forces of the mind. For instance, an emotion of anger is identified by the person who feels it, not so much by considering what its end may be in the given situation, but by his feeling it to be identical with other emotions called anger 'by common consent.' So is it with regard to the sexual. Whatever the end of a tendency may be in a given case, if its impulse and sensations have the distinctive qualities of what are called sexual by 'common consent' it may be provisionally classed with them.

We see therefore there is something verbal in the problem presented to us, and that besides comparing certain groups of facts and considering whether they have an identical component we have to judge whether, if this identical component is established, we are not “justified in terming" both of them 'sexual,' though only one be generally regarded as such.

Dr Glover's third criterion is the 'genetic,' and concerning it he says "I hope to show (it) can resolve the apparent discrepancies between the simple teleological and the empirically descriptive standpoints" (p. 176). Now whether or not it may have this result, clearly we must accept the genetic method. Hence if Dr Glover proposes this dilemma: "We must either limit our concept of sexuality to adult genital impulses capable of resulting in fecundation, or we must accept a genetic view of 'sexual development'" (p. 187), we accept the second alternative.

We shall return to the consideration of the genetic criterion later; here let us confine ourselves to the other two.

While Dr Hadfield is mainly preoccupied with the ends of impulses in order to judge what should or should not be included in the sexual, Dr Glover severely criticises the inadequacy of this criterion, and is concerned with the question whether or not we find a psychological identity between the things that are admittedly sexual and others that are sometimes denied to be such. These he passes in review. He argues that perversions are to be classed as sexual apart from any question of their ends: "The pervert derives from his activity a form of pleasure identical with the pleasure derived from coitus" (p. 178). The breasts are sexual because "stimulation of the nipple" produces "not only libidinal sensations in that area but associated libidinal sensations in the genitals (p. 178). "Curiosity in childhood becomes invested with a strong libidinal component" (p. 179). "Anger" or "the aggressive impulse acquires libidinal significance in early childhood" (p. 180): it is "the basis of sadism." "Erection and other signs of sexual excitation have been observed in children as accompaniments of their aggressive behaviour to others or submission to the aggressive behaviour in others" (p. 180); "an identity is experienced between the sensations evoked by beating

fantasies and by coitus" (p. 180). In such cases Freud's opinion is "that from the first the component-impulses of infantile sexuality are closely interwoven with Ego-impulses" (p. 181). In some cases "the anus is consistently treated 'as if it were a genital,' i.e. the gratification of its excitability is a sexual gratification” (p. 181).

Thus we have a number of very different things included in the sexual, ranging from organs and zones of the body to impulses and emotions of the mind, to phantasies and fetishisms. But the ground of their inclusion appears to be in every case the psychological identity between the impulses or sensations they have or evoke and others which are called sexual by 'common consent.'

Thus Dr Glover appears to maintain a psychological point of view throughout, and when he mentions organs and erotogenic zones it is to draw attention to their impulses or sensations. They have a common quality, and this common quality he generally refers to as 'libidinal' or 'sexual,' occasionally as 'sensual.' These three terms I shall assume all mean the same thing on their psychological sides.

So much has seemed necessary for the sake of clearness, and that we may, if possible, keep to the same conception of the sexual, as constituted on the psychological side by libidinal or sensual sensations. But one ambiguity remains. When, for instance, Dr Glover speaks of certain organs of the body as the mouth, the breasts and the anus as sexual, is it because, when they are stimulated, they arouse libidinal sensations in all persons, or does he mean that these organs are only found to have these sensations in some persons and perhaps at some times? When he says that stimulation of the nipple produces 'libidinal sensations,' does this statement mean that they are produced in all persons or in some only? Do all nursing mothers in suckling their infants have libidinal sensations; do all infants at the breast, or when sucking their thumbs, have the same sensations; and is this part of what is meant by 'infant sexuality'?

On the face of it the evidence quoted seems only to show that some mothers and some infants have these sensations. It is difficult to pass legitimately to the universal. On the other hand, what becomes of the theory of the 'libido' as belonging to all erotogenic zones if it only belongs to them in some persons?

The same criticism applies to other things classed as sexual. Some children of three and upwards manifest sexual curiosity-perhaps a large proportion of them-but it is only manifested in certain directions. Their interest in their toys seems to be generally free from such curiosity.

It seems therefore prima facie that all these different things that

Dr Glover has referred to as included in the sexual, or as having sexual sensations, have them only occasionally and in some persons. And here it is the same with our thoughts, emotions, desires and sentiments, and the wonderful things that arise from them: the arts of painting, poetry and music, and perhaps even science. All of them are occasionally sexual. To argue that they are essentially sexual, as having always a sexual component, appears to be forcing the facts into the moulds of a preconceived theory. But the genitals have this character essentially. Why is there this difference between them?

It appears to be part of the function of the genitals when excited by appropriate stimuli to arouse sexual or sensual sensations in all normal persons: it is no part of the functions of the mouth, the breasts and the anus, to arouse sexual sensations in normal persons. They arouse them occasionally; but in perverts some erotogenic zone absorbs the interest in the genitals. And why is this regarded as abnormal? It is here that the significance of the biological end or goal of the genitals is shown. For their characteristic sensations and impulse are part of the means by which they further attainment of their end. Because they need these sensations it is part of the function of the genitals to arouse them. But the erotogenic zones have no such biological end; it is therefore not a part of their functions to arouse them. Hence when one of them is used to replace the genitals it is called a 'perversion.'

