- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


1. Frédéric Le Play, L'Organisation de la famille selon le vrai modèle signale par l'histoire de toutes les races et de tous les temps (Paris, 1871).
2. Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (New York, 1965); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time  (New York, 1972).
3. Lutz Berkner, "The Stern Family and the Developmental Cycle of the Peasant Household," American Historical Review 77 (1972) 398-418; Tamara Hareven, "The Family as Process," Journal of Social History 7 (1974) 332-27.  See also: Lutz Berkner, "Recent Research on the History of the Family in Western Europe," Journal of Marriage and the Family (1973) 395-405; and "The Use and Misuse of Census Data for the Historical Analysis of Family Structure," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5 (1975) 721-38.
4. Roland Mousnier, La Famille, l'enfant et l'éducation en France et en Grande-Bretagne du XVIe au XVIII siecle, vol. 1 (Paris, 1975); Jean-Louis Flandrin, Familles: parenté, maison, sexualité dans l'ancienne société (Paris, 1976).
5. Laslett, World We Have Lost, p. 1 ff.
6. Philippe Ariès, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (L'Enfant et la vie Familiale sous l'ancien régime), trans. R. Baldick (New York, 1965).
7. Edward Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family (New York, 1975). For a fine review essay on Shorter and other important works in family history see Christopher Lasch, "The Family and History," New York Review of Books, 13 November 1975, pp. 33-38, 27 November 1975, pp. 37-42, ii December 1975, pp. 50-54.
8. Shorter, Making of the Modern Family, pp. 268, 254.
9. Ibid., p. 259.
10. D.H.J. Morgan, in Social Theory and the Family (London, 1975), does not attempt a theory of the family.


1. "Fragment of a Case of Hysteria," in The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, standard edition (London, 1953), vol. 7, pp. 112, 122.
2. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York, 1959), p. 44.
3. Ibid., pp. 89-90.
4. "The Passing of the Oedipus Complex," in Collected Papers: Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, ed. P. Rieff (New York, 1963), p. 177.
5. What makes Freud's commentary even more astonishing is the fact that he knew Hans' parents well and thought of the mother, whom he treated separately, as a neurotic and intrusive person.  Far from justifying Freud's reporting and analysis of Little Hans, this knowledge confirms Freud's inability to see the interactional basis of psychic development and presses our doubts on the intra-psychic nature of libidinal structure. For an analysis of the case of Little Hans along somewhat similar lines as mine, see Erich From, Fernando Narvaez et al., "The Oedipus Complex: Comments on 'The Case of Little Hans,' " Contemporary Psychoanalysis 4 (1968) 178-88.  See also: Philip Weissman, "Early Development and Endowment of the Artistic Director."  Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association 12 (1964) 569; J.W. Slap, "Little Hans'  Tonsillectomy," Psychoanalytic Quarterly 30 (1961) 259-61.
6. "Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy," in Collected Papers: The Sexual Enlightenment of Children, ed. by P. Rieff (New York, 1963), p. 65.
7. Ibid., p. 49.
8. Ibid., p. 60; emphasis added
9. Jean Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis, "Fantasme originaire, fantasmes des origines, origine du fantasme," Les Temps Modernes 215 (1964) 1841.
10. "On Narcissism," in Collected Papers: General Psychological Theory, ed. by P. Rieff (New York, 1963), pp. 71-72.
11. Cited in Bogna Lorence, "Parents and Children in 18th Century Europe," History of Childhood Quarterly 2 (1974) 2.
12. "Letter to Fliess, Sept. 21, 1897," in Sigmund Freud's Letters, ed. M. Bonaparte et al., trans. J. Strachey and E. Mosbacher (New York, 1954) pp. 215-16.
13. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, trans. J. Strachey (New York, 1964), p. 120; emphasis added.
14. Totem and Taboo, trans. A. Brill (New York, 1946), p. 205; emphasis added.
15. Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. J. Strachey (New York, 1961), p. 51. See also: " 'Civilized' Sexual Morality," in Collected Papers: Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, p. 21, and Studies on Hysteria, trans. J. Strachey (New York, 1966), p. 171, where rural and urban sexuality are contrasted.
17. Civilization and Its Discontents, p. 81.
18. " 'Civilized' Sexual Morality," p. 21.
19. Ibid., 38; emphasis added.
20.  Civilization and Its Discontents, p. 50.
21. " ' Civilized' Sexual Morality," p. 29.
22.  Ibid., p. 21.
23.  New Introductory Lectures, 164.
24.  Ibid., p.66
25.  "Family Romances," in Collected Papers: The Sexual Enlightenment of Children, p. 42.
26.  New Introductory Lectures, p.66.
27.  Ibid., p. 88.
28.  There is an extensive literature on the Oedipus complex, although one of it, so far as I know, approaches the question in terms of a critical theory of the family.  See Philip Rieff, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist (New York, 1961), esp. ch.8; Carl Schorske, "Politics and Patricide in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams," American Historical Review 78 (1973); Paul Roazen, Freud: Political and Social Thought (New York, 1968); Patrick Mullahy, Oedipus, Myth and Complex (New York, 1948).  For an excellent discussion of the original debate on the universality of Oedipus between Ernest Jones and Bronislaw Malinowski, see Anne Parsons, Belief, Magic and Anomie: Essays in Psychological Anthropology (New York, 1969), esp. pp. 3-66.
