Attitudes Toward Disability: A Phylogenetic and Psychoanalytic Perspective

The fields of psychoanalysis and sociobiology are similar and complementary in several respects. Both Freud (1912-1913/1955a) and Edward O. Wilson (1975), the parent of sociobiology, made startling discoveries about the nature of human beings and their relationships to the rest of the animal kingdom, and both were severely criticised for these discoveries by their contemporaries. According to Hardin (1978), sociobiology has variously been called racist, sexist, elitist, biological determinist, Social Darwinist, and reductionist. Many of these same epithets have been hurled at Freud and psychoanalysis. In fact, one of the present author’s more psychodynamically-oriented academic colleagues once related the following anecdote: In one of his classes, the name of Freud was mentioned in relation to a personality construct being discussed. A female student in the class raised her hand to state emphatically that Freud and his theories should not be discussed at all because Freud was obviously a sexist. Coincidentally, the copy of Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), which was borrowed from the University library prior to drafting this manuscript had been defaced with the word ‘racism’ and a crude drawing of a swastika.

Freud himself was fond of comparing his work to that of Darwin and Copernicus, who had similarly tumbled humans from their uniquely spiritual, Center-of-the-Universe throne. Specifically, it was Freud’s contention that in discovering the unconscious he had deprived humans of the belief that they had full conscious control over their affects and behaviour. Gregory (1978) has imputed a similar role to sociobiology, which contends not only human structure but also human behaviour, and even consciousness are largely determined by the genes. It is not therefore surprising that the insights of sociobiology are, in some circles, accorded the same level of enthusiastic acceptance as those of Freud, Darwin and Copernicus.

Recent efforts to integrate the phylogenetic aspects of Freud’s theories with the findings and theories of sociobiology (e.g. Badcock, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1990; Hardin, 1977) offer fertile ground for theorising about the development of attitudes toward disability and the means to ameliorate negative attitudes. The purpose of this manuscript is to: (a) provide an overview of the field of sociobiology; (b) discuss the relationships between sociobiology and Freudian psychoanalytic theory; and (c) demonstrate how the insights of sociobiology and psychoanalysis might be used to provide a theoretical basis for rehabilitation policies and practices that promote more favorable attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

What is Sociobiology?

Although Edward O. Wilson is typically credited with founding and naming the discipline of sociobiology, other major contributors were Hamilton (1963; 1964a; 1964b; 1970; 1971; 1972; 1975), Barash (1977), Trivers (1971; 1981; 1985), and Dawkins (1976; 1982). According to Wilson (1975), the term sociobiology may be defined as “. . . the systematic study of the biological bases of all social behaviour” (p. 595). For the purposes of this manuscript, perhaps a better definition is provided by Badcock (1988, p. 189), who stated simply that sociobiology is “A modern Darwinian theory which explains social behaviour in terms of its contributions to the survival of an organism’s genes.”

The key concept of sociobiology that has relevance for the study of disability is kin altruism or kin selection. Specifically, the concept of kin selection is based on “the elementary fact of Mendelian inheritance that genetic relatives in general share a certain fraction of identical gene material. Kin selection favors genes controlling kin altruistic behaviour, i.e., behaviour that benefits genetic kin at some cost to the individual altruist” (Boorman & Levitt, 1980, p. 5). A related concept, which could also have significant importance is reciprocal altruism or reciprocity selection. According to Boorman and Levitt (1980), “Reciprocity selection acts because cooperative behaviour may on the average increase the fitness of both (or all) cooperating individuals” (p. 5). A final concept is induced altruism, or parasitism, which is defined as a situation where one organism promotes the fitness of another at its own expense and without reciprocal benefit to itself or benefit to its genes present in the recipient (Badcock, 1988, p. 121). In other words, the recipient induces altruism that would normally be directed elsewhere or not displayed at all (Trivers, 1985, p. 49). An example of induced altruism provided by Trivers (1985, p. 49) is the brood parasites of birds, whose members are wholly specialised to lay their eggs in the nests of other birds so the hatchlings will be reared to independence by them. From the point of view of the exploited party (in this case the unsuspecting nurturer), induced altruism is selfishness.

