Chapter 2

Understanding the perverse state-of-mind
 

There are five points that will be consistently emphasised throughout this book. They are the basic indicators of a perverse state-of-mind.[1] Derived from a study of perversion in individuals, they will first be explored in terms of individuals, later to be extrapolated to a social level of analysis.

The five indicators are first listed in their bare essentials[2].

1.      The perverse state of mind is not simply a deviation from normative morality. It has to do with individual pleasure at the expense of a more general good, often to the extent of not recognising the existence of others or their rights. It reflects a state of primary narcissism[3].

2.      The perverse state of mind acknowledges reality, but at the same time, denies it. This leads to a state of fixed ideation and phantasy to protect against the pain of seeing and not seeing at the same time.

3.       The perverse state of mind engages others as accomplices in the perversion.

4.      The perverse state of mind may flourish where instrumental relations have dominance in the society. This is because instrumentality ignores the rights of others to have an independent existence. This in itself is abusive. The perverse state-of-mind turns a blind eye.

5.      Perversion begets perversion. Abusive cycles are hard to break. Corruption breeds corruption because of the complicity of the accomplices and their subsequent denial and self-deception.

Perversion in individual psychology

The established dynamics of perversion at an individual system level are explored in order to evaluate the relevance of perverse dynamics at a broader systemic level. Many of the points and issues raised in this examination will be extended in later parts of the book when the idea of perversion is applied to social and organizational dynamics. The discussion here will necessarily be somewhat technical in terms of clinical psychoanalytic descriptions. What I want to do is to give you, the reader, a sense of the clinical picture and its essential characteristics. This will give insight into the perverse state of mind of individuals, and insight into some of the issues that concern those who study perversity. To study the organisation 'as if' it had a mind, we can start to think about how a perverse state-of-mind might appear and operate.

The popular definition of perversity does not make as close a link to sexuality as do psychoanalytic definitions, but gives some insight into the state-of-mind considered by psychoanalysis. If we turn to the dictionary, perverse is noted as ' persistent in error; different from what is reasonable or required; wayward; peevish; perverted, wicked; against the weight of evidence'[4]. The perverse position is one of denial of reality (that is, against the weight of evidence), but denial of a reality that has been and continues to be encountered. That is, the perverse position is 'persistent in its error'.

So, let me examine our five points.

1. Individual Pleasure at the Expense of Others

First is the idea that perversion is not just a deviation from normality[5], but is about individual pleasure at the expense of others. I'll try to trace some of the thinking about perversion from its classical roots. In Freudian psychoanalysis, perversion in the individual is dynamically understood as a deviation in the sexual instinct from the normal aim of adult sexuality. Perverse forms of sexuality are understood as fixations at primitive stages of development[6] often together with the disengagement of the aggressive from the libidinal instincts so that the normal balance is disturbed. Prime examples are fetishism, sadomasochism, bestiality and pederasty. The sexual impulse is on the whole evident. The sexual object is inappropriate. The aim of adult mutuality is not present.[7]

This view stems from the Freudian thesis of polymorphous perverse infantile sexuality[8] that persists unchecked into adulthood. In this, there are similarities with narcissism, especially primary narcissism. A sense of being sufficient unto oneself is present. That is, all gratification comes from oneself. Others are incidental. In secondary narcissism (the type most popularly identified) the ego is loved ‘as an other’ That is, the psyche has achieved a distinction between self and other (ie, has acknowledged the social realm), although this distinction is turned onto the ego as self-love. Narcissus thought he saw an ‘other’ beautiful youth. His tragedy was that he did not know it was himself.

In perversion the ego is split. This is an outcome of the psychic defence to be explained later. It is not an entity with even the pretense of unity. It is not loved as an ‘other’ as in secondary narcissism. It is not loved as a whole. In this sense, there is no self love, but only the seeking of satisfaction. The situation is akin to primary narcissism – a position of self- sufficiency, where (at least in the perverse and fixed 'scenario'[9]) other goes unrecognized except as an extension of self[10]. Others become used and abused or taken as accomplices. Sublimation, that is, the capacity to transform egoistic pursuits into socio-centric endeavors, is not present. Perhaps it is not possible without repression. It is worth noting here that most writers who adopt the idea of a narcissistic society following Lasch tend to describe secondary rather than primary narcissism[11].