29. Totem and Taboo, p. 24.
30.  I do not have adequate space to explore fully the question of Freud's treatment of women.  Briefly stated, Freud is not the biological determinist many feminists have made him.  His characterizations of women and femininity are theorized at the level of psychic development.  The problem with his view of women as inherently less able to sublimate than men derives from his universalization of bourgeois patterns.  It is the same problem that I have been urging regarding his failure to theorize the
the family.  Because the girl has no penis, he says, she does not develop a castration fear that is as deep as it is for boys; therefore, she does not internalize her parent as deeply as boys, and her super-ego is weaker, rendering her less capable of delaying gratification of the instincts.  The problem here is not a biological cone: it is rather that Freud is blind to the power relationships of the family, seeing them as natural.  Thus he assumes that the problem is the material lack of the penis, when it is clearly the valuation placed on the penis and on males in general by parents in Victorian society.  It is also the limitations imposed on the mother in male-dominated society, limitations that are both sociological and psychological.  For example, one of the differences between masculinity and femininity for Freud results from the fact that women tend to make object choices into identifications (New Introductory Lectures, p. 63).  In many cases this is true, since women identify with their husband and his career.  They feel they have no complete self of their own.  But clearly this comes from the limitations imposed on their practice in bourgeois society.  Everything is designed to make women live their lives through their husbands and children.  Freud's value for feminism is to allow us to see how girls develop psychically in bourgeois society; but he does all he can to prevent us from seeing how this development is related to wider social structures and how it might be changed.
31. New Introductory Lectures, p. 86.
32. Ibid., p. 64.
33. Ibid., p. 62.
34. Civilization and Its Discontents, p. 74.
35. Ibid., p. 76.
36. Ibid., p. 77n.
37. Peter Cominos, " Late-Victorian Sexual Respectability and the Social System,"   International Review of Social History 8 (1963) 18-48, 216-250.
38. Civilization and Its Discontents, p. 79.
39. Totem and Taboo, p. 202.
40. Freud states explicitly the importance of the social dimension: "The ego-ideal is of great importance for the understanding of group psychology.  Besides its individual side, this ideal has a social side; it is also the common ideal of a family, a class, or a nation" ("On Narcissism," pp. 81-82).
41. New Introductory Lectures; p. 110.
42. Ibid., p. 76.
43. Ibid., p. 67.
44. Ibid., p. 179.
45. Civilization and Its Discontents, p. 33.
46. Ibid., p. 69.
47. Ibid., pp. 60-61; emphasis added.
48. Ibid., p. 42.
49. Ibid., p. 46.
50. Ibid., p. 23.
51. Ibid., p. 59.
52. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, trans. J. Strachey (New York, 1965), p. 3.
53. Ibid.
54. George Rude, The Crowd in History, 1730-1848 (New York, 1964).
55. Group Psychology, p. 26.
56. Ibid., p. 25.
57. W.R. Bion, Experience in Groups (New York, 1974).
58. Freud always kept the term ego-ideal but used it only for a special aspect of the super-ego.  The super-ego became the general term in his metapsychology and the ego-ideal was used to denote those positive aspirations which the child internalized from its parents during the dissolution of the Oedipus conflict.
59. Lewis Feurer, The Conflict of Generations (New York, 1969); Raymond Aron, The Elusive Revolution, trans. G. Clough (New York, 1969).
60. Group Psychology, p. 71.
61. Ibid., p. 87.
62. Ibid., p.88.
63. Ibid., p. 93.
64. Ibid., p. 92.
65. Ibid., p. 93.
66. Ibid.
67. " 'Civilized' Sexual Morality."
68. Group Psychology, p. 67
69. New Introductory Lectures, p. 80.


1. I (New York, 1955), pp. 27-28.
2. It is true that Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York, 1942), suggests an autonomous or substructural role for the family: "According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of the immediate essentials of life.  This, again, is of a twofold character.  On the one side, the production of the means of existence, of articles of food and clothing, dwellings, and of the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species.  The social organization under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor on the one hand and of the family on the other" (p. 5). Unfortunately, in the rest of the text, the family loses this important role and trails badly behind the mode of production.
3. Ibid., pp. 46-47.
4. Ibid., p. 65.
5. Ibid.
6. Ariès, Centuries of Childhood.
7. Joan Scott and Louise Tilly, "Women's Work and the Family in Nineteenth-Century Europe," Comparative Studies in Society and History 17 (1975) 36-64.
8. Others to attempt the synthesis in the 1920s were Bernfeld, Fenichel, Sapir and Fromm, to mention only the most prominent.
9. Character Analysis, trans. T. Wolfe (New York, 1949), p. 145.
10. Dialectical Materialism and Psychoanalysis, in Sex-Pol Essays, 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall (New York, 1972), pp. 24-25, 46, 49.
11. For two good treatments of Freudo-Marxism see Reuben Osborn, Marxism and Psychoanalysis (New York, 1965), and Paul Robinson, The Freudian Left (New York, 1969).
12. Dialectical Materialism, p. 26.
13. The Imposition of Sexual Morality, in Sex-Pol Essays, p. 141.
14. Ibid., p. 237.
15. Ibid., p. 135.
16. Ibid., p. 248.
17. The Mass Psychology of Fascism, trans. V. Carfagno (New York, 1970), pp. xiii, xv.
18. Ibid., p. 53.
19. Ibid., pp. 54-55.
20. Ibid., p. 63.
21. Ibid., p. 66. See also Imposition of Sexual Morality, p. 95.
22. For discussions of the history of the interaction between official Marxism and Freudians see: Michael Schneider, Neurosis and Civilization, trans. M. Roloff (New York, 1975), vol. 1; Hans Jorg Sandkuhler, ed., Psychoanalyse und Marxismus: Dokumentation einer Kontroverse (Frankfurt, 1970); Hans-Peter Gente, ed., Marxismus, Psychoanalyse, Sexpol (Frankfurt, 1970), 2 vols.
23. "What is Class Consciousness?" in Sex-Pol Essays, p. 294.
24. For a general discussion of the Frankfurt School, see Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston, 1973).
25. I have decided, partially for reasons of space, not to deal with the contributions of some members of the Frankfurt School.  Adorno's works (specifically, "Sociology and Psychology," New Left Review 46 (Now.-Dec. 1967) 67-80, 47 (Jan.-Feb. 1968) 79-97, and the massive collective work edited by Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (New York, 1950) will not be studied at all.  The contributions of Jürgen Habermas and Alfred Lorenzer will be taken up in the discussion of communication theories of the family.
