Understanding Oedipal struggles within Organizational Context.

The Oedipus Complex or Oedipal Complex (OC), introduced by Freud, in his theory of Psychosexual Stages of Development, in the book: The Interpretation of Dreams (Freud, S. 1964), describes feelings of sexual involvement of a child toward the parent of the opposite sex. Simultaneously this evokes feelings of rivalry and jealousy towards the parent of the same sex. Freud has received a lot of criticism regarding these ideas, particularly pertaining to ‘penis envy’ in women, castration and his primary focus being that of the male child towards the mother. 

The OC is one of the most controversial, influential and thought-provoking psychoanalytic theories to date. It has influenced the practice of psychology, psychiatry and psychodynamic theory, systems-psychodynamic consultancy as well as underpinning several other theories such as the Persephone Complex (Kulish, N. 1998), the Medea Complex (Stern, ES. 1948), the Electra Complex (Willner, D. 1982), the Orestes Complex (Goldsmith, SJ. 2001), Bion’s work on groups, Klein’s theory on Projective Identification etc. Solidifying its significance within the world of psychoanalysis.

The Play

At the heart of the Oedipus complex lies the Greek myth of Oedipus, son of Laius and Queen Jocasta. The tragedy begins when Laius learns from the Oracle at Delphi that he would conceive a son that would ultimately cause his demise. Therefore, Laius ordered his son killed at birth, but not before piercing his foot (Oedipus, Οιδ?που? or Oidípous meaning swollen foot). Oedipus miraculously survived and lived to fulfil the murderous and incestuous prophecy, killing his father and conceiving four children with his mother: Polynices, Eteocles, Antigone, and Ismene. When the couple learned the true nature of their relationship: that of mother and son rather than husband and wife, Oedipus proceeded to gouge his eyes out using her jewellery and Jocasta hanged herself. ‘This is the archetypal structure represented in Sophocles’ play, in which Jocasta encourages Oedipus to adopt the position of king and husband.

This is an essential starting point for understanding the meaning of the OC, its relationship with the human psyche and thus as an extension organizational life. “At its core, it speaks about the phantasy [that leads to] struggle over dominance,” (Steiner 1999, p.99) and the placement and projection of hurt, confusion, envy and psychological splitting.  

Another view is that the Oedipus complex must collapse because the time has come for its disintegration, just as the milk teeth fall out when the permanent ones begin to grow…it is nevertheless a phenomenon which is determined and laid down by heredity and which is bound to pass away…when the next preordained phase of development sets in. (Gay, 1995: P 662)

Whenever oedipal anxieties occur in adulthood the cause is often not the person (or situation) we find ourselves in conflict with, at the time, but rather an unconscious reminder of the pain and confusion we experienced during childhood [love and exclusion]. 

This powerful phenomenon is inherent to the human psyche thus, part of daily organizational life, making the OC within organizational consultancy significant. Leaders, entire departments, or even company founders can evoke oedipal anxieties and struggles. Thus, creating a triangular space that can (or cannot) allow for containment as suggested by Bion’s (1962b) in concept of the “container/contained” and as well as Donald Winnicott’s (1945) concept of “holding”.  

Mergers and Acquisitions

In many ways, a merger/acquisition can evoke infantile feelings rooted in the OC between the new company, the old and the employee(s). I went through an acquisition and I clearly remember outbursts such as:

-      “I don’t trust the people from Intruder Inc., they don’t do things the way we do them over here”

-      “If they think I’m going share my knowledge with them, they are sorely mistaken”

-      “I hope we don’t get a new CEO, what is going to become of this place”

-      “I can’t understand why they made this decision after promising they wouldn’t”

-       “I hate person x for doing this”  

Within the company atmosphere I sensed a primal outcry and attempt at coming to terms with difficult and complex feelings and emotions:

·     Employees wanting to exclude, yet do not want to be excluded

·      Employees developing a preference for one company (parent) over the other

·      Employees cultivating a drive to push one company (parent) away. 

Regression

Clearly, primal processes continue working as an undercurrent as we enter adolescence and adulthood influencing the way we relate to companies and each other; in a similar way that we experience acceptance, psychological splitting and ambivalence. I remember the madness. As I continued to notice feelings of containment dissipate, with the psychological chaos that persisted, there was no longer space for thinking. If I would have been a consultant (and not a member) my intervention would have been informed by these feelings of infanticide, betrayal, patricide, incest, vengeance and suicide. Tempting to create a psychic triangular space to act as a container for the projected anxieties of the organisation which might then have been contained. The previous company structure (that acted as a container for social anxieties projected into it) [Obholzer 1994]) no longer existed, so upon transition this needed to be taken into account.  