Although one makes a “quantum leap” in ascribing importance to the reproductive and other social behaviours of “lower” organisms in relation to humans, it is a major assumption of sociobiology that many types of social behaviour, including altruism, are passed on in the evolutionary process in the same way as physical characteristics. However, even the most fervent sociobiologists do not believe that the relationship between heredity and behaviour is a one-to-one proposition. That is, it is acknowledged that there is significant latitude for environmental factors to influence genetic potential, especially in the case of human beings who are capable of directing their own behaviours to a considerable extent. In any case, the study of altruism, whether as a genetic or environmental variable, could have significant importance in describing and influencing attitudes and behaviours toward persons with disabilities.

Psychoanalytic Factors and Relationships

While the focus of this paper is primarily on the relationship between Freudian (i.e., drive/structure theory, classical) psychoanalysis and sociobiology, it should be acknowledged that other psychoanalytic theorists have also discussed the role of heredity in social behaviour. Bowlby (1969), for example, in writing about attachment, proposed than a human infant’s signaling behaviour toward the mother (i.e., smiling, crying, babbling) was neither learned, or dependent upon any drive-reducing characteristics of the mother. Rather, the mother simply needed to possess those stimulus characteristics that elicit the attachment behaviour of the infant. Also noteworthy is the work of Slavin and Kriegman (1990), who attempted recently to resolve the classical-relational dialectic in psychoanalysis through the use of an evolutionary biological perspective.

The relationship between Freudian psychoanalysis and sociobiology has been discussed most extensively by Christopher C. Badcock, a British sociologist who was analysed by Anna Freud. Badcock’s work (1980, 1983, 1986, 1990) was based on an integration of sociobiological concepts, such as altruism and the inheritability of social behaviour, and Freud’s speculations about phylogenetic influences on human personality development. Specifically, it was Freud’s contention, expressed initially in Totem and Taboo (1912-1913/1955a), that the Oedipus complex had its origins in the social development of early humans. Freud believed that early humans roamed the Earth in what he called primal hordes. Basically, these hordes were of two types, one ruled by a dominant male which included his “wives,” sisters and daughters and one consisting of all the other males (i.e. the brothers and sons of the dominant males) who had been banished from the original horde by the dominant male or his predecessors. Eventually, the sons and broths banded together and killed (and ate) the primal fathers in order to gain access to their women. According to Freud, the consequences of these acts have had a profound effect on the personality development of the human species. For example, the development of the superego on an individual basis and culture on a social basis derived directly from these occurrences, as well as the origin of religion (totems) and the incest taboo. Freud extended these ideas on several occasions as he attempted to reveal the mysteries of art, culture, religion, civilisation and group behaviour. Among the more prominent of these works were Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921/1955b), Civilisation and Its Discontents (1930/1961b), The Future of an Illusion (1927/1961a), Moses and Monotheism (1937-1939/1064), and the recently discovered A Phylogenetic Fantasy Overview of the Transference Neuroses (1987).

The Oedipus complex (i.e., the wish to have coitus with the other-sex parent and the consequent fear of castration and/or fear of loss of love from the same-sex parent) always served as the prototype for Freud’s speculations. Moreover, it was Freud’s belief that this primal drama was replayed on an individual basis from generation to generation. In other words, the Oedipus complex was believed to have both a phylogenetic and ontogentic basis. Badcock (1980, 1983, 1990), using Freud’s theories about the primal horde and Oedipus complex as points of departure, speculated not only on the development of the superego, but also on the development of the ego and the origin of the id, which he hypothesised had developed from early baboon-like hominids. Badcock also extended and more clearly defined Freud’s recently discovered writings on the phylogenetic origins of the psychosexual stages of human development (i.e., oral, anal and phallic) (Freud, 1987), which purportedly developed in a different order for the species (i.e., phallic, oral and anal) due to the cultural evolution of society.

