Benjamin Master and Slave

8/16/2019 Benjamin Master and Slave

1/18

1 H

ONDS or LOVE

50

tio n in internal

rhythms;

later,

there is alternation between the

oneness

of

harmonious attunement and the

two-ness

of

disengage ment.

But

why has the

dualistic

view of

the

individual

enjoyed plausibil

i

ty

for so long

l

Why docs the

idea of

the

linear movemen

t

toward

separation, of the constructio n of the psyche in terms of the internali

zation of

objects

ring

so true?

Perhaps

it

is

because this

conception

of

the individual

re

ects a

powerful experience

- wh ose

origins

w e have

discov

ered in the rapproc

hem

e

nt conflict-the

experience o f paradox

as

painful,

or

e :,en

intolerable. Perhaps, also, because

of

a

c o ~ t i n u n g

fear

that dependency on the other

is a

threat to independence,

that

recognition

of the other

compromises

the self. When the conflict

between dependence and independence becomes too intense, the psyche

giv es up the

paradox

in favor of an opposition.

Polarity,

the conflict

opposit

es, replaces the balance

within the

self.

This

polarity sets the

stage for defining

the

self in terms of a movement away

from

depen

dency.

It also

sets

the stage for dominatiC'n.

Opposites

can no longer be

in t

egrated; one side

is

devalued. the

other

id ealized (splittmg). In

th i

s

chapt

er we

have concentrated on infancy,

on the shifts in the

balance of assertion and

recognition

at the earliest

moment

s in the

self-other

relationship.

We have

seen

how

a crisis arises

as differ

entia

tion proceeds and recognition of

otherness

co n fron ts the self with

a

momentous paradox.

In

the following chapter

s

we

shall analyze

how

this inability

to

sustain

the

tension

of paradox manifest

s

itself in

all

forms of

domination,

and

why

this occurs.

W e shall begin by

following the

breakdo wn

of

tension

into

its

adult

for m . erotic

domination

and submission.

/t ;

,:>/),J

{n I

H

P T E I

T

o

_a s t e r

and

S l

ave

I N TH E P O S T f R E U

DIA

N

w

orld

it

is commnn

place to assum e that

the foundati ons

of ero tic l

if

e lie in

infancy.

This

means

that

adult sexu al love is n

ot

on h'

s

haped

by the t'vents

datin

g fro m th

at

p

er

iod o f in tense

intima

cy and

dependency,

it also an o

pp

o

rtun

i

ty

to

reenact and

work

out

the co nflicts that

bega

n there.

Wher

e

the

site of

control

and

aband on

is [h

('

b

od r.

the

demands of

the infa

nt

se

lf

arc

mo

st v i

si

b

le and

so

rh,

s

hift

from differe

nt

i

ation

to

domi

na

tion.

In sadNnaso-


2/18

I H 12

B ONOS OF

LOVE

52

chisric fantasies and relationships we can discern the pure culture of

domination a

dynamic which

organizes both

domination

and sub

mission.

The fantasy

of

erotic domlllation embodies both the desire for

independence and

the desire for r

ecognition

.

This inquiry

int

ends to

ullderstand the process of alienation

whereb

y these desires are

trans

formed into erotic

violence

and submission.

What we

shall see, esp e

cially

in

voluntary

submissioil to erotic domination,

is

a

paradox

in

which the individual tries achieve freedom

through

slavery,

r ~ l e s

through submission to control.

Once

we understand submission to be

the T '

of

the

dominated as

well

as their

helpless fate,

we may hope

to answer

the central

qu

es tion, How

is

domination anchored in the

hear tS

of

those

who subm

it

to

it t

DOMIN TION

ND

DIFFERENTI TION

Domination begins with the attempt to deny dependency . No

one

can

-truly extricate

himself from dependency on

others,

from the

need for

recognition

. In the first relationship

of

dependency,

between child and

parent , this

is

an especially painful and paradoxical lesson. A child must

come to

terms

with the fact

that he docs not magicall y

control

the

mother, and that

what

she d o

cs

for

him

is subject to her,

not

his,

will.

The paradox is that the child

not only nee

ds

to achieve

independence,

but he must be recognized

as

independent-by the very

people

on

whom

he has been

most

de

pendent

.

As we

have seen in

chapt

er

1, much

can

go

amiss at this

point.

If,

for example, the child

is

unable to relinquish the fantasy of

omnipo

tence, he may be tempted

t

believe

that he

can

become

independent

without recognizing the other person. ( 1 will continue to beli eve that

mother

is

my

servant,

a genie

who

fulfIlls my wishes

and does as

I

command, an extension of my will ). The child may be tempted to

believe

that

the other person

is not

separate. (

She belongs to me,

I

control and possess her. ) In short, he fails to confront his own

dependency on

someone

outside himself. Alternativel y, the

child

may

53

t e r an d SI ave

continue to

see

the mother

as all-po we

rful, and

him se

lf

as hel pless.

In

this case, the apparent

accept

a

nce

of

dependency

masks th e

cRo rt

to

retain

control by

remai ning connected to the m o ther ( I am good a nd

powerful

because I

am exactly

like my

good

and po werfu l m

other

wishes me to

be ). This

child d oes

not believ

e he will

ever

?;ain

rec

ognition for

his o

wn indep

e

ndent

se lf.

and

so he de

DI CS

th,lt sel

f.

In my discussion

of infancy

, I have already demonsrratl,d th at the

balance

ulirhin the

self

depends upon

mutual rec o

gniti

on /11'(1/1('( 1/ sci

and other. And mutual

recognition

is

perhaps

the

v

ul

ne ra ble

point in the

proce

ss of differentiatio

n. In

He g el's not ion ()f rccl)g ni

tion, the

self

requires

the

opportuniry to act

and

have

m

effcct

on

t

h·

'

other

to affirm his existence.

In

order to ex ist for oneself.

nne

has to

exist for an o ther. It w ould seem there is

110

way

out

of this depen

dency. If I destroy the other, there is no o lle

to

recogDl7c Ill e. fo r it

I allow

him

no

ind

e

pendent

consciousne

ss

, I b

ec

ome cn

l1l

es

h

eJ

WIth

a dead,

not-conscious

being .

If th

e other

denie

s

me

re

cogniti

o n. my

acts have

no meaning;

if he is so far

ab

ove me

that

nN h i

ng

I do C1n

alter his attitude tow ard me, 1 can only submit.

My

des ire and age ncy

can fmd

no outlet,

except in

the

form of

obedience.

We

might call this the dialectic of

control

: If I co mp ler 'ly w nt ro l

the other, then the other ceases to exist,

and

if

the

other

com

ple tely

controls

me, then

I cease to exist. A

conditi

on

of

our

own

indcpen Jenl

existence is recognizing the

other.

Tru e independe nce means sllsraifli np

the essential

tension

of these

contradictory

impulses;

that

is. bot t

asserting

the self and recognizing the

o ther. D o

mination

is

the cons

e·

quence of refusing this condition.

In

mutual

recognition

the subject

accepts the premise

that Nh

c

rs an

separate

but

nonetheless share

like fe

elings and

intention

s. T he subje c

is

compensated for his loss of s

over

e ignty by the pleas ure of shar ing

the communion

with

another

~ i e c

But

for

H egel ,

:I S for

Fr

eu

d, tht

breakdown of

essential tension is inevitable . T he hypothetical scI

presented by Hegel

and

Freud does not l l t to reco gn ize the oche

does

not perceive

him

as

a person

ju

st

like himse

lf. He gives ul

omnipotence

only w hen he has no o ther cho ice. H

is

ee for eh


3/18

TH

B

ON D

S

OF

LO VE

S4

o ther in Freud, physiological, in Hegel, existential-seems to place

him in

the

other

's

power,

as if dependency were

the equivalent of

surrender. When the subject abandons the project of absolute indepen

de nce or control, he docs so unwillingly, with a persistent,

if

uncon

scio

us , wish to fulfill the old

omnipotence

fantasy.

This is

a far

cry

from

actually appreciating the other as a

being

in his or her own right.

Since the subject cannot accept his dependency

on

someone

he

cannot contro l, the solution is

to

subjugate and enslave the other- to

make him give that recognition v ~ . i re

cognizing him

in re

turn.

