Zaman içerisinde histeri tanısı farklı biçimlerde ele alınmıştır. Freud’dan sonraki bazı teorisyenler cinselliği göz ardı edip, histeriyi sınır-durum bozukluğa daha yakın bir perspektifle ele almışlardır. Hastalığın tanımı ve gelişimi farklı biçimlerde yorumlanmış, bu sebeple kavramsal uyuşmazlıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak, Freud’un teorisi bir bütün olarak değerlendirildiğinde, onun “histeride oral ve ödipal düzeylerde ikili bir saplanma” olabileceğine dair düşüncesi bu uyuşmazlığa bir çözüm getirebilir. Benzer şekilde, bu makalede hem oral hem de ödipal dönemlerde saplanım yaşamış bir histeri vakası olabileceği düşünülen E. Hanım, Freud’un gelişime dair görüşlerinin bir bütün olarak değerlendirilmesi yoluyla ele alınmış, oral ve ödipal süreçler birlikte analiz edilmiştir. Bu amaçla ilk olarak tanı üzerine tartışılmış, daha sonra Freud’un teorisinin genel özellikleri onun nesne ilişkilerine dair görüşleriyle birlikte aktarılmıştır. Son olarak ise E. Hanım vakası ve terapi süreci Freudyen konseptler ışığında anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır.

Hysteria can be counted as the basement of all classical psychoanalytic work, considering that Freud discovered the presence of “unconscious phantasy” through studying on his famous case of Anna O. who had hysterical symptoms (Fenichel, 1945). The authentic conception of hysteria was on conversions, and it indicated that unexpressed and forbidden sexual phantasy is the main cause of hysteria (Freud, 1905/1999). Throughout the time, the diagnosis of hysteria has been handled in different styles; the theoreticians, after Freud, avoided sexuality and conceptualized hysteria from a perspective closer to borderline. Indeed, recently according to psychodynamic theoreticians, oedipal fixation results in hysterical character; hysterical personality disorder is more related to dyadic mother-child relationship; and borderline personality organization with hysterical features is directly related to oral issues (Baumbacher & Amini, 1981, as cited in Gabbard, Beck & Holmes, 2005). The definition and the generation of the disease are interpreted differently; therefore, a conceptual controversy is emanated. However, when Freud’s theory is evaluated as a whole, his idea of “a binary fixation in hysteria both at oral and oedipal levels” may be a solution for this controversy. In 1933, Freud declared that the first love object of a girl is the mother but then her final object choice becomes the father. Regarding a girl, he stated that “almost everything that we find later in her relation to her father was already present in their earlier attachment and has been transferred subsequently onto her father”; and he added that “we cannot understand women unless we appreciate this phase of their pre-Oedipus attachment to their mother.” (as cited in Fiorini & Rose, 2010, p. 15). Congruently, an orally fixated hysteric case, the case of Mrs. E., was analyzed in the current paper by trying to understand Freud’s notions of development; oedipal stage in conjunction with the oral stage. With this subject in mind, first of all the diagnosis was debated; secondly the general characteristics of Freud’s theory were given with the accompany of his ideas related to object relations, pathology and psychotherapy; and lastly the case of Mrs. E. and the therapy process with her were described in the light of Freudian concepts.