26. In Fromm's own words, "Wilhelm Reich['s]?evaluation of the role of the family is in broad agreement with the view developed in this paper" (The Crisis of Psychoanalysis [New York, 1970] p. 145n). This volume contains transitions of many of Fromm's contributions to the Frankfurt School's journal, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung.
27. Fromm does try to show how the dialiectic of authority varies with different social classes, but his account is sketchy and not systematic.  See a reprint of Fromm's essay in Studien über Autorität und Familie in Marxismus, Psychoanalyse, Sexpol, vol. 1, pp. 254-65.
28. "Authority and the Family," a translation from Studien in Critical Theory (New York, 1972), p. 53.
29. Ibid., p. 98. See also Franco Ferrarotti, "The Struggle of reason against Total Bureaucratization," Telos 27 (1976) 157-169.
30. "Authority and the Family," p. 106.
31. Ibid., p. 99.
32. The mother plays an entirely secondary role for Horkheimer.  She acts to inhibit the libido and strengthen authority only in the service of her husband's economic ambitions (ibid., pp. 119-20).
33. Ibid., p. 107.
34. Ibid., p. 111.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., p. 71.
38. "The Concept of Man," in Critique of Instrumental Reason (New York, 1974), pp. 11-12; emphasis added. See also Alexander Mitscherlich (a psychoanalyst who continues the Frankfurt School approach), Society without the Father, trans. E. Mosbacher (New York, 1969).
39. His contribution was translated as "A Study of Authority," in Studies in Critical Philosophy, trans. J. de Bres (Boston, 1972).
40. "Epilogue: Critique of Neo-Freudian revisionism," in Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (New York, 1962), pp. 217-51.  Marcuse's other essays devoted to the question of Freud are "Aggressiveness in Advanced Industrual Society," in Negations, trans J. Shapiro (boston, 1968) pp. 248-68 and Five Lectures: psychoanalysis, Politics and Utopia, trans. J. Shapiro and S. Weber (Boston, 1970).
41. Eros and Civilization, p. 218.
42. For a criticism of the concept of the performance principle see Reimut Reiche, Sexuality and Class Struggle, trans. S. Bennett (London, 1970) p. 49.
43. Crisis in Psychoanalysis, p. 27.
44. Eros and Civilization, p. 46.
45. Ibid.
46. For an excellent critique of Eros and Civilization see A. Wilden, "Marcuse and the Freudian Model," Salmagundi, Winter, 1970, p. 196-245.
47. Eros and Civilization, p. 90.
48. Ibid., pp. 87-88.
49. Reiche, for example, says: "No more satisfactory model for the early socialization of children exists in any of the highly developed capitalist industrial countries than averagely successful family up-bringing (whether the success be the result of accident or design).  The necessary conditions, satisfactory division of roles between the parents, and time for the mother to devote herself to the child" (Sexuality and  Class Struggle, p. 155). Schneider's book is Neurosis and Civilization.
50. One other book of note on Marxist psychology by Lucien Sève (Marxisme et la théorie de la personnalité [Paris, 1969]) deals not with the family but with the work situation.  Noteworthy also are two other Marxist treatments of the family: Eli Zaretsky, Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life (New York, 1973); and Heidi Rosenbaum, Familie als Gegenstruktur zur Gesellschaft: Kritik grundlegender theoretischer Ansatze der westdeutschen Familiensoziologie (Stuttgart, 1973).


1. Heinz Hartmann, Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation (New York, 1958) and Essays on Ego Psychology: Selected Problems in Psychoanalytic Theory (New York, 1964).
2. Essays on Ego Psychology, p. xiv.
3. Ibid., pp. 90-98.
4. Childhood and Society (New York, 1950), p. 35.
5. Ibid., p. 282. Erikson's reasons are slightly different from the ones I have given.
6. Erikson's categories play down the importance of work for the individual.  He considers only school age as a time for "industry." Yet, especially under capitalism, work has a psychological meaning that is very deep.  Similarly, he does not account for consumption.
7. Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York, 1968), pp. 24, 46.
8. Ibid., p. 221.
9. Ibid., p. 47.
10. The most important statement in this regard by a psychoanalytic theorist is W.R. Fairburn, An Object-Relations Theory of Personality (New York, 1954).
11. Childhood and Society, p. 184.
12. Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 50.
13. Parents and Children in History: The Psychology of Family Life in Early Modern France (New York, 1970).
14.  This is especially clear in Erikson's studies of Luther and Gandhi, which unfortunately I do not have the space to explore in detail.
15. Insight and Responsibility: Lectures on the Ethical Implications of Psychoanalytic Insight (New York, 1964) p.iii.
16. Childhood and Society, p. 138.
17. Ibid., p. 250; Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 105.
18. Identity: Youth and Crisis, p. 263.
19. Childhood and Society, p. 156.
20. Identity and the Life Cycle, Psychological Issues Monograph no. I (New York, 1959).
21. Childhood and Society, pp. 294-95.
22. Jean Strouse, ed., Women and Analysis: Dialogues on Psychoanalytic Views of Femininity (New York, 1974), p. 372, and "Womanhood and Inner Space," in Identity: Youth and Crisis, pp. 261-94.
23. Women and Analysis, p. 368.
24. Robert Stoller, "Facts and Fancies: An Examination of Freud's Concept of Bisexuality," in Women and Analysis, pp. 391-416.
25. Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York, 1958); Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence (New York, 1969); "The Legend of Hitler's Childhood," in Childhood and Society, pp. 326-58.
26. Lee Rainwater, "Crucible of identity: The Negro Lower-Class Family," in Gerald Handel, ed., The Psycho-Social Interior of Families (Chicago, 1967) pp. 362-400.
