The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1991

GENDER ISSUES AND HORNEY THEORY Alexandra Symonds In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the theories of Karen Homey stimulated by the women's movement. Women in the field of mental health have taken a new look at Horney's contribution to psychoanalysis, especially her critique of Freud's theory of feminine psychology. The focus has been primarily on Horney's early papers published in Feminine Psychology (Homey, 1967). Few people have gone beyond these early papers to understand Horney's later contribution--her own unique theory of neurotic character structure. A true understanding of Horney's contribution to psychoanalysis must be seen in two phases. In the first phase, from the early 1920s to the late 1930s, Horney's work was within the context of Freudian language and structure and represented attempts at adding to Freud's theory or revising it. In her later more developed phase Horney produced her own theory of neurosis and neurotic character structure using her own terminology. In the first phase Horney's contributions were largely in the area of feminine psychology. Later, after moving away from the Freudian model, Horney's theory was not gender-specific. In her own theory, Homey does not talk of women's behavior or men's behavior, but of human behavior. Her theory truly encompasses human potential without specifying gender. Most mental health professionals are not familiar with Horney's later work, and are not aware of its usefulness in understanding gender issues in today's world. In this paper 1wish to discuss the application of Horney's theory to current issues concerning gender. Before discussing theory I would like to review certain aspects of Horney's life, both personal and professional, which were significantly influenced by the gender issues of her day. She was born in 1885, just prior to a period of social pressure for women's rights. As noted by Quinn in her biography of Homey, "Had it not been for the social ferment of the 1890s, Presented at the Association for Advancement of Psychoanalysis, New York, April 27, 1989. ALEXANDRA SYMONDS, M.D., is Associate Clinical Professorof Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, and Training and Supervising Analyst, American Institute for Psychoanalysis-Karen Homey Center. Address correspondence to: 137 East 36th St., #19C, New York, NY 10016. 301 0002-9548/91/0900-0301506.50/1

© 1991 Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis

302

SYMONDS

• . . she might never have been able to study at Gymnasium and go on to medical school" (Quinn, 1987, p. 24). She grew up in an atmosphere of social and political excitement concerning women's rights. Universities and professional schools were just beginning to allow women opportunities for higher education and professional participation. With the help of her mother she was able to overcome her father's initial objections to financing a higher education for his daughter and she entered medical school in Freiborg in 1906 as one of the first few women to do so (Rubins, 1978, p. 24). Horney joined the psychoanalytic community in Berlin in those early years when new concepts were still being explored and developed by Freud and his colleagues• Her experiences as a woman having to deal with cultural stereotypes and restrictions both inside her family and in the larger community of her environment, as well as the fact that she was the mother of three daughters, most certainly sensitized her to recognizing the distortions concerning women being presented by Freud. She stated in her introduction to New Ways in Psychoanalysis, "1 had my first active doubts as to the validity of psychoanalytical theories when I read Freud's concept of feminine psychology" (Homey, 1939, p. 7). Her first significant contribution to psychoanalysis was on the subject of feminine psychology• Starting in 1922, with her paper "On the Genesis of the Castration Complex in Women" (Homey, 1924) delivered at the Berlin Congress, Homey initiated "an intense controversy over feminine psychology--a controversy more extensive than is apparent from the printed record." The details of this controversy are found in several recent articles by Zenia Fliegel, who has researched the subject meticulously (Fliegel, 1973, 1982, 1986)• This period was also referred to by Ruth Moulton, who stated, "Horney initiated and led the ongoing effort to point out the basic flaws in Freud's phallus-centered point of view. It was her main concern for 10 years (1922-1932) during which she wrote nine outstanding papers on women, which influenced many people, including Freud" (Moulton, 1975, p. 207). Several analysts supported Horney's point of view including Ernest Jones, who wrote several articles on the subject• However, this did not significantly change Freud's position. Homey published 23 articles prior to her first book in 1937, and 17 of these 23 pertained to feminine psychology• In these articles Homey states repeatedly that the influence of the culture must be recognized as significant in shaping women's behavior• She stresses that the clinical findings, such as masochism and penis envy, are neurotic conditions and not the fate of all women. Her statements are clear and to the point, indicating how the culture is biased toward women, and how this influences their behavior•