The

primary

consequence of t he mabili ty to reconcile de

pendence

wi th

independence, then, is the transforma

ti

o n of

ne

ed for the other into

domination

of

him.

For Freud and He g

el

this is precisely what happ

en

s in the

st

ate of

nature. " In Freud's terms, aggression and th e des ire for mastery

nec

es

sary

derivativ

es

of

the death instinct

a

re

part

of

our

natur

e.

Without

the restraint of civilization , whoever is more powerful will

subjugate

the

other

.

The

wish to restore ea rly omnipotence,

or to

realize the fantasy of

control,

never cea

se

s to motivate the

individual.

In H egel's terms, self-conscio usness wants

to

be absolute.

It

wants to

be r e

cognized by

the other in order to place itself

in

the

world and

make itself the whole world. The I wants to prove itself at the expense

of

the

other; it wants

to think

itself the

only

one; it abjures

depen

dency.

Since ea ch se

lf

raises the same claim, the two must

struggle

to

the death

for

recognition. For Hegel this struggle does no t culminate

in

the

survival

of

each for

th

e other, in mutual

recognition. Rather,

the stron ger makes the other his slave.

But this viewpoint

would

imply that submission is simply th e

hard

lot of the weak.

And indeed, the qu estion of why the oppressed

submit is

never fully

explain

ed.

Yet

the ques

tion of

submission

is

implicitly

raised

by

Hegel

and

Freud,

who see

that

the

slave

must grant

power of recognition to the master. To understand this side of the

relationship of domination, we must turn to an

account written

from

the point of view of one who submi ts .

55 M a

>H

T

:11\(1 ::: 1 :I C

THE F

NT SY OF EROT

IC DOM I

N T

I

ON

Sadomasochistic fantasy , the m ost

comm

on fo rm of cr\ltic

dl1mination,

replicates

quit

e

faithfully

the them

es of

the ma

st

er-sla

ve

rcl.lt

ionship

.

H e re

subjugation

takes the fo rm

of

transg ress i

ng

aga

ll1

t the

0t

h cr 's

body,

violating hi

s

ph

ysical

bound

ari es .

The

ct of vio lan on

of

t

he

body becomes a way

of

representing the struggle to th, death for

recog nition.

Ri tua

l vio lat ion is a form uf risk ing the p

wch

n]ogi ca l.

if

not the

phy

sical, self.

I have based my anal ysis of sadomasoch istic fantasy (In a sing le.

powerful

s

tudy of

the

erotic imagination

, Pauline

Rb gc\ ·{(If), O.

Reage \ talc is a

web in

which the is

su

es of de pendency and

dn

l1lin:u inl1

are incxtriC:lbly intertwined, in which the

co

nAic[ betw (,(ol rh e

for autonomy

and

the desire fo r

can on ly be v e d

by

total nonunciation of self. It illustrates pow er fu lly the princ iple that

the

root of dom mation

lies in the brea

kd

ow n

of

tension

betwe

en

~ ( H

and other.

Perhaps the greatest

objection to

this w or k

by

fem inish has be

er

direct ed against its depiction of O 's

voluntar

y submissiono For th em

the account

of

O's masochi sm is no t an ::d legor y o f the desire f Oi

re

cognition,

but simply the s

tory

of a v ict imized w om:11l . to o wea1

or brainwashed or hopeless to resist her degradatio n.'

Such

a vie\'\rpo in

cannot, of cour

se

, e

xplain

\ v hat

sa

t

isfl.

c

tion

is

soug

ht and

foun

d

il

submission, what psy

cholo

gical mo

ti

vations lead to

op

pressi

0n.

humJi

iation, and

subservi

ence. It deni es the

unp

leasant

[

act

that people rcal l'

do

c

on

sent

to relationships of domin

a

tion,

and

that

fa

nt

asies of

domi

nation

play a v

igo

rous

part

in the m

ent

al lives of ma ny

wh0 do

nc

actually

do

so.

tory

of

0 confronts

us

bo ldl y with the idea that people oftt'

submit no t mer ely out of fear, but in co mp li city Wi th their ow

deepest desires.

Told from

the PO

lDt of

view of the W

0m

an wh

submits, and representing,

as

it docs, (he fan tasy life o f a gi fted

woma

wr iter,4 the

sto

ry

compels

the rcade r

t

accept the auth

enticity

elf lh


4/18

i

T HE B

ONOS OF

I OVr

S6

de si

re

for submIss ion.

But

the

narrative

also

makes

clear

that

the desire

fo r submission represents a peculiar transposition of the de S re for

recognition . O's physical humiliati on and abu se represent a search for

an elusive

sp

iritual or psychol()gica l satisfaction. Her

maso

chism is a

se

ar ch for recognition

throu

gh an other who is powerful

enough

to

b estoW thi s recog niti on. This other has the power for which the self

lo

ngs,

and through his recognition she gains it, though vicariously.

At

th e beginning of

tory o

OJ the

heroine

is, without w arning,

brough

t by her lover to Roissy Castl e, an estab lishment organized by

m en for the ritua l violation and

s u ~ j l 1 g a t i

of women. There she is

g iv n spcci

fic in

structions :

Y o u arc here to serve

your

masters

At the first word

or

sign

fr

om

anyone YO ll will

drop

wh atever

you

arc

doin

g

and

ready

o

ur

s

el

f

for

what

is

really

your

one

and only

duty:

to

lend

yo

urs

elf Your

hands are not your own,

nor

arc yo ur breasts, no r

m ost especially , any

of your

orifices, wh ich we m ay

explore

or

penetr:lte at w ill. You hav e lost all rig ht to pri vacy or

concealment you

n1

1)st

never l

ook

any

of

us in

the

face.

If

th e cos tum e w e we ar leaves our sex exposed, it is not for

th e sake

of

convenielY t· but for the

sa

ke

of

ins

olenc

e, so your

eyes

will be directed there

upon

it and nowhere el

se

so that you

may learn that there resid( ,o your maste r. [Your] being

w

hip

ped . is less for our pleasure than for your enlightenment.

Both

this floggi ng an d the chain

attached

to

th e

ring

of

yo

ur

collar . are intended less to make you suffer, scream or shed

tears than to make yo u feel, through this suf ferin g, that you are

n ot

free

but

fettered, and

to

teach

you

that

you ar

e

totally

dedicated to som ething o

ut

si

de yo urse lf.>

A g reat de al is contained in these several lines. First, 0 is to lose all

subjectivity, all

po

ssibility of us

ing

her body

for

action; she is to be

mer el y a th ing. Second, s

he

is to

be

continually

violated, even when

57

J\1:lQl'r an d

SI:w,

she is not actuall y

bein

g used. T

he

ma in transg ression o f hl'f

hll l i l ld

3rie

consists o f her hav in g to he alway\ ;

waihbk

and

0pcn

. ' I

hHll.

he

masters are to be rec

og

nized

by

her In an ind irec t 'u

rll1

.

r he

pel1l

represents their desire, and through thi s i

ndi

recr l · l l l < 1 t i \ l l 1

the::

will

maint

ain th e

ir sov

ereignty . Bv

interposin

g it bel \\'l'Cn h

er

anc

them th ey establish a subjectivity that

is

dis

tan

ced, inde pen dcnt

( If hl

r

ecogni tion.

Ind eed ,

th

ey claim tha t their ab u \e

of

h

lT

i,

ll1()

rc he

"en li g

ht

enment" than their pleas

ur l·.

so rh:H ev en in hn tlll 'V d(

no t a pp e:J r

to

need her. Th eir acts a rC carefull y contw lkll: l"ICh Jet h;l

a goal that expresses th eir rational in ten tions. Thei r sad l\[I(' rlca


5/18

- H E BONDS OF LO V I

58

resistance to be ll1 g absorbed by

th

e

thing

he is controlling: howe ver

interdependent the master and slave

may

become, the difference be

tween them w ill be sustained.

The story

is driven forward by the dialectIC of

contro '

Since a slave

who is completely dominated lo

ses th

e guality

of

being able to give

recognition, the struggle

to

possess her

ITlUst

be prolonged. 0 must be

enslaved

pi

ece by piece;

new

levels of resistance must be found, so that

she can b e vanquished

anew

-·- She

must

acquiesce in ever deeper

humiliation, pain, and bondage, and she must will her submission ever

aneW, each time her masters

ask

her,

0,

do you cnn

se

nt?"