For Badcock, the development and resolution of the Oedipus complex is crucial to the forward development of society. Because the development of the superego is dependent on strong parent figures and societal institutions, Badcock is extremely critical about modern parenting practices and the breakdown of the traditional family structure. In effect, he views unwed motherhood, single-parent families and permissive parenting practices as being counter-evolutionary. Recently, Badcock (1986) turned his attention to “the problem of altruism,” which he attempted to solve by integrating the work of Darwin and Freud. Much of this scholarship is based on concepts derived from sociobiology. What is particularly striking about Badcock’s work is the assumption that the Oedipus complex and other aspects of personality have a biological basis. That is, they are passed on through the genes. Moreover, it is assumed that certain types of altruism are major forces in determining which genes survive.

The Oedipus complex, with its attendant concept of castration anxiety, has been discussed by several authors as an important factor in attitudes toward disability (e.g., Cubbage & Thomas, 1989; Fine, 1978; Folansbee, 1981; Siller, 1976, 1988). To the person with a disability, the disability may represent a form of castration; to the able-bodied person, the sight of a person with a disability may evoke the threat of castration. In females especially, the disability would theoretically also evoke fear of loss of love (Cubbage & Thomas; 1989). This line of thought was extended recently by Thomas (1994), who contrasted classical and self-psychological modes of psychanalytic intervention in treating a fictitious analysand with an adventitious physical disability. In Thomas’ opinion adjustment to disability could be affected by: (1) castration anxiety, (2) fear of the loss of the love of the object, and/or (3) fear of the loss of the object. It was implicit in Thomas’ paper that these three factors, which are important in all “uncomplicated cases of transference neurosis” (Kohut, 1971), could also affect the reactions of others toward persons with disabilities. For example, if it may be presumed that to an onlooker a disability such as the loss of limb is represented unconsciously as castration, loss of love of the object (e.g., loss of the mother or father’s love), and/or loss of the object (i.e., the onlooker’s limb, mother or father), then it may be inferred that the onlooker’s reaction toward the person with a disability will be adversely affected, especially if the onlooker has weak ego strength or unresolved Oedipal anxieties in any of these areas.

Promoting Positive Attitudes and Behaviours

If concepts such as kin altruism and castration anxiety do indeed have importance in influencing attitudes and behaviours toward persons with disabilities, then what can be done by rehabilitation professionals and persons with disabilities to neutralise and/or take advantage of these mechanisms? In the specific case of kin altruism, it would seem critically important to emphasise the similarities rather than the differences between persons with and persons without disabilities. Unfortunately, the entire social-service and educational system in the United States is structured in such a way that rehabilitation and special education services are predicated on establishing and emphasising differences instead of similarities. That is, one must be labeled as having one type of disability or another to be eligible for special services. Similarly, preparation programs for rehabilitation and special education professionals are often separated administratively from the generic fields of counseling, psychology, and teacher education. In addition, national programs soliciting monies or other special treatment for person with disabilities often emphasise differences and deficiencies in order to gain sympathetic support (Adler, Wright & Ulieny, 1991).

While this latter practice could be viewed as taking advantage of the concept of induced altruism, any practice that emphasises differences between persons with and without disabilities may inhibit rather than facilitate the development of positive attitudes. For example, research has consistently indicated that perceptions of similarity and difference are important factors in influencing how persons in general react to persons with disabilities, with those perceived as more similar eliciting the more favorable reactions (Byrne, 1969; Weinberg, 1976, 1978; Weinberg-Asher, 1973). Indeed, Fichten, Robillard, Judd, and Amsel (1989) reported that college students with disabilities were as uncomfortable as other students with peers who had a disability different from their own. Also, in a classic study conducted by Glasser and Strauss (1964), the social interactions between persons with and without disabilities were shown to approach a level of normality when both parties in the interaction pretended not to “zero in” on the disability itself. That is, the interaction improved when the other person was assisted in perceiving that he or she was interacting with another person rather than with someone who was disabled. Similar findings were reported by Fichten and Amsel (1988), who recommended that when planning intervention programs designed to promote comfortable interaction between person with disabilities and person in general, attention should be directed toward changing the other person’s cognition about the person with a disability.

