LETTERS

The Rules

TO

TilE

EDITOR

of Evidence

male

participation

ens (3). SIR:

Publication

of

“A

Biological

Basis

for

the

Oedipus

Complex: An Evolutionary and Ethological Approach” by A. David Jonas, M.D., and Doris F. Jonas (June 1975 issue) is gratifying in its recognition of the potentially important advances to be made from synthesizing the data and theory of such related areas as ethology, anthropology, psychiatry, and (probably) neurology and physiology. However, disenchantment will inevitably result if findings

from

supporting

fields

are

presented

in unrepresentative,

frag-

in child-rearing

Moreover,

that

because

nate

and prolongation

of

the for

affective

ternal

figure.

Male

adaptive

of

dependence,

ties

a paternal

for

infants

to

have

the

neo-

was heavy as well

was

been

suggests

hominid

there

with

solicitude significance

hunter-gather-

evolution

helplessness

of infant

pressure

living

of hominid

increasing

lective sufficient

among

reconstruction

se-

as a ma-

probably

a factor

in

of the

re-

lated development of male-female pair bonding and continuous female sexual receptivity in humans. Thus, it appears premature to ignore the possibility of biologically

determined

elements

of the

paternal

role

that

have

a posi-

mentary, or misleading ways. Rules of evidence and deduction tive rather than anxiety-provoking effect on the developing should be respected, regardless of whether the audience is na#{239}ve male. For example, the process of identification may have as in the particular area being discussed. Moreover, revival of the long an evolutionary history as castration anxiety. Correspondambitious early twentieth century objective of discovering oningly, the evidence for the conclusion that lowering of maternal gins of behavior should not become an excuse for regressive dominance is the determining psychological factor in unsucmethodology--particularly

the

use

of

anecdotal

data

or

un-

systematically collected clinical material that is searched for supporting evidence without comparison to a proper control group. There are examples of a less than rigorous approach in the Jonas and Jonas article. One example is the statement presented as evidence that lowering of the mother’s dominance status may result in unsuccessful resolution of the oedipal phase: We have invariably found, in reexamining case histories of psychosexual disturbances, material indicative of a breakdown of maternal authority. Conversely, we have noted among our acquaintances that the sons of strong, authoritarian mothers have stable marriages and satisfactory socioeconomic achievement. (p. 604) The authors’ use of nonhuman primate data is also open to question. They state that “the father plays no individual role” in nurturing and rearing the young. This generalization, apparently extrapolated from observations of the hamadryas baboon, ignores

the

bulk

of evidence

from

subspecies

that

are

probably

among the most relevant for inferences about prototypic hominids, i.e., those terrestrially adapted primates that respond to predation through structured group living and defense (olive and chacma baboons, fuscata, and some rhesus macaques). Although the biological father is unidentifiable, the sociological role of father is elaborately enacted by the dominant males of baboon and macaque groups. These high-ranking males can usually be located in the center of the troop, where they feed, rest, and travel in close proximity to infants and younger weaned animals. In addition, they frequently intervene in a protective way in specific interactions between individual infants on juveniles and other members of the troop. Moreover, the dominant males appear to act as a magnetic force on the young (who often play on on around them) and are themselves responsive to infants and very tolerant oftheir antics (1, 2). These data do not support the premise ofvirtualhy exclusive maternal influence on the young over our evolutionary history. The authors’ further assertion that hominid organization was “based on the subgroup formed by the mother and hen children . .. . [untilJ hunting gave way to an agricultural economy” is also contradicted by evidence of monogamous relationships and

1330

A m ) Psychiatry

132:12.

December

1975

cessful These

resolution examples

of the

oedipal

have

been

inquiry

into

“beginnings”

nating,

does

not

of

relieve

phase

seems

presented human

investigators

insuffIcient.

in order

to suggest

behavior, of

the

that

however

fasci-

responsibility

for

careful marshalling Tinbergen’s caution

of evidence. One would do well to attend to that even the most detailed naturalistic ob-

servations

merely

give

rise

ternating descriptive any conclusion (4).

and

to hypotheses;

the

experimental

work

further

are

steps

of al-

requisite

for

REFERENCES

I.