The

narrat ive moves

throu

gh these ever deeper levels

of

submission , tracing

the impact of each fresh nega tion

of

her will, each n

ew def

eat of her

re >iscance.

The

culmination

of th e dialectic,

th

e point when has submitted

a

nd

R ene, her love r, has

ex

hausted

the

possibil it ies o f

violating

her,

wo uld, l

og

ically , pr esent a narrative problem.

But before

the problem

can arise, before Rene becomes

bored with 0

s submission and she

is

used IIp and discarded, a new source of tension

is

introduced. One day

Re ne pr esen ts to Sir Stephen, hi s older (a nd more powerful) step

brother, to whom she is

to

be "given." Unlike R ene, Sir

Stephen

does

not

love O. H e is desc ribed as having a "will of icc and iron, which

would not be svvayed b y desire,"

and he demand

s that she obey him

without loving him, and without his loving her.

6

Yet this more

complete surrender of

her

person and acceptance of

her

object status

further arouses O 's desire,

makes

her

wish

to

matter

in some

way,

to

"exist for him." Sir

Stephen

fmds new ways of intensifying O's

bondage: he employs her to entice

another

woman; he sends

her to

another castle , Samois, where

will

abuse and be abused by other

wo

men; and he makes her "more in te

resting"

by having her

brand

ed

and her anlls enlarged. These

measures

make Sit Steph

en's form

of

mastery even more rational, c;alculating, and self-controlled than

Rents mo re fully independent

of

his slave.

Furth ermo re, the fact that Rene lo

oks up

to Sir Stephen as

to

a

father sug gests that he

is

the loved

authority

not only for 0, but al so

59

taslc r and

SI;,,;('

fo r R ene .

He is

the per son in v.r

ho

se eyes Rene wa nt s to be rccngn izcd;

g iving Sir

Stephm

his love r is a form of "o beisance." an d Re n e is

obvil·usly "pleased that [Si r Stephen] deigned to u k e : l ~ u

ill

something he had given him." Ind eeel, 0 realizes h ~ t th

L

t \ \ . (1 m en

share so

mething

"mysterio us .

more acute, m o re in tens e than amt'l

ro u

s communion"

from

which she is excl ud ed, ev en ,he

i-;

the

m edium for it. R ene's de l1 v cry of 0 to Si r St

ep

hen 1- a way

of

surrendering himself

sexually

to the mo re pow e rful m an.

"Wh:lt each

of

them would look for in her

would be

the o

ther'

s m ark. the

tr

ace

of the other's passage." Indeed, for R ene . Sir Ste phe n s s C s ~ i ot

o sanctifJes her, leaving " th e mark o f a go

d."

7

R ene's relati onsh ip with Sir Stephen calls fo r a rc in rcrpH'rarinn

( If

the

story

up

to

this po int: v now that

the ol-:j

cctiflcnioll

of

the

wo

man is inspired bo th by the need to :1ssc rr d iffere nce fro m her ,

;l

nd

by th e des

ire to

gain pre

stige

in the father·s eye

s.

T

hu

s R ene

b L g i n ~

to relinquish his love for 0, the tender

and

co mp assio nate idl,nt i fi ca

tion that moved him

wh

en she fmt surrendered, ro r the sake hi

identifIcation

and alliance with the

father.

W e mtght say

th

at rhe d esi re

for recog ni tio n by the father wholly overtakes the love of the mo the

it

b

eco

mes another moti ve for

domination.

(T his shift in al leg i

an

ce

shows how the roo ts of do mination li e not on ly in th e n : ( ~ c

drama

of moth er and

child, but al

so in the ()ed ipal

tri;1

d. :l S chaptc1

4 will discu ss in detail) .

O '

s unimportance to

eithe

r m an by compJ.ri.

so n with their bond to eac h other be comes a furt her :lSpcct

(If

h

el

humiliati

on and negatio n.

D

espi t

e the narrative's attempt

to

create mo

re

dram

atic

tension. thl

story eventually

becom

es heavy with O's inexo rab le loss of subJc

ct

iv.

ity. Pla ying the complementary part to her masters,

0

re linquishes al

sense of difference and separateness in o rde r to remain

t ;d l c

osts-

co nnected to them . O's deep

es

t fears of abandon ment and scpararl0J

emerge as h er tie to Rene is gra dually dissolved by her bondage c(

Sir Stephen . Briefly left al one , she b

eg

ins to bel icv" she has lost Rene'

l

ove;

she fee

ls

that her

li

fe is abst,l u tely

void.

She th inks ,

paraphras

in

a Protest ant

text

she had seen as a

child,

"It is a fearful thing to b

http:///reader/full/compJ.rihttp:///reader/full/compJ.ri


6/18

Tf lE

BOND

S

OF l OV

E

GO

cast out

of

the hands of the living God." 0 is the los t soul who can

only be restored to grace by putting herself in th e hands of th e ideal,

omnipotent other.

As

th

e story

continu

es, 0 's des ire fo r connection increasin gly as

su

me

s the symbolic and ritllal character of a

devoti

on: now it is her

task

to

live according to her new l

ove

r's will,

to

serve him whether

he

is

prese

nt

or

not.

H er lover

is

lik e a go d, -a

nd

her need

for him ca

n

o nly be sa tisfIed by o bedience, which

allows

her to transcend her

se

lf

by becoming an instrument

of

his supreme will. In this way, O's Story,

with its th emes of de

vo

tion and transcendence, is sugges tiv e of the

surrender of

the saints. T he

tortur

e and outrage to which she submi ts

is

a kind of martyrdom, seeming "to her the very redemption

of

her

sins."8 O's gre at longing

is

to be knol/JIl

and

in this respect she

is

lik e

an v lover, for the secret of love is to be known

as

one self. But her

to be kn

ow

n is like

that

of

the

sinner

who

wants

to

be

known

by God. Sir Stephen thrills her because he know s her instantly; he

knows

her to

be

bad, wanton, reveling in her debasement.

Ho w

ever,

this

knowin

g can only go so far, becaus e there

is

progressivel y less of

o th e subject left to be known.

tory 0 concl udcs with a note that proposes tw o possible endin gs

to the story . In the flfSt, Sir Stephen returns 0 t R oissy and abandons

her there. In the second, 0 "seein g that

Sir

Ste

phen

was

about

to lea ve

her, said she vvo uld prefe r to die. Sir Stephen gave her his consent."

This is her fmal ges ture of hero ism, her l

as

t opportunity to expre

ss

her

lover's will.

The

gesture

is

in keeping

with O's

paradoxical

hop

e

that

in

complete

surrender she

will

fmd her elusive sel

f.

For this hop e

is

th e other side

of

O's devotional servitude: in perfor ming the tasks her

masters se t her, 0 seeks affirmati on of herself. 0 is actually willing

to risk compl ete annihilation of her person in o rder

to

continue to be

the obj

ec

t

of

her lover's desire

- tO

be

recognized.

O's

fear of loss and

abandonment

points to an

important

aspect of

the

que

sti

on

of

pain

. The problem

of

masochism has been

oversimpli

fIed

ever since Freud's paradoxical assertion th at the m

as

ochist takes

pleasure in pain.

9

But current

psychoanalytic theory appreciates that

61

\ : J ~ ( ( ~ amI


7/18

62

HE

BO N

DS O F LOVE

The

r

el

a

tionship

of

domination

is asymmetrica

l. It

can be reverse d,

as '\l\Then 0

tak

es on th e

role

of tortur e

r, but

it can nev er become

recip r ocal or equal. Id entification plays an important part in this

reversibl

e relationship, but always with the s

tipulation that

th e maso

chist gains h

er

ide

ntity

th ro ugh the master' s power, even

as

he

actively

negates

his

identity

with

her.

Inflicting pain is

the ma

ste

r'

s

way

of

maintai ning his separa te identity. In her pain, O's body moves her

master

s, but

ch

ie fl

y because it displays the

marks they

hav e l

ef

t.

