1' HE

BONDS

or

LOVE

50

ti o n in internal rhythms; later, there is alternation between the oneness

of harmonious attunement and the "two-ness" of disengagement.
But why has the dualistic view of the individual enjoyed plausibil
i ty for so long l Why docs the idea of the linear movemen t toward
separation, of the constructio n of the psyche in terms of the internali
zation of objects ring so true? Perhaps it is because this conception of
the individual refl ects a powerful experience- whose origins w e have
discov ered in the rapprochement conflict-the experience o f paradox
as painful, or e":,en intolerable. Perhaps, also, because of a co~tinuJng
fear that dependency on the other is a threat to independence, that
recognition of the other compromises the self. When the conflict
between dependence and independence becomes too intense, the psyche
gi v es up the paradox in favor of an opposition. Polarity, the conflict
~[ opposites, replaces the balance within the self. This polarity sets the
stage for defining the self in terms of a movement away from depen
dency.
It also sets the stage for dominatiC'n. Opposites can no longer be
integrated; one side is devalued. th e other id ealized (splittmg). In
this chapter we have concentrated on infancy, on the shifts in the
balance of assertion and recognition at the earliest moments in the
self-other relationship. We have seen how a crisis arises as differentia
tion proceeds and recognition of otherness con fron ts the self with a
momentous paradox. In the following chapters we shall analyze how
this inability to sustain the tension of paradox manifests itself in all
forms of domination, and why this occurs.
W e shall begin by following the breakdo wn of tension into its adult
form. erotic domination and submission.

r,:>/),J

.{n

(/t'; .O )

CH

PTEI~

\~

M_a s t e r and

S l ave

TH E POST-fR E U DIA N w orld it is commnn

place to assum e that the foundati ons of ero tic life lie in
infancy. This means that adult sex u al love is not onh'
shaped by th e t'vents datin g from th at perio d o f intense
intimacy and dependency, it i~ also an o ppo rtun ity to
reenact and work out the conflicts th at began there.
Where the site of control and abandon is [h(' bod the
demands of the infa nt se lf arc most v isi b le-and so i ~ rh,
shift from differentiation to domi nation. In sadNnaso-
IN

r.

IH 12

BONOS OF LOVE

52

chisric fantasies and relationships we can discern th e "pure culture" of

domination-a dynamic which organizes both domination and sub
mission.
The fantasy of erotic domlllation embodies both the desire for
independence and the desire for recog nition. This inquiry intends to
ullderstand the process of alienation whereby these desires are trans
formed into ero tic violence and submission. What we shall see, espe
cially in voluntary submissioil to erotic domination, is a paradox in
which the individual tries t~ achi eve fre edom through slavery, r~lease
through submission to control. Once we understand submission to be
the destT!' of the dominated as well as their helpless fate, we may hope
to answer the central ques tion, How is domination anchored in the
h eartS of those who subm i t to it t
DOMINATION AND DIFFERENTIATION

Domination begins with the attempt to deny dependency . No one can

-truly extricate himself from dependency on others, from the need for
recognition . In the first relationship of dependency, between child and
parent, this is an especially painful and paradoxical lesson. A child must
come to terms with the fact that he docs not magicall y control the
m other, and that what she d ocs for him is subject to her, not his, will.
The paradox is that the child not only needs to achieve independence,
but he must be recognized as independent-by the very people o n
whom he has been most dependent.
As we have seen in chapter 1, much can go amiss at this point. If,
for exampl e, the child is unable to relinquish the fantasy of omnipo
tence, he may be tempted to beli eve that he can become independent
without recognizing the other person. ("1 will continue to beli eve that
mother is my servant, a genie who fulfIlls my wishes and does as I
command, an extension of my will"). The child may be tempted to
believe that the other person is not separate. ("She belongs to me, I
control and possess her.") In short, he fails to confront his own
dependency o n someone outside himself. Alternativel y, the child may

