4

This task seems too big a one; one may well confess oneself diffident. Here follows what little I have been able to elicit about it.

This task seems too big. One may well admit to feeling unsure of oneself. Here is what little I have been able to learn about it.

Once primitive man had made the discovery that it lay in his own hands—speaking literally—to improve his lot on earth by working, it cannot have been a matter of indifference to him whether another man worked with him or against him. The other acquired the value of a fellow-worker, and it was advantageous to live with him. Even earlier, in his ape-like prehistory, man had adopted the habit of forming families: his first helpers were probably the members of his family. One may suppose that the founding of families was in some way connected with the period when the need for genital satisfaction, no longer appearing like an occasional guest who turns up suddenly and then vanishes without letting one hear anything of him for long intervals, had settled down with each man like a permanent lodger. When this happened, the male acquired a motive for keeping the female, or rather, his sexual objects, near him; while the female, who wanted not to be separated from her helpless young, in their interests, too, had to stay by the stronger male.⁠¹³ In this primitive family one essential feature of culture is lacking; the will of the father, the head of it, was unfettered. I have endeavoured in Totem und Tabu to show how the way led from this family-life to the succeeding phase of communal existence in the form of a band of brothers. By overpowering the father, the sons had discovered that several men united can be stronger than a single man. The totemic stage of culture is founded upon the restrictions that the band were obliged to impose on one another in order to maintain the new system. These taboos were the first ‘Right’ or law. The life of human beings in common therefore had a twofold foundation, i.e. the compulsion to work, created by external necessity, and the power of love, causing the male to wish to keep his sexual object, the female, near him, and the female to keep near her that part of herself which has become detached from her, her child. Eros and Ananke were the parents of human culture, too. The first result of culture was that a larger number of human beings could then live together in common. And since the two great powers were here co-operating together, one might have expected that further cultural evolution would have proceeded smoothly towards ever greater mastery over the external world, as well as towards greater extension in the numbers of men sharing the life in common. Nor is it easy to understand how this culture can be felt as anything but satisfying by those who partake of it.

Once primitive man discovered that he could improve his life on earth through work, other people’s actions must have mattered. The power to improve his life lay literally in his own hands. He could not be indifferent to whether another man worked with him or against him. The other man became valuable as a fellow worker, and living with him was an advantage. Even earlier, in his ape-like prehistory, man had formed the habit of living in families. His first helpers were probably family members. We may suppose that families began forming when the need for sexual satisfaction became more constant. This need no longer resembled an occasional guest who arrives suddenly, disappears, and remains unheard of for long stretches. Instead, it settled down with each man like a permanent lodger. Once this happened, the male had a reason to keep the female, or rather, his sexual objects, nearby. The female, meanwhile, did not want to be separated from her helpless young. For their sake, too, she had to stay with the stronger male.¹³ This primitive family lacked one essential feature of culture: the father, as its head, faced no limits on his will. In Totem und Tabu, I have tried to show how this family life led to communal life among a band of brothers. By overpowering their father, the sons discovered that several men together could be stronger than one man. The totemic stage of culture rests on restrictions the brothers had to impose on one another to preserve their new system. These taboos were the first ‘Right’ or law. Human life in communities therefore had two foundations, that is, the need to work and the power of love. External necessity forced people to work. Love made the male want to keep his sexual object, the female, nearby. Love also made the female want to keep her child nearby, the part of herself that had become separate. Eros and Ananke were also the parents of human culture. Culture’s first result was to allow larger numbers of people to live together. Since these two great powers were working together, one might have expected further cultural development to proceed smoothly. People would gain ever greater control over the outside world, and ever more people would share communal life. Nor is it easy to understand how those who share in this culture could find it anything but satisfying.

Before we go on to enquire where the disturbances in it arise, we will let ourselves digress from the point that love was one of the founders of culture and so fill a gap left in our previous discussion. We said that man, having found by experience that sexual (genital) love afforded him his greatest gratification, so that it became in effect a prototype of all happiness to him, must have been thereby impelled to seek his happiness further along the path of sexual relations, to make genital erotism the central point of his life. We went on to say that in so doing he becomes to a very dangerous degree dependent on a part of the outer world, namely, on his chosen love-object, and this exposes him to most painful sufferings if he is rejected by it or loses it through death or defection. The wise men of all ages have consequently warned us emphatically against this way of life; but in spite of all it retains its attraction for a great number of people.