Of

course,

th

eir em o

tion is a

lwa

ys checked, and is finall y

diminished

as

she becomes

increasingly a dehumanized object,

as

her

thing-like

natur

e makes her pain mute. N one theless, her submission to their

will

embodies

th

e

ultimat

e r

ecogn

ition

of their power. Submission becomes

the pu re

form

of

r

ecog nition,

even

as violation

bec

omes

the pure

form of assertion. The assertion of one individual (the mas te r) is

transf

orm

ed

in to domination; the o

th

er's (the slave's) recog

niti

on

becomes submission. Th us the basic tens ion of forces within the indi

vid

ual

beco mes a dynamic h( twfm indi vid uals.

DOMTNATION , DEATH AND DISCONTENT

Th

e relationship

of

domination is fueled by th e sam e d

es

ire fo r recog

nition

t

hat

w e find in love-

but wh

y does it takes this form? E ven

if we accept th at 0 is seekin g recogniti o n, we still want to know why

her

search

culminates

in s

ubm

iss

ion , instead

of

in a relati

onship

o f

mutuality.

Why

this com

plem

e

nt

ar

ity

bet

wee

n the a

ll-po

werful

and

the p0werless instead of the eq ual power of tw o subj ects?

W e already have some sen

se of

h

ow Freud

and H egel ha

ve

ap

proach

ed these questions.

Their

answer

s,

as

1 have

pointed o

ut,

ass

um

e

the

inevit

able

human

a.


8/18

TH

E

ONOS OF LO

V E 64

c

ro[j

cism; and

it JSSUl11es

its starkest expression in

erotic violation.

It

sh o

u ld be no ted, h

ow

ever , that the break must

never

really diss01 ve the

b

oun

da.r i

es

- else de:lth results.

Ex

citement resides in

th

e

risk of death

,

no r

in death

it

se

lf.

And

it

is erot

ic

complementarity that offers

a wa y

to

sim ul tan co usly br ea.k

through

and

pr

eserve the boundaries: in

the

opp

o


9/18

T H S O N

DS

or LOVE

66

a relationship is initi ated in o rder to reintrod uce te

ns

ion- to co

un

tc ract

numbn

ess with pain,

to brea

k enca sement th

ro

ugh vi o lation.

Batail1c imp lies that

we

need

th

e spilt unity of master and slave in

order to

maintain

the: boundaries that erotic

union

- the " little death

of

the self- threate ns to disso lv

e.

But ,

as

we see, split unity c

ulmin

ates

in dis

connec t ion.

The

ex haus tion

of sa

ti

sfaction that occurs

whe

n all

resistance is v anquished, all tension

is

lost, means

that the

relati ons hip

has come full circle, returned to th e e

mptiness from

which it was an

effor t to escape.

But why is loss of tensio n the beg

innin

g and inevi table e

nd

of this

story?

Freud's theory of the instincts offers us

one

ln terpretation.

Indeed, hi s whole ex planation of th e d iscontents of civ ilization hinges

on hi s interpreta ti on of loss of tension. 19

Freud

beli eve d that onl y th e

i

de

a o f a

de

ath drive that impels

us

toward complete abse nce

of

tension

could

explain the prevalence of destruction and aggression in human

l ife. Pr

Oje

c

ting

the death drive outwa

rd

in the

form

o f aggression or

maste ry was our main

prot

ec tion against succumbi ng

to

it. H ere, as

I sec it,

is

F re

ud'

s eff,·r t to explain domination, his parall el to the

master-sla ve paradox.

D

omi nation

, for Fr

eud

, is inevitable

si

nce o the

rwi

se th e

death in

stinct, that primary driv e toward not

hin

gness (complete loss of ten

sion), would

turn

inwa rd and destroy

li f

e itself. But fo

rtunatel

y

agg r ession mu st contend w ith its

immortal adve

rs ary, the li fe

in

stinct, Er os. Eros. in general, and sexua

lity,

in particul ar,

neutralize

or

bind

aggress i

on.

Freud

writes

th

at the

li f

e and

death

instin cts

almost

never

appear in isolation, but "arc alloyed with each o th er . .. and

so beco me Th e best place to observe and analyze thi s

merger is

ernti c li fe: sadism and masochism are manifestations of the

d

es tructive

instin

ct

.. . stron gly a

lloye

d with er

ot

ism. "20 Indeed, ero tic

do

m ination,

Fr

eud contin

ll

es, may be the prime place to app rehe

nd

the

alliance of Iros and the dea th instinc t:

It

is

in sadism , where

the

death instinct twists the ero tic aim in

its

ow

n se nse, and ye t at

th

e

sa

me time fully

sa

tis

fJ

es th e erotic

67

Ma\tl'r

;m.t

s13\ c

urg

t"

that w e succeed in o

bt

aining th e ins ight ill tt l ll .

nature, and its rel ati o n to F ros. But cven w here it m r ~ s

without an y sex ual

purp

ose, in the blin dest C

ur

y o f destructive

ness, we c

anno

t fa

il

to recogn ize that the sati sfac tin ll nC th

e-

[death]

instinct

... [presents] the q o w ith

.l

flJ fIl lm

cnr

or the

l

atte

r's o ld wishes

for

W hen aggression is prOjected o utwa rd

and

h;1rncs\ed by

u \

' i i7,l ti ()J1,

it w inds

up

d0in g M

l

side w hat it v,;

ould

otherwi se

Ll

o ill. :id,· · redu

cing

th

e world ,

objectif

ying it, it. If we tra

nslat

e

rlm r n c c s ~

back

into

H ege l' s terms, thi s means th ;H th e self refus es the cl :llm of

th e ou tsid e w o rl d (the other)

ro

limit his s ( ) He ;1\


10/18

T I l E BON D i OF L O V E

68

tion

not

of the death instinct

toward zero

tension,

but

of the

break

down of recognition between self and other. Domination presumes a

subject already caught in

,lTTmi

potence,

unable

to

make "liven

contact

with outside

reality,

to

experience

the other person's su bjectivity . But

this apparent

fmt

cause

is itself

the result of an

earlier breakdo

wn

between

self

and

other-which,

though

pervasive,

is

not

inevitable.

Insofar as domination is an alienated form of differentiation, an

effort

to recreate

tension

through distance, idealization, and objectification,

it is destined

to

repeat the original breakdown unless and unSil the

other makes a difference.

D ESTRUCTION AN D SU RVIVAL

Wi

nnicott's idea of destruction

is

about the difference the other can

make.

Destruction,

after

all,

is

a

way

of

differentiating

the

self- the

att empt to pla ce the

other

outside one's fantasy and experience

him

as

external

reality.

I suggest

that

erotic

domination

expresses a basic

differentiating tendency that has undergone a transformation. As we

have seen,

the

fate

of

this

tendency

depends on whether it is met with

the other 's ca

pitulation/retaliation

or survival. In intersubjective

terms,

violation is

the

at t

empt to push

the other outside

the self, to

attack the other's separate reality in order finally

to

discover it. The

adult

sadist, fo r ex

ample, is

sea

rching

for a surviving other, but his

search is already prejudiced

by

his childhood

disappointment

with

an

other who

did not

survive. Likewise, the adult masochist continues

to

fmd an other

who survives, just

as she

did

in

childhood,

but again loses

herself in th e

bargain.

The

contr

o lled

practice

of

sadomasochism portrays

a classic

drama

o f

destruction

and survivaL The thrill of transgression and the sense

of comp lete fr eecto m

for

the sadist depend on the masochist's survivaL

Wh

en the

masochist endures his unremitting attack

and

remains

intact,

the sadist experiences this as lov e. By alleviating his fear (guilt) that

h

is

a ~ g r c s s i o n wil l annihilate her, she creates for him the

fmt condition

69

Master

~ n J 51.1'"

of freedom. By the same to ken , the masochist experiences

as

love the

sharing of ps

yc

hic pain, the o p pommity to ?; iv(' over t(l pain in

tht"

presence

of

a trusted other wh o com

pr eh

ends

the

suffer ing he i

nR

icts.

Hence the love and grat itude that can

accom pany

the- riw:tl

\If

dntll

l

-

nation

when

it

is contained and lim

it

ed .

22

In a child's

development

the

initial

destru

ct io n can be seen

as part of assertion: the desire to affect (nega te) l thers, to be reco

n izcd .

When

destruction fails, the aggression gocs inside and fuels the

sense

of omnipotence.

23

Or i

g inally, there

is

a

kind of

inn oce nce

to the

project of d e

struction.