27. Parsons adopted the project of discovering the universal attributes of the family from Murdock.  For a discussion and refutation of the notion of the universality of the nuclear family in American sociology see Rolf Eickelpasch, "Ist die Kernfamilie universal?" Zeitschrift für Soziologie 3 (1974) 323-8.
28. Talcott Parsons et al., Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, pp. 307, 334.
29. Social Structure and Personality, p. 44n.
30. Morris Zelditch, in Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, pp. 307, 334.
31. Social Structure and Personality, pp. 66-67; Robert Bales and Philip Slater, in Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, p. 306.
32. Social Structure and Personality, p. 20.
33. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, pp. 17, 31.
34. Social Structure and Personality, p. 23.
35. Ibid., p. 27.
36. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, p. 54.
37. Ibid., pp. 12-19.
38. See the following examples of Parsonian treatments of the family: S.N. Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation (New York, 1965); Ernest Burgess and Harvey Locke, The Family: From Institution to Companionship (New York, 1945); W. Ogburn and M. Nimkoff, Technology and the Changing Family (New York, 1955); Frank Furstenberg, "Industrialization and the American Family: A Look Backward," American Sociological Review 31 (1966); Bert Adams, "Isolation, Function and Beyond: American Kinship in the 1960s," Journal of Marriage and Family 32 (1970). Above all see the works of Gerald Platt and Fred Weinstein, The Wish to Be Free ( Los Angeles, 1969) and Psychoanalytic Sociology (Baltimore, 1973). The latter is an attempt to synthesize Freud and Parson and comes closest to my effort to present a historical theory of the family.
39. Social Structure and Personality, p. 52.
40. The best-known and most comprehensive of these efforts is William Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York, 1963).  The first effort at a family history of Europe also relies on Parsonian theory; see Shorter, Making of the Modern Family.  For a review of work by historians of the family who use Parsons' modernization theory, see Tamara Hareven, "Modernization and Family History: Perspectives on Social Change," Signs 2 (1976) 190-206.


1. For a discussion of the various trends in Lacanian psychoanalysis see the excellent article by Sherry Turkle, "Contemporary French Psychoanalysis," The Human Context (1975) 33-42, 561-69.  See also Anne Fabre-Luce, "Paris Letter," Partisan Review 41(1974) 77-81 and Antoine Compagnon and Michael Schneider, "Economie et marche de la psychanalyse en France," Critique, no. 333 (1975), p. 120ff. For an explanation of the rise in popularity of Freud in France.
2. "The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis," in The Language of the Self, trans. Anthony Wilden (New York, 1968), p. 7. See also "Some Reflections on the Ego," International Journal of Psychoanalysis, no. 343 (1953) pp. 11-17.  Wilden's  commentary in The Language of the Self is an excellent introduction to Lacan.
3. "The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis," p. 3.
4. See his Course in General Linguistics, trans. W. Baskin (New York, 1959).
5. Lacan holds "seminars" with hundreds in attendance.  "Students " speak of the experience in religious terms.
6. For a critique of these concepts see Jacques Derrida, "Le facteur de la verité," Poétique 21 (1975) 96-147.
7. "The Mirror-phase as Formative of the Function of the I," New Left Review 51 (1968) 71-77.
8. For a clear, excellent description of this process in great detail see Françoise Dolto, "Au jeu du désir les des sont pipes et les cartes truquées," Bulletin de la Société française de Philosophie, 67 (1972) 101-71. I also have consulted in this regard Serge Leclaire, Demasquer le reel (Paris, 1971), and Moustapha Safouan, Etudes sur l'Oedipe (Paris, 1974).
9. For a discussion of Hegel's concept of desire see Mark Poster, Existential Marxism in Postwar France (Princeton, 1975), ch. I.
10. Le Séminaire (Paris, 1975), vol. i p. 189.
11. A theorist who comes close to Lacan in this regard is Alfred Lorenzer, who argues that connections and relations which are distorted in the family are "desymbolized and excommunicated from language" (Über den Gegenstand der Psychoanalyse, oder.  Sprache und Interaktion [Frankfurt am Main, 1973] p. 165).  He goes on to define the id as the concrete bodily needs which emerge from the interactional structure of the child and his Umwelt (ibid., p. 166).  Unlike Lacan, Lorenzer places the emphasis more on the social interactions than on language structure.
12. For an example of Lacan's understanding of the role of the family in the individual's symptoms from his pre-linguistic period, see Jacques Lacan, "La Famille," in Encyclopedie Française de  Monzie, vol. 8, La Vie mentale (1938), pp. 403-28.
13. The Backward Child and His Mother, trans.  A.M.S. Smith (NewYork, 1972), p. 45.
14. The Child, His "Illness" and the Others (New York, 1970), pp. vii- viii.
15. Dominique: Analysis of an Adolescent, trans. I. Kats (New York, 1973), pp. 170-71.
16. The Child, His "Illness" and the  Others, pp. 123-24.
17. Dominique, p. 82.
18. Backward Child, pp. 36, 196.
19. Speculum de l'autre femme (Paris, I974), p. 58.
20. Cathérine Baliteau, "La Fin d'une parade misogyne: la psychanalyse lacanienne," Les Temps Modernes  30 (I975) 1948.
21. Speculum de l'autre femme, p. 41.
22. "The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis," P- 39- See also Jean Joseph Goux, Economie et symbolique (Paris, I973).
23. "The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis," p. 40.  Numerous historians have called for the application of anthropological theory to the historical study of the family. (See, for example, Keith Thomas, History and Anthropology," Past and Present 24 [1963] 3 -24.) In light of the recognized importance of anthropology for history, it might appear strange that I am not treating the concept of the family in Lévi-Strauss on its own account.  My reason is that he concentrates so exclusively on the universal structures of the family that his results are of limited use to the historians. He tells us that the elements of the modern nuclear family have always existed, a perception close to that of Parsons (see "The Family," in H. Shapiro, ed., Man, Culture and Society [New York, 19561, pp. 26i-85)- More specifically, he discovers a universal set of relations, whose rules of combination yield the total possible family structures.  These relations are (1) consanguinity, (2) alliance, and (3) descent (Structural Anthropology, trans.  Jacobson and Schoepf [New York, 1967], p. 43). While these systems of relations are certainly important to the study of the family, I do not think Lévi-Strauss has elaborated them in a manner complex enough for further historical study.
