Eros and Civilization.
Herbert Marcuse 1955
CHAPTER ONE. The Hidden Trend in Psychoanalysis
The
concept of man that emerges from Freudian theory is the most irrefutable
indictment of Western civilization and at the same time the most unshakable
defense of this civilization. According to Freud, the history of man is the
history of his repression. Culture constrains not only his societal but also
his biological existence, not only parts of the human being but his instinctual structure
itself.
However,
such constraint is the very precondition of progress. Left
free to pursue their natural objectives, the basic instincts of man would be
incompatible with all lasting association and preservation: they would destroy
even where they unite. The uncontrolled Eros is just as fatal as his deadly
counterpart, the death instinct. Their destructive force derives
from the fact that they strive for a gratification which culture cannot grant:
gratification as such and as an end in itself, at any moment. The instincts
must therefore be deflected from their goal, inhibited in their aim. Civilization
begins when the primary objective – namely, integral satisfaction of needs – is
effectively renounced.
The vicissitudes of the instincts are the vicissitudes of the
mental apparatus in civilization. The animal drives become human instincts
under the influence of the external reality. Their original “location” in the
organism and their basic direction remain the same, but their objectives and
their manifestations are subject to change. All psychoanalytic concepts
(sublimation, identification, projection, repression, introjection) connote the
mutability of the instincts. But the reality which shapes the instincts as well
as their needs and satisfaction is a socio-historical world. The animal man
becomes a human being only through a fundamental transformation of his nature, affecting
not only the instinctual aims but also the instinctual “values” – that is, the
principles that govern the attainment of the aims. The change in the governing
value system may be tentatively defined as follows:
|
from:
|
to:
|
|
immediate satisfaction
|
delayed satisfaction
|
|
pleasure
|
restraint of pleasure
|
|
joy (play)
|
toil (work)
|
|
receptiveness
|
productiveness
|
|
absence of repression
|
security
|
Freud described this change as the transformation of the pleasure
principle into the reality principle. The
interpretation of the “mental apparatus” in terms of these two principles is
basic to Freud’s theory and remains so in spite of all modifications of the
dualistic conception. It corresponds largely (but not entirely) to the
distinction between unconscious and conscious processes. The individual exists,
as it were, in two different dimensions, characterized by different mental
processes and principles. The difference between these two dimensions is a
genetic-historical as well as a structural one: the unconscious, ruled by the
pleasure principle, comprises “the older, primary processes, the residues of a
phase of development in which they were the only kind of mental processes.”
They strive for nothing but for “gaining pleasure; from any operation which
might arouse unpleasantness ('pain') mental activity draws back.” But the
unrestrained pleasure principle comes into conflict with the natural and human
environment. The individual comes to the traumatic realization that full and
painless gratification of his needs is impossible. And after this experience of
disappointment, a new principle of mental functioning gains ascendancy. The
reality principle supersedes the pleasure principle: man
learns to give up momentary, uncertain, and destructive pleasure for delayed,
restrained, but “assured” pleasure. Because of this lasting gain through
renunciation and restraint, according to Freud, the reality
principle “safeguards” rather than “dethrones,” “modifies” rather than denies,
the pleasure principle.
However, the psychoanalytic interpretation reveals that the
reality principle enforces a change not only in the form and timing of pleasure
but in its very substance. The adjustment of pleasure to the reality principle
implies the subjugation and diversion of the destructive force of instinctual
gratification, of its incompatibility with the established societal norms and
relations, and, by that token, implies the transubstantiation of pleasure
itself.
With the establishment of the reality principle, the human being
which, under the pleasure principle, has been hardly more than a bundle of
animal drives, has become an organized ego. It strives for “what is
useful” and what can be obtained without damage to itself and to its
vital environment. Under the reality principle, the human being develops the function
of reason: it learns to “test” the reality, to distinguish
between good and bad, true and false, useful and harmful. Man
acquires the faculties of attention, memory, and judgment. He becomes a
conscious, thinking subject, geared to a rationality which is
imposed upon him from outside. Only one mode of thought-activity is “split off”
from the new organization of the mental apparatus and remains free from the
rule of the reality principle: phantasy is “protected from
cultural alterations” and stays committed to the pleasure principle. Otherwise,
the mental apparatus is effectively subordinated to the reality principle. The
function of “motor discharge,” which, under the supremacy of the pleasure
principle, had “served to unburden the mental apparatus of accretions of
stimuli,” is now employed in the “appropriate alteration of reality": it
is converted into action.
