Article
The Economic Problem of Masochism
Das ökonomische Problem des Masochismus
Freud's 1924 paper asks how masochism can exist at all if mental life is ruled by the pleasure principle: if pain and unpleasure can become aims rather than warnings, the guardian of mental life seems paralysed. He first revises the position of Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which had equated the pleasure principle with the Nirvana principle, the tendency, after Fechner and in Barbara Low's term, to reduce excitation to zero. Because there are pleasurable tensions and unpleasurable relaxations, pleasure and unpleasure cannot depend on the quantity of tension alone but on some qualitative factor, perhaps rhythm. He therefore sets out a series: the Nirvana principle expresses the death drive, the pleasure principle is its modification by the libido, and the reality principle a further modification due to the external world. Freud then distinguishes three forms of masochism. Erotogenic masochism, pleasure in pain, underlies the other two. Feminine masochism, described from the fantasies of masochistic men, casts the subject as a helpless, naughty child and, more deeply, in characteristically female situations: being castrated, copulated with or giving birth. Moral masochism is a norm of conduct. Erotogenic masochism rests on libidinal co-excitation and on the fate of the death drive: the libido diverts much of it outward as the destructive drive, part of which serves sexuality as sadism, while the portion that stays inside, libidinally bound, is primary masochism; sadism turned back on the self adds a secondary masochism. Erotogenic masochism takes on the guise of each libidinal phase, from the fear of being eaten to the wish to be beaten by the father. Moral masochism has loosened its tie to sexuality: the suffering itself matters, not who inflicts it. Freud finds it in the negative therapeutic reaction and the unconscious sense of guilt, which he proposes to call a need for punishment. He distinguishes the heightened sadism of the super-ego, usually conscious, from the masochism of the ego, which stays hidden and seeks punishment from the super-ego or from fate. Since the super-ego arose through the desexualisation of the Oedipus complex, moral masochism resexualises morality and revives the complex, tempting the subject to act against their own interests. Freud closes by observing that the cultural suppression of aggression strengthens conscience, and that even self-destruction does not take place without libidinal satisfaction.
Main ideas
- Masochism is an economic puzzle: if pain and unpleasure can be aims rather than warnings, the pleasure principle, the guardian of mental life, seems paralysed.
- Pleasure and unpleasure do not depend on the quantity of tension alone but on a qualitative factor, perhaps rhythm; so the pleasure principle is not identical with the Nirvana principle.
- The Nirvana principle expresses the death drive, the pleasure principle the libido's modification of it, and the reality principle the influence of the external world; the three normally coexist.
- Masochism appears in three forms: erotogenic (pleasure in pain), feminine and moral; erotogenic masochism underlies the other two.
- Feminine masochism, described from men's fantasies, casts the subject as a helpless child and, more deeply, in female situations: being castrated, copulated with or giving birth.
- Primary masochism is the part of the death drive that is not diverted outward as destructiveness and sadism but remains inside, bound by the libido; sadism turned back on the self adds a secondary masochism.
- The drives never appear pure but always fused in varying proportions; erotogenic masochism takes on the guise of each libidinal phase, from the fear of being eaten to the wish to be beaten by the father.
- Moral masochism is loosened from sexuality: the suffering itself counts, whoever inflicts it; it shows in the negative therapeutic reaction and the unconscious sense of guilt, better called a need for punishment.
- The sadism of the super-ego, usually conscious, is distinct from the masochism of the ego, which stays hidden and must be inferred from behaviour.
- The super-ego arose from the desexualisation of the Oedipus complex; moral masochism resexualises morality, revives the complex and drives the subject to act against their own interests and to provoke fate.
- The cultural suppression of aggression turns it back on the self and makes conscience stricter; renunciation creates morality rather than following from it, and even self-destruction carries libidinal satisfaction.
What it shows
- 1907
Sigmund Freud introduced Unconscious sense of guilt
Freud first spoke of an unconscious consciousness of guilt in his 1907 paper on obsessive actions and religious practices. In Das Ich und das Es (1923) he made it a central clinical problem, behind the negative therapeutic reaction; in 1924 he linked it with a need for punishment, and in 1930 with the discontents of civilisation.
- 1924
Sigmund Freud introduced Moral masochism
Das ökonomische Problem des Masochismus distinguishes erotogenic, feminine and moral masochism, and traces the last to an unconscious need for punishment, satisfied by the suffering the subject brings on himself.
- 1930
Sigmund Freud developed Death drive
In Das Unbehagen in der Kultur Freud treats the drive to aggression as the main derivative and representative of the death drive, sees civilisation as the struggle between Eros and death, and explains the severity of conscience as aggression turned back against the ego by the super-ego.
- 1924
Moral masochism derives from Unconscious sense of guilt
Freud explains moral masochism by the unconscious sense of guilt, which he reformulates as a need for punishment at the hands of a parental power, and distinguishes the super-ego's heightened sadism from the ego's own masochism, which seeks the punishment.