24.  The  Elementary Structures of Kinship, trans.  Bell, Sturmer and Needham (Boston,    1969), p. 493.
25.  Structural Anthropology, pp. 44-45.
26.  "Introduction A l'oeuvre de M. Mauss," in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et anthropologie  (Paris, 1950), p. xxxii.
27.  Elementary Structures of Kinship, pp. 24-25.
28. Elementary Structures of Kinship, pp. 129-30.
29.  Oedipe  africain (Paris, I9073), p. 9
30.  Ibid., pp. 383-84.
31.  Sex and Repression in Savage Society (New York, 1964), p. 76.  In the 1920s Jones answered Malinowski by claiming that the uncle-son relation is only a "defense" against the primacy of the father-son relation --hardly an adequate response (see Jones, "Mother-Right and Sexual Ignorance of Savages," Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis 2[1924] 145-73) Anne Parsons clarifies the issue by separating it into two parts: (1) the level of instinct and fantasy which she says does not change in different family structures, and (2) the level of identification and object choice, which is dependent on social structure and norms.  She then argues that each society has its own "nuclear complex" as a variation of the universal (see Belief, Magic and Ritual [New York, 1969], p. 8.) As an example, see her discussion of southern Italian family structure, in which she finds a "madonna complex." Parsons, however, is not convincing about why the first level of instinct and fantasy does not change.  For a less successful use of the concept of Oedipus by an anthropologist see William Stephens, The Oedipus Complex.  Cross-Cultural Evidence (New York, 1962).
32.  Oedipe  africain, pp. 9-10.
33.  Ibid., p. 369.
34.  Ibid., p. 371.
35.  Ibid., p. 340.
36.  Ortigues denies the applicability of psychodynamics to the study of "particular 21,9 study of family institutions" (see Edmond Ortigues, "La Psychanalyse et les institutions familiale," Annales 27 11972] 1091-1104).  For an argument similar to mine in criticizing the notion of the universality of the Oedipus complex, see Jean Baudrillard, L'Exchange symbolique et la mort (Paris, I976), Pp. 202-35.  Goux, in Economie et symbolique, tries to show how Marx's dialectic of the formation of money is directly parallel with Lacan's (and Freud's) notion of the formation of the psyche.  Also see Fredric Jameson, "Imaginary and Symbolic in Lacan: The Place of the Subject and the Problem of Psychoanalytic Criticism," Yale French Studies (forthcoming); Jameson argues that Lacan's concept of the imaginary is important for literary and historical studies, a topic which I have not dealt with directly.
37. Jean-François Lyotard, in Discourse, Figure (Paris, I97i), Dérive à partir de Marx et Freud (Paris, 1973), Des Dispositifs pulsionnels (Paris, I973), and Economie libidinale (Paris, 1974), makes a similar argument, although I do not have the space to discuss his thought.
38.  L'Anti-oedipe (Paris, 1972), p. 136.  A partial translation by Seem and Hurly  appears in Sub-Stance 11-12 (I975) 170-97.
39.  L'Anti-oedipe, p. 115.
40. Ibid.  p. 209.
41.  Ibid.
42   Ibid., p. 123.
43. Ibid., p. 116.


1.  J. C. Flugel, The Psychoanalytic Study of the Family (London, 1921) provides an astonishingly early but not very successful exception in the Freudian tradition.  Even at a rudimentary level, Flugel finds it necessary, once he has taken the perspective of the family, to relativize Freud's model of the psyche.  He points to the importance of limited objects for identification in the constitution of the modern psyche (p. 178), an issue which I shall take up in later chapters.
2.   Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson, Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry (New York, 1951), p. v.
3.    W. R. Bion, Experiences in Groups (London, 1959).
4.   See "Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia," Behavioral Science  I:251 (1956). Work was also going on at NIMH by Lyman Wynne and at Yale by Theodore Lidz.  In addition, Nathan Ackerman had concurrently broken from psychoanalysis to develop a theory of family therapy; See The  Psychodynamics of Family Life (New York, I958).
5.  Ruesch and Bateson, p. 5.
6.  Ibid., p. 168ff.
7.  Ibid. p. 17.
8.  The list is taken from Terry Kupers, "Schizophrenia and Reification," Socialist Revolution 29 (1976), 116 -17.
9.   Ibid.
10. Steps to an Ecology of Mind (New York, 1972), pp. 202-03.
11.  Ibid., p. 208.
12.  Ibid., p. 217.
13.  Ibid., p. 212.
14.  Ibid., p. 243.
15.  Quoted in Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Don Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes (New York, 1967), p. 153.
16.  Steps to an Ecology of Mind, p. 243.
17.  Ibid., p. 242, and Watzlawick, pp. 131, 214-15, present a similar problem.
18.  Watzlawick, p. 241.
19.  See Maud Mannoni, Psychiatrie, son "fou "et la psychanalyse (Paris, 1970), p. 179, and Michel Plon, La Théorie des jeux.- une politique imaginaire (Paris, 1976).  Far a more favorable view of the relation of Lacan and Bateson see Wilden, Language of the Self.
20.  It might be mentioned, however, that there is virtually no family therapy at present going on in France.  The one exception is Jacques Hochmann of Lyon; see his Pour une psychiatrie communautaire (Paris, 1971).  He studied with the Palo Alto group.  In Germany, Jürgen Habermas of the Frankfurt School has attempted to use communication theory in his social theory.  He postulates an "ideal speaking situation" underlying all communications.  Thereby he avoids behaviorism, but falls into an opposite idealist danger.  See his "Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence," in H. Dreitzel, Recent Sociology, no. 2 (New York, I970), pp. 114-48.  Habermas does not relate his communication theory to the family in particular.
