Death instinct or death drive signifies the human beings’ propensity to destructive aggression. In “Beyond the Pleasure Principle,” Freud uses this idea to explain the reason why human beings are slanted to repeat unpleasant and even painful experiences. To put it simply, Freud contends that human beings have the tendency to approach death and the purpose of all living creatures is to die. The compulsion of the unpleasant repetition reflects the human impulse to strive to return an inorganic and inanimate state before the organic one.
Based on his observation on a child’s fort-da game, Freud gives his interpretation of human beings’ tendency of repetition compulsion. Freud notes that the child will repeat his
distressing experience of his mother’s absence and turn it into his own game. Through this game, the child actively makes his mother to go away but not passively wait this to happen.
As Freud comments, “At the outset he was in a passive situation—he was overpowered by the experience; but, by repeating it, unpleasurable though it was, as a game, he took on an active part. These efforts might be put down to an instinct for mastery that was acting independently of whether the memory was in itself pleasurable or not” (16). According to Freud, turning a passive experience into an active one manifests human beings’ instinct to master the unpleasurable or distressing experience. Via this act of repetition, the child can actively control the painful feelings rather than be passively controlled by it. Additionally, the repetition of a painful experience is unpleasurable but simultaneously a kind of satisfaction.
Derived from death instinct, Freud recognizes an aggressive and destructive instinct of human beings tendency. In “Civilization and Its Discontents,” Freud explicitly maintains that
“This aggressive instinct is the derivative and the main representative of the death instinct which we have found alongside of Eros and which shares world-dominion with it” (122).
Freud views aggression as the manifestation of the death drive, the drive for hostility and destruction to make organism return to its static and inorganic state. It is the human tendency toward destructive power and self-destructiveness. Later death instinct and aggression are
used interchangeably by Freud in some of his writing. Death instinct and aggression can be viewed as the same idea for Freud.
In “Economic Problem of Masochism,” Freud claims that the life instinct (the libido) and death instinct have “seized upon a share in the regulation of the processes of life” (160).
Life instinct and death instinct do not terminate each other, but entangle one another. The life instinct and death instinct will fuse and defuse with each other simultaneously. In addition, Freud directly points out that the instinct of death is “destruction” as discussing the
connections between masochism and sadism. Freud again refers to the death drive as “the destructive instinct, the instinct for mastery, or the will to power” (163). Freud continues to state, “A portion of the instinct is placed directly in the service of the sexual function, where is has important part to play. This is sadism proper” (163). At this point, aggressive instinct becomes identical with sadism, for destructiveness underlies both of them. As the aggressive instinct is directed outward, it turns into sadism and inward masochism. Freud adds to describe masochism,
If one is prepared to overlook a little inexactitude, it may be said that the death instinct which is operative in the organism—primal sadism—is identical with
masochism. After the main portion of it has been transposed outwards on to objects, there remains inside, as a residuum of it, the erotogenic masochism proper, which on the one hand has become a component of the libido and, on the other, still has the self as its object. This masochism would thus be evidence of, and a remainder from, the phase of development in which the coalescence, which is so important for life, between the death instinct and Eros took place. (“Economic Problem of
Masochism” 164)
In this passage, sadism becomes the synonym of death instinct or instinct of destruction.
Freud calls this instinct of aggression the primary sadism which operates in the organism is exactly the same with masochism. Although the aggressive instinct will be directed outward,
part of it still remains inside and against the self. In other words, no matter how much portion of the aggression is projected outward, there is always part of it existing inside since it is the innate quality of human beings. The aggressive instinct inside the organism turns into the masochism instinct raging against the self. This is so-called the original or primary masochism. Freud believes that masochism is the evidence of the death instinct and life instinct. There is no such thing as pure life instinct or death instinct but only “mixtures of them in different amount” (164). Freud further proposes the idea of the secondary
masochism,
We shall not be surprised to hear that in certain circumstances the sadism, or instinct of destruction, which has been directed outwards, projected, can be once more introjected, turned inwards, and in this way regress to its earlier situation. If this happens, a secondary masochism is produced, which is added to the original masochism. (“Economic Problem of Masochism” 164)
The aggressive instinct does not fix outward or inward. Although it is projected outward, the aggressive instinct may be turned back and directed inward the self again. This is called secondary masochism which Freud views as a regression.
In “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality,” Freud argues that the roots of sadism can be easily detected among normal people, namely, “aggressiveness—a desire to subjugate”
(157). Freud explains that sadism is the aggressive element of sexual instinct. As one turns into sadism, it is the consequence which this aggressive component becomes dominant and exaggerated. The editor adds in the footnote, “One at least of the roots of masochism can be inferred with equal certainty” (158) but this sentence is omitted in the present version. The aggressiveness is also one of the roots underlies masochism. Freud turns to the history of human civilization and notes the close connection between cruelty and sexual instinct in human beings. Freud asserts that nothing can give a good explanation for this connection except the aggressive factor in sexual instinct. Freud remarks,
According to some authorities this aggressive element of the sexual instinct is in reality a relic of cannibalistic desires—that is, it is a contribution derived from the apparatus for obtaining mastery, which is concerned with the satisfaction of the other and, ontogenetically, the older of the great instinctual needs. It has also been maintained that every pain contains in itself the possibility of a feeling of pleasure.
(“Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality” 159)
The aggressive tendency of human beings already emerges during infant’s pregenital stage.
Among infantile sexual activities, thumb-sucking is one of the examples which manifest the aggressive instinct to mastery, the cannibalistic desire. More importantly, the performance of painful activities provides the possibilities of acquiring pleasure feelings.
Moreover, Freud adopts Krafft-Ebing’s choice of naming, that is, sadism and masochism, referring to their respective active and passive forms. Freud follows Krafft-Ebing’s definition of these two terms, “the pleasure in any form of humiliation or subjection” (157). Both sadism and masochism contain the pleasure in both physical and mental form of humiliation or subjugation. Freud observes that “the most remarkable feature of this perversion is that its active and passive forms are habitually found to occur together in the same individual” (159).
Freud agrees with Krafft-Ebing that the relationship between sadism and masochism is as the two sides of the same coin, or rather there is no need to call sadism and masochism separately.
Freud further indicates that “[a] sadist is always at the same time a masochist, although the active or the passive aspect of the perversion may be the more strongly developed in him and may represent this predominant sexual activity” (159). Both the active and passive forms are prone to appear in the same individual. If one is apparently a sadist, the traces of masochism can be investigated in him, and vice versa. If one’s sadistic tendencies become apparent, this is because the active aspect has a stronger development and the passive one just turns inactive.
Most importantly, the question is not whether one is a sadist or masochist. It should be noted that the key factor is the aggressive instinct and whether it is projected outward or inward.
The aggression projected outward becomes sadism and the one projected inward masochism.
The aggression is the core of sadism and masochism. In “Beyond the Pleasure Principle,”
Freud suggests that “there might be such a thing as primary masochism” (55). Yet this does not contradict the idea that masochism is an extension of sadism because underlying the primary masochism is still the aggression, the tendency to destruction. In other words, no matter how much portion is directed outward, part of aggression always remains inside and turn against the self. Maybe we can assume that, to some extent, everyone harbors some innermost sadomasochistic tendencies since aggression hides in each one of us.