DeVore I (ed): Primate behavior. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965 2. Kaufman JH: Social relations ofadult males in a free ranging band of rhesus monkeys, in Social Communication Among Primates. Edited by Altmann SA. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp 73-98 3. Lee RB, DeVore I (eds): Man The Hunter. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. 1968 4. Tinbergen N: The Animal in Its World, vols I and 2. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 972 VIRGINIA

ABERNETIIY,

Nashville,

Dr. and Ms. Jonas SIR:

important to many objection

that

gains may be made psychiatric concepts. to the presentation

Dr. Abernethy

than

a summary

feels as we do that

by an interdisciplinary approach However, we take issue with her of “ fragmentary findings” from

other fields. It is not possible to nial for conclusions drawn from ited space of a short article; a quired but would be of less fields

Tenn.

Reply

We were gratified

individual

Pii.D.

give the full background mateother disciplines within the limbook-length work would be reinterest to specialists in the of their conclusions. Our pur-

pose was not to offer comprehensive material from ethology, anthropology, physiology, etc., but to select material from these fields that seemed relevant to the psychiatric area we were discussing.

We would

agree

with

Dr. Abennethy’s

objection

to the use of

LETTERS

anecdotal material if this were all that cussion of the role of maternal dominance son incest, we merely added our clinical 30 years ings

as support

we

cited.

We

observations,

regard word

referred

to the

full

form

(1).

in book

to our

that

the as

form

monogamous

male

among

influences

the vast

group

and

the

young.

With

or

the

titi

groups),

males.

the

inter-

few cxof

in doing behavioral

As Count

the

in

gestation

mammalian

familialism

the society ent”:

plus

male

development

(2) noted,

upon

is gregarious,

a rampart

lactation

whole

without

clusive

a “diffuse

specific

rearing

function

ofthe

Despite

of

child

own

is in most

in nonhuman

primates.

of monogamous rearing

for

logically

the

young.

determined

cussed

this

Far

some

from

elements

subject

the

length

the

cx-

par-

the

in the care

paternal

of

and provides role,

a

of bio-

we

have

dis-

(I).

We did not state that a lowering of maternal dominance is the detenmin ing psychological factor in unsuccessful resolution of the oedipal phase but that in cases of such lowered dominance, “the ground is prepared for the son to fail to resolve We could not agree more with the comments in Dr. Abernethy’s concluding paragraph. In our article, we presented our hypothesis that “there appears to be a sound biological foundation for the concept of the oedipal phase and the Oedipus complex.” Modern development of psychiatric knowledge derives from the formulation and reformulation of hypotheses; psychoanalytic

theory

plex is itself remains

is a prime

example.

a hypothetical

“statistically”

After

construct unverified.

We

all,

the

Oedipus

A. Stone,

to meet

Phy-

Alfred stated

M.D.,

identify dangerous a court’s evidentiary

pa-

as a morbid

and

or are who

predisposition

untreatable.”

have easy

corn-

to

not

a statistical

proba-

experience

dangerous

treat.

of those

patients

Among

the

is that

few psychithey

cornerstones

of

are

their

surtreat-

are I) providing a ready means of temporary protection others, and 2) making them conscious of premonitory of uneasiness and explosiveness protection voluntarily. Many

that of these

can prompt them to patients soon go vol-

untarily in and out of protective custody trol. Dr. Stone noted that “Ifcommitment

is not based

bility

commitment

but

on

dangerousness,

nothing

emergency

but preventive boils

Let’s

under

detention.”

down

to “Once

use preventive

their

The he has

detention

own conon treatabecomes

legal done

definition it, he

is apt

keep him in jail.” The psychiatric definition of dangerousness is He has a disorder that predisposes him to react violently whether or not he actually has been violent (although he usually has), and this it again.

and

“

disorder protected

requires treatment initially in a place where he feels and cared for. This can be, but need not be, a hospi-

tal.” These definitions are quite different ent consequences. The law clearly has the responsibility from

individuals

who

are

and have quite

differ-

for protecting

predisposed

to behave

citizens

violently.

