DESCRIPTION: In 1924, Freud described three forms of masochism. The most important of these does not require sexuality: moral masochism, for which suffering itself is the goal. What the term explains and why psychiatry abandoned it.

Masochism: Why we need suffering

Today, masochism is regarded as a preference for pain in the bedroom or as a label for people who allow themselves to be exploited. In 1924, Freud had something else in mind: moral masochism, in which suffering itself is the goal, without any eroticism and without a tormentor. This text traces the concept from Krafft-Ebing through Freud and Reik to its disappearance from psychiatric handbooks, and asks why it seems more relevant than ever in a performance-oriented society.

A term from sexual pathology

The term was coined by the psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in 1886 in *Psychopathia sexualis*. He named the inclination after the writer Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, whose novella *Venus in Furs* (1870) depicts a man who contractually submits himself to a woman. The term thus originates from 19th-century sexual pathology and, from the outset, carried with it the implication of being a pathological condition.

Freud adopted the word and expanded upon it. In *Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality* (1905), masochism is presented as a variant of sexuality alongside sadism. It was not until 1924 that he made it a central concept of his overall theory.

What forms of masochism are there? Freud 1924

In *The Economic Problem of Masochism*, Freud distinguishes between erogenous, feminine and moral masochism. Erogenous masochism – the pleasure derived from pain – underlies the other two forms, in his view, and has biological and constitutional roots. According to Freud, feminine masochism encompasses fantasies of being gagged, bound, beaten, soiled or humiliated. Freud describes these in relation to men, to whom he confines his analysis ‘for reasons of material’, and interprets them as a desire to be treated like a small, helpless child. (Contemporary research no longer upholds the link to a ‘feminine being’.)

Freud refers to the third form as a ‘norm of behaviour’. The remainder of this text is devoted to it.

It is the suffering itself that matters

According to Freud, moral masochism has loosened its connection to sexuality. In erotic masochism, the pain comes from a loved one and is endured at their behest. This condition is absent in moral masochism. Freud writes: ‘Suffering itself is what matters; whether it is inflicted by a loved one or an indifferent person is irrelevant; it may even be caused by impersonal forces or circumstances; the true masochist always turns the other cheek wherever he stands a chance of being struck.’

Freud draws clinical evidence from his own practice. He describes patients whose neurosis defies all therapeutic efforts and disappears when they ‘find themselves in the misery of an unhappy marriage’, lose their fortune or contract a life-threatening illness. One form of suffering has then been replaced by another. Freud concludes: ‘… the only thing that mattered was being able to maintain a certain level of suffering.’ The neurosis held a reserve of suffering in store, and misfortune took its place.

From a sense of guilt to a need for punishment

Freud explains this behaviour with an unconscious sense of guilt. His patients are unaware of this; they feel no pangs of conscience and deny any guilt. For this reason, Freud avoids the word ‘guilt’ and speaks instead of a ‘need for punishment’. What is meant is a need to be punished, which manifests itself in failure, self-harm and misfortune, without the person concerned feeling any guilt.

Behind this lies the superego. According to Freud, it is the heir to the Oedipus complex and retains the strictness of the introjected parental figures. In moral masochism, the ego itself seeks punishment, whether from the superego or from external parental authorities. Freud calls this a complementarity: the sadism of the superego and the masochism of the ego ‘complement one another and combine to bring about the same consequences’.

Freud cites fate as the final figure in the series of parental figures. According to Freud, anyone who demands punishment from fate must act inappropriately, work against their own interests, ruin their prospects and, in the extreme, destroy their own existence. Where a person squanders their good fortune at every opportunity and speaks of bad luck, the psychoanalytic interpretation sees fate as a substitute for the punitive parental figure.

Why the conscience grows with self-denial

Freud’s most surprising idea concerns the relationship between morality and aggression. One would expect a person who avoids aggression towards others to have a clear conscience. Freud reverses the order: the first renunciation of instinctual drives is imposed from outside, and it is this that creates the morality which demands further renunciation of instinctual drives. The conscience therefore becomes ‘all the more severe and sensitive’ the more a person refrains from aggression towards others. The aggression turns against one’s own ego.

