Written by admin on 2009-04-07T04:28:05+0000">April 7, 2009 – 4:28 am
Galenson and Roiphe suggested that one can differentiate between two types of auto-erotic activities during the early childhood period. One is autoerotic activity proper, which does not include masturbatory fantasy and is objectless. These autoerotic activities belong to the early months of development, in which the process of separation-individuation (Mahler and others) is not complete and therefore the infant is not capable of fantasizing. The second type of autoerotic activity begins to develop sometime between the ages of sixteen to eighteen months and is apparently accompanied by some form of fantasy by the child. According to these investigators, the child at this stage of development seems to be aware of anatomical differences between boys and girls and is more in touch with a significant caretaker during the autoerotic activities. Not only is the locality of the genitals discovered by the infant at this time, but also he or she is able to reach the genitals more easily. Moreover, the manipulation of the genitalia is closer to adult masturbatory activities. Squeezing, pinching, and rapid rhythmic movements of the hand are usually accompanied by signs of autonomic excitation such as flushing, rapid respiration, and perspiration. In addition, the infant seems to focus on the mother and derives pleasure from touching her and smiling at her. The significance of Galenson’s and Roiphe’s investigation is that they have found convincing evidence of sexual activity during a very early period of life, and that they suggest that psychosexual development, like many other lines of personality development, is subject to stage-bound and phase-specific transformation and discontinuity. Furthermore, they suggest that variation in any line of development, and specifically in the pattern of development of sexual organization, has repercussions on other aspects of the personality. Both Galenson and Roiphe and Kleeman have demonstrated that the line of development of genital-drive organization shows a difference between males and females that can be documented as early as the seventh month of life. Although during their first years both sexes seem to go through the same stages of objectless autoerotic activities, during the second year, differences appear in the timing of masturbatory activities as well as in the patterns of these activities. In this regard, Kleeman’s investigation of five children closely agrees with Galenson’s and Roiphe’s investigation of seventy children. Boys appear to start genital play several months earlier (seven to ten months of age). The pattern of sexual play also seems to differ between girls and boys. Sexual activity among boys appears to be more focused, more intentional, and more frequent, although the discovery of the anatomical differences seems to come at the same time (fourteen to fifteen months). At around this age, there also appears to be a branching-out of the psychosexual developmental lines for boys and girls. For example, the choice of toys and play activities begins to show differences. Boys usually choose “masculine” toys such as cars and balls. They exhibit a mild degree of hyperactivity and an increase in genital activities. On the other hand, girls display a mild and transitory depressive mood. They become subdued and less zestful. This change of behavior is attributed by the investigators to an early form of castration anxiety in girls as a response to the discovery of the missing penis. Mahler and others observed a “low-key” period among both sexes at the same stage and suggested that it might be related to the child’s sense of loss of the symbiotic tie with the mother, while going from practicing into the rapprochement subphase of separation-individuation.
The important point in this discussion is the relation that seems to exist between sexual drive organization and other personality functions. The choice of a particular toy or play activity might foreshadow a particular interest or even a pattern of symbolic projection of certain inner articulations of life experiences into the outer world. This was stressed rather cogently by Erickson in his study of the development of psychosocial identity in children. Erickson’s approach to the development of sexuality emphasized that the “inborn instincts” in man are drive fragments that gradually must be organized and integrated during the course of the child’s development, in such a way as to echo his or her modes of adaption. To Erickson, the development of sexuality in boys and girls is not only determined by anatomical differences, sexual interest, and sexual activities, but also by the modes of activity and adaptation reflecting the patterns of sexual experience among sexes. For example, in one study, he found the most significant differences between boys and girls were in the manner of their constructing and staging play space. Boys showed a tendency to “erect structures, buildings, or streets.” Girls were interested mostly in creating “the interior of a house, with simple, little, or no use of blocks.” It appeared that the variable of “high-low” is masculine and the variable of “open-closed’ is feminine. These modalities are patterned after the feminine and masculine genital forms and functions. It brings to mind Leonardo da Vinci, who once said that shape of the body tells of its function. Freud himself talked about this relation between anatomical configuration and personality development. He said that “the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of physical development. ‘Anatomy is Destiny,’ to vary a saying of Napoleon’s”.
The above studies and other similar studies suggest that there is an intimate tie between psychosexual development and major modes and styles of personality functions, and that there are ways to identify the differences of adaptational approach between boys and girls even in the earliest period of life in normal development.
*118/187/5*