The scope of man’s desires and the instrumentalities for their
gratification are thus immeasurably increased, and his ability to alter reality
consciously in accordance with “what is useful” seems to promise a gradual
removal of extraneous barriers to his gratification. However,
neither his desires nor his alteration of reality are henceforth his own: they
are now “organized” by his society. And this “organization”
represses and transubstantiates his original instinctual needs. If absence
from repression is the archetype of freedom, then civilization is the struggle
against this freedom.
The replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle
is the great traumatic event in the development of man – in the development of
the genus (phylogenesis) as well as of. the individual (ontogenesis). According
to Freud, this event is not unique but recurs throughout the history of mankind
and of every individual. Phylogenetically, it occurs first in the primal
horde, when the primal father monopolizes power and
pleasure and enforces renunciation on the part of the sons. Ontogenetically, it
occurs during the period of early childhood, and submission to the reality
principle is enforced by the parents and other educators. But, both on the
generic and on the individual level, submission is continuously reproduced. The
rule of the primal father is followed, after the first rebellion, by the rule
of the sons, and the brother clan develops into institutionalized social and
political domination. The reality principle materializes in a system of
institutions. And the individual, growing up within such a system, learns the requirements
of the reality principle as those of law and order, and transmits them to the
next generation.
The fact that the reality principle has to be re-established
continually in the development of man indicates that its triumph over the
pleasure principle is never complete and never secure. In the Freudian
conception, civilization does not once and for all terminate a “state of
nature.” What civilization masters and represses – the claim of the pleasure
principle – continues to exist in civilization itself. The unconscious retains
the objectives of the defeated pleasure principle. Turned back by the
external reality or even unable to reach it, the full force of the
pleasure principle not only survives in the unconscious but also affects in
manifold ways the very reality which has superseded the pleasure principle.
The return of the repressed makes up the tabooed and
subterranean history of civilization. And the exploration of this
history reveals not only the secret of the individual but also that of civilization. Freud’s
individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology.
Repression is a historical phenomenon. The effective subjugation of the
instincts to repressive controls is imposed not by nature but by man. The
primal father, as the archetype of domination, initiates the chain reaction of
enslavement, rebellion, and reinforced domination which marks the history of
civilization. But ever since the first, prehistoric restoration of domination
following the first rebellion, repression from without has been supported by
repression from within: the unfree individual introjects his masters and their
commands into his own mental apparatus. The struggle against freedom reproduces
itself in the psyche of man, as the self-repression of the repressed individual,
and his self-repression in turn sustains his masters and their institutions. It
is this mental dynamic which Freud unfolds as the dynamic of civilization.
According to Freud, the repressive modification of the instincts
under the reality principle is enforced and sustained by the “eternal
primordial struggle for existence, ... persisting to the present day.” Scarcity (Lebensnot, Ananke)
teaches men that they cannot freely gratify their instinctual impulses, that
they cannot live under the pleasure principle. Society’s motive in enforcing
the decisive modification of the instinctual structure is thus “economic; since
it has not means enough to support life for its members without work on their
part, it must see to it that the number of these members is restricted and
their energies directed away from sexual activities on to their work.”
