‘[...] from the start, Freud takes for granted
that there is no part of the drive's path
that can be separated from its balance, its fundamental
reversal, from its circular character. ’
Jacques Lacan (Rangel, 2010, p. 29)
In other words, opposing polarities coexist and ambivalence is part of human nature. On this subject we can say: where there is sadism, there is masochism.
Sadomasochism
According to DSM IV: ‘the essential characteristic of sadism involves acts (real and not simulated) in which the physical and psychological suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually arousing. (...) In all cases, it is the suffering of the victim that produces sexual arousal.’ With regard to masochism, it says: ‘the essential characteristic of sexual masochism consists of the act (real and not simulated) of being humiliated, hit, tied up or any other type of suffering.’
This view, derived from a biomedical model, ends up being reductionist, not only inserting sadism and masochism into the class of paraphilias, making it appear that they are only sexual, but also analysing the phenomenon in a categorical way and seeing sadism and masochism as separate and complementary entities.
Originally, the terms sadism and masochism came from literary works, reflecting lived realities, respectively from the Marquis de Sade and Sacher-Masoch. Sacher-Mascoh's proposal is of a love that brings with it the dissolution of the self as a way of offering oneself to the other, as a way of loving that implies voluntary slavery, while the Marquis de Sade's work is marked by revolt against the standards, dogmas, morals and ideologies that prevailed at the time. The Marquis de Sade was a priest and in his texts he reveals a certain aggression towards the constraints of the flesh and pleasures, so that he praises the body and pleasure in life as opposed to sacrifice in the name of posthumous sanctity.
This reveals the complexity of sadomasochism, which is wrapped up in personal and moral values and not just considered as a question of arousal around the pain-pleasure dimension. To understand them, it is also essential to reflect on the basic emotions with which an individual relates to others and to the world, bringing up the love-hate dipole, also present in the greatest human dilemmas on which existence is configured, the duality and search for balance between freedom and security, intimacy and independence, altruism and selfishness, chaos and paradise and, at its most extreme, life and death. The act of dissolving into the other to the point of losing one's identity refers to death in life, the sacrifice for a greater ideal which, in this case, would be the love of the other, just as the desire to annihilate the other in order to feel desired also alludes to narcissistic issues, that is, about one's own existence, identity and the valorisation and legitimacy of such Both sadism and masochism are patterns of those who have not been narcissised, that is, loved, valued and recognised sufficiently during childhood and throughout life.
It's impossible not to think about these issues without alluding to Christianity, whose greatest example of love, represented by the figure of Jesus Christ, was one who sacrificed himself. Christian morality, which influences practices, customs, ideologies, morals and also infiltrates literary, academic and scientific productions, also ends up, in its discourse, creating subjectivities, desires and fears. Different areas of knowledge produce different knowledge about reality, thus constructing, in their discourses, different perspectives and, together with them, concepts and practices which, in turn, as Boesch (1997) points out, in different degrees of acceptance/adaptation of the subjects' relationship with them, produce different affective-cognitive relationships and therefore subjectivities. There is a whole complexity to the subjects' emotional and relational experience, which can best be understood as stemming from relationship patterns learnt (in childhood) and repeated (in later relationships) within a historical-cultural context.
In 1915, Freud considered sadism and masochism to be two sides of the same coin, in which impulses of destruction and aggression can be directed either towards oneself or towards the other. This can be thought of in conjunction with many other facets of culturally-integrated man, in such a way that apparent opposites can be understood as thesis and antithesis that end up going through a process of synthesis, being in a constant dialectic in search of balance. Domination and power over others, as well as submission, can also be seen in phenomena such as political, social, cultural and personal movements. Just to give an example, out of a need to control one's own reality, when it may seem oppressive (like the Marquis de Sade priest repressing his sexual desires), one can become the dictator, either of oneself or of others. We can see such phenomena in the character types in Reich (1946) and in the analysis of fascism, where the very oppressive, hierarchical social structure with a disciplinary and austere educational model ends up creating personalities with needs similar to those required by fascist protagonists. The child of a fascist can become a fascist to the extent that he identifies with the aggressor and, in some way, excuses him, or he can become a revolutionary by aggressively breaking with his aggressor when he recognises that he doesn't want to live or for others to live through the suffering he has already experienced. Another example, more on an individual level, would be anorexia, where after experiences where there is a lack of control and autonomy (largely in the family environment), one initiates a great deal of self-punishment in the name of personal rules and controls, almost like a ‘self-dictatorship’; it is common for the situation to turn around and become a case of binge eating. There is always a search for balance, where, as Freud said (1916), ‘Every excess hides a lack’.
