A. In chapter V, Freud claims that civilization requires "aim-inhibited libido on the largest scale" (p. 65) to counteract the aggressive instinct. As an indication of this he cites precepts such as "Love thy neighbor" and "Love thine enemies." (He suggests that such precepts are not exclusively Christian.) He offers objections to such precepts (summarized in advance at p. 57), but represents them as intelligible efforts on the part of civilization (personified) to counteract the destructive effects of aggressiveness. Two comments:

1. If everyone took Freud's skeptical attitude to such precepts, that would defeat the purpose of civilization in promulgating them. He can't intend that; his attitude must be like that of an intellectual ancient Roman to traditional Roman religion ("I don't believe it myself, but it's good that the masses should believe it").

2. Do Freud's objections miss the point? The precepts don't tell us to direct aim-inhibited libido at everyone, but to treat people not as means but as ends in themselves. Freud has only one interpretation for "love," and hence can't hear the precepts as saying anything except that all human beings are equally fit objects for sublimated sexual feelings — which does seem silly in just the sort of way he suggests.

B. Chapter VI talks about the development of Freud's thinking about the instincts:

1. At first he distinguished ego-instincts (exemplified by hunger) from object-instincts (exemplified by love).

2. Then he brought in the concept of narcissism (ego-directed libido). The idea is that libido starts out ego-directed (in the infantile stage at which the ego isn't separated off from the rest of the world; see p. 20, "limitless narcissism"). Then, when the ego and the rest of the world are distinguished, libido is directed at objects other than the ego. So one source of instinctual energy, libido, underlies both ego-instincts and object-instincts, and it gets to look as if there's only one source of instinctual energy.

3. Freud can't bring himself to believe that (p. 77), and postulates a death instinct alongside libido. (Like libido, it's originally ego-directed but later directed at objects other than the ego, in the shape of aggression against other people.)

C. A different frame in which to think about aggression; start by noting that human beings aren't unique in aggressive behavior towards other members of their species. In other animals, e.g. the great apes, aggression is less dangerous (it tends to be ritualized). Maybe Freud is wrong to assume a conceptual link between aggression and destruction (as in his talk of a "death instinct"). The point of ritualized aggression in, e.g., gorillas is jockeying for power and space; the instincts involved aren't directed at the death of the other party but at getting him/her to back off. Perhaps this suggests that at least some of the problems posed to peaceable living together on the part of human beings by aggressiveness could be alleviated by measures in town planning and architecture — literally giving people more space of their own.

Return to syllabus