GENDER ISSUES

303

She states: "A girl is exposed from birth onward to the suggestion, whether conveyed brutally or delicately, of her inferiority, an experience that constantly stimulates her masculinity complex" (Homey, 1926, p. 69). "Like all sciences and all valuations, the psychology of women has hitherto been considered only from the point of view of men" (Homey, 1926, p. 56). She recognized that "masculine development only was considered" and women were being "measured by masculine standards." She asked: "How far does this picture fail to present quite accurately the real nature of women?" (Homey, 1926, p. 69). By the real nature of women, Homey was referring to Freud's concept that there was no basic feminine identity, that all women wished to have a penis, that a baby was a substitute for this penis, and that there was no innate satisfaction in childbirth, merely satisfaction in producing a penis substitute. She said: "At this point I, as a woman, ask in amazement, and what about motherhood? And the blissful consciousness of bearing a new life within oneself?" She pointed out in "The Flight from Womanhood" that not only do some women envy the man's penis, but there is also intense envy in men of women's ability to bear children. While she found this frequently in her work with male patients, she stated: "it has hardly received due consideration as a dynamic factor." She also stressed that masochism is not the biological fate of women, but the consequence of a complex neurotic structure. Horney could not accept Freud's view that saw women as stunted males, forever fated to live a life of envy, disappointment, and suffering, with renunciation of enjoyment, initiative, and accomplishment. Some of Horney's comments seem provocative, even in today's climate, although they were clothed in scientifically correct language, while Freud's were often reproving and sometimes patronizing. For example, Homey stated in the very first article of this series that the theory of penis envy is no doubt acceptable to male analysts because of "masculine narcissism" but "is decidedly unsatisfying, not only to feminine narcissism, but also to biological science" (Homey, 1924, p. 38). At one point she quotes George Simmel, a sociologist who said: "It is one of the privileges of the master that he has not constantly to think that he is master, while the position of the slave is such that he can never forget it" (Homey, 1926, p. 69). Freud wrote in response to Homey: "The feminist demand for equal rights for the sexes does not take us far (Freud, 1924, p. 178). "We must not be deflected . . . by the denials of the feminists, who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth" (Freud, 1925, p. 258). At another time he makes what was probably intended as the final devastating blow when he states: "We shall not be so very much surprised if a woman analyst who has not been sufficiently

304

SYMONDS

convinced of her own desire for a penis also fails to assign adequate importance to that factor in her patients" (Spiegel, 1974, p. 195). This particular retort, accusing professional women of repressed penis envy, or even worse of being castrating females, has not disappeared entirely from the Freudian psychoanalytic community. Eventually Homey moved away from this focus on feminine psychology, and by the time the American Institute was established in 1941, her thinking had gone beyond feminine psychology, and beyond Freudian theory, to her own creative contribution to psychoanalysis. She developed a theory that was not gender-specific, but applied to all humans. Perhaps because Homey was a woman who saw the distortion that developed by overlooking women's identity, she was able to encompass a broader spectrum of human behavior. Homey was very advanced in recognizing that "life conditions mold neurotic character" (Homey, 1939, p. 9), and not instinctual drives. In her description of the child's efforts to cope with a potentially menacing world, there is no separation of the sexes. As adults, both men and women can be narcissistic, excessively dependent, perfectionistic. Both men and women can be neurotically driven for love, for power or freedom from conflict. However, we know that while these character trends are not biologically predestined by gender, they are significantly shaped by the environment. Let us consider the three main character types that Homey describes as defensive systems in response to unfavorable childhood experiences: the self-effacing, the expansive, and the detached, based on moving toward people, against people, or away from people. If you look at the characteristics of the self-effacing personality, you will recognize a description of what is considered feminine in our culture--indeed in most cultures (Symonds, 1972, p. 42; 1983, p. 24). The self-effacing person, as described by Homey, is compliant, tries to please others, avoids expressing direct hostility, is sensitive to the needs of others. She values love above power or freedom, the latter being the values of the expansive and detached personality. The self-effacing person tends to have low self-esteem, is modest, and avoids the limelight, and accepts blame and guilt rather than speaking up for herself. We are all familiar with this type of person. When she comes in for treatment it is usually because of the consequences of her inability to express her needs directly. Often she does not know what her needs are because they have been so deeply repressed. This usually leads to depression, often with somatic complications. By far the majority of self-effacing patients are women. However, not only are women patients self-effacing, but most women in our culture are also self-effacing to a greater or lesser degree, and if they are not then they have a great deal of difficulty because they are different from what is ex-