Modern terminology names the sexual perversions as 'paraphilias' marked by 'rigidity of the perverse pattern, the development of an idiosyncratic "scenario" linked to the particular perversion, and a remarkable inhibition of sexual fantasy and exploration outside the realm of this scenario'.[12] The persistent clinging to the chosen scenario is as much a defense against the anxieties associated with alternative fantasies as it is to the gaining of satisfaction. It also keeps the person fixed on a familiar pattern so that movement outward into new situations is avoided.

The characteristic of individual pleasure at the expense of others might be named as selfishness in everyday language, except that in the pathological state of perversion, self is not always present in the usual sense where self and other are understood as connected but opposing terms. The selfishness of the perverse position recognises others not so much as other selves, but as objects to be used. But, even this description is not fully correct, because the relation to others is more complex. The perverse position requires that others are objects yet at the same time it requires them to be subjects able to experience joy and to suffer. This seeming paradox will be visited later in this book. It involves acceptance and denial of the subjectivity of the other and is linked to the next characteristic of perversity.

2. Acceptance and Denial of Reality

The perverse state of mind acknowledges reality, but also denies it. Reality threatens self -interest or previous certainty. This may be a special case of the 'both / and' position. It promises the creativity of holding opposites in mind, but their connection is illusory. It offers also the destructivity of denying truth/reality and instituting parasitic relations with others.[13] This is the lure of the perverse.

Freud analysed this dynamic as achieved through splitting the ego so that both ‘a’ and ‘not a’ are believed.[14] In analysis this may manifest as the appearance of a 'reality' side and a perverse side to the personality.[15] That is, one side of the personality can see things for what they are and as others see them, but another side of the personality is locked in a delusion. This splitting into two parts that seem to exist independently of one another is a defense against fully accepting the reality. The deluded denying side can always claim its hold when reality is unacceptable. But also, the reality being avoided is felt to be complex and confusing. In particular, it challenges the person's accepted sense of reality and threatens them with the possibility that they initially had things wrong. Behind the splitting of the ego is the fear of being in a state of uncertainty and ‘not knowing’.

This dynamic can be seen in Freud’s original analysis of fetishism.[16], This analysis is generally regarded as prototypical of the perverse dynamic in general. Following Freud's descriptions of childrens' theories about sexuality,[17] he regards the fetish as a substitute for the mother’s (missing) penis – something the child believes in and despite the evidence of his senses refuses to give up. Disbelief would mean he was wrong in his (original) desired belief that mother really did have a penis. Freud sees the strength of this belief as due to the child's narcissistic attachment to his own penis. If the child was to accept beings without penises, the possibility that he might be deprived of his would come into being. Better then for our potential fetishist to stay with his previous misguided sense of reality than to accept this frightening possibility. Although this seems to pertain to the male child in this theory, Freud found that the female child also retains a belief in the female penis and the possibility of castration, and comes to believe that she has been castrated.[18] The explanation of the origin of the sexual fetish is then:

·        denial of the possibility of reality (mother not having a penis), and

·        retention of the phantasy of the mother with a penis (the phallic mother) and,

·        replacement of the phallus with the fetish.

Freud argues that the often encountered shoe fetishist is a result of the child's gaze dropping from the awful sight of the mothers penis-less genitals, to her feet.

Important for the argument here is a denial of the position of ‘not knowing’. The fetishist refuses the truth of sexual differentiation (which would imply the possibility of castration, given the infantile theory of one sex) and hence refuses the implication that his or her early childish theory of sexuality (ie, where both mother and father had a penis - a sign also of power) was wrong. This would imply that he / she in fact at one stage did not know (the truth of sexuality- at least as espoused by adults). This seems intolerable and the child narcissistically clings to an incorrect knowledge in the face of an unwanted truth. Driven by narcissism, knowledge remains the slave of desire rather than the companion of reality.