Moral masochism thus becomes, for Freud, the ‘classic example’ of the intermingling of drives, of the interplay between the life instinct and the death instinct. Anyone who does not subscribe to Freud’s theory of the death instinct may dissociate themselves from this observation. It stands on its own as a description: a culture that prohibits outward violence increases the violence that a person directs against themselves.

Freud thereby traces morality back to sexuality. Conscience arose through the desexualisation of the Oedipus complex. Moral masochism re-sexualises it and revives the Oedipus complex. According to Freud, this happens ‘neither to the benefit of morality nor of the individual’.

Reik: Victory through Defeat

The psychoanalyst Theodor Reik shifts the emphasis in *From Suffering to Joy* (1940; English edition *Masochism in Modern Man*, 1941). For Reik, suffering serves a purpose: those who are humiliated hope that the humiliation will later prove them right. Reik calls this ‘victory through defeat’. According to Johannes Vorlaufer, who applies Reik’s ideas to social work, this line of thought follows four steps. An affront occurs. The imagination transforms the injustice into proof of the unrecognised value. A subsequent rehabilitation is anticipated, in which the very people who despised the victim come to recognise their qualities. And the suffering itself paves the way for this triumph.

In this way, Reik explains what Freud leaves open: how does punishment become a value? Suffering takes on the function of a down payment towards future recognition. There need be no conscious awareness of this. The sufferer experiences bitterness, shame and despair. Satisfaction lies in the feeling of moral superiority and in the anticipation of triumph. Over time, the suffering itself takes centre stage, and the triumph remains a distant hint.

The meritocracy as a stage for suffering

Moral masochism describes an attitude that modern work-oriented societies reward. It demands self-denial, self-discipline and sustained performance, whilst prohibiting overt aggression. According to Freud’s logic, it is precisely this constellation that creates a strict inner judge. Byung-Chul Han described the consequence in *The Society of Fatigue* (2010) as ‘ ’ self-exploitation: the driving force lies within, and the victim is simultaneously the perpetrator.

A study from the field of consumer research supports this observation. In 2017, Silvia Bellezza, Neeru Paharia and Anat Keinan examined in the *Journal of Consumer Research* when being busy and a lack of leisure time become status symbols. People with a full diary are regarded there as competent, ambitious and in demand on the labour market. The authors compare North America and Europe and show that the effect depends on the culture. In the former, a full diary is regarded as a stronger status symbol than in the latter.

Anyone who says they ‘have no time’, presents their lack of sleep as a sacrifice and displays exhaustion as a badge of honour, provides evidence in the sense described by Reich. This suffering attests to one’s worth. Self-help literature interprets such behaviour as a problem of time management. The psychoanalytic interpretation sees it as the satisfaction of a need for punishment, which has inscribed its demand into the diary. How the wellness industry capitalises on this wear and tear is discussed in the text on silent burnout.

Psychiatry and the missing object

Psychiatry has never treated moral masochism as a subject in its own right. For the DSM-III-R (1987), a ‘masochistic personality disorder’ was proposed and included in the appendix of categories requiring further examination under the name ‘self-defeating personality disorder’. This referred to a pattern whereby people find themselves in disappointing situations, reject help, respond to success with guilt or depression, and sacrifice themselves without anyone asking them to. Five out of eight criteria were deemed sufficient.

Opposition arose quickly, particularly from women. The psychologist Paula Caplan argued in *The Myth of Women’s Masochism* (1985) that such categories reduce female conformity and the consequences of violence to a personality disorder. Judith Herman demonstrated in *Trauma and Recovery* (1992) that the behaviour of abused people can be understood as a survival strategy and does not constitute a personality disorder. Furthermore, the diagnosis overlapped with borderline, avoidant and dependent personality disorders. It is absent from the DSM-IV (1994). Psychiatry has thus removed a problematic category – and the subject matter along with it: the question of why people cling to their own suffering no longer features in any manual.