If then the psycho-analytic theory maintains that these things— 'erotogenic zones,' 'curiosity,' aggression and submission, phantasies and fetishisms are to be included in the conception of the sexual, and that even 'infantile impulses' are "in part libidinal and in part egoistic" (10), the evidence for this conclusion must be something more than the fact that in some persons they excite libidinal sensations. You must be able to show that it is part of our common human nature that normally they should excite these sensations. You have greatly extended the province of the sexual, the onus probandi is on you to justify it.

Whether or not libidinal sensations are a part of the normal development of the infant at the breast, it does appear to be a part of his normal development to feel tender emotions for the mother as the giver of food, the remover of discomforts and suffering, the quieter of fears, and in consequence of all these services to feel joy at the sight of her. Is it not these emotions that normally are 'the basis' of the 'all-important relation' to her, and grow into the sentiment of love- and not "the libidinal gratification" (p. 184)? It is by these means that we attach even wild animals to us. Why should you think it to be so different with the child?

WHETHER AND IN WHAT SENSE THE EROTOGENIC ZONES EXCITE
LIBIDINOUS SENSATIONS.

I do not think it can reasonably be objected to Dr Hadfield that he distinguishes between the 'sensuous' and the 'sensual.' Dr Glover admits that the former term has application to “a relatively undifferentiated stage of instinctual gratification" (p. 184). But it is not confined to this stage; it applies equally to the most differentiated.

In its ordinary use the term 'sensuous' has a much wider application than the term 'sensual.' It is applied to all the sensations and feelings of sense-organs, and to the pleasantness and unpleasantness of eating, drinking and sensual indulgence. The warmth of the body is a 'sensuous' warmth; its pleasantness is sensuous. The pleasures of colours and sounds, of odours and tastes, are sensuous pleasures. It is therefore a very pertinent question, whether the sensations of erotogenic zones are sensual as well as sensuous.

The different sense-organs and different zones of the body have different sensuous qualities so that we can in some degree localise their sensations. Even when these sensations most resemble one another we can generally with attention and aptitude distinguish them; but if we confuse their qualities it does not show them to be identical. The sense of taste has close affinities with the sense of smell; the organs are in close contiguity; the sensations themselves may sometimes be blended together. A certain quality of the odour of fine wine, after it is sufficiently old, which the French call 'bouquet,' though it is different from the flavour, yet often enables us to anticipate what this flavour will be; and at the back of the palate blending with the odour of the wine, this becomes what is sometimes called 'aroma,' which approximates most closely to the bouquet yet can be distinguished from it. But here where different sensuous qualities most resemble one another, we are most liable to error when we identify them.

The 'sensual' is one variety of the 'sensuous' and generally the most conspicuous and intense. It would seem as if here there would be little liability to error, and that we do not require the delicate discrimination of a connoisseur' of wine to form a right judgment whether our sensations are sensual or not. But when the erotogenic zones are stated to have sensual as well as sensuous qualities we have to enquire whether resemblance has not been confused with identity.

There are here two questions to be distinguished: (1) Whether an erotogenic zone may not excite the genitals, and vice versa? The evidence

Med. Psych. v

13

that under particular, but by no means general conditions they have this influence seems here to be conclusive. (2) The second question is very different: Whether the erotogenic zones in their own nature have the capacity to arouse sensations psychologically identical with those of the genitals, and independently of the latter being excited simultaneously? What evidence is there that they have this capacity? It is prima facie improbable that the sensations of any organ or zone are psychologically identical with those of any other. Whether they are or not can only be decided by direct psychological observation. But what liability for error is here! We frequently identify sensations that on closer inspection are found to be different; or the apparent identity may be brought about by their being blended together, as frequently with taste and smell. Have then the mouth, the breasts and the anus libidinal sensations of their own? Let us take the most familiar case. There are kisses between persons that are without any libidinal sensations, not merely conventional kisses but those that express warm affection, which under the stress of strong emotion may be accompanied by close embraces. There are other kisses that are clearly sensual. But these kisses normally excite the genital sensations. They are called sensual because they do excite them. Where is the sensual pleasure chiefly localised? In the genitals. But there is one thrill of sensation extending from the one zone to the other, and the qualities belonging to both may be blended. How natural then that we should confuse their differences. From the co-excitement of the genitals, therefore, on the ordinary view, there arise the sensual sensations which the psycho-analytic theory appears also to attribute to the erotogenic zones in their own right. Here the onus probandi is on this theory to justify its innovations1.

To show conclusively that the erotogenic zone of the mouth has a pleasure of its own identical in normal persons with that of the genitals we should have to restrict ourselves to cases where the former zone was excited without the excitement of the latter. But it is in such cases that we do not seem to find a trace of the asserted identity between them. So is it with the other erotogenic zones.

THE GENETIC CRITERION AND THE QUESTION OF INFANT-SEXUALITY.

The bearing of the preceding conclusions on the question of the sexuality of the infant at the breast seems to be clear; but we have still to consider the application of the 'genetic criterion' to this case. Let us then examine the question from this point of view.

1 There may be abnormal cases where the genitals are anaesthetic to sensual sensations in their own zone, these being localised in some other.