53

M a ~ ter

an d SI ave

continue to see the mother as all-powerful, and h im self as hel p less. In

this case, th e apparent acceptance of dependency masks th e cRo rt to
retain control by remai ning connected to the m o ther (" I am good a nd
powerful because I am exactly like my good and po we rfu l m other
wishes me to be"). This child d oes not believe he will ever ?;ain
recognition for his o wn independent se lf. and so he de DIC'S th,lt self.
In m y discussion of infancy, I ha ve already demo nsrratl,d th at th e
balance ulirhin the self depends upon mutual reco gniti on /11'(1/1('("1/ sci
and other. And mutual recogniti o n is perhaps the mo ~ t v ul nera ble
point in the process of differentiatio n. In Heg el's not io n ()f rccl)g ni
tion, the self requires the opportuniry to act and ha ve :m effcct on th'
other to affirm his existence. In order to ex ist for oneself. nne has to
exist for an o ther. It w ould seem there is 110 way out o f this depen
dency. If I destroy the other, there is no o lle to recogDl 7c Ill e. fo r it
I allow him no ind ependent consciousness, I beco m e cnl1l es heJ WIth
a dead, not-conscious bein g . If th e other denie s me recogniti o n. m y
acts have no meaning; if he is so far abo ve me that nNh ing I do C:1n
alter his attitude toward me, 1 can only submit. My desire an d age ncy
can fmd no outlet, except in the form o f obedience.
We might call this the dialectic of control : If I comp lerl.'ly w ntro l
the other, then the other ceases to exist, and if the other com ple t ely
controls me, then I cease to ex ist. A conditi o n of our own in dcp enJ enl
existence is recog nizing the other. Tru e indepen de n ce means sllsraifli np
the essential tension of these contradictory impulses; that is. bott
asserting the self and recognizing the o th er. D o mination is the conse
quence of refusing this condition.
In mutual recognition the subject accepts the premise that Nhcrs an
separate but nonetheless sh are like fe elings and intention s. T he subjec
is compensated for his loss of sovere ignty by the pl eas ure o f shar ing
the communion with another sl1 ~iec t. But for H egel , :I S for Freu d, tht
breakdown of essential tension is inevitable . T h e h ypothetical scI
presented by Hegel and Freud does not Illallt to recogn ize th e oche
does not perceive him as a person just like himse lf. H e gives ul
omnipotence only w hen he has no o ther ch o ice. H is need for eh

THE B OND S OF LO VE

S4

other-in Freud, physiological, in Hegel, existential-seems to place

him in th e other's power, as if dependency were the equivalent of
surrender. When th e subject abandons the project of absolute indepen
dence or control, he docs so unwillingly, with a persistent, if uncon
scio us , wish to fulfill the old omnipotence fantasy.! This is a far cry
from actually appreciating the other as a being in his or her own right.
Since the subject cannot accept his dependency on someone he
cannot contro l, the solution is to subjugate and enslave the other- to
make him give that recognition 'v~.iooth o ut recognizing him in return.
The primary consequence of the mabili ty to recon cile d ependence wi th
independence, then, is the transform atio n of need for the o th er into
domination of him.
For Freud and Hegel this is precisely what hap pens in the "state of
nat ure. " In Freud's terms, aggression and th e des ire for mastery
necessary derivatives of the death instinct- are part of our natur e.
Without the restraint of civilization , whoever is more powerful will
subjugate the other. The wish to restor e early omnipotence, or to
realize the fantasy of control, never ceases to motivate the individual.
In H egel's terms, self-conscio usness wants to be absolute. It wants to
be r ecognized by the other in order to place itself in the world and
make itself the whole world. The I wants to prove itself at the expense
of the other; it wants to think itself the only one; it abjures depen
dency. Since each self raises the same claim, the two must struggle to
the death for recognition. For Hegel this struggle does no t culminate
in the survival of each for th e other, in mutual recognition. Rather,
the stron g er makes the other his slave.
But this viewpoint would imply that submission is simply the hard
lot of the w eak. 2 And ind eed, the qu estion of why the oppressed
submit is never fully explained. Yet the question of submission is
implicitly raised by Hegel and Freud, who see that the slave must grant
power of recognition to the master. To understand this side of the
relationship of domination, we must turn to an account written from
the point of view of one who submi ts .