GENDER ISSUES

305

pected of women. The culture's idealized concept of femininity is very likely to be the idealized image of our women patients. In spite of the changes made in the last 20 years due to the women's movement, the traditional stereotypes concerning women and men are still deeply rooted. This means that when we help a woman resolve those conflicts typical of the self-effacing solution to anxiety, she will also have to cope with the many external factors in our culture that resist these changes (Symonds, 1976, 1978, 1986). Helping a woman resolve her neurotic fear of self-assertion, helping her to emerge with a more authentic identity to handle her hostility and the hostility of others, involves an additional layer of anxiety since she will differ from the expectations of the culture. In our culture when men are self-effacing it violates their own expectation of what a man should be. They are pleased when as a result of therapy they are able to be more directly assertive, even aggressive. Women do not necessarily welcome this change and each step of the way is much more complicated. Recently a women in treatment for 4 years, a junior executive in a corporation, had an unusual experience--one that shook her and frightened her. For the first time she felt anger at her boss for his patronizing, belittling behavior. Prior to this she had always responded to him with doubts about her abilities, wondering what she was doing wrong to deserve his constant belittling comments. She would become ingratiating and try to please even harder. We had discussed it many times, and intellectually she knew that he was a competitive, ambitious man who was particularly uncomfortable with competent women. However, emotionally she continued to feel guilt and depression. On this occasion, while in my office, she realized that she was angry at him. She became frightened that she would not know how to handle it. What should she do, she asked me. "Is it alright if I act cool to him? Won't he become even angrier?" Feeling appropriate anger in response to hostility was so unfamiliar to her that she felt totally unprepared to handle it. Another woman struggled for years against her fears of becoming "nonfeminine" as she was advancing in her career of photography. When she was offered a prestigious opportunity that involved considerable traveling, she turned it down because her boyfriend felt too threatened by her growing success. Many of my women patients sabotage themselves in various ways to prevent their emerging sense of power and mastery--qualities typical of the expansive personality the culture assigns to men. Yet with an understanding of Homey we know that a sense of power over self, an increased feeling of self-confidence and directedness is inevitable with the emergence of the "real self." This process is not gender-specific but presents more anxiety in women than in men. The attitude and values of the analyst are very significant. One of my patients had previously had a lengthy

306

SYMONDS

Freudian analysis. She said that she couldn't discuss her work with her analyst because he felt that she was too narcissistically involved with it at the expense of her marriage. Most women have deep conflicts concerning the achievement of success, competence, and power, and the world at large gives them very little support in this struggle (Symonds, 1983). It is still not considered feminine to speak up freely in a mixed social group, especially on a serious subject. In order to overcome this barrier some women have resorted to specific techniques that are not socially pleasing, such as saying when interrupted, "1 haven't finished yet" or "It is my turn now." It has been demonstrated that in mixed groups men invariably take over social conversations, and women listen or speak separately on the sidelines. This was true even in an experimental group of men and women doctors (Roeske, 1976, p. 309). It has been the experience of colleges such as Vassar and Barnard and others that had formerly been all women that as they became coed men gravitate to becoming class officers in spite of being in the minority. Women are not comfortable being competitive, especially with men. Men are encouraged from childhood to speak up, to feel that they are important, to overcome the anxiety of being selgassertive. They develop what I call "narcissism without guilt." They often cannot understand the depth of women's insecurity especially in career women who are apparently successful. Merely striving for competence and success provokes anxiety in women. Moulton states: "To win approval, the woman must not threaten others; it is dangerous to surpass them; the woman will be hated, excluded, punished for it" (Moulton, 1986, p. 162). Moulton recognized that both men and women can provoke envy or hostility when they are outstanding; however, "there is a basic difference between the sexes: professional success usually enhances the sexual identity of men, whereas it threatens the sense of femininity of women." Homey also addressed this conflict in "The Overvaluation of Love" when she said "It would not be going too far to assert that at the present time this conflict confronts every woman who ventures upon a career of her own and who is at the same time unwilling to pay for her daring with the renunciation of her femininity" (Homey, 1934, p. 183). This is still an ongoing issue in spite of the progress made in recent years. Often it causes problems in relation to men. Recently I have seen a new development in my practice. Some women who have made significant strides toward self-development, toward what we consider health, are now having difficulties with their husbands and boyfriends to the point where the women are retreating. Some have given up their careers and restricted their activities in order to preserve the relationship. In several cases the men stated clearly in the beginning that they were against their wives becoming involved in activities outside the home. In other situa-

