.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
8 February 2024
*I think I am going to start writing random preambles for my essays for some context. This piece was written for an assignment (most essays here are) and I feel like you can reALLY see how I tried to tone down my detest for his ideas at the end :") Well, hope you enjoy!
This piece of Sigmund Freud’s work explores the human psyche, particularly on the unconscious desires that affect our motivations and its implications about politics and society. I am particularly interested in his discussion in how individual desires contrast with the collective needs of society, henceforth leaving us eternally dissatisfied with civilisation.
For man, he says, what we care about is happiness, it is the pleasure-principle which gives life purpose (pp. 21). However, the external world does not conform to this principle, and hence the ego transforms this pleasure-principle into the “more accommodating reality-principle” to mediate between instincts and the external (pp. 22). However, “the passions of instinct are stronger than reasoned interests” (pp. 70), necessitating culture to impose restrictions, and leading to fundamental tensions between our libido and civilizations. Freud calls this a “sublimation of instinct” (pp. 49), with two major restrictions that stand out – restrictions on our sexual and aggressive tendencies.
Freud says aggression is “part of [our] instinctual endowment”; we are tempted to exploit or harm our neighbours to gratify ourselves (pp. 69). As such, civilization requires a “renunciation of instinctual gratifications” for man to coexist, and it is precisely this “non-gratification of powerful instinctual urgencies” that leads to the antagonism towards civilisation (pp. 49). For our sexual tendencies, it emerges at first as a potential force to counteract our aggressive instincts, by unifying us through “genital desires” or aim-inhibited love or affection” (pp. 57). However, it eventually proves problematic for civilisation as individuals may prioritise their family or loved ones above the interests of civilisations (pp. 64). In response, culture imposes restrictions on these sexual instincts to “obtain a great part of the mental energy it needs” (pp. 59). It leverages on “libidinal ties” to strengthen communities, but in so doing “exacts a heavy toll [of] libido” (pp. 65). Restrictions upon sexual instincts are hence unavoidable (pp. 58), which is particularly grievous since “sexual (genital) love [affords to man] his greatest gratification” (pp. 55).
Through this two-fold suppression of our instincts, culture ‘wins’ at the expense of reduced individual freedom and gratification (pp. 47). This effectively removes our outlet for these tendencies, causing it to turn inwards and lead to self-destruction (pp. 78), making it difficult for man to achieve happiness in a civilisation (pp. 74).
To me, this is such a bleak and deterministic view of civilisations and it does not take into account the flexibility that both ego and civilisations may offer. There may yet be innovative ways for the ego to evolve itself over time, to achieve happiness without undermining civilisations. The outlets for our ‘tendencies’ can even be constructive, such as through the means of intellectual fulfilment. Societies themselves can also adapt, as it has on such matters of sexual restrictions and norms, in moving away from a necessarily heterosexual and monogamous standard. In fact, a look at history would see that many cultures around the world did not quite evolve this same set of restrictions, such as the Balinese conception of sexuality and gender roles before colonial rule.
Tangentially, it reads to me that his conclusions on ‘instincts’ come more from introspection rather than concrete evidence, such as his various analogies on memories, fire, pleasures, and aggressive tendencies. As such, I am not too inclined to believe that his conclusions are indeed applicable for everyone in every culture, not least due to the vastly misogynist and reductionist conceptions he seems to have of women. Perhaps then, this ‘need’ to account for our sexual and aggressive instincts could more be a reflection of his own manifestations, or that of his own social group or society, rather than a timeless argument of all civilisations. The resultant ‘discontent’, then, may also depend on the cultural context on what really is a repression on our instincts, and what one perceives to be happiness. It is not hard to believe, for example, that if one perceives social order or altruism or social bonds to be happiness, civilisations need not necessarily be antithetical to our fulfilment in life. As such, I believe that Freud is too drastic in his conclusions, and there exists at least a possibility that humans could indeed coexist harmoniously with the civilisations we create and engage in.
Reference: Sigmund Freud. Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010). ISBN: 0393304515
Opmerkingen