In

Freud's

theory of sadism- clc

vc

lppl'

c

before

he

introduced

the death instinct

24

- thc in fa

nt

at first ru thkssly att.1c b

and devours th e w o rld

with

no se nse of

co

nscl1uences. At rhis of

primary sadism the c

hild

docs not kn ow about inni

cting

hu rt:

hl

simply

expects to hav e his

cak

e and cat it too.

On

ly

when

the c

hi lL

internalizes his

aggr

ess ion and moves

into

th e masochi st ic pnsiu011 cal

he

imagine

the

pain that might

come

to

the

other.

Th

en " r

t'

:t

r ' sadi

sm

clt

the desire to hurt and reduce the other

as one

has been hurt ()

Il

cs

comes

into

being. 1n short, a ~ g r e s s i o n , i n t e r n a nusochiq r

reap pears

as

sadism.* Through this in ternalization co mes the ab il ity ['

*J c

all

Laplallchc, the Frc-nch ~ l \ S

Ius elabor

ated on r rl'u, l', m",\r:1 f Ii

moveJTIent

from

p

rimary

~ a c l i s to Ilu)ocill sm

tn 'd

d151ll p

rop

er. lie S

lt.: C S ' th,lt

(I

movement of int ern al

intion

turns S l l O n il1 l0 scx u.t

fa

nt asY : [h:\ is,

111

rurnll

i n \ \ " ~ r c l ,

r ( ' s s i o IS "a ll o ye d '"

wi

tb sexuality, W h e ther the f allr:lIY 15

;I CtlVC

('r r ;lS'1

rh

e act

of

"fantasmatization

"

is

d

eCIS

ive: indeed , It

Jc

w

"ll"

c

()

m

ri

wt

c\ s

cxu,

l

li

tv

al1,

1

1

U l 1 c

Sexuality,

by which Laplanche

me

ans thl' r(".l lm of ~ ( - x

t l a

j, [

opP Q, itc F Ero s, a kind of " fren et ic i - l i f wr r ~ - c l l l [' rellcl \ l l , ; l

d l r e c [ putw ard,

to

ward [he

ot h

r he

nc

e

[h e

0 PPC'Sltc'

,'f

rhe l 1 1 w a r

- ' l l r :li '

l r

n

sian th:n lS sex ualit y, It fo llows fro m bp h ncbc\ rlw trUt' np pO


11/18

Tf-l E B O N OS OF l O V E

70

pl

ay b o th roles in fantasy, to expcnence vica riously th e other's part,

an

d

SO enjo

y

the act of violation.

In much of

early

life ,

destruction is

pr ope

rly directed tO wa

rd th e

o ther, and is int ernalized when the other can not catch it,

and

sur

vive . Ordin arily,

som

e failure to survive is inevItabl e; for

that matter,

sO is

the

internalization of

aggression. When

the parent

fails

to

survI

ve

a t tack to

withstand

the des

truction

without retaliating r retreat

i n g t h e

child

turn s its agg ression

inward and develops what

we know

as

rage.

But

when things go

w

dl

this rage o ften dissipates

throu,gh

a

movement

in

the

relationship,

a shift

back to

mutual understanding

that enables the

child

o nce again to feel

the

presence

of

the other. (For

L ,

example

,

th

e child acce

pts

th e

fru

stra

tion

but

communicates

the fantasy

of

retaliation to

the

parent who has

frustrated

him , as in, He re is a

[,ulldozer c omin g

to knock

down the house. )

W

he

n the child

experiences

the

parent

as

caving

in, he

continues

(\

a

ttack,

in

fantasy or reali ty , seeking a

boundary

for his reac

tive

rage.

The

child who has

been indul

ged,

allowed

to abuse hIS mother (or bo th

parents), and given no

limits

to

his fantasy

of omnipotence,

is the

typical sadistic child. ( I can't

control

him, says the

parent,

and th en

repeats for the f[fth time M.ichacl, if you don't behave yo

u'

ll hav e

[

leav

e

the

table

and go up to

your room. ) Fo r

him,

the real object,

the one

who

cannot

be

destroyed ,

never

comes

into

view.

Fo

r

him

,

agency a

nd

assertion are

not integrat

ed

in

the

context

o f mutuality and

respect for the other but in

the

context

of

control and

retaliation.

The

sadist-child

is

itively

aware

of

the

difference between self and

other, but

emotion lly thi

s awareness

is hollow and

doc s

not

counteract

the desire to control the other.

\V h

en

th

e

par

e

nt

caves in , the

child

e

xp

er iences his e

xpanding

clation, gr andiosi ty, and

self-absorption

as fl y ing off into

space-he

~ i m i to i n n i c o t t s distinction between having an ~ c t i o n with

th

e outside 0lhcr

Jn

d rela t

in

g tt) th

r

object

as

on

c's mental

product

- a tw o

-p

erson a one-person

cx

perience.

71

M : I ~ [ l r lld S

laVl

finds no li

mi t

s, no o

thern

e

ss.

The

wor

ld now see ms e

mp

(v llfall

hlllna11

li fe, there is no o ne to co nn ec t

with,

th e w

orld

is al l me

.

As the

anal

ys

t Sheldo n

Ba

ch descr ib C s it, wh e n

th

e self fecls a

bsnlutc. :\

loss

of different

iatio

n oc cu rs in wh ich the subject an d object :n c l1ne; the

[pe rso n] has e

ate

n

up

reali ry . 2(, W h at the c

hild

fee ls is s0111c rh

in .

lik e

this : W hen

the

other

crum

bles

un d

er

th

e i

mp

act

nf

Ill

y

aer,

th

ell

my

act

seem

s to drop

off the

edge of

th

e w o

rld

inra cmptines'\, l1ld I cel

that I wi ll soon follow. In thi s vo id beg inS (he Joss of tenSion or

boundaries,

a by-product of

lo

sing th e o ther.

Surv iv ;d means that th e paren t can

tol

era te A a t i rh e child 's

grandiosity

eno

ugh-

hu

t Ju st Cl10 U h to let him

kn

ow t \ut be em

go o n ly so far and no

further,

th at so m

eo

ne el se 's necds :lnd rC31tty

se

t a limit

to

his mental feats. T he

parent

must feel se

pa

r

ate

:lnd secure

e

no u

g h to be able to to lera te t he thw:lr ted chJl

d's

ange r Wlthr lll l v i n ~

in. Ot

herwise the

pa

rent

is dest

ro

yed

In th t

' ch

il d'

s

C'ves. The child

in

vo lved

in the proce

ss

o f destruction

is

like lcaru, fl yi

ng

tflO l1l '

J.f

the

sun. W hen th e parent sC ts limits , she is act ua ll y p r o t t he child

from the dissol

ution that occurs

when

the

abs() lute sel f has m \vay. O f

course,

as

w e will see in our discussion o f

ma

sochism, the c

hild

who

is

ne

ve

r all owed

to

destroy c

an

nl'\'l' r

assumc

the p

ower

lO Av

or

di sco ver his lim its.

The conversion fro m assert

ion

to o n , fro m intcractlon

t)

mental control,

wo r

ks in tand em. Wh('n th in gs arc no t resolved

l l l t -

side, between self

and

ot her, the in te raction

is

tra

nsferre

d int o the

world

of

fantasy; this

includ

es ide ntify

in

g with

th

e o ll e we h;mn . The

drama of reversible violator an

d v

ictim disp

laces til('

te

m i

on of interac

tion w ith the o the r. This drama

now

oc

curs

wi thi n th

l'

(l mn ipL'tcncc

of mental

life,

the enc

apsu lat ed sp

here

o f

th

e intrapsy ch ic. In successfu l

destru

ct ion (wh

en the

o

th

er sur v ive s),

th

e d istin cti on be tween men tal

acts and w hat happ ens out th e

re in

reality e c o r n c . ~ more th an a

co

gniti ve aw areness; it

bec

om es a fe lt exp

er

i

ence.

The

d l ~ t i n c t i o n

be

twe en

my

fantasy of

yo

u

anJ yo

u as a

re

al

pers

on

is

the

ve

ry

~ s m e

o f co nn ection.