GENDER ISSUES

307

tions, the men went along with the changes, such as a higher education toward a career or profession, but found that once their wife really became involved in her work they could not accept it. In most cases, when women became more active outside the home and spent less time and energy maintaining the house and attending to their husband's personal needs, this caused intolerable anxiety in the men. Until recently men's dependency needs have been taken care of automatically by women without their having to ask. Men have been cared for by wo me n --b y their mothers, sisters, maids, girlfriends, secretaries, nurse, wife, as a matter of course (Symonds, 1979, pp. 55-63). As women are changing men are forced to become aware of their dependency needs more consciously. For some, their pride system is so threatened that they become depressed, sometimes vindictive, or they leave the relationship. In addition to the fear of loss of femininity, there is the undercurrent of low self-esteem common in women. Many experience an inordinate amount of self-doubt and insecurity in spite of achieving significant, often outstanding accomplishments in the external world, in their field of work, their profession, business, or government. Many are tormented with feelings of unworthiness and anxieties concerning competence and self-assertion and are driven by totally unrealistic standards that their perfectionistic needs demand. They may feel insecure in regard to their work, or they experience guilt in relation to caring for their family, even if they are working full time and have arranged good care for the children. Low self-esteem characterizes women in all walks of life, not only in the women we see as patients. This starts early in life. Studies show that in all school grades, boys have higher self-esteem than girls (Barnett, 1987, p. 194) When studied at the college level, male students tend to overevaluate their grades, while female students tend to underevaluate theirs. The feeling women have of never being good enough was attributed by Freud to penis envy, which he felt was biologically ordained and has been referred to in the psychoanalytic literature as "a prevailing dissatisfaction with the self," typical of women. Women are often consumed with self-hate resulting from their intense perfectionism and perceived failures regardless of how capable and successful they appear to the outside. While all neurotics suffer from this dynamic, it has been my impression that it is more intense in the self-effacing person. Homey made reference to this in her discussion of the self-effacing solution when she says that the self-effacing person appears to have more intense self-hate than the other solutions. We may therefore get the impression at first that his self-hate or self-contempt is more intense, more vicious than in other kinds of neurosis. But as we get to

308

SYMONDS

know him better, and compare his situation with other clinical experiences, we discard this possibility and realize that he is merely more helpless about his selfhate. Most of the affective means to ward off self-hate which are available to the expansive types are not at his disposal. (Change pronoun.) She cannot stave off self-accusations by self-righteousness, because by doing do she would violate her taboos on arrogance and conceit. Nor can she, effectively, hate or despise others for what she rejects in herself, because she must be "understanding" and forgiving. Accusing others, or any kind of hostility toward others, would in fact frighten her rather than reassure her because of her taboos on aggression. Also, • . . she needs others so much that she must avoid friction for this very reason. Finally, because of all these factors, she simply is not a good fighter, and this applies not only to her relations to others but to her attacks on herself as well. In other words she is just as defenseless against her own self-accusations, her selfcontempt, her self-torture, etc., as she is against attacks on the part of others. She takes it all lying down. She accepts the verdict of her tyranny--which in turn increases her already reduced feelings about herself. (Homey, 1950, p. 224) The low self-esteem, the tendency toward minimizing oneself, the difficulties with self-assertion, the self-defeating actions that are so typical of neurotic self-effacing dynamics as described by Horney are not entirely neurotic when seen in women, but must also be recognized as culturally accepted adaptations of a victimized group to the conditions of discrimination. This process was described by Gordon AIIport in his classic study of prejudice (AIIport, 1954). After World War II there was intense interest in the field of mental health in the psychodynamics of prejudice, which was a central theme in Hitler's appeal in Germany. While AIIport's study focused on religious and race prejudice, and did not include women, the same dynamics apply. In his discussion of "traits due to victimization" AIIport points out that first we force a group to react in a certain way, they develop certain adaptation traits, and then we use these same traits as evidence that they are inferior. He describes clowning, slyness and cunning, self-hate and identification with the dominant group, and aggression against one's own group as some of these group traits that have been resorted to by those who are discriminated against. A Jew may hate this religion. Or he may blame one class of Jews such as the orthodox, or the merchants. Or he may hate the Yiddish language. Since he cannot escape his own group, he thus in a real sense hates himself--or at [east the part of himself that is Jewish. To make matters worse, he may hate himself for feeling this way. He is badly torn. His divided mind may make for furtive and self-conscious behavior, for "nervousness" and a lasting sense of insecurity. Since these are unpleasant traits they augment his hatred for his own Jewishness and then aggravate the conflict. The circle is vicious and never-ending. (p. 151) In talking of blacks, AIIport quotes de Tocqueville who described selfhatred among Negro slaves over a century ago. De Tocqueville described

