The "cultural" sexual morality and modern nervousness

The "cultural" sexual morality and modern nervousness is an article published in 1908 by Sigmund Freud . It first appeared in the journal Sexual -problem , Vol. 4 (3), 1908d, pp. 107–129.

With reference to Christian von Ehrenfels ' distinction between cultural and natural sexual morality, Freud explains the aetiological significance of cultural sexual morality for the neurosis . Right from the start, Freud stated that cultural sexual morality can impose restrictions on the individual that lead to damage, which in turn threatens the culture as a whole. While v. Ehrenfels argued primarily on a social Darwinist basis by preventing virile selection during reproduction, Freud goes into more detail on the consequences of socially imposed suppression of the sex drive for the neurosis.

Culture is based on the renunciation of instincts. There is therefore a tension between the constitution, i. H. the desire and demands of culture to forego the fulfillment of instincts. Anyone who cannot meet these requirements is either a criminal or a pervert within society - namely if one does not bow to the renunciation of instincts - or takes refuge in neurosis - if the instincts are suppressed to the extent that a neurotic substitute satisfaction is developed. The neurosis is thus the negative counterpart to perversion , "because it contains the same tendencies as the positive perverts in the 'repressed' state." (P. 120)

The "perverse" parts of the sex drive are caused by a developmental disorder, explains Freud. Originally the sex drive was only there to gain pleasure and related not only to the genitals, but also to other erogenous zones, then autoerotism is averted through education until it becomes object love and finally the "primacy of the genitals placed in the service of reproduction" ( P. 118) is coming. Freud is one of the first to attribute no internal conflict to sexuality, but explains that tensions only arise through interaction with the outside world, with social norms, and that social repression of instincts leads to disease (repression thesis). The suppressed perverse instincts are ideally channeled through sublimation and made usable for cultural work. The sex drive in humans is aperiodic and detached from reproduction. Hence, it can be metonymically shifted and applied to other areas. Culture therefore greatly benefits - and is even dependent - on the sexual energy diverted through sublimation. A complete renunciation of instincts is therefore detrimental to culture, Freud states. Abstinence only produces “good weaklings” (p. 125), but not great thinkers with bold ideas. Freud uses it to describe the dilemma of culture, which at the same time demands the renunciation of instincts and yet needs the sexual instinct to maintain itself. The model of repression imposed by cultural sexual morality would therefore have to be abandoned in favor of a model of sublimation, displacement and distribution of sexual energies.

Individual references, comments

↑ Sigmund Freud, The “cultural” sexual morality and modern nervousness, in: Collected Works Vol. VII, Frankfurt a. M., Fischer 1999, pp. 141-167; and in: Das Unbehagen der Kultur, Frankfurt am Main, Fischer 2009, pp. 109–132.
↑ (However, Freud v. Ehrenfels does not contradict at this point and thus supports his social Darwinist model.)
↑ (At this point Freud goes into the gender-specific differences between neurosis and perversion and attributes the neurosis to the woman and the perversion to the man. This is justified with a weaker sex drive in women. (P. 121) However, Freud himself explains that the woman is subject to a stricter upbringing than the man, so that she has to be much more celibate than the man. Nevertheless, he interprets the woman's "weak sex drive" as a biological fact and not as a result of socialization.)
↑ See also Das Unbeagen in der Kultur , p. 64, Withdrawal of olfactory stimuli and the taboo of menstruation.
↑ Freud underscores this assertion with all sorts of comments on homosexuality and masturbation, both of which supposedly lead to impotence in marriage. (See p. 128ff)
↑ At this point there is a conflict with the goal of psychotherapeutic therapy: a perversion is actually supposed to be "cured", but at the same time the therapist is also aware that the perversion is fruitful for the culture.

[1] Sigmund Freud, The “cultural” sexual morality and modern nervousness, in: Collected Works Vol. VII, Frankfurt a. M., Fischer 1999, pp. 141-167; and in: Das Unbehagen der Kultur, Frankfurt am Main, Fischer 2009, pp. 109–132.

[test-2] (However, Freud v. Ehrenfels does not contradict at this point and thus supports his social Darwinist model.)

[3] (At this point Freud goes into the gender-specific differences between neurosis and perversion and attributes the neurosis to the woman and the perversion to the man. This is justified with a weaker sex drive in women. (P. 121) However, Freud himself explains that the woman is subject to a stricter upbringing than the man, so that she has to be much more celibate than the man. Nevertheless, he interprets the woman's "weak sex drive" as a biological fact and not as a result of socialization.)

[4] See also Das Unbeagen in der Kultur , p. 64, Withdrawal of olfactory stimuli and the taboo of menstruation.

[5] Freud underscores this assertion with all sorts of comments on homosexuality and masturbation, both of which supposedly lead to impotence in marriage. (See p. 128ff)

[6] At this point there is a conflict with the goal of psychotherapeutic therapy: a perversion is actually supposed to be "cured", but at the same time the therapist is also aware that the perversion is fruitful for the culture.