Before we examine where the disturbances in culture arise, let us take a brief detour. We will return to the point that love was one of the foundations of culture. This will fill a gap in our earlier discussion. We said that man learned from experience that sexual (genital) love gave him his greatest satisfaction. Sexual love thus became, in effect, his model for all happiness. This experience must therefore have driven him to seek further happiness through sexual relationships. It must have led him to make genital pleasure the center of his life. We went on to say that this way of life makes him dangerously dependent on something outside himself: his chosen beloved. This dependence exposes him to the most painful suffering if his beloved rejects him, dies, or leaves him. Wise men of all ages have therefore strongly warned us against this way of life. Yet despite all these warnings, it remains attractive to a great many people.

A small minority are enabled by their constitution nevertheless to find happiness along the path of love; but far-reaching mental transformations of the erotic function are necessary before this is possible. These people make themselves independent of their object’s acquiescence by transferring the main value from the fact of being loved to their own act of loving; they protect themselves against loss of it by attaching their love not to individual objects but to all men equally, and they avoid the uncertainties and disappointments of genital love by turning away from its sexual aim and modifying the instinct into an impulse with an inhibited aim. The state which they induce in themselves by this process—an unchangeable, undeviating, tender attitude—has little superficial likeness to the stormy vicissitudes of genital love, from which it is nevertheless derived. It seems that Saint Francis of Assisi may have carried this method of using love to produce an inner feeling of happiness as far as anyone; what we are thus characterizing as one of the procedures by which the pleasure-principle fulfils itself has in fact been linked up in many ways with religion; the connection between them may lie in those remote fastnesses of the mind where the distinctions between the ego and objects and between the various objects become matters of indifference. From one ethical standpoint, the deeper motivation of which will later become clear to us, this inclination towards an all-embracing love of others and of the world at large is regarded as the highest state of mind of which man is capable. Even at this early stage in the discussion I will not withhold the two principal objections we have to raise against this view. A love that does not discriminate seems to us to lose some of its own value, since it does an injustice to its object. And secondly, not all men are worthy of love.

A small minority are nevertheless naturally equipped to find happiness through love. But this requires profound changes in how their erotic drive works. These people free themselves from dependence on the loved person’s acceptance. They do so by placing the greatest value on loving rather than being loved. They protect themselves against losing love by directing their love equally toward everyone, rather than toward particular individuals. They also avoid the uncertainties and disappointments of sexual love by turning away from its sexual goal. Instead, they transform the instinct into an impulse with an inhibited aim. Through this process, they develop a steady, unwavering attitude of tenderness. On the surface, this attitude bears little resemblance to the stormy ups and downs of sexual love. Yet it is derived from sexual love. Saint Francis of Assisi seems to have taken this method as far as anyone. He used love to create an inner feeling of happiness. We are describing one way in which the pleasure-principle achieves its purpose. In fact, this method has been connected with religion in many ways. The connection may lie in remote regions of the mind. There, distinctions between the ego and the objects of its feelings, and among those objects, no longer matter. One ethical viewpoint regards this all-embracing love of other people and the wider world as the highest possible human state. The deeper motive behind this viewpoint will become clear to us later. Even at this early stage, I will not hold back our two main objections to this view. Love that makes no distinctions seems to us to lose some of its value. Such love does an injustice to the person loved. And second, not everyone is worthy of love.

The love that instituted the family still retains its power; in its original form it does not stop short of direct sexual satisfaction, and in its modified form as aim-inhibited friendliness it influences our civilization. In both these forms it carries on its task of binding men and women to one another, and it does this with greater intensity than can be achieved through the interest of work in common. The casual and undifferentiated way in which the word ‘love’ is employed by language has its genetic justification. In general usage the relation between a man and a woman whose genital desires have led them to found a family is called love; but the positive attitude of feeling between parents and children, between brothers and sisters in a family, is also called love, although to us this relation merits the description of aim-inhibited love or affection. Love with an inhibited aim was indeed originally full sensual love and in men’s unconscious minds is so still. Both of them, the sensual and the aim-inhibited forms, reach out beyond the family and create new bonds with others who before were strangers. Genital love leads to the forming of new families; aim-inhibited love to ‘friendships’, which are valuable culturally because they do not entail many of the limitations of genital love—for instance, its exclusiveness. But the interrelations between love and culture lose their simplicity as development proceeds. On the one hand, love opposes the interests of culture; on the other, culture menaces love with grievous restrictions.

The love that first created the family still holds its power. In its original form, love extends to direct sexual satisfaction. In its modified form, as aim-inhibited friendliness, love shapes our civilization. Both forms continue to bind men and women to one another. These bonds are stronger than those created by a shared interest in working together. The casual, broad use of the word ‘love’ makes sense when we consider how these feelings develop. We commonly call the relationship between a man and a woman love when sexual desires lead them to start a family. But we also call the warm feelings between parents and children, or between siblings, love. Yet we would describe these family feelings as aim-inhibited love, or affection. Aim-inhibited love was originally fully sensual love, and remains so in people’s unconscious minds. Both sensual and aim-inhibited love extend beyond the family, creating new bonds with people who were previously strangers. Genital love leads to new families. Aim-inhibited love leads to ‘friendships’, which benefit civilization because they avoid many of genital love’s limitations, such as exclusiveness. But as development continues, the relationship between love and culture becomes more complicated. On the one hand, love opposes the interests of culture. On the other, culture threatens love with severe restrictions.

