SimplerReflections » 17 авг 2010 21:34
In the „announcement for newcomers“ potential new sexual members are cautioned against trying to run a psychological analysis of the antisexual's mind. - It's true that an antisexual psychological system simply doesn't exist. But the history of psychoanalysis, that is, depth psychology, shows time and again some ideas and some hints that could be viewed as germs of a possible antisexual psychological system, if ever such a system should emerge.
In 1911, when Adler gave a series of presentations about his ideas in Freud's evening circle, Freud cut Adler off because he thought those ideas were incompatible with psychoanalysis proper.
„He[Adler] concluded his lecture by arguing that sexuality was not at the source of neurosis, but represented the mask adopted by the masculine protest[the struggle for dominion and significance] for purposes of the neurosis. This perspective by no means minimized the importance of … sexual impulses: [but] they could never be causes, but were always worked-over material and a means of personal striving.“
Among the points of critique that Freud directed against Adler was the following one:
„Instead of the psychology of the libido, of sexuality, it[Adler's view] offers general psychology.“
The unconscious motives of neurosis, as Freud delineated them, centered on the ego's fear of being overwhelmed by sexual impulses.
But Adler thought that it was idle to talk about the presence of sexuality in neurosis, because, as he thought, sexuality had a similarly great significance for everyone. „He never denied the existence of libido qua libido; he simply argued that an explanation formulated in terms of libidinal dynamics was immaterial … for an understanding of neurotic conflict that was therapeutically meaningful … When Adler alluded to the 'arranged' or 'falsified' libido of the neurotic, he did not mean to deny the existence of 'primary' libido altogether.“
In Adler's own words:
„With regard to falsified libido, what we could call libido is simply not involved, but rather manifestations of the desire to 'count for something'.“
In Adler's view asexuality would be equivalent to a falsified libido masterly conducted, and in this case repressed, by the struggle for personal significance, for superiority. For instance, he would say a girl that claimed frigidity was really frigid indeed but that she was so in order to show her own independence in relation to sexual matters and hence her independence of men, her mastery of men. Expressions of sexuality, and also the total absence of sexuality, were just to be seen as symbolical representations of the private struggle for glory and dominion. In his later years Adler would go so far as to virtually claim that every sexual life outside the boundaries of marriage(and celibacy would count among these) was „falsified libido“ and hence a neurotic symptom.
But I think Adler already takes us a great deal away from the sex-obsession of Freud. Heinz Kohut is another name to mention here; he focused on narcissism and, with a different theoretical outlook than Adler, also made a strong case for the secondary quality of a perverted sex life, the primary cause lying in problems within the „self“.
But I think it's quite interesting to know how Freud used to misrepresent Adler in later times. He even accused Adler of believing that sex wasn't a drive in itself, but was always fueled by the striving for personal significance, the „will to power“. As we have seen, this is wrong. But, indeed, it would be a nice start for an antisexual psychology to begin with. And that's what I've come to believe. I believe sexuality is always a misguided outlet for aggressive conflicts. Even a girl who just wants to be „loved“ - displays the same erroneous craving for power. She wants to have sex with her boyfriend because only then she can be fully sure that her boyfriend really „wants“, really „desires“ her. Her sex life is basically an expression of her own insecurity to be accepted as a person plain and simple. Could she feel accepted just that way – her sex drive would diminish and she could experience personal worth without having to revert on the thrill of personal mastery experienced when she perceives how her body is desired and how she can control her boyfriend via her body(that is, via his craving for her body). -
In consequence, sex is always a sign of disordered self-esteem, it's just a substitute, and a highly unsatisfactory substitute, for the basic need to be appraised unconditionally in an interpersonal relationship – at least in regard to this girl it's a sign of that. Men may want to cover up other (distinctly non-sexual) needs.
And here we come to Freud's misjudgement of Adler's theory. The misjudgement I like so very much and which supplies the foundation of my own private theory as outlined above.
Well... what an overture. But it leads down to nothing. I couldn't find the quotation anymore. However Freud said something a little like this: According to Adler people just want 'to be above' and there's really no libidinal influence on them; if a husband sleeps with his wife, he doesn't do it for pleasure, he only does it to be 'above' her while sleeping with her.
Alas! Freud's imputation is false and in no way this has been Adler's opinion, but it would have been great if it had been so. Then indeed he would have been the first one to lay the foundation to an antisexual psychological system.
(Citations from Paul E. Stepansky, „In Freud's Shadow – Adler in Context“)
