SUBLIMATIVE REPRESSION: BACK TO FREUD, AWAY FROM MARCUSE

By Tom Kando

(Originally written and posted on 11/21/08)

Herbert Marcuse was one of the gurus of the Counterculture, one of the founders of the neo-Marxist, critical Frankfurter school of Sociology. Theodore Roszak has characterized Marcuse’s work as the integration of Marx and Freud. Indeed, one of Marcuse’s provocative - and in my view true - ideas, was his concept of repressive desublimation. Here is what Marcuse meant by this:
He observed the obvious fact that, by the 1960s, Modern capitalist society had become a highly hedonistic, sexualized, consumer society. The idea of Capitalism remained, as always, to produce and to sell a maximum amount of goods at maximum profit. While Capitalism’s objective thus remained unchanged, the duty of the populace did change: In the increasingly affluent West, the “proletariat’s” duty became more and more consumption rather than production. This was the Marxian element in the Marcusian synthesis.The second element was Freudian: Freud has shown that libido was the wellspring of human energy, manifesting itself either in the form of sex, or - if sublimated - in the form of “higher” social achievements. The interest of Capitalist society, so Marcuse showed, was in controlling and defusing this explosive energy through a process of repressive desublimation. That is, by promoting maximum sexual permissiveness, modern hedonistic society ceases to repress libido, and thus robs it of its explosive potential. As sex becomes more frequent, more random, more trivial, more banal, it is de-mystified and it becomes less dangerous. This is also the theme of Huxley’s Brave New World, where the regime demands that the masses engage in periodic orgies, so as to better control them.
This is what is meant by repressive desublimation - a concept which most definitely rings true.
* * * * *

However, it is now 2008, and Americans are having less and less sex, or at least they are frowning more and more on various forms of sex, and panicking more and more about some of its manifestations.
For example, back in the sixties, being “progressive” meant favoring the legalization of prostitution and pornography. Today, many progressives/feminists have turned 180 degrees, arguing that these things exploit women and that they should therefore be punished more harshly, let alone be legalized. There is also a growing panic about Internet sex crimes, sex between teachers and students, etc.

* * * * *
So what is happening?
First, the facts: Many surveys confirm the fact that Americans have become sexually much more conservative than they were one and two generations ago. By any operational measure: rate of virginity among high school graduates, number of sex partners in a given time period, etc.
Of course, there are plenty of reasonable-sounding explanations for this turn to the right. Foremost among them is the emergence of AIDS in the early 1980s, and the realization that Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are more dangerous than was believed earlier. The realization that free-for-all sex à la sixties is not without serious consequences.
Part of the new sexual conservatism is positive: Feminism has taught us respect for women’s wishes - What part of No don’t you understand? The sixties free-for-all was certainly more to the liking of men than women. Hippies were among the worst sexists.
Also a great step forward has been the unmasking of rampant pedophilia in some quarters, e.g. the Catholic clergy.
Thank God, too, that the world is becoming aware of and beginning to fight against the abominations of sex slavery and sex tourism in South east Asia and elsewhere.

However, the new sexual conservatism cannot be fully explained on rational grounds. The new Puritanism is deeper than a merely practical response to new medical realities and the new awareness of various forms of sexual exploitation. There is definitely a new wave of moral panic under way. For example, just a few months ago, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to make adultery a felony. Over in England, the government is proposing to increase the penalty for prostitution - both for the prostitute and for the John. In many jurisdictions, consensual sex between, say, an 18-yr old boy and his 17-yr old girlfriend is considered statutory rape, i.e. a felony. Censorship of pornography is on the rise, on the Internet, in waiting rooms and elsewhere. Long gone are the days when Playboy Magazine was available in dental, medical, legal and barbershop waiting rooms, and when prison cell walls were covered with Playboy centerfolds.
While much of this is being justified under “women’s rights” and “children’s rights,” does it make sense to classify prostitution in the same category as sex slavery, and to censor all pornography?

The question remains: why the current moral panic?
To answer this question, I have coined a new term: Sublimative Repression. What does this mean?
Well, it’s Marcuse in reverse. I go back to Freud - again in conjunction with Marx. I re-introduce Capitalism as the explanatory principle.

What has happened since the 1960s? Simply this: Americans have begun to suffer greater and greater economic hardship. There is globalization, there is the internal polarization of wealth due to a quarter century of Republican policies. Most Americans are no longer rich. They have to buckle up once again. Each year they have to work more, just to stay even. Dual and triple income households become the norm. The length of the work week grows. People retire later. Even the average amount of sleep people get has declined - from 8 to 7 ½ hours. Our standard of living declines. What is one to do? Work more. Increase productivity. Sublimate. Who has time or energy for sex?
We are back to Freud, back to square one. With one difference: The rhetoric: The new Puritanism masquerades under the guise of “progress.” Sure, there is the Christian Right. Its message never changes. But on the same side are now also all the oh-so-progressive feminists and humanists who argue that the Megan’s laws, the Jessica’s laws , the anti-pornography laws and the anti-prostitution laws are all part of a crusade against such evils as pedophilia, sex slavery and the exploitation of women.
The piling on of laws against various categories of sex offenders (and here I must be careful, lest I get accused of being an advocate for pedophiles) is more demagoguery by politicians than sound policy. Almost anyone can run the risk nowadays of being labeled a sex offender, and after that, being subjected to Megan’s Laws, Jessica’s Laws, etc. You must be registered on the Internet, before the entire world. You are forbidden from living within a certain radius of schools, playgrounds, etc, i.e. de facto you have no choice but to live in some remote rural area, you become unemployable, etc.
This has happened to a couple of my students at the University in recent years. One of them was a thirty-something father. One night, he drove his teen-age babysitter home, and he committed some verbal indiscretion. The girl reported this to her parents, criminal charges followed. Although the man avoided prison, he is now registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life and his job prospects and his entire future are in jeopardy.
In many jurisdictions, it is now common practice not just to arrest prostitutes and Johns, but to also confiscating their cars.

What seems to be happening here, is a moral panic in the service of an economy which has a stake in desexualizing society, so as to maximize productivity, as America finds itself in increasing competition with other countries, and can no longer afford a leisurely lifestyle.
In the past, the rhetoric justifying the de-sexualization of society was that of the Christian Right. Now that this rhetoric has lost traction with a majority of the people, the justification takes a different form, namely “progressive” notions like “the protection of victims” such as women and children. The function of this desexualization is to increase work and production - Marcuse in reverse.

© Tom Kando 2014

leave comment here