Cultures select which kin relations become Oedipalized, not universally the father-mother-son triad

Evidence

As these examples show, there are “family resemblances” between different Oedipal forms but also crucial differences. It is not the case that the positive Greek Oedipus is the universal norm and all the others variants, or that where the “normal” features do not exist there are no Oedipal relations at all. Rather, within the erotically desirable circle of kin (including servants and other members of the household), a particular culture selects certain relations for Oedipalization, that is, as the source of its myths and the focus of psychic conflict, because these relations are structurally significant for its reproduction. It also follows that some relations which are erotically charged may not in fact be “Oedipalized” at all. This raises the intriguing possibility that in Western cultures where “race relations” have become increasingly sexualized, this may be the result of a process of de-Oedipalization, or rather a cultural regression to pre-Oedipal formations of self and other. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1367 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Oedipal and filiation theories fail to describe meshed extended-family societies — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 342; Cultures differ in whether identity derives from relationships rather than from category membership — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1626; Yakuza hierarchy formalizes status-graded family autonomy and alliance-seeking — Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia The Business of…, 890 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Cultures select which kin relations become Oedipalized, so no single Oedipal form is universal. #corroborates (1.00) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1367