T he underly

ing them

e

of sa

d

ism th

e

arrc

m p r [ brcrik through

to


12/18

TH

BONDS OF

LO V

E

7

th e o th er. Th e desire to be discovered underlies its counterpart,

namely, masochism. Emmanuel

Ghent

has called this desire the wish

for surrender, for

which su

bmission

is

th e eve

r-ready

100k-alike. 27

Li

ke

the

sadi st's aggression, the masochist's submission is ambiguous,

conf1ating

the repetition of

an

old frustration and the wish for some

thing

new.

Ghent

suggests that it is a wish

to br

eak

out

of

what

Winnicott

called the false self.

The

false self is the compliant,

adaptive

self

that h

as

staved off chaos by accepting the

ot h

er's directi o n

and

co

ntrol , tha t has maintained connection to the object by ren.ounc

ing ex

plo

ration,

aggression, separateness.

This co

mpli

ance is associated with ano ther kind of fail ed

childhood

destruct ion, o ne in w h ich the sclfhas not survived. Th e masochistic

child has endured n

ot

cav ing in but retaliation, in

the

form

of

either

pun lsh me nt

or

withdrawal. He destroys the oth er on ly in

fanta

sy; he

will

never

take a full swing at the parent to test if

sh

e will

survive.

Hi

s r

age

is

turned

inward

and apparently spares the

other, yet

the

loss

of a

viable

external

other

overshadows the struggle to differentiate.

The

masochist

despairs

of

ever

holding

the attention

or

winning th e

recognition of the other, of being securely held in the other's mind.

Contemporary

Freudian

ego psychology has often understood sub

mission as a failure to separate and as an inhibition of aggression. But,

as

Ghent suggests,

framing

masochism as the desire

for

self-disco very

in the space

provided by

the other allows us to recognize the

wish

as

well as the defense. The masochist's self is false because, lacking this

space, he has not been able to reaL ze the desire and agency that come

from within. He has not experienced his impulses and acts as his

own,

arising wi

th

o ut direction from outside. This

experience

is what he

longs for , al t

hough

he may

not know

it.

8

Ma

sochism can be seen, therefore, not only as a str.ategy

for escaping

loneness, but also as a search for aloneness with the other: by letting

the

oth

er remain in control, the masochist hop es to fmd a

safe

open

space in which to abandon the protective false self and all

ow

th e

nascent,

hidd

en sel f to emerge .

Within

thi s space, he seeks an opportu

nity for W innicot t 's transitional experience free of the self-conscious

73 \ a ~ r t · r


13/18

E

BO

N

DS Of L

OV

E

74

lO t purge sexual

fantasy-it

plays

with

it. The idea of destruction

·cIl1 inds us that the element of aggression is necessary in

erotic

life; it

S the element of SUTiJ/IJo/ the difference the other can make, which

hstinguishes ero tic union, which plays with the fantasy

of

) m i n a t i o n ,

:rorn r ea l dom ination.

As

I suggested earlier, in erotic un ion losing onesel f and

being

wholly there occur together,

as

if with ou t

contradiction.

The se nse of

l

os

ing oneself creatively ,

of

becoming absorbed in the

other

is

often

only a hairsbread th away

from se

lf-absorption.

2 9

In ero tic union, the

fundamental experience of attum:ment-that separate

individual

s can

share

the same feeling- is affIrmed.

Erotic

domination, on the other

h a

nd, ex

emplifIes the fatality of disso lving

paradox into polarity (split

ting) e ven as it

sh

ows it to be the endpoint of a

complex

process, and

not simplY the orig inal human condition.

DOMINATION AND THE SEXUAL DIFFERENCE

It

might

seem that the aSSOciation

of

domination and gender is obvious:

men, after all, hav e everywhere

dominated

women, and one would

expect

this to color erotic relationships as well.

Yet,

even if w e

accepted this logic , we would still want to understand

how

the subJU

ga

tion

of

wo

men tak es hold in the psyche and shapes the pattern of

domination.

Furthermore, i t is increasin gly apparent that the roles of

master and slave are not intrinsically or exclusively male and female

respecti vely; as th e original "

ma

soch ist" o f

Venus

in

Furs

(Leopold von

Sacher-Masoch) reminds us,

th

e opposite

is often

true: the actual

practice of sadomasoc hism freguently reverses heterosexual patterns.

And, for that matter, sadomasochism is just

as likely

to occur in

lornosexual relationships. The question w e are addressing, the

refore,

is

not

wh y are men sadists and women ma sochists, since this need not

be

th

e case;

but

rather, how have sadism and masochism

become

associated with masculinity and femininity?

The deep structure of gend er complementarity has pcrsisted despite

7S

Ma s te r anri Sla ·c

the increased flexi bili ty of

con

temporary [() To l l1d em and th e

origins o f mal e

master

y a

nd

female submiss ion, we m ust l

ook : t

th e

cha

rac teristic course taken by each gender in the ea rly d iffC

rt

,nti .ltlnn

proc

ess. Since women have a

lmos

t every where been th e prim:lry car e

takers of small children, bot h boys

anJ

r l s have diffc rcnti:ttcd in

re

lation

to

a w o

ma n

-

th

e m Other.* W hen

we lo

o k

to

the

ty

pica

l

course

of male

diff

erentia ti

on, we see ar once

that this creates a

~ : c i ;

difficulty for bo ys. While all children identify with their fi N lo v e d

one, boys must dissolve thi s identifIcation

and

defll1c th cm s

dvn .15

t h e

diff

erent sex. Initi a

ll

y all

inf

an ts fee l themselves

ro

be like their orh

ers. But boys di sc

over

that they cannot g

row

up to /7 ('

((1 11/1'

ha ; dll'y

can

only /](1 J

her.

This

discov ery leads

to

a hreak in ick m i

(i

c ui n n

for

boys which ·g irls arc spared. M31e

children

:lchi cvt' tiw

lr

m,\\cu -

lini ty by deny ing their origina l idenri fl Cltio

ll or

o

nc

ness \\ j th thei r

mothers.

l

R obe rt

Stoller\

work

on

the development and disrupti OIl of gender

identIty has offe red much ins

ig

ht into this

pro

cess. H e has pm p

mcd

that male

identity

is a secondary

phenomen

o n, since

it

is achi eved h v

overcomin g a primary identification with th e mother. Th is pl)s iti o n.

so contrary to Freud's a

ss

umption thar children of both as

"little me

n,

has wide ramifIcations. F

ur

the

boy

to bc n )tn v masculin e,

write

s

Stoller,

h e must separ:n e himself in the

ou t

id c

wo r

ld tWil l h is

moth

er's female

body

and in his inside worlel

from

his ow n alread v

formed primary identification with femalen

es

s

3.nd

fc m in

il1J

t \ .

gr

c lt

task is

often not completed

31

Th

e boy deve lops his gender and id

enti

ty by means (1f estab lishin g

discontinuity and difference from the pers

on

to w hom he is mo s

*D espirc wOl1l

cn

's un iv


14/18

T E BONDS

OF

LOVE

76

at tac

he

d.

Th

is process of disidentifica

tion

32

explains the repudiation of

the mother that

underli

es conventional masculine identity formation,

and

results in a kind of

fault

line"

runn

ing

through

the male achieve

m en t of individuality.

The tendency of e

rotic

love to become erotic

domination

can be

seen as a casualty

of

this characteristically male form

of

establis

hing

separation.

Th

e need to sever the identification

with

the

mother

in

orde r to be

confmn

ed

both as

a separate person

and

as a male per son -

and

for

the boy these are hard to distinguish-often preve

nt

s th e boy

from

recognizing his

mother.

She is

not

se

en as

an independent pers

on

(another Sll byct), bu t as something other-as nature, as an instrumen t

or ob ject, as less

than

human.

Th

e premise of hi s independence is to

,ay, "1 am nothin g like she who cares

for

me."

An

objectifying attitude

comes to replace the earlier intera ctio ns of in fancy in

which

mutual

recog nition and

proud

assertion could still coexist. Male identit y, as

N a

ncy

Chodorow

points

out,

emphasizes

only

o ne side

of

th

e balance

of differentiation- difference over sharing, se pa ra ti on over connec

tion, boundaries ove r co

mmuni

on, self-suffici

ency

over dependency.))

In breaking th e identificati on

with

and dependency on mother, the

boy is in dan ger of lo sing his capacity for mutual recognition alto

gether. The emotional attunemcnt and bodil y

harmony

that character

ized his infantile exchange with mother now th reaten his

identity.

