Evaluation of Freud’s theory
One major problem with the theory is that it proposes that unconscious forces (that can only be accessed by analysing the symbolic nature of behaviour) are responsible for our behaviour. This is very difficult to test scientifically because the data is highly subjective, both in what is reported by the participant and in the way the researcher analyses the symbols.
The main source of evidence in support of the theory comes from clinical experience (people undergoing treatment). Freud’s theory of psychosexual development arose out of his patients reporting early sexual experience (child sex abuse). He then interpreted these reports as being a product of infantile sexual fantasies buried in the unconscious. An alternate explanation might be that these people were sexually abused as children.
The idea that infants are sexual beings with sexual desires is controversial, but Freud developed this explanation of sexual fantasy in childhood as a response to the hostile response to his initial theory of sexual seduction which proposed that much of the neurotic behaviour of his clients could be explained by their experience of sexual abuse as children. He initially believed that his clients repressed these memories only to have them ‘leak out’ into their behaviour as neuroses. According to Masson he changed his mind in order to gain greater acceptance and protect his reputation, however this view is disputed by the psychiatric establishment, but if true would call into question the credibility of his ideas.
Karen Horney (1926) criticised Freud’s view on gender development as lacking credibility because of its lack of detail as surrounds female development and the assumption that females suffer from penis envy. She argued that it would more reasonable for females to suffer from status envy as males (who have a penis) had much more power in society than females (who don’t). Females envied that power, not the penis. She observed that male genitals were regarded by Freud as the only significant organ and argued that Freud’s theory was phallocentric. In her own research she observed womb-envy in males suggesting that Freud’s theory was at best incomplete.
Freud’s theory can be regarded as sexist as it focused more on male development. This led to his conclusion that males develop a stronger super-ego and therefore moral code than females. This view lacks credibility, e.g. Gilligan, 1982, argued that male and female morality may be different but is essentially equal, and that differences are due to differences in socialisation.
Freud made claims about human nature in general but based these claims on the gender relationships of people living in a particular place (Middle Europe) at a particular time (Late 1800s). This means that his theories might not be valid for people now, or for those socialised in a different culture
The case study of Little Hans (1909) by Freud supports the claims of this theory (key study later) because Hans was at the right age for progressing through the phallic stage and showed behaviour consistent with the Oedipus complex such as wanting to sleep in his mother’s bed and being resentful of his father. His behaviour changed as he left the phallic stage and resolved the issues associated with it. This was a single case study and the only child Freud actually treated. Therefore it is the only direct evidence produced in support of the theory and it suffered from several methodological flaws, such as the data being gathered via Hans’ father who was a strong supporter of Freud and may have given a biased account of what happened with his son.
Furthermore Brown and Harris, 1978, found that women who lost their mothers within the first 6 years of life were much more likely to show symptoms of depression as adults
Evaluation of Freud’s explanation of gender development
Melanie Klein, a well know psychoanalyst, analysed the behaviour of young children using a version of play therapy and found that children do indeed show a strong opposite sex parent preference, consistent with the Oedipus complex. However, she found these to be expressed in children younger than those in the phallic stage, children as young as 2 seemed to be showing oedipal desires, thus challenging Freud’s notion of the age at which each stage occurs, (Klein, 1926).
Freud’s theory of gender development depends on the child having a mother and the mother having a male sexual partner. However, Green (1978) studied 37 children being raised in a non-traditional household and found that they all developed their gender along traditional lines, none of them showing signs of homosexuality. This challenges Freud’s account of gender development because they could not go through the Oedipus or Electra complex.