In other studies, Freud also reveals that masochism occurs in the sphere of the need to be recognised, insofar as one identifies with the person who suffers and is punished for being important to someone and, therefore, who exists. For this to happen, an individual must have experienced relationships characterised by violence, reproducing this pattern because they have learnt that sacrifice, pain and self-annihilation are inherent in loving and being loved. An example, a phrase that unfortunately many people are familiar with: ‘I only hit you because I love you, it's for your own good’ or ‘there's only a certain amount of abuse because I love you’. In sadomasochism, the sadistic act can be both an aggression against the other, a rival who can destabilise you and with whom you have a certain relationship, as well as a recognition of the other for existing and an identification of yourself in the other, because you know that you are inflicting on them what you would like to be inflicted on yourself or which you believe you deserve. The sadist sometimes inflicts pain on the other, according to his orders and rules, seeing himself as an observer of the fact that there can be enjoyment in submission, trying to seek understanding and pleasure in his own history of oppression. There is a great deal of projection in sadomasochism, where the act of hurting is often accompanied by desire and guilt, the idea of needing to be punished and hurt by identifying with the other, just as masochism, also based on guilt, can often reflect the desire to destroy the other and then identify with them, become their slave and merge into them until they come to exist in the other. In both, each in their own way, there is the desire to become the object of the other's desire. Lacan (1963, as quoted in Nahra, 2005, p.223) also set out to think about sadomasochism, defining the masochist as someone who looks to the other for answers to their anguish and the sadist as someone who demands the anguish of the other. In addition to sadomasochism as a relational experience stemming from traumatic primary attachments, there are people who may choose to close themselves, avoid relationships or live them superficially as a means of escaping this register. Others, however, don't avoid, but seek to modify their relational register through self-knowledge and reflection, the foundations of psychotherapy.
This view is mainly Freudian, having today other comprehensions, such as the ativation of different parts of the self, mainly one that identifies with the agressor and other that idealises it, still seeking its love thoughtou submission and self annihilation. Also, here, in these dynamics, often there is an exercise of getting to know one´s limits, in means of to which extent one is different than the other. It can be understood as a fixation in an early age of development, transicional phase, as Winnicott would call. Anyway, it is crucial to make a difference between Sadomasochist personalities and BDSM role-playing practices.
In contemporary times, a subculture called BDSM (Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission and Sadomasochism) is emerging. Approaches to understanding these experiences, while not reducing the phenomenon, as already mentioned, to a sexual perversion, mental illness or practices limited to pain, analyse it in terms of the consensual personal and social construction of those who practice it, which can be experienced in different ways and have different meanings. The behaviour is seen as primarily marked by symbolism and fantasy.
The term BDSM itself escapes the reductionism of the pairs of opposites sadism and masochism, including the spheres of psychological motivations and seeking to distinguish between its different components.
"(a) Bondage and discipline (B/D): involves physical withholding and/or representations of power dynamics, there may be some physical punishment but as an expression of psychological sexual discipline and not with the aim of causing pain;
(b) Domination and Submission (D/s): includes a variety of sexual behaviours involving consensual power exchange between partners, which may or may not include other types of activities;
(c) Sadism and Masochism (S/M): sexual behaviours and activities that include sensory experiences involving pain or the threat of physical or psychological pain."
(Mota, 2011, p.1)
Furthermore, it is essential to emphasise that BDSM does not always take place in a sexual context and can take different forms, which are constructed by the participants.
"For Califia (1979), BDSM can best be understood as an eroticised exchange of power. The rationale would not be the imposition of pain, but merely a means, a tool to delineate power and status. In fact, the idea that it is in the exchange of power that the main element of sadomasochism lies (Townsend, 1983 cit in Haymore, 2002) and is also shared by several practitioners who report that it is the consensual exchange of power that is erotic and that pain is only a means to achieve this exchange (Moser, 1999). By erotic power exchange we mean any situation in which the partners of their own free will and choice incorporate power into their sexual relationship’ (Fetish Information Exchange, 2002 cited in Langdridge & Butt, 2005)."
(Mota 2011, p.10)
In this way, BDSM can also be seen as a lifestyle, in which BDSM sexuality is just one variable, but also with the same aim of establishing power games and experimenting with different roles. However, I believe that in many abusive relationships, there can be confusion about the nature of BDSM, and there is often manipulation by the media and the porn industry. In this way, in the BDSM subculture, in the means of communication and meeting its members, there are also support networks and offers of safe places to practice, also structuring ‘safe words’ in case of need. Each case is different and I believe it is necessary to know where the need for domination or submission stems from and for what purpose, so that we can understand the expression of this behaviour as a compulsion to repeat a dysfunctional pattern or as mere experimentation and power games.
Many studies have been carried out comparing consensual sadomasochists with the normative population in different dimensions, such as anxiety disorders, obsession-compulsion, identity and personality scales, and no significant differences have been found, with the exception of a greater number of histrionics and narcissists in the BDSM population. Some have tried to explain this difference by the fetishistic and exhibitionist nature of the sessions and parties. In my opinion, there may be deeper explanations for these differences, such as the narcissist's anguish at his greatness for not being able to be narcissised, so that BDSM could serve as an opportunity for control and discharge from those who initially didn't narcissise him (in simplified terms, they didn't allow him to feel complete and the centre of attention as a child), just as for the histrionic, the relationship can also be based on mere seduction and control of the other through erotic means, seeing himself valued only through sexual means and not as an individual in himself (he hasn't been narcissised either). There can also be a lot of manipulation in these relationships, so that the ‘consensual’ nature can be reinterpreted and relativised in some contexts.