55

M a !>HT :11\(1

:::.1 :I"C

T HE FANTASY OF EROTIC DOM I NATI ON

Sadomasochistic fantasy , the m ost comm on for m of cr\ltic dl1mination,

replicates quit e faithfully the them es of th e m aster- slave rcl.ltionship.
H e re subjugation tak es the fo rm of transg ress ing agall1 l, t the 0t h cr 's
bo dy, violating hi s physical bound ari es. The ::Ict o f vi o lan on of the
body becomes a way of representin g th e struggle to th, death for
re cog nition. Ri tua l vi o lat ion is a form uf ri sk ing the pwch n]ogi ca l.
if not the phy sical, self.
I have based my anal ysis of sadomasoch istic fanta sy (In a sing le.
powerful study of the erotic imagination , P auli ne Rb gc\ '{(If), 0( O.
Reage \ talc is a web in which th e issues of de pen den cy and dnl1lin :uinl1
are in cxtriC:lbly intertwined, in which the conAi c[ betw (,(oll rh e d c~ ir ('
for autonomy and the desire fo r reco ~ n itl cm can on ly be rc~o l ved by
total nonunciation of self. It illustrates power fu lly th e p rinc iple t hat
the root of dom mation lies in the breakd o w n of tensio n between ~('H
and other.
Perhaps th e greatest objection to this w ork by fem inis h has beer
direct ed against its depiction of O 's voluntar y submissiono For th em
the account of O's masochi sm is no t an ::d legor y o f the des ire f Oi
recognition, but simply the story of a v ict imized w om :11l . too wea1
or brainwashed or hop eless to resist her deg rad atio n.' Such a vie\'\r po in
cannot, o f course , explain \-v hat satisf.l.ction is sough t and foun d il
submission, what psycholog ical mo ti vations lead to opp ressi0n. humJi
iation, and subservience. It deni es the unp leasa nt [act that peop le rcal l'
do consent to relationships of domin ation, and that fantasies o f domi
nation play a v igo rous part in the m ental liv es o f man y wh0 do nc
actually do so.
Story of 0 confronts us bo ldl y with the idea that people oftt'
submit no t merely out of fear, bu t in comp li city Wi th their ow
deepest desires. Told from the POlDt of v iew o f the W0man wh
submits, and representing, as it docs, (he fan tasy lif e o f a gi fted woma
writer,4 the sto ry compels the rcader to accept the authenticity elf lh

T HE B ONOS OF I OVr

S6

d e si re for submIssion. But the narrative also makes clear that the desire
fo r submissio n represents a peculiar transposition of the de Sire for
recognition . O's ph y sical humiliati on and abu se represent a search for
an elusive sp iritual or psychol ()gica l satisfaction. Her maso chism is a
search for recognition throu gh an other who is powerful enough to
b estoW thi s recogniti on. This other has the power for which the self
lo ngs, and thro ugh his recognition she gains it, though vicariously.
At th e begi nnin g of Story of OJ the heroine is, without w arning,
brough t by her love r to Roissy Castl e, an estab lish m ent organized by
m en for the ritua l violation and su~jl1gati o n of women. There she is
g i ven spcci fic in structi ons:
Y o u arc here to serve your masters.... At the first word or sign
fr om anyo ne YO ll w ill drop wh atever you arc doin g and ready
i o ursel f for what is rea lly your one and only duty:
to lend
yo urself Your hands are not your own, nor arc yo ur breasts, no r
m ost especially , any of your orifices, wh ich we m ay explore or
penetr:lte at w ill. . . . You hav e lost all rig ht to pri vacy or
concealment ... you n11)st never look any of us in the face. If
th e cos tum e w e wear ... leaves o ur sex exposed, it is not for
th e sake of conve ni elYt .. but for the sake of insolence, so your
eyes will be directed there upon it and nowhere else so that you
may learn that there resid( ,o your maste r. . . . [Your] be ing
w hipped . .. is less for o ur pleasure than for your enlightenment.
... Both thi s flo ggi ng an d the chain attached to th e ring of yo ur
collar .. . are intended less to make you suffer, scr eam or shed
tears than to make yo u feel, through this sufferin g, that you are
n ot fr ee but fettered, and to teach you that you ar e totally
dedicated to som ething o utside yourself.>
A g reat deal is contained in these several lines. First, 0 is to lose all
subjectivity, all possibility of using her body for action; she is to be
merel y a th in g. Second, she is to be continu all y violated, even when

