traditional patriarchy and marriage laws in tribal societies, to a psychoanalytic treatment to Shakespeare's classic tragedy, Hamlet.

When thinking about the Oedipal Complex, I inevitably begin to apply it to modern life: is the Oedipal Complex still relevant, almost 100 years after Freud postulated it? Subsequently, has our modern technology world quashed all context for Freud's theory? Can the Oedipal Complex be applied to changing familial relationships?

Considering the fact that technology now mediates almost all of our social interactions and that only about 25% of families in America are nuclear, the stage for the Oedipal Complex may have changed. The way I see it, I need only attend a family gathering to see my toddler cousin reach for his mother, sneakily trying to pull her cell phone out of her pocket to play with the touch screen. It's almost shocking how easy it is to set a baby down with an iPad and watch them wile away the hours, leaving the child entertained, happy, healthy, and without a strong connection to their parents. And the societal changes don't end there. According to the 2010 census, 115,000 households in the United States consist of same-sex partners with children, and of those households, roughly 30% contain adopted children as opposed to biological children. Freud certainly couldn't have predicted that!

The questions come down to this: when a 4-year old is more preoccupied with Fruit Ninja than his mother's affection, is there any possibility for the development of an Oedipal Complex? When a family contains two dads, two moms, a single parent, or non-biologically related families, is there any possibility that a little boy can cling to the parent of the opposite sex in competition with their father figure? Some psychologists don't think there is, namely those who belong to the movement among behaviorists ending in the conclusion that the Oedipal Complex is only of the 20th century.

Summing it up, all evidence seems to point to the fact that an Oedipal Complex can't exist within the framework of a landslide shift in the necessary interpersonal relationships. Even more prevalent than the statistics are the "shivery yuckies" I feel when I think about little boys in love with their mothers. And yet, even with all this evidence on my side, I still find myself wondering if perhaps this psychology that has been mapped in history for hundreds of years can't find a way to survive the modern era. So what do you think? Is the Oedipal Complex innate, or is it socially contextual?

Understanding Interpersonal Relationships

A typical familial relationship between my father, my big sister, and me.

I've spent half of my school year posting about instances of interesting interpersonal relationships in the news, in history, and in literature, but I've only recently realized that I have never written a post about the topic itself. Maybe this is only happening now because lately I've been in a very meta mood, but regardless...voilà!

Interpersonal relationships, in their simplest form, involve the social connections made between people; these obviously include romantic and family relationships, but also some that might be missed, like the relationship between a teacher and a student, a pastor and his congregation, several families of neighbors, a pair of identical twins, or the President and the people of the United States. Sociology, psychology, and anthropology all make use of an understanding of interpersonal relationships in their research and practice. This field of thinking is limited to an undefined number of people, but generally transitions to international relations when concerning populations of people, nations, and MNCs/NGOs.

However, a few aspects remain the same when considering relationships on the people-to-people and nation-to-nation level: dominance, submissiveness, interdependence, and vulnerability. Essentially, there is usually, but not always, someone who is more prevalent in the relationship, someone who listens to and obeys the dominant person or group, a reliance on each other, and a feeling of weakness without the relationship that helps to sustain it.

Such relationships can be harmonious as with a couple that has been married happily for 50+ years or two life-long friends. On the contrary, they can be tense, as between two colleagues competing for the same promotion forced to work together. They can be necessary, like when a group of nations allies together against destruction by another force (think WWI). Or they can even be dangerous, as is the relationship between a drug dealer and their clients.

Using these universal tools of analysis for interpersonal relationships and even international relations, it is possible to analyze the people and nations in the books we read, the movies we watch, the news we hear, and in our own lives. Applying a more scientific approach even makes it possible to quantify that which seems to be beyond rational comprehension. It's all a part of the analytic approach to people and to life.