{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012302284710017574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.129032258064516, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Universality of the Oedipus Complex: debates on sexual divisions in psychoanalysis and anthropology

Wherever psychoanalysis has been taken as a science not only of the individual mind but also as a science of cultural forms, the question has arisen as to how far its discoveries are universally applicable. It has been asked whether the fundamental assumption of psychoanalysis, that is the mechanisms and structures of the unconscious, are only relevant to the culture in which Freud elaborated them, or whether they are applicable to human culture in general.