57

J\1:lQl'r an d SI:w,

she is not actuall y bein g used. T he ma in tran sg ression o f hl'f hlllilld 3rie
consis ts o f her hav in g to he alway\ ;w aihbk and 0pcn . ' I hHll. he
masters are to be recognized by her In an ind irec t !'urll1 . r he pel1l
represents their desire, and throu g h thi s indi recr r e l.1f e~llll<1ti\ll1 the::
will maintain th eir sovereig nty . Bv interposin g it bel \\'l'C n her anc
them th ey establish a subjectiv ity th at is distan ced, inde pen dcnt ('If hl'
recogni tion. Ind eed , they claim tha t th eir ab u \e of hlT i, ll1() rc t~)r he
"en li ghtenment" than their pleasurl. so rh:H even in u , i n~ hn tlll'V d(
no t a ppe:J r to need h er. Th eir acts arC" carefull y contwlkll: l"ICh Jet h;l
a goal that expresses th eir rational in ten tions. Thei r sad l\[I(' rlca<;llr
cons ists not in direct enj oyment of her pain . bu t in lhC" kJ1()\\' 1cd ~c n
theIr p o wer over her- the fac t tin t their p o we r is vi,iblc. that It i
man ifested by outward si gns, that it icav<:s ma rks.
W hy must th ey fm d enj oyment mo re in the ir c\)IllIl1:l1ld t h all 111 llt'
se rvice, and why must it b e distanced, that is, sy m bolized hy the pcni<
Because in order to maintain th eir separate subj ec tivity , the y rnll!
scrupulou sly deny th e ir depend ency on he r. O tl ((?rwi"l' the\' \\iml
suffer the fa te of H egel's m aste r, who, in bc cmm ng depe ndent nn h
slave , gradu all y lo ses subycti v ity to him. A fur ther d:tll ~c r for t\
master is that the subject always beco meo; th e obj ect he consumes. 13
nega ti ng her will, th ey turn he r into an o bj ec t. An d whcn her o~it'(
tifl catio n is complete, when she ha~ no more w il L they C.1ll no long!
usc her without becomin g fdled w .i th her thing-lik e na tu re. '\ hu~ the
must pe rform their violation rati 0 na lly and ri tu a ll y in ord er W lllalT
tain their boun da rie s and to make he r will- n ot only her bndy-d
obj ect of their will.
Finally, the symbolization of male master y th roug h the Pelll~ m
pbasizes the difference betw een them and h er. It si gni fle_\ the demal,
co m m o nality that gives them the ri g ht to v iolate her. Each act tI
master takes against 0 estab lishes his separateness, his dil1erellcc fro
her. H e continually places him self o u tside her by say in g, in effect,
am no t you." The rational fu nctio n (calcula tio n, o bjc((lviry, 31
co ntro l) is linked to [his d j ~tance . T he pen is sy mbolize~ the rn.IStc'

- H E BONDS OF L O V I

58

resistance to bell1 g absorbed b y th e thing he is controlling: ho wever

interdependent the master and slave may become, the difference be
tween them w ill be sustained.
The story is driven forward by th e dialectIC of contro!' Since a slave
who is completely dominated loses th e guality of being able to give
recognition, the stru ggle to p ossess her ITlUst be prolonged. 0 must be
enslaved piece by piece; new levels of resistance must be found, so that
she can b e vanquished anew-- She must acquiesce in ever deeper
humiliation , pain, and bondage, and she must will her submission ever
aneW, each time her masters ask her, "0, do you cnnsent?" The
narrative moves throu gh thes e ever deeper levels of submission , tracing
the impact of each fresh ne ga tion of her will, each new defeat of her
re >iscance.
The culmination of th e dialectic, the point when 0 has submitted
and R ene, her love r, ha s exhausted the possibil it ies o f violating her,
would, logicall y , present a narrative problem. But before the problem
can arise, before Rene becomes bored with 0' s submission and she is
used IIp and discard ed, a new sour ce of tension is introduced. One da y
Rene presen ts 0 to Sir Stephen, hi s older (a nd more powerful) step
brother, to whom she is to be "given." Unlike R e ne, Sir Stephen d oes
not love O. H e is desc ribed as having a "will of icc and iro n, which
would not be svvayed b y desire," and he demands that she obey him
without loving him, and without his loving her. 6 Yet this more
complete surrender of her p erson and acceptance of her object status
further arouses O 's desire, makes her wish to matter in some way, to
"exist for him." Sir Stephen fmds new ways of intensifying O's
bondage: he employs her to entice another woman; he sends her to
another castle , Samois, where 0 will abuse and be abused by other
women; and he makes her "more interesting" by having her branded
and her anlls enlarged. These measures make Sit Stephen's form of
mastery even more rati onal, c;alculating, and self-controlled than
Rent s -more fully independent of his slave.
Furth ermo re, th e fact that Rene lo oks up to Sir Stephen as to a
father suggests that he is the loved authority not only for 0, but also