Considered collectively, these findings suggest that in national campaigns intended to promote positive attitudes emphasis should be placed on the similarities between persons with and without disabilities and not on the differences. Moreover, as recommended by Adler et al. (1991), emphasis should be placed on the coping rather than succumbing aspects of adjustment to disability. (This latter recommendation, while not intended by the authors to be so, is congruent with the idea that parents invest more in offspring who are most likely to perpetuate the parents’ genes.) Efforts should also be made by rehabilitation and special educators to emphasise the generic aspects of their particular profession rather than the differences between psychologists and rehabilitation psychologists, counselors and rehabilitation counselors, and educations and special educators.

It was mentioned earlier that one of the problems with current social-service and educational systems is the requirement that one must be labeled as disabled before being eligible for services. This requirement would be unnecessary if eligibility for services were based on functional limitations and needs rather than on the possession of a specific disability. Similarly, there is no compelling reason to treat “special education” students any differently than any other students. That is, the educational system could be generically empowered to meet every child’s needs, whether that child is disabled, gifted or unexceptional. The educational system should respond to the individual child’s needs, not to the needs of some arbitrarily designated category of children. The division of adults and children into categories based on disability, race, gender, socioeconomic status, intelligence and so on, promotes prejudice, dehumanisation, labeling, stereotyping, and a loss of individuality. Clearly, a better idea would be to address individual difference as the natural consequence of nature and nurture rather than tying clients and students into nice, neat little packages such as the learning disabled, culturally different, and physically handicapped. If the purpose of rehabilitation and special education is the full integration of people with disabilities, then why is it necessary to separate the services they receive from those received by other people? Moreover, who really benefits from this separation, the clients and students, or the professionals who serve them?

Another concept from the field of sociobiology that could have importance is the idea of reciprocal altruism. As defined earlier, this concept applies when cooperative behaviour benefits both parties. Examples would be helping in times of danger and distress, sharing food, sharing implements, and sharing knowledge (Trivers, 1981). In the specific case of persons with disabilities, the concept of reciprocal altruism would apply when it is shown that expenditures for services will ultimately result in an overall economic and social gain for society. Such arguments have traditionally been used to gain appropriations from state and federal legislators, particularly in the case of vocational rehabilitation. However, the same arguments could legitimately be used to promote programs in independent living, adult education, and a wide array of other social programs. The key is to make certain that the programs offered are effective enough to provide a return for the investments being made. If not, the result is a form of induced altruism, or cheating, which may in the long run promote not only negative attitudes but also a diminishment in the quality of life for everyone concerned. To take advantage of the mechanism of reciprocal altruism, rehabilitation personnel and disability advocate groups should emphasise the reciprocal benefits of providing services and then make certain that every effort is made to improve the quality and effectiveness of the services provided. In practical terms, implementing this emphasis means that efforts should be made to educate and employ qualified personnel and to focus research efforts on identifying interventions that actually work. While it could be argued that in order to demonstrate the reciprocal benefits of providing services to persons with disabilities one would first need to categorise them as a separate group, the benefits of receiving vocation training and having independent-living arrangements could be demonstrated regardless of whether the participants were disabled or not.

The concept of induced altruism presents a special problem for rehabilitation personnel and their clients, since capitalising on donor affects such as sympathy or guilt can be quite effective in generating support for programs and individuals. In fact, one might argue that requests for support on such bases appeal to higher order ego functions (i.e., those humanitarian characteristics which separate humans from “lower” animals) and are therefore quite desirable. One might also argue that such appeals are actually a form of reciprocal altruism since the donor receives the benefit of a reduction of guilt. Unfortunately, altruistic actions based on guilt or sympathy are rarely beneficial to the donor’s overall wellbeing and are often demeaning to the donee. Therefore, it is asserted that appeals for support of programs benefiting people with disabilities should be based on kin and/or reciprocal altruism, and not on induced altruism.