GENDER ISSUES

309

how the slave makes efforts to conform to the tastes of his oppressors in order to become more acceptable. "Having been told from the beginning that his race is naturally inferior to that of the whites, he assents to the proposition, and is ashamed of his own nature." AIIport is pointing out that certain traits are assigned to the dominant group and are forbidden to the subservient group. This in turn becomes the source of further proof of their inferiority. This same process can be seen in the field of mental health pertaining to gender, and has been discussed at length in recent years by two different authors. One is the work of Carol Gilligan, (Gilligan, 1982) and the other is from a group of psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists at the Stone Center for Developmental Studies at Wellesley headed by Dr. Jean Baker Miller (Miller, 1984). Both of these groups question the tradition of measuring mental health with a heavy emphasis on separation and autonomy, with little value being placed on relationships. According to these standards, the more separate and autonomous a person is, the healthier he or she is. Dr. Miller and her colleagues are proposing a new theory of feminine psychology that they call "self-in-relation." They feel that a new theory is necessary because the present standards are too male-oriented and do not take into consideration how women are raised. And because they are male-oriented, women do not measure up. Gilligan, Miller, and others point out that our ~Sresentstandards of mental health are based on the male values of separation and autonomy. Boys are raised from an early age to repress their tender feelings, and give up the warmth and closeness of adults, especially mother. Male identity is achieved through mastery, success, and power, combined with as much separation and autonomy that they can achieve. Girls, on the other hand, are raised to express their feelings, retain their closeness to mother, tune into and be sensitive to other people's feelings, and focus on relationships rather than on individuality, achievement, and power. Miller and her group point out that women's identity and sense of competence is achieved through having and maintaining relationships. The work of maintaining relationships is based on tuning in to the other person and maintaining a reciprocal interaction that is mutually satisfying. If a relationship fails, a woman feels that she has somehow not been competent. Men are more concerned with failing in their work than failing in their love life. In traditional developmental theory there has been no recognition given to these different cultural patterns of child rearing based on gender. Gilligan shows how measurements of mental health have been standardized using men only, and when applied to women, they come out poorly. Thus Freud found women to have a poor super-ego; Erikson found

310

SYMONDS

women to have dependency problems; Kohlberg found that in measuring moral development most women achieved a score of 3 on a possible scale of 6. These values of closeness, love, intimacy, and sensitivity to relationships that are typically women's as contrasted with achievement, success, power, mastery, and repression of feelings assigned to men in our culture can be readily understood in Horneyan terms. The values and goals achieved by the process of separation and autonomy are similar to the trends and ideals of the expansive and detached types, and what Erikson and others call "too dependent" is seen in the compliant, self-effacing personality. Miller and her colleagues feel that women are often seen as neurotic when they express their need for relationships. Are they neurotic or are they merely expressing a healthy need? It is possible that those of us who use Horneyan theory are also stressing autonomy and separation, and judging ordinary needs for relationship as neurotic or "too dependent." It is difficult for me to state definitely, but since we are all products of our culture it would not be surprising if we too had this bias. I often have the feeling from my women patients, especially those who are familiar with psychology and psychoanalysis, that they condemn their needs for a partner and for a close relationship. One woman who recently left her husband after many years of an unsatisfactory marriage was feeling lonely. She said: "1 know that I should be able to live entirely alone and satisfy all my needs myself." This is what is being written in the popular women's magazines: that yearning for a partner and feeling lonely is neurotic. People can live alone if they have to, and some choose to live alone, but it is one of our natural needs to have close relationships if at all possible. It seems as though women are being brainwashed that to want a close relationship is being "too dependent." If the analyst feels the same way, then we are not doing justice to our patients, but are reinforcing cultural prejudices. An understanding of Homey theory is of great help in illuminating gender issues and the conflicts that women struggle with. Overcoming selfeffacement requires more than learning new behavioral techniques of selfassertion. It requires the recognition of the "real self," usually deeply buried and often not recognized. It requires the ability of the patient and the analyst to work through the various blockages, recognizing which are neurotic and therefore amenable to change intrapsychically, and which are cultural and external, requiring that the patient accept her existence without necessarily giving up her own development. Each person is different and unique. Thus, some women have chosen to give up their newly acquired progress in career or work in exchange for closer ties with their husbands and children, and feel fulfilled, without