This rift between them seems inevitable; the cause of it is not immediately recognizable. It expresses itself first in a conflict between the family and the larger community to which the individual belongs. We have seen already that one of culture’s principal endeavours is to cement men and women together into larger units. But the family will not give up the individual. The closer the attachment between the members of it, the more they often tend to remain aloof from others, and the harder it is for them to enter into the wider circle of the world at large. That form of life in common which is phylogenetically older, and is in childhood its only form, resists being displaced by the type that becomes acquired later with culture. Detachment from the family has become a task that awaits every adolescent, and often society helps him through it with pubertal and initiatory rites. One gets the impression that these difficulties form an integral part of every process of mental evolution—and indeed, at bottom, of every organic development, too.

This split between them seems inevitable, but its cause is not immediately clear. The split first appears as a conflict between the family and the larger community to which the individual belongs. We have already seen that one of culture’s main aims is to bind men and women into larger groups. But the family will not let go of the individual. The closer family members are, the more they often tend to keep their distance from others. Those closer ties also make it harder for family members to join the wider world. Family life is the older form of living together in our evolutionary history, and the only form in childhood. It resists being replaced by the form of communal life acquired later through culture. Breaking away from the family has become a task facing every adolescent. Society often helps adolescents through this process with puberty ceremonies and initiation rites. These difficulties seem to be an essential part of every process of mental development. Indeed, at its core, every process of biological development seems to involve these difficulties too.

The next discord is caused by women, who soon become antithetical to cultural trends and spread around them their conservative influence—the women who at the beginning laid the foundations of culture by the appeal of their love. Women represent the interests of the family and sexual life; the work of civilization has become more and more men’s business; it confronts them with ever harder tasks, compels them to sublimations of instinct which women are not easily able to achieve. Since man has not an unlimited amount of mental energy at his disposal, he must accomplish his tasks by distributing his libido to the best advantage. What he employs for cultural purposes he withdraws to a great extent from women and his sexual life; his constant association with men and his dependence on his relations with them even estrange him from his duties as husband and father. Woman finds herself thus forced into the background by the claims of culture and she adopts an inimical attitude towards it.

The next conflict is caused by women, who soon oppose cultural developments and spread their conservative influence around them. Yet these same women first laid the foundations of culture through the appeal of their love. Women represent the interests of the family and sexual life. The work of civilization has increasingly become men’s business. Civilization gives men ever harder tasks and forces them to redirect their instincts toward higher aims. Women find this redirection difficult to achieve. Since a man has only so much mental energy, he must distribute his libido as effectively as possible. Much of the energy he uses for cultural purposes is taken away from women and his sexual life. His constant association with men, and his dependence on those relationships, even draw him away from his duties as husband and father. A woman thus finds herself pushed into the background by the demands of culture, so she becomes hostile toward culture.

The tendency of culture to set restrictions upon sexual life is no less evident than its other aim of widening its sphere of operations. Even the earliest phase of it, the totemic, brought in its train the prohibition against incestuous object-choice, perhaps the most maiming wound ever inflicted throughout the ages on the erotic life of man. Further limitations are laid on it by taboos, laws and customs, which touch men as well as women. Various types of culture differ in the lengths to which they carry this; and the material structure of the social fabric also affects the measure of sexual freedom that remains. We have seen that culture obeys the laws of psychological economic necessity in making the restrictions, for it obtains a great part of the mental energy it needs by subtracting it from sexuality. Culture behaves towards sexuality in this respect like a tribe or a section of the population which has gained the upper hand and is exploiting the rest to its own advantage. Fear of a revolt among the oppressed then becomes a motive for even stricter regulations. A high-water mark in this type of development has been reached in our Western European civilization. Psychologically it is fully justified in beginning by censuring any manifestations of the sexual life of children, for there would be no prospect of curbing the sexual desires of adults if the ground had not been prepared for it in childhood. Nevertheless there is no sort of justification for the lengths beyond this to which civilized society goes in actually denying the existence of these manifestations, which are not merely demonstrable but positively glaring. Where sexually mature persons are concerned, object-choice is further narrowed down to the opposite sex and most of the extragenital forms of satisfaction are interdicted as perversions. The standard which declares itself in these prohibitions is that of a sexual life identical for all; it pays no heed to the disparities in the inborn and acquired sexual constitutions of individuals and cuts off a considerable number of them from sexual enjoyment, thus becoming a cause of grievous injustice. The effect of these restrictive measures might presumably be that all the sexual interest of those who are normal and not constitutionally handicapped could flow without further forfeiture into the channel left open to it. But the only outlet not thus censured, heterosexual genital love, is further circumscribed by the barriers of legitimacy and monogamy. Present-day civilization gives us plainly to understand that sexual relations are permitted only on the basis of a final, indissoluble bond between a man and woman; that sexuality as a source of enjoyment for its own sake is unacceptable to it; and that its intention is to tolerate it only as the hitherto irreplaceable means of multiplying the human race.