This conception is as old as civilization and has always provided
the most effective rationalization for repression. To a considerable extent,
Freud’s theory partakes of this rationalization: Freud considers the
“primordial struggle for existence” as “eternal” and therefore believes that
the pleasure principle and the reality principle are “eternally” antagonistic. The notion
that a non-repressive civilization is impossible is a cornerstone of Freudian
theory. However, his theory contains elements that break through this
rationalization; they shatter the predominant tradition of Westem thought and
even suggest its reversal. His work is characterized by an uncompromising
insistence on showing up the repressive content of the highest values and
achievements of culture. In so far as he does this, he denies the equation of
reason with repression on which the ideology of culture is built. Freud’s
metapsychology is an ever-renewed attempt to uncover, and to question, the
terrible necessity of the inner connection between civilization and barbarism,
progress and suffering, freedom and unhappiness – a connection which reveals
itself ultimately as that between Eros and Thanatos. Freud questions culture
not from a romanticist or utopian point of view, but on the ground of the
suffering and misery which its implementation involves. Cultural freedom thus
appears in the light of unfreedom, and cultural progress in the light of constraint.
Culture is not thereby refuted: unfreedom and constraint are the price that
must be paid.
But as Freud exposes their scope and their depth, he upholds the
tabooed aspirations of humanity: the claim for a state where freedom and
necessity coincide. Whatever liberty exists in the realm of the developed
consciousness, and in the world it has created, is only derivative, compromised
freedom, gained at the expense of the full satisfaction of needs. And in so far
as the full satisfaction of needs is happiness, freedom in civilization is
essentially antagonistic to happiness: it involves the repressive modification
(sublimation) of happiness. Conversely, the unconscious, the deepest and oldest
layer of the mental personality, is the drive for integral gratification, which
is absence of want and repression. As such it is the immediate identity of
necessity and freedom. According to Freud’s conception the equation of freedom
and happiness tabooed by the conscious is upheld by the unconscious. Its truth,
although repelled by consciousness, continues to haunt the mind; it preserves
the memory of past stages of individual development at which integral
gratification is obtained. And the past continues to claim the future: it
generates the wish that the paradise be re-created on the basis of the
achievements of civilization.
If memory moves into the center of psychoanalysis as a decisive
mode of cognition, this is far more than a therapeutic device;
the therapeutic role of memory derives from the truth value of memory. Its
truth value lies in the specific function of memory to preserve promises and
potentialities which are betrayed and even outlawed by the mature, civilized
individual, but which had once been fulfilled in his dim past and which are
never entirely forgotten. The reality principle restrains the cognitive
function of memory – its commitment to the past experience of happiness which
spurns the desire for its conscious re-creation. The psychoanalytic liberation
of memory explodes the rationality of the repressed individual. As cognition
gives way to re-cognition, the forbidden images and impulses of childhood begin
to tell the truth that reason denies. Regression assumes a progressive
function. The rediscovered past yields critical standards which are tabooed by
the present. Moreover, the restoration of memory is accompanied by the
restoration of the cognitive content of phantasy. Psychoanalytic theory removes
these mental faculties from the noncommittal sphere of daydreaming and fiction
and recaptures their strict truths. The weight of these discoveries must
eventually shatter the framework in which they were made and confined. The
liberation of the past does not end in its reconciliation with the present.
Against the self-imposed restraint of the discoverer, the orientation on the
past tends toward an orientation on the future. The recherche du temps
perdu becomes the vehicle of future liberation.
The subsequent discussion will be focused on this hidden trend in
psychoanalysis.
Freud’s analysis of the development of the repressive mental
apparatus proceeds on two levels:
(a)
Ontogenetic: the growth of the repressed individual from early infancy to his
conscious societal existence.
(b)
Phylogenetic: the growth of repressive civilization from the primal horde to the
fully constituted civilized state.
The two levels are continually interrelated. This interrelation is
epitomized in Freud’s notion of the return of the repressed in history: the
individual re-experiences and re-enacts the great traumatic events in the development
of the genus, and the instinctual dynamic reflects throughout the conflict
between individual and genus (between particular and universal) as well as the
various solutions of this conflict.
We shall first follow the ontogenetic development to the mature
state of the civilized individual. We shall then return to the phylogenetic
origins and extend the Freudian conception to the mature state of the civilized
genus. The constant interrelation between the two levels means that recurrent
cross-references, anticipations, and repetitions are unavoidable.
