Textual References

CD = Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud

PF = Plato and Freud: Two Theories of Love, Gerasimos Santas

SE = The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey

TE = Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Sigmund Freud

The Individual in Freud’s Evolving "Civilization"

Although violent crimes are committed all over the world, they occur at an alarming rate here within the United States, and the media refuse to allow us any alternative reality. Occasionally, the cold-blooded murder of an innocent victim attracts the attention of the voracious media horde, and various forces grasp the opportunity to raise their voices in shouts of "Clemency! Clemency!" or "The chair! The chair!" One group preaches that to dispose of another life after one has already vanished is evil; to show forgiveness is a moral imperative. The other will not abide a killer in its ranks and demands an eye for an eye. How can it be that while one group strives to preserve the life of their fellow man, and the other group shouts for vengeance, all of the individuals within the two are combined somehow in a larger society? If these two factions are indeed so bent on demonstrating their intention for the "good" of all mankind, how can it be that the members of these factions can coexist within the bounds of the community? Freud’s writings reveal his fascination with this dynamic of love versus death, the impulses of Eros versus the Death instinct, and how this interplay somehow preserves civilization. To say this is to imply that civilization is the slave of its members instincts, but Freud presents civilization as a dynamic organism, a living thing that seeks to preserve itself by using the instincts of its members to serve as a catalyst for evolution. Freud’s civilization recognizes that in order to survive it must harness the individual’s aggressive instinct and provide alternative outlets for this drive; it must use Eros to bind individuals to form families, and families into communities, and cause these individuals to somehow cling to one another. By performing these acts, civilization is able to preserve itself and indeed evolve, but not without costs and benefits for its members.

In order to understand how an individual becomes a participant in civilization, we must first review the development of the individual and Freud’s theory of an individual’s psychosexual evolution, for without passing through this process an individual is ill-prepared for entry into society. Freud’s theory concerning the development of the sexual instinct is bi-phasic, the first phase occurring during childhood, followed by a latency period, then a second phase (largely dependent on the first) appearing in puberty. Freud divides the first phase into three stages: the oral, the anal, and the phallic. It is the phallic stage that is most important for Freud’s theory of love and our discussion of the origination of the Oedipus complex as an element in the creation of civilization. Freud asserts that "normal" sexual development of the infant culminates in the transference of the erotogenic zone to the genitals, and this is a key element for success in the second phase, for if the transference is not successful, then the individual’s hope for "normal" psychosexual life is greatly reduced.

At the end of the first phase, the phallic stage continues to evolve. Although the erotogenic zone has reached its final destination, sexual gratification has up to this point been auto-erotic—the child originally found pleasure in sucking the mother’s breast, then in releasing strain on the bowels, then in masturbation. According to Freud, the sex object should now change from the child’s own genitals to a single object outside the body, and this object is the parent of the opposite sex. Therefore, the parent becomes the child’s first love-object, and the Oedipus complex is born, wherein the child is attracted to the parent of the opposite sex, and is jealous and resentful of the same-sex parent. It is at this point that what Freud calls the incest barrier intervenes, becoming the first psychical repression in the life of the individual. This repression results in the withdrawing from the child’s awareness of a part of his sexual aims, which in this case is sexual union with a parent of the opposite sex. The sexual instinct becomes "inhibited in its aim" and turns into affectionate or tender feelings, which later, when directed to non-incestuous objects, can become a component of "normal" love. (PF 109)

We can see that even in the early stages of psychosexual development free expression of one’s instinctual impulses is suppressed. According to Freud, success in the second phase, following the latency period, is largely dependent on the success of the development of the individual in the genital stage. During puberty, the genitals gain primacy, the object of the libido is often a single member of the opposite sex, and the aim is sexual union. The act of sexual union therefore serves both the immediate aim of the instinct, sexual pleasure, and also reproduction and perpetuation of the species. However, arrival at these conclusions is not so simple. Because the psychosexual emotions of the child in puberty are more intense than those in the infant, the Oedipus complex becomes a more serious issue:

Freud’s statement is an important one in that it not only addresses repression in the Oedipus complex, but also raises the issue of the repression of instincts in general. These "very intense emotional processes," according to Freud, become part of our unconscious, yet by the time they are placed apart from the conscious, they have already affected our behavior. In the case of the Oedipus complex, the love for the parent is repressed, becoming absent from consciousness. The result is the development of affectionate feelings, which inhibit the original aim of our sexual instinct.