Oedipal thinking in the context of organizations comes down to the discovery of a triangular space that allows for thinking, (simply) being and feeling safety and trust. Such a space allows resolution. Being able to come to terms with the dynamics of othering and the subsequent feelings of difference, separation and loss to painfully bring the child (person) into being as an agent in their self-development, through the capacity to see and reflect from a "third position” (Britton 1989); this pain leaves a legacy of guilt that can cause both neurotic or psychotic harms but also the capacity for reparative care (love).

Letty Cottin Pogrebin

Psychological containment that provides safety, security and a space for reflection is of valuable importance. As Alvarez suggest:

"First, as Anna Freud says, build the house; first, as Klein says, introject the good breast; first, as Bion says, you have to have an adequate container; first, as Bowlby says, have a secure base." (Alvarez 1992:117).

Letty Cottin Pogrebin, who calls herself a group groupie, reveals in an interview with Alan Alda during his podcast Clear and Vivid, how she works with groups who ordinarily wouldn’t sit in the same room together. She revealed something powerful around building containment that I want to bring alive as an example in the context of creating containment. This takes places within the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

Within each of their groups, social defenses will arise, which will be the cause of feelings of wanting to exclude (yet wanting to be included), be it access to healthcare, educational opportunities socio-economic gain etc. The groups (Jewish/Muslim) would make up the first element of the OC, the child. There will be a clear preference of one over the other: religion (the mother, second element) and land (Gaza, the West bank, the father, third element). The social anxiety created because of these oedipal feelings stifle thinking and create strong chauvinistic feelings, emotions and anxieties, around feelings of inclusion, exclusion and the need to push the other away; annihilate, destroy, murder, castrate...we have been seeing this for decades between these opposing groups.    

Letty talks about specific topics that she opens with during meetings with these conflicting groups, which, she shares, are the nucleus of human existence that connects us. (With woman’s) she talks about first menstrual experience, the meaning of God (not Mohammed nor Jesus, but God) and His meaning in their lives and so on. Topics that creates a shared meaning and that we can all relate to as human beings. She created a space, initially that connects, creates safety and allows fear of persecution to lessen. Her goal is first to connect and create containment. Secondly, she allows for malevolent and benevolent polarizing feelings to sit in one space so they can be talked about, looked at and felt without fear of othering and social persecution. Thirdly she creates a thinking space allowing for the self, religion and land-ownership to sit triangularly, allowing for third position thinking by all members of the group, to take place. Love, mourning and difficulty is then able to be worked through without the tendency to (psychologically) 'kill off' any member of the experience opposing group. 

In the context of OC within organizations and groups this is a powerful methodology to hold on to. It’s about allowing for intellect (thinking) to surface and emotions and their ubiquitous nature, to sit right beside it, and not envelop fully all actions and behavior. As a consultant, really to be an arbiter, a feeling conduit, to help members to make sense of what is going on for them via one’s own (counter) transference. 

Turning a blind eye

The truth may be in plain sight but can also be unbearable for the members of an organization to accept, see or internalize. Steiner (1985) dissects the story of Oedipus demonstrating that perhaps he knew his fate yet chose not to accept it. An unthought known: “for Oedipus too, there was a chance that Polybus was his true father, and to preserve this belief he had to turn a blind eye to the evidence of the scars on his feet (Steiner, J. 1985). As organizational consultants, we will be faced with situations where members will try and unwittingly collude; just like in the story of Oedipus we need to attempt to help them face reality and allow for reflection to take place:

“At some point, he begins to realize that the cover-up cannot last, and he shows an impressive determination to face reality. His resolve was, however, difficult to sustain, and throughout the play we see the struggle between the wish to continue the cover-up and the wish to make a clean breast of it and face the full truth” (Steiner, J. 1985).  

With Letty’s example still in mind, we could allow members to see what they perhaps already knew, to feel what they had already felt and to hear what they had already heard. Yet this time from a space of safely looking, feeling and seeing without the psychic fear of turning into a statue of salt, like Lot’s wife in the book of Genesis. This fear, which stems from early childhood, is often experienced as ubiquitous, all encompassing, and with psychologically deadly repercussion. We developed oedipal anxieties in fear of psychic annihilation and continue to activate it in its most primal form. Possessing, creating and cultivating a true understanding of the OC’s inner workings allows for compassion, love and understanding around turning a blind eye for members of organizations, which in turn support the work that needs to be done and could allow for members to potentially move to a different thinking space, closer to ambivalence and acceptance. 

However difficult to identify at times, an understanding of the Oedipal crisis, may help us gain deeper understanding of interpersonal dynamics within organizations and could help us avoid remaining hopelessly fragmented individuals that struggle to identify with one another.