He

is, of course, able cognitively to accept the principle that th e other is

separate,

but without

the experience of

empathy

and shar ed

fe

eling

that can unite separate subJectivities. Instead, th e other, especially the

female other, is related to as object. When this relations

hip

with

the

other

as

object is generalized, rationality s

ub

s

titute

s for affective ex

change

with

the

o t h e r . ) ~ This

rati onality bypasses real recogn ition-

of

the other's subjectivity. The process mi ght be called "false differentia

.

"

tlOp .

l Violatiory is an

elaboration

of

th i

s one-sided, or "false," differentia

tion, assert ing absolute difference from ltsobJ ect, an object

we

can now

se

c as represe

nting

the m o

th

er.

35

A fantasy

of

maternal power, of bei ng

reabsorbed , underlies this curious method of asserting djfference.

Th

e

M;)

S(

cr

ann

S I

danger

that violation

is meant

to

opp ose- t

he

u ltimate l \ ~

of

tc

sion- is easily

equated

with the return to

on e

n ess wit h the

mo

th

and can now be evoked by any pw fo und exper ience o f cl

cpcndcn

l

or co

mmuni

on

(e moti

onal or

ph

ysICal), slIch :l.S erotic I( Vt'

.

T he 011

defense against l

os

in g difference lies in the power feLu io

ship so

that

the

ma

ster n

ow

co n

tr o

ls

the

o th er,

\\

·

hilc

su ll

pr

ocla

i

mu

hi s

boun

dari es intact.

*

Eroti

c domination represe

ll

ts an intensifi cation of malt- .1Ilxict) al

defense in relation

to

the mo the r. The

c p l l d materna

l

. . . ,

persists as th e object to be done to and violated , to be

sc

paf:ncd f

rnI

to

have pow er over,

to

f> Thus, on a visit to Sir Sterhe)

v illa in the South, 0 thinks how fortun ate it is that

d l

,\ ;,n'

(ar (1'1 1

the sea, for the sea smells like

dUlI

g

lJIer

= sea

I

,;n =

1// l /J I

r/.

furtber

c

ompli es

in

the

d e n i g r of wh at is s

pe

cifi cal l\'

fC

ll1.l l

t'

her s

exuality

when Sir Stephen u

ses

her as a boy, th:l r i

s,

d e n i h

feminine

or

gans.

The

anal

a l l L l ~ i ) n s

de grade \ v· ha t

wo

man

: t ~

to

l i l l

her bodily difference

from

man.

I t i s precisely thi s obj ectification, com bin ed wi th maintai n ing :l bst

lute difference

and

control, that informs the master's tra nsgression . TJ

vulnerability of a masculinity th

at

is

for

ged in th e cruc ihle

oj

fl' ll1mi,

ity,

the

great

task"

of

separatio n

that

is

S0 se

lck'm comp leted,

la yS rl

groundwork for the lat er objectification of wo m

en

.

Th

e mot her stan,

as the

protot

ype of tb e undifferenti ated ob y

ct.

She m en as [he

other, their c o u n t e r p ~ r t the side of them

se

l

ves

they re

pr

ess.

\-

Th

e

vi

ew

of

moth

er as

o ~ j e c t

t

hr

o u g ho

ut

o

ur cu

lture.

I

general psychoanal y tic discour

se

, th e child rela tes to the

)1

lOrhcr as

*Of cour se, as

we

have scen , the inl lnt is neve r iitcrally

on

e wi th moth

er

, hUf rill'

ident ification is ret ro acti ve ly called (rCprcsl"ntcd

l l y a,)

" ')ll< ne .. I.e. . rI

absence of a fundamental differen ce .

The

de rm se agai ns t I)ncn C5S clevl'lop s Kcord ing

a pri ncip le of reversal: I will

do

to y 'u what I perceive you arc dO lllg tn Ille, f J r crcl'I'

y our lov e as

stifling I ll) subjectlvlfy,

J

will - agai

n.

Jo

n

.den\' ) l I r Th

l

as comp

lem entarity is no longer temp e re d

bv

comm

ona lity. c l l < arr:

ar

\ I.'v,

mor e absolute

and thr

ea.tening.

http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35http:///reader/full/mother.35


15/18

TJ-t E

BOND

S OF

I.O

VE

78

an o

bject

of his drives, a

nd

corres

pondingly

deva lu

es her

indepe

ndent

su bj ectivity. Independence from

th

e mother as obj e

ct

rather than rec

o g

nition

of her as subject constitutes the essence of individ ua tiOli . ·And

th

ese

assumptions

arc part

of

a large r problem:

to

th e

ex tent

that until

recently man" and individual were syno nymous, the mal e experi

en

ce

of

diff

erentiati on has s

tamp

ed

the

im

age of

individuality.

The

image o f the o ther that predominates

in

Western thought is no t that

of a vitally real presence

but

a cognitively perceived objec

t.

In th is

sense

falsc

differentiation has been a constant component

of

the

Western version of individuation. Recog nizing the other has been th e

exceptional mom ent, a

moment of

rare innocence, the re

cove

ry

of

a

los t parad ise.

Th

e complement to the mal e refusal to recogni ze the other is

woman's ow n acceptance of her lack of subjectivity, her willingness

to offer recognition w ithou t expect ing it in return. (The classic

ma t

er

nal ideal of m

othe

rhood

a

paragon

of

self-abne ga tio

n - i

s only a

beautification of this lack.) The female difficulty in

differentiation

can

be describ ed almost

as

the mirror image

of th

e male's:

not

the d enial

of

the

other, but the den ial

of

the selJ. Thus

the

fact of women's

mothering n o t only ··explains mascu line sadism, it also reveals a fa ult

line in female development that leads to masochism. Whereas the

boy's

earl y difficulty see ms to occllr in making the

switc

h to a mascu

line identifIcation , the girl req uir es no such shift in identification away

from her mother. This ma kes her identity less problematic, but

it

is

a disadvantage

in

that she possesses no obvious

way

of disidcntifying

from her mother, no

hallmark

of separateness.

The

feminine tende

ncy

therefore

is

not to emphasize but to und erplay independence.

As

Chodorow has argued, mothers tend to identify more str on g ly

with their daughters; whereas they push their sons o ut of the nest, th

ey

ha

ve gre

ater

difficulty sep

ar

ating from daughters.

38

Thus it is more

likely that girls would fear separateness and tend to sustain th e tie to

mother thr o ugh compliance and self-denial. If not acute, this tenden cy

would be unremarka

bl

e. But the girl's relatio

nship

to the moth er,

79

la s t .'r ,I S

b y

('

emphasizing me rging and c

ont

inui ty a t the ~ < . of indivi llu.lliry

and

independence ,

provides

fert ile gn)

lll1

d for

sub

mi

ss

ion.

Submi

ss

ion , as we s

aw

in M} is often Ill

Niva

tcd till'

fC.J.r

of separation an d aband o nm ent : i ~ m

c t 1 e

th e inahlli ty t


16/18

TH

DONDS

or

L O V E

RO

that

ha s dogged psy cho ana lyt

tC

deba te sin ce Freud's co nce

pt

of

femi-

nine maso

chism

was elaborated by

Mari

e Bonaparte

and

Hc ene

D e utsch to include the

notion

that masochism is an inev itable compo-

n en t

o ff

emale sexuality, chIldb

ea

ring, and motherhood .

4

'J Und ema bly,

femininity and motherhood as we

know

them have

bee

n tainted

wi

th

submissi

on, self-abnegation, and helple ssnes

s.

This

is

true

even

when

submission

works

to conceal

or de

lly the power that women as mothers

do exercise.

And this fact, that

women

participate in th eir own submission, has

often embarrassed critics of psychoanalytic theory . So me feminist

critic s, who feel that \\'Ol11en have unju s

tl

y borne the

burd

en of their

v ictimjzatio n, have ins isted that

women

are simpl y unw illing con-

sc

ripts

in an erotic fantasy formed by and for men- v ictims of the

m ale porn og raphic ima

gi

nation. Susan Griffin, for

example,

argues

that the subjugation

of

wo men can be equated with the repression of

natUfe .