GENDER ISSUES

311

anger and resentment, while others have been able to maintain themselves in both areas without paying too high a price, and still other women chose to dissolve their marriage or relationship because for them it was necessary in order to continue their growth and development without constant unresolved conflict. The analyst must be flexible enough to recognize any of these solutions as possible and fulfilling, without falling back on the gender stereotypes of our culture. Horney's deep understanding and description of the dynamics of character structure, both healthy and neurotic, are of inestimable value in this understanding. REFERENCES

AIIport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press. Barnett, R. C., L. Biener, and G. K. Baruch, eds. (1987). Gender and Stress. New York: The Free Press. Fliegel, Z. O. (1973). Feminine psychosexual development in Freudian theory. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 42(3): 385-408. Fliegel, Z. O. (1982). Half a century later: Current status of Freud's controversial views on women. Psychoanalytic Review 69(1): 7-28. Fliegel, Z. O. (1986). Women's development in analytic theory. Six decades of controversy. In Psychoanalysis and Women, J. L. Alpert (ed.) 7-31. New Jersey: Analytic Press. Freud, S. (1924). The dissolution of the Oedipus complex. Standard Edition 19: 173-179. London: Hogarth Press, 1961. Freud, S. (1925). Same psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. Standard Edition 19: 248-258. London: Hogarth Press, 1961. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Homey, K. (1924). On the genesis of the castration complex in women, in Feminine Psychology, H. Kelman (ed.). New York: Norton, 1967. Homey, K. (1926). The flight from womanhood. In Feminine Psychology, H. Kelman (ed.). New York: Norton, 1967. Homey, K. (1934). The overvaluation of love. In Feminine Psychology, H. Kelman (ed.). New York: Norton, t967. Homey, K. (t939). New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton & Co. Homey, K. (1945). Our Inner Conflicts. New York: Norton & Co.. Homey, K. (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: Norton & Co. Homey, K. (1967). Feminine Psychology, H. Kelman (ed.). New York: Norton & Co. Miller, J. B. (1984). The Development of Women's Sense of Self. Work in Progress Series. The Stone Center for Developmental Studies, Wellesley College, MA. Moulton, R. (1975). Early papers on women: Homey to Thompson. Am. J. Psychoanal. 35: 207-223. Moulton, R. (1986). Professional success, a conflict for women, in Psychoanalysis and Women. J. L. Alpert (ed.). New Jersey: Analytical Press. Quinn, S. (1987). A Mind of Her Own. New York: Summit Books. Roeske, N. (1976). When women and men work together. J. Am. Med. Women's Assoc., August, p. 309.

312

SYMONDS

Rubins, J. L. (1978). Karen Homey, Gentle Rebel of Psychoanalysis. New York: Dial Press. Spiegel, Rose (1974). Psychoanalysis and the role of women. Book Forum 1(2). Symonds, A. (1972). The myth of femininity. Am. J. Psychoanal. 33(1). Symonds, A. (1976). Neurotic dependency in successful women. J. Am. Acad. Psa 4(1): 95-103, January. Symonds, A. (1978). The psychodynamics of expansiveness in the success-oriented woman. Am. J. Psychoanal. 38: 195-205. Symonds, A. (1979). The wife as the professional. Am. J. Psychoanalysis 39(1): 5563. Symonds, A. (1983). The emotional conflicts of the career woman. Am. ]. Psa 43(1): 21-37. Symonds, A. (1986). The dynamics of depression in functioning women--sexism in the family. Am. J. Psa 14(3): 395-406.