In the matter of castration anxiety and related concepts as correlates of attitudes toward disability, efforts should be made to reduce the potential threat that the disability may pose for the nondisabled person’s ego. While in an ideal world individual would have sufficient ego strength to tolerate differences and/or symbolic threats of castration and loss of love, many individuals present less healthy psychological characteristics. To reduce the effects of these psychological phenomena, efforts again should be made to emphasise similarities rather than differences (i.e., promote identification by de-emphasising the focus on the disability), and social-planning policies that may pose real threats to the security of person without disabilities (e.g., the imposition of quota systems and preferential hiring practices) should be avoided. Obviously, the latter of these recommendations is controversial, but its implementation would result ultimately in a more amicable environment for both persons with and without disabilities.

It might be argued that placing an emphasis on similarities rather than on differences could discourage people from learning about, appreciating and embracing gender, ethnic and other differences. While such an outcome would be unfortunate, the point is not to ignore group differences but rather to refrain from emphasising them. There can, of course, be clinically important differences between persons with and without disabilities and these differences should be addressed in treatment and educational settings. However, it is a fact of life that within-group differences are usually larger than between-group differences. In other words, an astute clinician would almost always treat individuals as individuals rather than as members of some nosological group.

In some respects, the recommendations offered in the manuscript have already been implemented in the educational and social-service system; however, in several other respects, persons with disabilities are still relegated to separate status or have elected to be treated differently. Mainstreaming in schools, deinstitutionalisation, independent living, efforts to eliminate disabling language (i.e., placing emphasis on the person rather than the disability), community-based treatment programs, and using assessments based on functional limitations are examples of practices that promote inclusiveness and integration. In addition, efforts by state agency administrators and university researchers to demonstrate the long-term benefits of supporting vocational rehabilitation and independent-living programming are congruent with the concept of reciprocal altruism. On the other hand, much remains to be done. For example, rehabilitation programs are almost always separated administratively from other human-service programs, clients and students must still be labeled as disabled before being eligible for services, special education teachers are separated administratively (and often physically) from other teachers, and preparation programs for rehabilitation counselors and special educators are frequently separated administratively from their parent disciplines. In fact, even on college campuses where administrators enthusiastically endorse the concept of multiculturalism and innovative plans for diversity, what these plans typically mean are separate resources, facilities and services for persons with disabilities. While the intent of these services and facilities is to promote accessibility and integration, the result is frequently that students with disabilities, unlike other students, are encouraged to use one versus several university student-service offices, and the overall milieu of the university disability resource center may actually discourage rather than encourage social interaction between students with and without disabilities. That is, to the extent that the students’ social life at the university revolves around social and clinical activities planned or administered by the resource center, their contact with other students is commensurately diminished.

What has been attempted in this manuscript is to provide a theoretical basis for those policy decisions and practices that promote integration and the perception of persons with disabilities as being more similar to rather than different from other people. While efforts to provide special services, training programs, employment opportunities, and charitable donations for persons with disabilities are assumedly well-intended, they run the considerable risk of reinforcing a perception of difference that may ultimately decrease rather than increase positive attitudes. On the other hand, unless persons with disabilities are helped or given the opportunity to capitalise on their assets and remediate correctable deficiencies, they will, by virtue of their functional limitations, often be relegated to a position of unnecessary dependence and perceived inferiority. To eliminate the negative effects of both of these alternatives, social and educational services to persons with and without disabilities should be offered under the auspices of the same organisational structures, and services generally should be provided on the basis of need and not on the basis of the possession of a disability.

At a meeting and discussion recently held about the Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the participants (a person with a disability), who supported the Act, commented on how unfortunate it was that people with disabilities had to be singled out for such legislation. It was her feeling that the rights afforded by the Act were the birthright of every American. And, therefore, by singling out Americans with disabilities, the Act was reinforcing a mentality of charity and perceived inferiority. The message intended in this manuscript could not have been stated more effectively. In the quest for equality between persons with and without disabilities, the emphasis on similarities rather than differences will be a critical factor.