41

Bu t , in fact, wom en arc not the

embodiment

of llature,

althou gh the y have long been captives of that metaphor. Ind eed , in

accepting that equati on,

women

once again

participat

e in their ow n

s

ubjugation

. \Vomen , like men , are by nature social,

and

it is the

repression of their sociabil ity and social agency- t h e repress ion

of the

social , intersubject ive side of the self_. that is at

is

s

Lle. Th

e equatio n

wom n = tnothcrhood

=

nature is a symptom, not a cure.

Fmbr

ac in g

this equation, femini sts have become

cau

ght in a contradiction: exa

lt-

ing women's maternal nature while di sclaiming wo m en's masochis-

tic

nature.

Ar guing from a different standpoint, the psychologist P aula Caplan

has ren ewed the battle against the psychoanalyti c positio n

that women

are in nately masochistic. Caplan attacks the idea of " ple asure in

pain in great detail , but,

un f

ortunatcl y, sidesteps th e issue of

su

bm is

si

on

. Her exp lanation for m asochi sm is that w ha t is called m asochist ic

has tended to be the very essence of trained feminini ty in W estern

culture."42 H er argument implies that social learning of a cultural

myth about w om anhood suffices to explain the prese

nce

of ma sochistic

fantasi es in wo men , or t

hat

the

ass

ociation

of femin init

y with maso

81

Master and S

lave

chism is the res ult

merel

y

of

a per joratlve view o f l1l

l

tcmall1l1rtllfance

and al truism. Caplan is

ri

g ht th at the o f fc

min

i111ty wah

ma

s

oc

hism persists in th e

cult

ure; bur the ('x

pia

n:ltion f

or

that persis

te

nce cannot be sought in soc.ial l r a r n i n ~

.

From a psychoanal ytic

po int of

view , it

is

unsa

ri

sf

acton t tl1nc

ly

attribute

th

e

pe r

v as iveness o f

mbmi

ss

ion f;lllt

as

ics in

l Wt lC

Ille

to

cultural labeling or the derogation of wo men. T he a

lt

ernative to

,

l

bi o log ical explanation of m asoc hism must be sou g h t no t on lv in

culture, bu t in th e in te

raction

If

cultur

e and psycho log ical processes.

Cultur

al myths an d label s, w hi le ul1c \rlUbtcdly dest ruc t ive , st ill dn

not

ex plain

bow th e

essence

of t rained fe rn

i

nini t )''' ~ e t s in l

)

W{)ll1( n \;

head

s and is

there con

ve rte d in to ple asurable f

ant

asies of ernr ic

s l h m i ~ -

sion .

To

begin to explain it , w e m us t start W

ith

rhe way i

ll

hieh the

mo ther 's lack of subjectivity, as percei ved by hot h mak :lf1d

fc

mak

children, crcates an internal propem ity row ard fem inine m J . \ ) c h i ~ l l l

an d male sadism . Label

ing

is

a result,

not

a

ca

llse,

of that pro

pens ity_

Notwithsta

nding

the persistence

of

these gend er

as

sociati ons, it 1:;

safe

to


17/18

82

T H E BONDS OF L OVE

A t the s:tmc time, and ironicall y, the fantasy

of

e

ro t

ic

dominanc

e

and

submission expresses the deep

longing for who

leness.

But as long

as

the

shape of the

wh

ole

is not informe

d

by mutualit

y, this

lon

gin g

o n l

y

leads an unequal

complementarity in

which

one

person

a y ~

rna.ster, the other slave.

And

even when m en and

women

reverse their

roles

,

as

th

ey often do, the sense o f

"playing

the

oth

e

r"

is ne ver los

t.

Gend

er contimlf's , con sciously and

unconsciously, to

repr

ese

nt only

on

C

part

of a polarized

whole,

one aspect

of th

e

self-other

relationship.

One

person ("

th

e

woman") is not allowed to

play

the

s u b j ~ c

one

p e

rs

o n

("th

e m an") arrogates subjec

tivit

y onl y to himse lf. Again, the

ground

work for this division

is

laid in th e ,

mother's renunciation

of

her

o wn

\ : i

11, in her

CODS('qllent

lack of su bjecti vi ty for her c

hildren,

and particularly in

t ·

male chiler, rep"Jiation o f his , nmJ1lonality

with her.

It

wo

uld

seem obv ious that this lack

of

maternal

subjectivity

is a

great,

if

n ot the greatest,

imp

ediment to

the

e

xperience

of

succ e$stul

destrllction and surv ival

by

both

male and

fe

male childr

en. Only a

mother who feels entitled to be a person in her own right can eve r

be seen

as

slIch

by

her child, and only

suc

h a m o ther can

appreciate

and set limits to th e inevitable ag gress

ion and

anxiety

that accompa

ny

a child's

grow

ing independenc

e.

Only someone

who fully

ac

hiev

es

subjectivi ty can s

urvive

destruction a

nd

permit full differe

nt

iation.

This fact has been remarkably elusive.

It

seems

intoler

able

to

the

narcissism

of

adults

and

children alike

that

the

limits a

mother se ts

sho uld not merely be an occasional d ose

of medicine correspondin

g to

the child's needs,

but might

actu a

lly proceed from

the mother's asser

tion

of

her ow n separate selfh

oo

d. The possibi li ty of balancin g the

recogniti o n

of

the c

hild 's

needs with the assertion

of

o ne's own has

scarcely b

ee

n

put forward as an

ideal.

It is thu s neces

sa

ry

to

reconceive th e

ideal-and

the

reality

- o f

moth

e

rho

od in order

to

realign the

process

o f differe

ntiation, to miti

gate the splitting int o

complementarity.

Th e structure

of

individuation

which permeates our culture, and which privile

ge

s

separation

over

de

pendence,

cannot

simply

be

countered b y its

mirror op posit

e.

RJ

\1;!Q c:r anrl ; t \ ~

R ather ,

it

must

be critici zed in

lilZh

t

of

a o f a

b

.1l:ll1Cl'

in which

neither polt: domi nates the

ot

her , in w h ic h para

do

x ~ m r . 1 i l 1 l d

This

vis

ion

is

imp

ortallt to a fcminist crJtiqul' l'spt'Clal ly

no w

that

m ale

and

female roles arc no

as

bind in g as th

ey

',111Cl'

were.

Toda

y

wo

men in some

s e r t o r of

soci ety may

:lcl

o

pt

t he

S:lmL'

L'm ph:ui

c

autonom

y, the same "fa

lse

" diffe re

nt

ia

ti on

at

the ('xpeme l l f

rca l

recogni t ion and attunement,

that

has hern c,[orc ch aracterized the ideal

of masculine individuality

. The

stCfeo

type

of

the " ca r

eer

v\'nman"

i\

th

3t she is

able to

be

as

detached and i

mptrsn

nal

"as

a

111 :111

." Hut

r h i ~

individuat

ion based

on

den ying the need for

oth

ers is h:1rd ly lib


18/18

T £ ONDS OF LOVE

84

recognition

to the

other,

and to rediscover

the

lost tension betw een

self

and other.

Th

is tension, a fragile balance, to be sure, can only be

sustained through the

lived

experience of recognitioni the meeting of

separate

minds. have

argued

that the

longing

for recognition lies

beneath

the sensationalism

of power and

powerlessness, that the un-

recognizable

forms

often

taken

by

our

desire are the result

of

a

complicated

but

ultimately

understandable process-a process

which

explains

how our deepest desires for freedom and

communion

become

implicated

in

control

and submission.

From

such desi

res

the bonds

of

love

are forgc

J.

CH A P T R

T H R E E

WOIIl a n '

s

es ir e

THE DISCUSSION OF erot ic domina

ti on has show n

how

the

breakdown

of

the

tension b

et ween ass

e

ru on

and recognition

becomes aSSOCIated

wi

th the polar

in -

tion of gender

identity. Male and female each ado

pt one

side of an

interl

ocking who le. T his o n

e-

sIded chara

ctC[

of differ

en t

iat

ion

evolves

in

r

espo

n

se to

th e

mothe

r 's

lack of subjectivity,

WIth

w hich the g irl ide

nt

ifIes and

the boy disidentifics.

This

cha

pte

r will focus on

woman s la

ck of subjcct i\' -

Benjamin Master and Slave

Documents

Transcript of Benjamin Master and Slave