Eros and Corporeality

In order to explain why human embodiment (or corporeality), according to Psychoanalysis, cannot be left out of the picture when discussing Eros, it’s important that a distinction be made between Freud’s theory of Psychoanalysis and the study of Psychology today. While modern Psychology encompasses five broader paradigms or scientific perspectives (Weston, Burton & Kowalski 2006), Psychoanalysis is more specifically (according to the Oxford Dictionary) the “psychological theory and therapeutic method developed by Sigmund Freud, based on the ideas that mental life functions on both conscious and unconscious levels and that childhood events have a powerful psychological influence throughout life”. This very specific definition gives us a definite direction for our discussion: looking primarily at Freud, at what he proposed in his theory of Psychoanalysis and what he surmised about Eros. But, what would be the point of debating the somatic nature of Eros (which may seem so obvious from these definitions) if there was no reason to suggest otherwise? For this reason, as the different parts of the Psychoanalytic theory are discussed in relation to Eros, other theories (differing from Freud’s) will be briefly touched on.

Freud came to the conclusion that there must be two opposing forces which explained the phenomenon of life (Freud 1948, p.55), the life-instinct (Eros) and death-instinct (Thanatos); more broadly referred to in modern Psychology as the drives of sex and aggression (Weston et al 2006, p. 425). The modern dictionary terms Eros (or the life-instinct) as the instincts for self-preservation, pleasure and procreation which include, but are not limited to, sexual love and desire. Similar to this, Freud decided that Eros embodied all those libidinal instincts which were linked to the attainment of pleasure, sensuality and love as well as the actual act of sexual intercourse (Weston et al, p.425). So, the question then comes: according to Freud how do these libidinal instincts play out, and how is it that Freud proposes we derive pleasure, sensuality, love and self-preservation?

The roots of the psychoanalytic theory point to the body as the primary place to which we look for the attainment of pleasure. An example of this is the Freudian developmental model, or what Freud termed the ‘psychosexual stages’ (Weston et al 2006, p.425). This theory suggests five stages of a child’s development, each centred around a different ‘erotogenic’ zone of the physical body (Weston et al, p.426). The formation of this theory stemmed from Freud’s disagreement with the then popular belief that a person’s sexual life was only acquired between the ages 12-14 (Freud 1966, p.385) Freud insisting rather, that sexuality is present in children from birth (Freud 1966, p.387). His argument began by drawing similarities between the facial expression of an adult after a sexual orgasm and that of a child “sated at the breast” (Freud 1966, p.388-9). He suggests that the sensual sucking is the means by which the infant (between the ages 0 and 2) derives pleasure, similar to that of an orgasm, from the first, or oral, ‘erotogenic’ zone – namely the mouth and lips (Weston et al, p.426). The replacement of the breast with the child’s thumb (thumb-sucking seen in most infants and young children) Freud referred to as an ‘autoerotic’ response; the child becoming sufficient in oneself and removing external objects and stimuli (Freud 1966, p.388-9), while still deriving pleasure from that ‘oral’ zone of the body.

The next of the five stages Freud theorised was the ‘Anal’ stage which, as its name implies, is centred around the anus during the years of toilet training (Weston et al 2006, p.426) As disgusting as sounds, it’s in the control of that area of the body, the excretion and retention of the faeces, that Freud proposed the child next found pleasure. The “Phallic” stages is then proposed to relate to children of approximately pre-school age, a time when the ‘autoerotic’ thumb-sucking is replaced by the exploration of other parts of the body – in particular the genitals – and the child seeks a greater ‘erotogenic zone’ (Freud 1966, pp.388-9). This stage also, according to Freud, is the time of the ‘Oedipus Complex’ – the sexual desire for the parent of the opposite sex – which expresses the reversal of that initial ‘autoeroticism’ by once again seeking pleasure from an external source (Weston et al, p.427). The ‘Latency’ (forth) stage occurs in the years just before puberty, and during this time the sexual impulses of the individual supposedly become sublimated and decline (Weston et al, p.427). The last, ‘Genital’, stage then finds the first sexual instincts apparent in full strength (Freud 1966, pp.388-9), with the secretion of hormones etc., the child now seeking pleasure almost entirely outside of itself, leading to the formation of more ‘romantic’ relationships as a result of mature sexuality (Weston et al, p.428).