According to Freud, the incest barrier causes feelings of resentment and jealousy in the child, and this then becomes the Oedipus complex. If the parent is indeed the first love object of the child, then the family structure is threatened. In the case of the family of the primal man, the sons became jealous of the father and killed him. Ironically, they then bonded together, forming the first non-familial "civilization." Since the unity of the family, and the unity of families with one another, is required for civilization to exist, the incest barrier is necessary in order to preserve the foundation of civilization. Thus the first control placed by civilization on the libido of the individual is the inhibited love of the child for the parent.

Freud also argues that not until the child is able to separate himself from his parents "can he cease to be a child and become a member of the social community." In this case, Freud’s "social community" is the community of "normally" developed individuals who have all broken from their parents and who seek a sex object of the opposite sex for genital intercourse. Naturally, the young child will not fall into this category, but if the child has broken from the parents, Freud makes the assumption that it was because of the Oedipus complex’s influence, and if the child broke from the family because of the Oedipus complex, then the child’s sexual development successfully reached the genital stage, hence, they are ready for introduction into the social community where they can find a "normal" sexual life. The "normal" individual who becomes a part of the social community, then, has solved the problems of early dependence of the child on the parents and the incest barrier. These problems, however, are created by the social institution of the private family, where the incest barrier exists. When the individual enters society, Freud claims that it is to find a sex-object. Once found, another family is created (according to society’s restriction in marriage), and the process is started again.

Much has been said here about "normal" individuals, "normal" development of the individual, and an individual’s "normal" sexual life; the issue of what is "normal" cannot be bypassed without some explanation. "Normal" and "natural" are not insignificant concepts for an examination of Freud’s civilization, because for Freud, "normal" individuals can and do exist. However, civilization restricts individuals from realizing the manifestation of their base instincts, thereby keeping them from natural or non-inhibited existence. The issue becomes one of barriers. The child had to accept the existence of the incest barrier in order to ultimately escape the parents. Therefore, the need for this separation from the parents was brought about by the incest barrier. This nicely allows Freud to posit that similar barriers placed on the individual’s instincts by civilization allow members of civilization to coexist, albeit under an environment that is antagonistic to their "natural" intentions. The issue is problematic, because Freud seems to say in one sense that his theory of the instincts of man represent what is innate, or "normal" in man and his development. Yet when man enters civilization his instincts are repressed and suppressed. How can man be "normal" in this environment? "Normal" must be based on something different then, and for Freud "normal" is based on the accepted views of what constitutes normal behavior according to the consensus of one’s own culture. "In an individual neurosis we take as our starting point the contrast that distinguishes the patient from his environment, which is assumed to be "normal." (CD 110) Therefore, that which is normal for Freud is rooted in a time an place—turn of the century Vienna and post-World War II England—and we must keep this in mind lest late twentieth century prejudices create trouble.

An alternative to Freud’s civilization is one without the restrictions imposed by his own. In this environment of deregulation perhaps anarchy would rule and there could be no governing body, as each man would simply govern himself according to his own rules. Everyone is an outcast in this environment, as there is no majority except a majority of anarchists. Yet in Freud’s studies of the history of mankind and in his own time, he observed that "society" and "civilizations" existed, and not only existed, but were strong. So what is it that holds a civilization together, that makes it "strong?" Civilization pushes the idea to "love thine enemies" (by way of the construct of religion) because of the natural aggressive nature in man. "In consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration." (CD 69) In order for civilization to exist, it must place before us regulations that will enforce friendships (thereby introducing a paradoxical schema), and friendship cannot exist except as an aim-inhibited expression of our instinctual sexual aim, similar to that shown in the effects of the incest barrier.

In contrast to the anarchic environment, where no restrictions exist, it is the deliberate elimination and leveling of our base instincts by the apparatus of civilization that causes it to function as an organism, where its component parts are compelled to care for one another, thereby preserving civilization’s very base.