21.  For an account of how therapists came to work with families, see Andrew Ferber, Marilyn Mendelsohn, and Augustus Napier, The Book of Family Therapy (New York, 1972).
22.  For a sense of this diversity one his only to look at some of the anthologies on family therapy.  See, for example, Peter Lomas, ed., The Predicament of the Family (London, 1967); Gerald Handel, ed., The Psycho-Social Interior of the Family (New York, 1967); Nathan Ackerman, ed., Family Therapy in Transition (Boston, I970); and Gerald Erickson and Terrence Hogan, eds., Family Therapy: An Introduction to Theory and Technique (Belmont, Cal., 1972).  See also Ross Speck and Carolyn Attneave, Family Networks (New York, I973) for an attempt to extend family therapy beyond the nuclear family to more distant relatives and friends.
23.  See Virginia Satir, Conjoint Family Therapy (Palo Alto, Cal., 1964).
24.  James Framo, "Symptoms from a Family Transaction View-point," in Ackerman, Family Therapy in Transition, p. 162.
25. Robert Hess and Gerald Handel, Family Worlds (Chicago, 1959), p. I
26.  "Pseudo-Mutuality in the Family Relations of Schizophrenics," (with Irving Rycoff, Juliana Day, and Stanley Hirsch) in Handel, Psycho-Social Interior, pp.  443-65.
27.  Ibid., p. 445.
28.  Ibid., pp. 448-57.
29.  For psychoanalytic family therapy, see Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, "Intensive Family Therapy as Process," in Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy and James Framo, eds., Intensive Family Therapy (New York, i965), pp- 87-142; Adelaide Johnson, "Sanctions for Superego Lacunae of Adolescents," in K. Eissler, ed., Searchlights on Delinquency (New York, 1949), pp. 225-45; David Mendell and Seymour Fisher, "An Approach to Neurotic Behavior in Terms of a Three-Generational Family Model," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 123 (1956) 17I- 8o; Helen Borke, "Continuity and Change in the Transmission of Adaptive Patterns over Two Generations," Marriage and Family Living 25 (1963) 294-99; and "A Family Over Three Generations," Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (1967) 638-55.
30.  August Hollingshead and Fredrick Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness (New York, 1967), and J. Meyers and B. Robert, Family and Class Dynamics in Mental Illness (New York, 1964).
31.  Theodore Lidz, The Family and Human Adaptation (New York, 1963), p. 9.
32.  Theodore Lidz, Stephen Fleck, and Alice Cornelison, Schizophrenia and the Family (New York, 1965), p. 101.
33.  Family and Human Adaptation, p. 8.
34.  Ibid., pp.  8-9; emphasis added.
35. "The Contemporary Treatment of Psychosis," in Salmagundi, Spring 1971, p. 135-36.
36. Family and Human Adaptation, p. 65.
37. Ibid., p. 72.
38. The Divided Self (London, 1959), p. 9.
39. See Madness and Civilization, trans. Richard Howard (New York, 1965), and The Birth of the Clinic, trans. A.M.S. Smith (London, 1973).
40. For discussions of Laing's thought see Salmagundi, Spring 1971, devoted to "Laing and Anti-Psychiatry," especially the contribution of Peter Sedgwick.  Juliet Mitchell devotes a long and uneven section to Laing in Psychoanalysis and Feminism (New York, 1974).  She inaccurately views Laing as a philosopher and as an anti-Freudian, barely discussing his family therapy.  Mitchell's polemic, while at times interesting, suffers from one-sidedness and an absolute concern with preserving Freud's thought intact.  For a similar critique of Laing see Russell Jacoby, Social Amnesia (Boston, 1975).
41. The Divided Self, pp. 39-61.
42.  Ibid., p. 12.
43.  The Myth of Mental Illness (New York, 1961).
44.  The Divided Self, pp. 29-30.
45.  Ibid.
46.  The Politics of the Family (London, 1969), p. 9.
47.  See also Jules Henry, Pathways to Madness (New York, 1965).
48.  Politics of the Family, p. 24 ff.
49.  Sanity, Madness and the Family (with Aaron Esterson) (London, 1964), p. 21, and The Politics of Experience (London, 1967), p. 86 ff.
50.  Laing, with David Cooper, had written a summary of Sartre's positions in Reason and Violence: A Decade of Sartre's Philosophy (London, 1964).
51.  Politics of Experience, p. 87.
52.  Politics of the Family, p. 13.
53.  Ibid., p. 285 ff.
54.  Ibid., p. 78.
55.  Ibid., pp. 78-79.
56.  Ibid., p. 99.
57.  Ibid., p. 31.
58.  Politics of Experience, p. 127.
59.  See Mary Barnes, "Two Memoirs," Salmagundi, Spring 1971, pp. 193-98.
60.  The Death of the Family (New York, 1970), pp. 22-25.
61.  Ibid., p. 45.


1. "Science and the Future of the Family," Science, 29 April 1977,p. i
2.  For a general overview see Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (New York, 1968).
3.  Francis Hsu, "Kinship and Ways of Life," in F. Hsu, ed., Psychological Anthropology (Illinois, 1961), pp. 400-56.
4.  Alice Rossi, "A Bio-social Perspective on Parenting," Daedalus, Spring 1977, p. 24.
5.  Ibid., p. 26.
6.  Ibid., P. 25.  Rossi warns that if men are expected to care for infants they would require special training to compensate for hormonal deficiencies.  She overlooks the obvious fact that women already receive that training in so many ways during socialization--role modeling from their mothers and the media, cultural indoctrination from the ideology of motherhood and femininity, and so forth.  Apparently, society does not trust mother nature and her hormones.