Is masochism an illness?

The second strand involves moving away from the pathologisation of erotic masochism. The DSM-5 distinguishes between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder, and diagnoses the disorder only where there is psychological distress or impairment. The ICD-11 no longer classifies consensual sadomasochism and BDSM as disorders. Both approaches are correct. Anyone who seeks pain consensually does not deserve a diagnosis.

With this correction, however, the term has been reduced to a mere preference. In everyday usage, masochism is now confined to the bedroom, whilst ‘moral masochism’—which requires no contract, no partner and no eroticism—falls outside the scope of the term. It takes place in the office, within the family and in the diary. The psychoanalytic description has no counterpart in the present day.

Where interpretation ends

Suffering does not prove masochism. Those who endure injustice, sacrifice themselves or find meaning in suffering do not automatically act out of a need for punishment. Interpretation requires consideration of the individual case and the question of what function the suffering serves within the psychological dynamic. It would be equally wrong to equate unconscious gratification with a conscious intention. The perpetrators are responsible for the violence suffered. Reik’s fantasy of triumph provides no grounds for accusing those who suffer of manipulation or a hidden thirst for power. Moral masochism refers to an attachment to one’s own suffering.

Key points in brief

•            The term ‘masochism’ was coined by Krafft-Ebing (1886) and named after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

•            In 1924, Freud distinguished between erogenous, feminine and moral masochism. In the case of moral masochism, ‘the suffering itself is what matters’.

•            It is based on an unconscious sense of guilt, which Freud calls the ‘need for punishment’. The sadism of the superego and the masochism of the ego complement one another.

•            The more a person avoids aggression towards others, the stricter their conscience becomes. The aggression is turned inwards.

•            Reik adds defeat to victory: suffering sustains the hope of future recognition.

•            Meritocracy rewards exhaustion as a sign of worth and encounters this dynamic there.

•            Psychiatry has once again removed the ‘self-harming personality disorder’ (DSM-III-R, 1987) from its list. It is true that consensual masochism is not an illness. In doing so, however, moral masochism was overlooked.

Sources

·        Freud, S. (1924): The Economic Problem of Masochism. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 10, 121–133. Text version: textlog.de

·        Freud, S. (1905): Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.

·        Krafft-Ebing, R. von (1886): Psychopathia sexualis.

·        Reik, T. (1940): From Suffering to Pleasure; English edition: Masochism in Modern Man (1941). Quoted from Vorlaufer (2013).

·        Vorlaufer, J. (2013): Premature Obedience. On a Moment of Social Masochism and the Task of Social Work. soziales-kapital.at

·        Han, B.-C. (2010): The Fatigued Society.

·        Bellezza, S., Paharia, N. & Keinan, A. (2017): Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 118–138.

·        Caplan, P. J. (1985): The Myth of Women’s Masochism. New York: Dutton.

·        Herman, J. L. (1992): Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.

·        Fuller, A. K. (2011): Masochistic Personality Disorder: A Diagnosis Under Consideration. Jefferson Journal of Psychiatry, 4(2).

·        Huprich, S. K., Zimmerman, M. A. & Chelminski, I. (2006): Should Self-Defeating Personality Disorder be revisited in the DSM? Journal of Personality Disorders, 20(4), 388–400.

·        American Psychiatric Association (1987): DSM-III-R, Appendix A. Ibid. (1994): DSM-IV.

Related

• The Superego: the inner authority that can never be satisfied

• Jouissance in Lacan: Why the Mind Clings to Its Own Suffering

• What is Hedonism? Definition, Consumption and the Neoliberal Obligation to Enjoyment

• Silent burnout, a new buzzword in the wellness industry, is a symptom of our performance-oriented society

• Shame and guilt: definitions, similarities and differences