Footnote 7 – Polymorphous Perversity
As a variation on the concept of repression, Freud introduces the term
“sublimation,” understanding by that the mental operation through which
problematic libidinal impulses are provided with an outlet. Such outlets for
sublimation would include any activity—art, sports, manual labor—that permits
use of the sexual energy considered to be excessive by the canons of our
society. Freud draws a fundamental distinction between repression and
sublimation by suggesting that the latter may be salutary, insofar as it is
indispensable to the maintenance of a civilized community.
This position has been attacked by
The criticism
directed at Brown, in turn, is based upon
the supposition that a
humanity without bounds of restraint, that is to say, without repression, could
never organize itself into any permanent activity. It is here that Marcuse interjects his concept of “surplus repression,” designating by such a term that part of sexual repression created to maintain the
power of the dominant class, in
spite of not proving to be indispensable to the maintenance of an organized society attending to the human necessities of all its constituents. Therefore, the principal
advance that Marcuse presupposes in opposition to Freud would consist of
the latter’s toleration for a certain
type of repression in order to preserve
contemporary society, whereas Marcuse
deems it fundamental to change society,
on the basis of an evolution that take into account our original sexual impulses.
Such could be considered the
basis of the accusation which representatives of the new tendencies have leveled against orthodox Freudian psychoanalysis, to the effect that the latter had sought
- with an impunity that became undermined toward the end of the
sixties - that their patients assume all
personal conflict in order to facilitate their adaptation to the repressive society in which they found themselves, rather than to acknowledge the necessity for change in that society.
In One Dimensional Man, Marcuse
asserts that, originally, sexual
instinct had no temporal and spatial limitations of subject and object, since sexuality
is by nature “polymorphous perverse.” Going even further, Marcuse, gives as an example of “surplus repression” not
only our total concentration on
genital copulation but also such phenomena as olfactory and gustatory
repression in sexual life.
For his
part, Dennis Altman, commenting favorably in his own aforementioned
book on these assertions by Marcuse, adds
that liberation must not only be aimed
at eliminating sexual constraint, but also at providing the practical possibility of realizing those desires.
Moreover he maintains that only recently have we become aware of how much of
what we considered normal and instinctive,
especially with respect to
family structuring and sexual
relations, is actually learned,
and as a result how much of what
up to now has been considered
natural would have to be
unlearned, including competitive and aggressive attitudes outside of the sexual realm. And along the same lines, Kate Millett, the
theoretician of women’s liberation,
says in her book Sexual Politics
that the purpose of sexual revolution ought to be a freedom
without hypocrisy, untainted by the
exploitive economic bases of
traditional sexual alliances, meaning matrimony.
Furthermore,
Marcuse favours not only a free flow of the libido,
but also a transformation of the same: in
other words, the passage from a sexuality circumscribed
by genital supremacy to an
eroticization of the whole
personality. He refers therefore to an expansion more than an explosion of the
libido, an expansion that would extend
to other areas of human endeavor,
private and social, such as work, for example. He adds that the entire weight of civil morality was brought to bear
against the use of the body
as mere instrument of pleasure,
inasmuch as that reification was considered
taboo and relegated to the contemptible privilege of prostitutes and perverts.
Differing from this position, J. C. Unwin,
author of Sex and Culture, after studying the marital customs of eighty
uncivilized societies, seems to support the very generalized assumption that
sexual freedom leads to social decadence, since, according to orthodox
psychoanalysis, if an individual does not perish from his neurosis, the imposed
sexual constraints can help to channel such energies towards social useful
ends. Unwin has concluded from his exhaustive study
that the establishment of the first foundations of an organised
society, its subsequent development and appropriation of neighbouring
terrain – in other words, the historical characteristics of every vigorous
society - are evident only from the moment when sexual repression has been
instated. While those societies in which freedom of sexual relations is
tolerated - whether prenuptial. extraconjugal
or homosexual - remain in an almost animal state of underdevelopment. But at
the same time Unwin says that societies which are
strictly monogamous and strongly repressive do not manage to last very long,
and if they do in part, it is by means of the moral and material subjugation of
women. Therefore, Unwin claims that, between the
suicidal anguish that the minimizing of sexual necessities provokes and the
opposite extreme of social disorder attributed to sexual incontinence, a
reasonable medium ought to be found which might provide the solution to such a
critical problem - that is to say, an elimination of the “surplus repression”
about which Marcuse speaks.