We must consider, then, the motivating factors that keep the masses from rebelling against the restrictions imposed on them by the very society in which they live. For the answer to this, we turn to Freud’s own explanation of what man’s business is in the world, and that is to make himself happy. Freud introduces two aims for the pursuit of happiness, a positive and negative, the pursuit of pleasure, and the avoidance of displeasure. One technique man uses to pursue the aim of attaining happiness is

One aspect of this aim is to gain acceptance, for if we are to be loved we must be accepted by those around us, or at least by our most desired love object (which may or may not be the sex-object). In order to be accepted, we must be desirable, so how is it that we become desirable? If the tastes of the ones we wish to love us are shaped in general by the tastes of society as a whole, then we must mold ourselves into the shape of society’s ideal. Conversely, if we do not seek to pursue a path that will gain us love, then we will fail in our attempt to find happiness, and according to Freud this, for the "normal" individual, is an unacceptable scenario. Therefore, it is the fear of the loss of love that keeps our instincts in check, and what this fear produces in us is what Freud recognizes as guilt.

Freud rightfully poses the question to his audience, "What means does civilization employ in order to inhibit the aggressiveness which opposes it, to make it harmless, to get rid of it, perhaps?" (CD 83) The most prominent apparatus put into use by civilization to address this issue is Freud’s super-ego. Because civilization places certain restrictions on the expression of man’s instincts, most notably those of Eros and Death,

But how does this sense of guilt manifest itself as the controlling mechanism Freud paints it to be? For Freud, part of the answer lies in the connection between the Christian command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and its subsequent affect on human behavior. Freud calls this rule a necessary restriction placed by society on the individual. If he is right, or, better put, if the "Golden Rule" is a societal restriction, then the argument follows that religion is also a construct of civilization, a construct that, through its rules and strictures, restricts the instincts of the individual. Because of the attraction of religion, one cannot disregard it as a significant construct; on the other hand, it introduces a certain kind of love that differs from Freud’s sexual love. Religious love links itself to the issue of ethics and what is good and bad. This brings us nicely back to Freud, who maintains that notions of good and bad are merely constructs of society raised in order to preserve the collective.

We feel guilty not only for carrying out socially unacceptable actions, but also for simply considering those actions even if they are not taken. Guilt provides an effective barrier against actions that would place civilization in jeopardy; this may be necessary for the preservation of civilization, but this preservation is paid for by a sacrifice from the individual. For Freud, the evolution of civilization does not come without its cost to the lives of the individuals who comprise that organism, but it is not without its advantages either. In order for civilization to exist as a group of individuals communally bound together, there must be some redeeming quality about existence in the group that causes the individual not to rebel.

One such advantage is the notion of "progress" or "advancement." According to Freud, the greatest achievements of mankind can be attributed to the process of sublimation. Where this is the case, the normal aims of the sexual instinct are deflected and turned to artistic or scientific aims, the realization of which results in what society considers progress. For civilization, these achievements are more valued than the sexual achievements of its members. In Three Essays Freud writes:

It is intriguing to consider that Freud asserts civilization raises the barriers that cause sublimation, the very thing which brings "progress." That civilization as a thing in and of itself and can recognize its own positive development implies that it can recognize its own regression as well. What this means for our study is that civilization somehow knows that by placing restrictions on its members, they will not tear down civilization as an organization of individuals; civilization will continue to survive if they are held in check. Civilization then, causes individuals to exist under a process of equalization that is enacted on them by the strictures of society. Because individuals must recognize society’s restrictions while living within a culture, or community of people, they turn to other endeavors, acts of sublimation. If we acknowledge that civilization recognizes the fruits of sublimation we can bring together Freud’s concepts of sublimation and the existence of civilization: If civilization is an organism, which Freud seems to say it is because it acts to preserve itself by creating restrictions on its constitutional elements, then it must know that by placing these restrictions on its members it will inevitably cause some of these members to sublimate their sexual instincts onto other endeavors which in turn further its own development. In other words, civilization protects itself by placing limitations on the intentions of its individual members. In this way Freud’s civilization acts as an independently functioning apparatus, motivated by its own will to live and evolve.

However, there are those that choose, and even refuse, to abide by the rules and laws that govern, so we must examine what type of individual it is that we find breaking these rules, and what relevant repercussions exist for this type of individual. What happens to people when they cannot abide by the rules and regulations of civilization, especially the restrictions on their sexual instincts? These people are Freud’s neurotics:

If one does raise difficulties, one is labeled a "criminal" and becomes an "outcast." If one commits some atrocity for which prison is not the sentence, the sentence is to be shunned by one’s peers, a denial of social interaction if not love. And why is it that those who violate the "rules" are so quickly tried and convicted? Earlier, we found that society functions as a great equalizer, that every member of society is expected to act and function within the boundaries of a certain set of guidelines. These guidelines attempt to give no certain individuals special privileges above their peers. When someone breaks these rules, those who abide by them become jealous and resentful. They are quick to point out the transgression because they view it as unfair. According to Freud, it is our own fear of loss of love that keeps us within society’s guidelines for "normal" behavior. It is therefore a case of "If I can’t do it, then neither can you." As a result, society becomes policed from within, by the very elements that are experiencing a stunted existence because of the restrictions of their culture, restrictions that keep them from free expression of their base instincts.