Summary

An attempt was made in this manuscript to relate insights gained from the fields of sociobiology and classical psychoanalysis to attitudes toward disability. Among the specific concepts discussed were kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, induced altruism, castration anxiety, ego strength and the Oedipus complex. It was recommended that efforts to improve attitudes and interactions between persons with and without disabilities utilise the concepts of kin and reciprocal altruism and neutralise, as much as possible, the symbolic relationship between disability and castration and fear of loss of love. Specific recommendations were that similarities rather than differences be emphasised between person with and without disabilities, and attempts be made to reduce the threat which interaction with disabled persons poses for individuals with weak ego strength and/or unresolved Oedipal anxieties.

Commentary

While much has been accomplished to improve methods of intervention, eliminate barriers, and restructure delivery systems in such a way that persons with disabilities have greater access to the range of services and opportunities that society provides, there remains a tendency to treat persons with disabilities as the helpless victims of their circumstances (e.g., Lynch & Thomas, 1994) and to “segregate” the services they receive from those received by other persons. In order for progress to continue in terms of integrating persons with disabilities into society at large some rather large attitudinal structural changes will need to occur, including the following: (a) It needs to be recognised that persons with disabilities themselves play a significant role in affecting attitudes; they are not the helpless victims of negative attitudes, nor are they the helpless victims of their socioeconomic, psychological, or medical circumstances; (b) The educational and social services provided to person with disabilities need to be integrated with the services provided to all other citizens; in other words, the services provided to persons with disabilities should not be separated administratively; (c) Humanitarian efforts to secure resources for person with disabilities should be based on emphasising coping skills and similarities between persons with and without disabilities and not on deficiencies and differences; (d) Education programs for teachers, counselors, and psychologists who are planning to work with persons with disabilities should be integrated as much as possible with “Generic” education programs for these professionals; (e) Political initiatives that afford special rights and privileges to persons based on the possession of a disability need to be evaluated carefully in terms of their potential for eliciting negative attitudes, fear, and prejudice; and (f) Experimental research needs to be conducted, not only on the methods that helpers can use to assist persons with disabilities to function more effectively in society, but also on the specific behaviours that persons with disabilities can employ to elicit more favorable reactions from others.

References

Adler, A. B., Wright, B. A. & Ulieny, G. R. (1991). Fundraising Portrayals of People with Disabilities: Donations and Attitudes. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36, 231-240.

Badcock, C. R. (1980). The Psychoanalysis of Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Badcock, C. R. (1983). Madness and Modernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Badcock, C. R. (1986). The Problem of Altruism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Badcock, C. R. (1988). Essential Freud. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Badcock, C. R. (1990). Oedipus In Evolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociology and Behaviour. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.

Boorman, S. A., & Levitt, P. R. (1980). The Genetics of Altruism. New York: Academic Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and Attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 4, Pp. 38-89). New York: Academic Press.

Cubbage, M. E., & Thomas, K. R. (1989). Freud and Disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 161-173.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as A Unit of Selection. San Francisco, CA Freeman.

Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1988). Thoughts Concerning Interactions Between College Students Who Have A Disability and Their Nondisabled Peers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 22-40.

Ficht En, C. S., Robillard, K., Judd, D., & Amsel, R. (1989). College Students with Physical Disabilities: Myths and Realities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 243-257.

Fine, J. A. (1978). Castration Anxiety and Self-Concept of Physically Normal Children as Related to Perceptual Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Physical Deviance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.

Follansbee, A. G. (1981). Object Representation and Castration Anxiety: Personality Determinants of Attitudes Toward Physical Disability. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.

Freud, S. (1955a). Totem and Taboo. In Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 13, Pp. 1-162). London: Hogarth Press. (Original Work Published 1912-1913).

Freud, S. (1955b). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. In Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, Pp. 65-143). London: Hogarth Press. (Original Work Published 1921).

Freud, S. (1961a). The Future of an Illusion. In Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 21, Pp. 3-56). London: Hogarth Press. (Original Work Published 1927).

Freud, S. (1961b). Civilisation and Its Discontents. In Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 21, Pp. 59-145) London: Hogarth Press. (Original Work Published 1930).