But, you might ask, how does this prove that the corporeal is inextricably linked with Eros in relation to Psychoanalysis? If we look at another theory of development – Jean Piaget’s proposed theory of cognitive development – it shows four different stages of development: the sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational stages (Weston et al 2006, p.480). These were the stages through which children supposedly came to understand concepts, follow symbolic thought, view things from different perspectives, perform mental operations and apply logic (Weston et al, p.480). Piaget, along with others like Aristotle, held that it was the realisation and mastery of these higher mental capacities, not the physical self, in which children found pleasure. According to Freud however, one of the greatest libidinal drives of Eros was specifically the seeking of ‘organ pleasure’, attached to the activity of the genitals and other organs (Freud 1966, p.401). Looking again at the Psychoanalytic developmental model, it strives to demonstrate the ‘endo-genus’ phenomenon, if you like, of sexuality. The idea that a child seeks pleasure from the different organs or ‘erotogenic’ parts of the physical body as it grows (Freud 1966, p.392) is certainly indicative of a link between Eros and the body (remembering that Psychoanalysis places great emphasis on childhood events). Indeed, these ‘erotogenic’ areas continue to be sexually associated in adulthood (kissing and buttocks pinching as a sign of affection) with pleasure sought not just from the genital organs but these other areas as well (Weston et al, pp.426-8). Freud surmised, however, that a failure of a child to properly graduate from any of these developmental stages led to different perversions of the libidinal drive later in life (Weston et al, p.426-8). In this way, for Psychoanalysis at least, the concept of Eros and the somatic body cannot be separated. Higher mental and cognitive capacities simply don’t offer the same fulfilment of pleasure as the physical self.

What about other theories about Eros, though? Carl Jung was a colleague of Freud’s, and he held that Eros, rather than a corporeal phenomenon, was more of a “general appetite for life” (Webb 2006), one existing predominantly in the realm of conscious and unconscious thought, and which only revealed itself in symbolic forms. The Psychoanalytic response to this lies in Freud’s development of the ‘structural model’, the three mental forces: the id, ego and superego. In this model the id is the self, the human, and contains all the sexual and aggressive energy, is driven by impulses and seeks immediate gratification and satisfaction (Weston et al 2006, p.428). The superego acts as a kind of conscience, the parental voice or higher being if you like, while the ego is the mediator and balances these desires with morality (Weston et al, p.429).

Here we could say that the id is actually the libido, which drives the body act upon these drives (Weston et al 2006, p.429). If we can draw that analogy, then it surely follows that the physical realisation of Eros is seen to be impeded or controlled only through its interaction with the ego and superego (Weston et al, p.429). Perhaps it was the failure of these instincts to be externally expressed – due to the intervention of the invisible superego – which led Jung to construct his view of Eros being confined to the mind and symbolic expression. However, the ‘structural model’ simply emphasises the presence of those libidinal impulses which Freud declares to be acted on somatically. Freud contrasts the previously proposed conflict between the conscious and the unconscious, with the conflict between what we want (the Eros or libidinal desires of the body) and what we think is moral (the introduction of the superego and ego) (Weston et al, p.428), which one would agree restricts the corporeal expression of those instincts but does not deny their existence.

The point of this discussion of corporeality and Eros was by no means to imply that Eros was solely confined to the body, or to state that there was only one way to view the phenomenon. To say that Freud’s theories hold complete truth seems ridiculous in light of the fact that one of the five perspectives of modern psychology is only an altered version of his Psychoanalytic theory (more commonly known as the Psychodynamic Perspective). The task however was not to debate the truth of Freud’s theory, but to explain why, in relation to the Psychoanalysis, Eros and the body are linked. Why then, according to Psychoanalysis (namely Freud) can the human body as a physical entity – corporeal meaning relating to or involving the physical body rather than the mind or spirit – not be left out of the picture when discussing Eros? The answer is perhaps summarised in a statement given by Freud during one of his “Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis” (Freud 1966, p.376). He claimed that the term sexual related to “everything which, with a view to obtaining pleasure, is concerned with the body, in particular with the sexual organs, of someone of the opposite sex, and which… aims at… the performance of the sexual act”. If, therefore, Eros is those libidinal instincts connected with sex and pleasure, demonstrated briefly here in the ‘psychosexual’ stages of development, in which infants seek pleasure from different body organs or regions of their body (Weston et al 2006, pp.425-7); and if sexual is related to “everything…which is concerned with the body”, the direct expression of these impulses being restricted only by the interference of the superego and the ego (Weston et al, pp.428-9), then there is no way, in relation to Psychoanalysis, that the corporeal can be excluded from Eros.

References

Freud, S., 1948. Civilization and Its Discontents. ____. Penguin Books.

Freud, S., 1966. Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Webb, E., 2006 Eros and The Psychology of World Views. [Internet]. Department of Comparative Literature, Washington. Available at: http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1201/webb06rev.htm#b8 [accessed 26 March 2008].

Weston, D., Burton, L. & Kowalski, R., 2006. Psychology. Australian and New Zealand Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Milton, Australia