As Freud asserts in Civilization and Its Discontents, order emerges as an important requirement of civilization. But with regard to the origination of these rules that govern we are so far ignorant save for the fact that civilization puts them to good use in the name of self-preservation. This issue of origination is inextricably linked with Freud’s concept of anal-eroticism and the creation of the communal existence of human beings by the sons of the primal family. What we find is a suggestion that the rules of society are created by its members because they themselves cannot abide by disorder. Freud explains the occasion of rule creation in primal man as a necessity to avoid violence among individuals:

The need for order has a sexual origin as well. Earlier in Discontents Freud asserts that the change in the individual’s preoccupation with the excretory function stems from "parsimony, a sense of order and cleanliness--qualities which, though valuable and welcome in themselves, may be intensified till they become markedly dominant and produce what is called the anal character." (CD 51) Therefore, the "normal" individual, who moves through Freud’s stages of infantile sexuality, develops a degree of need for cleanliness and order. If we desire order individually, then we cannot abide disorder in others or institutions. Civilization, as an institution in which individuals exist, is subject to the scrutiny of its members, and is required to reflect an orderliness acceptable to those members. What we find in Freud’s argument is that the origin of the rules that govern our existence is a product of necessity, as illustrated in the story of the sons of the primal man, and in consideration of the anal stage of sexual development the origin lies in our own instinctual need for order. Indeed this seems to be the only case within Freud’s argument where we have trapped ourselves with our own natural tendencies. Our own instincts created the need for regulations, and it was only once these regulations were created that civilization was able to act as the self-preserving organism Freud makes it out to be.

At this point, we have discussed the various instincts present in the individual and the various modes employed by civilization to suppress these instincts, thereby preserving its own existence. At the outset, one of our interests was the dynamic caused by two of these instincts, Eros and the Death instinct, for it is in Civilization and Its Discontents that Freud identifies the aggravation between Eros and the Death instinct as the very dynamic that defines the evolution of civilization. Both instincts are apparent in the individual, yet it is civilization as a collective of individuals that makes use of Eros to overcome the destructive capabilities of its members. "...civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind." (CD 81) In order to survive, civilization makes use of Eros to libidinally bind men together, causing feelings of "brotherhood," "fraternity," and other examples of aim-inhibited love. When these feelings are aroused, men bond together, and Freud takes civilization’s power to unite individuals to its extreme in his argument that civilization is not satisfied at merely the creation of a family, but aims to create a "unity of mankind."

The problem remains, however, to explain how the Death instinct helps civilization evolve. "...man’s natural aggressive instinct, the hostility of each against all and of all against each, opposes the programme of civilization." (CD 82) It is because of our Death instinct, our natural propensity to want to cause destruction, thereby returning to the primal disorder, that civilization is "in the service of Eros." For in order to survive civilization must not allow the individual’s natural instinct for destruction to ruin the fortress of society that is civilization, and in order to achieve this aim it employs Eros.

Simply put, civilization must place on us these restrictions lest we kill one another, thereby destroying civilization. But on this topic Freud provides a warning, because for him, restriction of instincts is not "without danger. If the loss is not compensated for economically, one can be certain that serious disorders will ensue." (CD 52) This issue raises the question of what constitutes "economical" compensation for our instinctual losses. The answer lies in the very fact that people live side by side, families within the same building, and countries within the confines of continents. The focus of this paper is too narrow for a discussion of the aggravations of international peace caused by war, but what can be said is that because civilization exists, albeit in a precarious state, Freud would likely claim that there must be "economical" benefits present that outweigh the restriction of our instinctual needs. He would also say that the "brotherly love" we feel for our neighbor and the "Golden Rule" work for civilization in that they promote friendships, thereby strengthening a civilization’s status, encouraging its preservation.

GOTO TOP

Bibliography