A

large proportion of such individuals are suffering from underlying disorders such as severe antisocial personality, catatonic schizophrenia, psychotic depression in middle life, some alcoholic psychoses, and acute paranoid panics. Although most people with these disorders will not actually commit violent crimes, those who show clinical criteria ofdangerousness have a strong tendency to do so. Dangerousness, like suicidal intent, is usually a reflection of psychopathology. If we do not attempt to

(so far as we know)

precisely

define

feel,

however,

continue

to create

it is a

The

treated

that

that

Alan

for

ousness

of dangerousness

pni-

possibility

1975 issue),

Issue

Michael

an unworkable standard.” trained to recognize danger-

to do

nonhuman

an by

the law has now produced indicate that psychiatrists

almost and male

(August

...

signs

hunter-gatherers,

living

ignoring of

at some

cases

relationships

among

children in most of these groups are primarily their mothers until puberty. Of course, as in mates, the presence of the adult males influences model

to

adult males have the individual

young

Dangerousness

test.

ment from

if

par-

orientation

“Is

Commitment?”

The data

seek

female

evidence in

her

M.D.

pnisingly

(p. 593)

and

ticipation

the and

becomes

We are aware that in certain circumstances, been known to “adopt” young. Nevertheless, nurturing

fixate

on

Emergency

“psychiatry lacks the capacity with sufficient reliability to

to treat

female-plus-offspring;

the male

of the

his own offspring.

postnatal

comment

Dangerousness

that tients

atrists Intrauterine

In his

EDITOR

are quite accurate but imprecise in defining the disorder. That is, they detect those who are dangerously disordered but also include many who are not. Dr. Stone also stated, “the population of dangerous persons with diagnosable mental illness includes many who are difficult

is regu-

this,

and Identifying

THE

bility

which

of the adult

primates

SIR:

Peszke,

individual

very

function

Naturally, the

oper-

both

nonhuman

for

an

monkey,

the

of

a model

young

with plays

as a whole.

of all the group’s

disagree

the

Confronting

sicians

of our

data,

father

majority

is indeed

primate

firmly

find-

documentation

primate

rearing gibbon

family

the

of the

We

and

(such

ethological

use of nonhuman

nonhuman

in nurturing

ceptions

lation

well-substantiated

is “individual.”

pretation

role

also

the

published

With ative

for

was used. In our disin deterring motherobservations of some

TO

and

treat

havoc

this

group,

they

will

be

in society,

and

will

be segregated

neglected,

will

by

the law. Failure to care for dangerously disordered people will only earn psychiatry the enmity of the law and the public. While we should try not to overstep our professional bounds, we should also try not to flee from areas where we do have in-

useful metaphor covering certain biological phenomena. Freud’s “marshalling of evidence” was originally based on his own clinical experience, subsequently extended. Hypothesis building based on careful observation is at least as important as any purely pragmatically oriented statistical marshalling of

creasing

facts. leads

should support the understanding and help we can give to those with the predisposition to dangerousness.

Exclusive to eventual

proaches

that

use of either method at the expense of the other sterility. It is in the coordination ofthe two ap-

useful

advances

competence.

Those

who

are

spokesmen

are made. AUGUSTUS

REFERENCES

I. Jonas D, Jonas D: Sex 2. Count EW: Homination: aus Bevolkerungsbiologie. pp 566-596

and

for psychiatry

Status. organism Stuttgart,

New York, Stein & Day, 1975 and process, in Sonderdruck Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1974,

Dr. Stone SIR:

A.

DAVID

A.P.O.

JONAS,

DoRis F. New York,

M.D. JONAS

N.Y.

Dr.

F. KINZEL, New York,

M.D. N.Y.

Replies Kinzel

disputes

two

critical

the relative inability of psychiatrists and the difficulty of treating persons antisocial behavior. Dr. Kinzel offers

A m ) Psychiatry

132:12,

aspects

of

my

comment:

to predict dangerousness who engage in dangerous his opinions, but although

December

1975

1331