Culture’s tendency to restrict sexual life is just as clear as its aim of expanding its reach. Even its earliest phase, the totemic phase, introduced a ban on choosing relatives as sexual partners. Perhaps this was the most crippling wound ever inflicted on human erotic life. Taboos, laws, and customs impose further limits on both men and women. Different cultures vary in how far they take these restrictions. The material structure of society also affects how much sexual freedom remains. As we have seen, culture imposes these restrictions out of psychological necessity in managing mental energy. Culture draws much of the mental energy it needs away from sexuality. In this respect, culture treats sexuality like a tribe or population group that has gained power and exploits everyone else. Fear of revolt among the oppressed then becomes a reason for even stricter rules. Our Western European civilization has reached a high point in this development. From a psychological standpoint, civilization is fully justified in beginning by condemning any expression of sexuality in children. Without preparation in childhood, there would be no hope of curbing adults’ sexual desires. Yet civilized society goes further and actually denies that these expressions exist. There is no justification for such denial, since these expressions are not merely demonstrable but glaringly obvious. For sexually mature people, the choice of sexual partners is further restricted to the opposite sex. Most forms of sexual satisfaction outside the genitals are forbidden as perversions. These prohibitions impose a single standard of sexual life on everyone. The standard ignores differences in individuals’ sexual makeup, whether inborn or acquired. It deprives a considerable number of people of sexual enjoyment and thus causes grave injustice. Presumably, these restrictions might channel all the sexual interest of people considered normal and not limited by their innate makeup. Their sexual interest could then flow into the remaining permitted channel without further loss. But even the only outlet not condemned, heterosexual genital love, is further restricted by requirements of lawful marriage and monogamy. Modern civilization makes its position clear. Sexual relations are permitted only within a permanent, unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. Sexuality pursued for enjoyment alone is unacceptable. Civilization intends to tolerate sexuality only as a means of reproducing the human race, a means that remains irreplaceable.

This, of course, represents an extreme. Everyone knows that it has proved impossible to put it into execution, even for short periods. Only the weaklings have submitted to such comprehensive interference with their sexual freedom, and stronger natures have done so only under one compensatory condition, of which mention may be made later. Civilized society has seen itself obliged to pass over in silence many transgressions which by its own ordinances it ought to have penalized. This does not justify anyone, however, in leaning towards the other side and assuming that, because it does not achieve all it aims at, such an attitude on the part of society is altogether harmless. The sexual life of civilized man is seriously disabled, whatever we may say; it sometimes makes an impression of being a function in process of becoming atrophied, just as organs like our teeth and our hair seem to be. One is probably right in supposing that the importance of sexuality as a source of pleasurable sensations, i.e. as a means of fulfilling the purpose of life, has perceptibly decreased.⁠¹⁴ Sometimes one imagines one perceives that it is not only the oppression of culture, but something in the nature of the function itself that denies us full satisfaction and urges us in other directions. This may be an error; it is hard to decide.⁠¹⁵

This, of course, is an extreme position. Everyone knows that putting it into practice has proved impossible, even for short periods. Only weak people have accepted such sweeping restrictions on their sexual freedom. Stronger people have accepted them only on one condition that compensates for the restrictions. That condition may be discussed later. Civilized society has found itself forced to overlook many violations that its own rules required it to punish. But this failure does not justify going to the opposite extreme. We cannot assume that society’s approach is entirely harmless because it fails to achieve all its aims. Whatever we may say, civilized people’s sexual lives are seriously impaired. Sexual activity sometimes seems to be a function that is wasting away, much as our teeth and hair seem to be. It is probably fair to suppose that sexuality has become noticeably less important as a source of pleasure. This means it has become less important, that is, as a way to fulfill the purpose of life.⁠¹⁴ Sometimes we think we see something beyond the restrictions imposed by culture. Perhaps something in the nature of sexual activity itself also denies us full satisfaction and pushes us in other directions. This impression may be mistaken. It is hard to decide.⁠¹⁵