Freud, S. (1964). Moses and Monotheism. In Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23, Pp. 3-137) London: Hogarth Press. (Original Work Published 1921).

Freud, S. (1987). A Phylogenetic Fantasy: Overview of the Transference Neuroses. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1964). Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction. American Sociological Review, 29, 669-679.

Gregory, M. S. (1978). Epilogue. In M. S. Gregory, A. Silvers, & D. Sutch (Eds.), Sociobiology and Human Nature (Pp. 283-294). San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers.

Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The Evolution of Altruistic Behaviour. American Naturalist, 97, 354-356.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. Ii. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52.

Hamilton, W. D. (1970). Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model. Nature (London), 228, 1218-1220.

Hamilton, W. D. (1971). Selection of Selfish and Altruistic Behaviour in Some Extreme Models. In J. F. Eisenberg & W. S. Dillon (Eds.). Man and Beast: Comparative Social Behaviour (Pp. 59-91). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hamilton, W. D. (1972). Altruism and Related Phenomena, Mainly in Social Insects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3, 193-232.

Hamilton, W. D. (1975). Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics. In R. Fox (Ed.). Biosocial Anthropology (Pp. 37-67). London: Malaby Press.

Hardin, G. (1977). The Limits of Altruism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hardin, G. (1978). Nice Guys Finish Last. In M. S. Gregory, A. Silvers, & D. Sutch (Eds.). Sociobiology and Human Behaviour (Pp. 183-194). San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers.

Kohut, H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

Lynch, R. T. & Thomas, K. R. (1994). People with Disabilities as Victims: Changing an Ill-Advised Paradigm. Journal of Rehabilitation, 60 (1), 8-11.

Siller, J. (1976). Attitudes Toward Disability. In H. Rusalem & D. Malikin (Eds.). Contemporary Vocational Rehabilitation (Pp. 67-79). New York: New York University Press.

Siller, J. (1988). Intrapsychic Aspects of Attitudes Toward Persons with Physical Disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.) Attitudes Toward Those with Physical Disability (Pp. 58-67). New York: Springer.

Slavin, M. O. & Kriegman, D. (1990). Toward A New Paradigm for Psychoanalysis: An Evolutionary Biological Perspective on the Classical-Relational Dialectic. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7 (Suppl.), 5-31.

Thomas, K. R. (1994). Drive Theory, Self-Psychology, and the Treatment of Persons with Disabilities. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, 11, 43-53.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(4), 35-57.

Trivers, R. L. (1981). Sociobiology and Politics. In E. White (Ed.). Sociology and Human Politics (Pp. 1-43). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.

Weinberg, N. (1976). Social Stereotyping of the Physically Handicapped. Rehabilitation Psychology, 23, 115-124.

Weinberg, N. (1978). Modifying Social Stereotypes of the Physically Disabled. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 22, 114-124.

Weinberg-Asher, N. (1976). The Effect of Disability on Self-Perception. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 20, 15-20.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kenneth R. Thomas, D.Ed., is Professor Emeritus of Rehabilitation Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed all of his academic studies at The Pennsylvania State University and his psychoanalytic studies at the Center for Psychoanalytic Study in Chicago. He held a one-year appointment as an assistant professor at Penn State before moving on to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he held several professorial and administrative positions. He has published three professional books and more than 130 refereed journal articles and book chapters. He is a licensed psychologist and fellow in three divisions of the American Psychological Association (rehabilitation psychology, counseling psychology, and psychoanalysis).

Image by andreas160578 from Pixabay

FURTHER READING...

The Repressed Returns

Solution and Salvation: Daniel Paul Schreber’s “Cultivation of Femininity”

Presence Of Mind: On Mentalization, Mindfulness and No-Mind

Psychoanalysis During A Pandemic

Solution and Salvation Daniel Paul Schreber’s “Cultivation of Femininity”

You may like

---

Psychoanalysis as Science pt. 1

Stepping into the Archipelago

Lessons Learned From A Stroke