ABSTRACT
Not withstanding the conceptual power of Freud’s concept of the oedipal superego, his formulation of the evolution of conscience and morality is opaque. In tying the development of morality to sexual development and gender identification, the formulation of the 1923 superego theory has remained problematic—as evidenced in the criticisms of the theory by classical and post-Freudians—ever since its formulation. Freud originally linked the origin and development of morality with the prolonged period of physical dependence in human beings. There is a good deal of evidence linking sensory or corporeal experience with the origins of morality. This has, unsurprisingly, for the most part been yielded by the analysis of infants and young children that post-dates Freud’s work. There is also evidence that this primitive type of morality—in which there is not yet any differentiation between what is good or bad in any rational sense—also knows no differentiation between reality and morality.