Another factor to consider would be men's and women's preferences for certain committed roles, so that, not isolated from society, they reflect social constructions that may be accepted by many, yet are not healthy. What I'm referring to is the existence of a sexist and patriarchal society, which in its discourses and practices ends up generating desires, anxieties, subjectivities and also pathologies. In BDSM, it is common for women to opt for roles of humiliation and submission, while men take on roles associated with hypermasculinity and domination. I believe that just because domination is a value that, unfortunately, is still very much assimilated in a conformist way by the population, it doesn't mean that relationships based on the exchange of power and affirming oppressive social hierarchies are healthy.
"In our review, we also found studies that analysed the link between BDSMer behaviour and forced sexual practices. Moser (2002 cited in Nichols, 2006) states that there is no evidence that an interest in BDSM stems from childhood sexual abuse. On the other hand, in the research by Nordling, Sandnabba and Santtila (2000), 22.7 per cent of women and 7.9 per cent of men reported childhood sexual abuse."
(Mota, 2011, p. 91)
In my opinion, 22.7% is a very high rate and I believe that in the complexity of this issue, both complete depathologisation and pathologisation are wrong paths, so I believe that expectations and motivations must be taken into account in order to understand BDSM relationships.
BDSM can also be seen for some as merely sexual and an experiment within a ‘normative’ sexuality, while for others, as a way of being that is in confluence with ‘natural’ tendencies. In Mota's (2011) study with interviews, it is seen that dominators can identify themselves as dominators in other aspects of life, just like submissives. Sexuality in this sense could also be an expression of a dysfunctional way of being, where excess or lack of autonomy and the need for control prevail. Some studies, such as Araújo, Chatelard, Carvalho and Viana (2016), when analysing self-destructive behaviour, also end up dealing with relationships with masochism. Menninger (1966) described self-mutilation as containing three essential elements: inwardly directed aggression, which is often felt towards an external object of love-hate, usually a parent; stimulation as a sexual function (it can be an expression of guilt at an unaccepted part of one's sexuality) or purely physical; and a self-punishing function that allows the person to compensate or ‘pay’ for a ‘sin’ of an aggressive or sexual nature. Coimbra de Matos (1983) also mentions submission, depression and masochism as an over-investment and idealisation of the other associated with the repression of the aggression and revolt they originally felt towards those (parents) who were unable to invest in them as an object that could be loved and cared for. It is in servitude to the other that one pretends to be ‘worthy’ of love. The revolutionary inversion (self-knowledge, assimilation, elaboration and restoration of balance) or the ‘vengeful’ inversion in masochistic depression occurs, also for this author, when the person who has submitted to the other, cancelling themselves out, recognises that what they believed to be their altruism was already the act of shutting up and allowing themselves to be abused and that what they considered to be selfish was merely an attitude of needing self-recognition and self-love.
By this logic, it can be seen that there are profound differences between those who identify with BDSM and its postures in various contexts of reality and those who use it as just another variable of sexual practice and entertainment. There is also passive-aggressive manipulation, which is very present in some DSM cluster B personalities (borderlines, histrionics, narcissists), so that they put themselves in the eternal position of suffering in order to justify their abuse of others. There is, as presented at the beginning of this review, a great dilemma between attacking and being attacked, submitting or dominating. The question is, in what context, with what meaning.
After all, in psychology, each case is different.
Bibliographical references
Araújo, J., Chatelard, D., Carvalho, I., & Viana, T. (2016). The body in pain: self-mutilation, masochism and drive. Styles Of Cynicism, 21(2), 497-515. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-1624.v21i2p497-515
Boesch, E. E. (1997) Reasons for a Symbolic Concept of Action. Culture & Psychology, 3(3), 423-431.
Freud, S. (1916). Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1916-17). Conferences XXVII, XXVIII. In: Obras Completas, vol.5 Rio de Janeiro. Imago, 1976.
Matos, A. C. D. (1983). Texts on narcissism, depression and masochism. Psychological Analysis, 3, 409-424.
Menninger, K. (1966). Man against himself. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers (Original work published in 1938).
Mota, A. M. V. (2011). Beyond pain: fantasies of pleasure, power and surrender. A study on bondage and discipline, domination and submission and sadomasochism.
Nahra, C. (2005). A morality for the third millennium (prostitution, homosexuality and sadomasochism in the light of Kant and Mill) (PhD Thesis). England: University of Essex.
Rangel, L. (2010). Sadomasochism: a circular structure. En-claves del pensamiento, 4(8), 29-43.
Reich. W. (1946). Mass psychology of fascism. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Chap. The authoritarian ideology of the family in the mass psychology of fascism. (Original published in 1933, revised and expanded in 1946).
Comments