7.   For example see Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic in Women," in Rayna Reiter, ed., Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York, 1975), pp. 157-210.
8. There are many difficult methodological questions in studying child-rearing practices.  Some of these were brought up earlier in the discussion of Erikson's Childhood and Society.  Since this study is not concerned directly with methodological issues, I can only refer interested readers to appropriate sources.  For research on the contemporary family the best guide I have found is Robert Sears, Eleanor Maccoby and Harry Levin, Patterns of Child Rearing (New York, 1957) For research on historical families see Abigail Stewart, David Winter, and David Jones, "Coding Categories for the Study of Child-Rearing from Historical Sources," Journal of Interdisciplinary History (1975) 687-701.
9.  See Melford Spiro, Children of the Kibbutz (New York, 1958), and Bruno Bettelheim,  Children of the  Dream (New York, 1969).
10.  For a more detailed discussion of this issue see Jerome Kagan, "The Child in the Family," Daedalus, Spring 1977, PP- 33-56.
11.  "The Evolution of Childhood," History of Childhood  Quarterly i (1974) 508.
12.  Mousnier, La Famille, l'enfant, et l'éducation, vol. i, p. 179.
13.  Philip Slater, "Social Limitations on Libidinal Withdrawal," in Rose Coser, ed., The Family: Its Structures and Functions (New York, 1974), pp. 111-33.


1.  In what follows I will cite the relevant studies from family history but I will not attempt an exhaustive bibliography.  For further references on European family history see, Lutz Berkner, "Recent Research on the History of the Family in Western Europe," Journal of Marriage and the Family (1973) 395-405.
2.  See James Ross, "The Middle Class Child in Urban Italy: 14th to Early 16th Century," in De Mause, pp. 183-228.  Puritan influence on the origins of the bourgeois family has been much studied; see R. V. Schnucker, "The English Puritans and Pregnancy, Delivery and Breast Feeding," History of Childhood Quarterly, I(1974) 637-58, and Lawrence Stone, "The Rise of the Nuclear Family in Early Modem England," in C. Rosenberg, ed., The Family in History (Philadelphia. 1975).  For the German petite bourgeoisie see Helmut Moe1ler, Die  Kleinbürgerliche Familie im 18. Jahrhundert: Verhalten und Gruppenkultur (Berlin, 1969) and for insights on the French family see Elinor Barber, The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century France (Princeton, 1955).
3.   J.A. and Olive Banks, Feminism and Family Planning in Victorian England (New York, 1964), and P. and 0. Ranum, eds., Popular Attitudes toward Birth Control in Pre-Industrial France and England (New York, 1972).
4.  This view of the sexual repression of the bourgeoisie has been challenged most interestingly by Michel Foucault, in Histoire de la  sexualité, vol. I, La Volonté de savoir (Paris, I976).  Foucault contends that the bourgeois, far from repressing sexuality, talked about it, invented discourses about it, and created mechanisms (psychoanalysis) for changing it all to a far greater extent than what had occurred previously.  Repression, for Foucault, is therefore a poor concept to use in analyzing sexuality.  Instead, he proposes that the history of sexuality be written from the standpoint of power.  Foucault goes on to suggest that sex played the role for the bourgeoisie that blood played for the aristocracy; that is, as a means of defining the body.  The bourgeoisie defined the body as an object to be known, controlled, and in general made use of in order to maximize life.  The bourgeois family, to Foucault, serves to locate sexuality, to confine it and to intensify it.  My discussion of the bourgeois family leads in general to the same conclusions, although in different theoretical terms.  Foucault misunderstands Freud's definition of repression.  Repression for Freud was not, as Foucault thinks, the elimination of sexuality from the psyche.  This would be impossible.  Instead bourgeois sexual repression, as I am using the term, blocked the direct forms of sexual expression and diverted the drive to other avenues.  This is consonant with Foucault's argument that the bourgeoisie increased the incidence and scope of discourse on sex.  In a sense, sex has been a great preoccupation of the middle class just because it was forbidden or "repressed."
5.  François Basch, Relative Creatures: Victorian Women in Society and the Novel, trans.  A. Rudolf (New York, 1974), pp.3-15.  For contradictory evidence see Carl Degler, "What Ought To Be and What Was: Women's Sexuality in the 19th Century,"  American Historical Review 79 (1974) 1467-1490.
6. "The Double Standard," Journal of the  History of Ideas 20 (1959) 195-216.
7. Peter Cominos, "Late Victorian Sexual Respectability and the Social System," International Review of Social History, 8 (i963) 18-48, 216-50.
8.  For remarks on the mundane but revealing aspects of daily life see R. W. Chapman, ed., The Novels of Jane Austen (London, 1923)
9.  Cited in Stephen Kern, "Freud and the Discovery of Child Sexuality," History Childhood Quarterly I (1973) 130.
10.  Rene Spitz, "Authority and Masturbation," Psychoanalytic Quarterly 21 (I952) 490-527.  Also see R. P. Newman, "Masturbation, Madness and the Modern Concepts of Childhood and Adolescence," Journal of Social History, Spring 1975, pp. 1-27.
11.  For a discussion of this incredible response see Mary Hartman, "Child-Abuse and Self-Abuse: Two Victorian Cases," History of Childhood Quarterly (1974) 22i-48.  Also see Stephen Kern, "Explosive Intimacy: Psychodynamics of the Victorian Family," History of Childhood Quarterly I (1974) 437-62; note the pictures of gadgets used to prevent masturbation.
12.  See G. J. Barker-Benfield, The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes Toward Women and Sexuality in 19th-Century America (New York, I976).
13.  Mousnier, La Famille, l'enfant, et l'éducation, vol.. 1, p. 24 ff.
14.  For a summary of demographic research see Pierre Goubert, "Historical Demography and the Reinterpretation of Early Modern French History," in Rabb and Rotburg, eds., The Family in History (New York, 1971), pp. 16-27.
15.  Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy (New York, i967), PP269-302.
16.  Flandrin, p. 176 ff.
17. Bogna Lawrence, "Parents and Children in i8th Century Europe," History of Childhood Quarterly 2 (I974) 1-30; Elizabeth Marvick, "Nature Versus Nurture: Patterns and Trends in I7th Century French Child-Rearing," in L. de Mause, ed., History of Childhood (New York 1974), pp. 259-302; J.H. Plumb, "The New World of Children in 18th Century England," Past and Present 67 (i965) 64-95; and Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society, 2 vols. (London, 1969-73).
18. David Hunt, Parents and Children in History: The Psychology of Family Life in Early Modern France (New York, 1970); E. Marvick, "Childhood History and Decisions of State," History of Childhood Quarterly 2 (1974) 135-80 and references in note 17.
19. Hunt, p. 169.
20.  Philippe Ariès makes similar suggestions in "La Famille d'Ancien Régime," Revue de l'Academie des sciences morales et politiques (1956) 46-55 and in "The Family," Encounter, August 1975, pp. 7-12.
21.  See Laurence Wylie, Village in the Vaucluse: An Account of Life in a French Village (New York, 1957); Julian Pitt-Rivers, The People of the Sierra (Chicago, 1954); and J.K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community (New York, i964).  Also, anthropologists have been studying "the culture of poverty" in modern societies, using to advantage methods derived from studies of "primitive societies." See, for example, Oscar Lewis, Five Families (New York, 1959)-
22.  Ariès, Centuries of Childhood, p. 10.
23.  Anthropologists claim that this is not uniformly true of contemporary peasants.
24.  See Shorter, Making of the Modern Family, for a description of village life.  See also Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York, 1971).
25. For a discussion of the charivari see Natalie Davis, "The Reasons of Misrule," Past and Present 50 (1971) 41-75.
26. Shorter, Making of the Modern Family, p. 68.
27.  See Natalie Davis, "Ghosts, Kin and Progeny: Some Features of Family Life in Early Modern France," Daedalus, Spring I977, pp. 87-114.
28.  For a long period marriages were outside the church, contracted by oral agreement.  See, C. Lasch, "The Suppression of Clandestine Marriage in England," Salmagundi, Spring 1974, pp. 90-109.
29.  Bernhard Groethuysen, The Bourgeois.  Catholicism vs.  Capitalism in 18tb Century France, trans.  M. Ilford (New York, 1968).
30.  See Flandrin's discussion of the weight of kin relations among the peasants, p. 28 ff.
31.  John Gillis, Youth in History (New York, 1974)-
32.  Flandrin, pp. 93-94.
33.  See E. Le Roy Ladurie, "Ethnologie rurale du XVIlIe siècle: Restif à la Bretonne," Ethnologie française 2 (1971) 215-52, and Jean-Louis Flandrin, Les Amours paysannes (Paris, I975).
34.  Cited in Mark Poster, The Utopian Thought of Restif de la Bretonne (New York, 1971), p. 30.
35.  E. P. Thompson, The  Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1963), p. 330.
36.  See Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York, 1961), and A. and L. Lees, eds., The Urbanization of European Society in the  19th Century (New York, 1976) for excerpts from standard works by Michael Anderson, Sidney Pollard and Hsi-Huey Liang.
37.  "Illegitimacy, Sexual Revolution and Social Change in Modern Europe," in Rabb and Rotburg, PP. 48-84.
38.  D. Smith and M. Hindus, "Premarital Pregnancy in America, 1640-I971." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 4 (1975) 537-70.
39. R.P. Newman, "Industrialization and Sexual Behavior: Some Aspects of Working-Class Life in Imperial Germany," in R. Bezucha, ed., Modern European Social History (New York, 1972), PP- 270-300
40. For a comparison with non-European working classes see Lee Rainwater, "Marital Sexuality in Four Cultures of Poverty," Journal of Marriage and the Family (1964) 457-66.
41.  See Gillis, Youth in History.
42. Joan Scott and Luise Tilly, "Women's Work and the Family in 19th Century Europe," Comparative Studies in Society and History 17 (I975) 36-64, and Virginia McLaughlin, "Patterns of Work and Family Organization: Buffalo's Italians," in Rabb and Rotburg, pp. iii-126.
43.  See the review of Gladstone's diaries in the Los Angeles Times (13 March 1975).
44. Most notably, M. Young and P. Wilmott, Family and Kinship in East London (New York, 1957).
45.  Dominique Desanti, Les Staliniens (Paris, I975).
46.  For a review of studies in family history see Arlene Skolnick, "The Family Revisited: Themes in Recent Social Science Research," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 4 (1975) 702-19.
47.  For studies of these differences in the United States, see A. D. Hollinghead and F. C. Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness (New York, 1958).
48.  Ruth Cowan, "The 'Industrial Revolution' in the Home," Technology and Culture 17 (1976) 1-23, and Dorothy Smith, "Women, The Family and Corporate Capitalism," Berkeley Journal Of Sociology 20 (1975-76) 55-90.
49.  See M. Marrus, ed., The Emergence of Leisure (New York, 1970).
50.  Newsweek, 22 September 1975, pp. 48-56.
51.  See Hans Dreitzel, ed., Family, Marriage and the Struggle of the Sexes (New York, 1972).
52.  M. Schneider (Neurosis and Civilization, trans.  M. Roloff [New York, 1975]) sees this impulsive orality in conflict with the older compulsive anality as the major psychic conflict of advanced capitalism.
53. Joyce Maynard, "The Liberation of the Total Woman," New York Times Magazine, 28 September 1975, p. 9 ff.
54. For changing child-rearing patterns see Hans Dreitzel, ed., Childhood and Socialization(New York, I973).
55. William Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York, 1970),p. 380.
56.  "Interview," Ms., July 1977, p. 15.