59

taslc r and SI;,,;('

fo r R ene. He is the person in v.r hose eyes Rene wants t o b e rccngn izcd;
g iving Sir Stephm his lover is a form of "obeisance." and Ren e is
obvilusly "pleased th at [Si r Stephen] d eig ned to u k e ple :l~u r(' ill
something he had given him." Ind eeel, 0 rea lizes t h~t th L' t\\.(1 m en
share something "mysterio us . .. m ore acute, m o r e int ense than amt'l
rous communion" from which she is excl uded, even t h ou~h , he i-; th e
m edium for it. R ene's del1v cry of 0 to Si r Step h en 1-" a way of
surrendering himself sexually to the mo re powe rful m an. "Wh:lt each
of them would look for in her would be the o ther' s m ark. the trace
of the other's passage." Indeed, for R ene . Sir Step hen 's pmsC's~i () n ot
o sanctifJes her, leavin g " th e mark o f a god." 7
R ene's relationsh ip with Sir Stephen calls fo r a rcinrcrp H'rarinn ("If
the story up to this po int: \ve now ~ec th at the ol-:j cctiflcnioll of the
woman is inspired bo th by the need to :1ssc rr d iffere nce fro m her, ;l nd
by th e desire to gain prestige in th e fathers ey es. T hu s R ene bL'gin~
to relinquish his love for 0, the tend e r and compassio n ate idl,nt ifi ca
tion that moved him wh en she fmt surrend ered, ro r the sake (~ f hi!
identifIcation and alliance with the father. W e mtght say that rhe d esi re
for recog ni tio n by the father wholly overtakes the love o f the mo t he
it becomes anoth er moti ve for domination. (This shift in alleg ian ce
shows how the roo ts o f do mination li e not on ly in th e p n:(~c di pa
drama of moth er and child, but al so in the ()ed ipal tri;1 d. :lS ch aptc1
4 will discu ss in detail) . O's unimportance to eithe r m an by compJ.ri.
so n with their bond to each other be comes a furt her :lSpcct (If hel
humiliati o n and negation.
D espite the narrative's attempt to create mo re dram atic tension. thl
story eventually becomes heav y with O's inexo rab le loss of subJcctiv.
ity. Playing the complementary part to her maste rs, 0 relin quishes al
sense of difference and separateness in o rder to remain- a t ;d l costs
connected to them. O's d eepest fears of abandon m ent an d scpararl0J
emerge as h er tie to Rene is gradually disso lved by h er bondage c(
Sir Stephen . Briefly left al one , sh e beg ins to bel icv" she has lost Rene'
love; she feels that her li fe is abst,l u tely void. She thin ks, paraphras in!
a Protestant text she had seen as a child, "It is a fearful thing to b,

TflE BOND S OF l.OV E

GO

cast out of the hands of the living God." 0 is the lost soul who can
only be restored to grace by putting herself in th e hands of th e ideal,
omnipotent other.
As the story continues, 0 's d es ire fo r connecti on increasin gly as
sumes the sy mbo lic and ritllal character of a devotion: now it is her
task to live according to her new lover's will, to serve him whether
he is present or not. H er lover is like a god,-and her need for him can
o nly be sa tisfIed by o bedi ence, which allows her to transcend herself
by becoming an instrument of his supreme will. In this way, O's Story,
with its th emes of de vo tion and transcendence, is suggestiv e of th e
surrender of the saints. T he torture and outrage to which she submi ts
is a kind o f martyrdom, seeming "to her th e very red emption of her
sins." 8 O's gre at lo ng in g is to be knol/JIl, and in this respect she is lik e
anv lover, for the secret of love is to be known as oneself. But her
de~ire to be know n is like that of the sinner who wants to be known
by God. Sir Stephen thrills her because he know s her instantly; he
knows her to be bad, want o n, revelin g in her debasement. However,
this knowin g can only go so far, because there is progressivel y less of
o th e subject left to be known.
Story of 0 concl udcs with a note that proposes two possible endin gs
to the story. In the flfSt, Sir Stephen returns 0 to R o issy and abandons
her there. In the second, 0, "seein g that Sir Stephen was about to leave
her, said she vvo uld prefe r to die. Sir Stephen gave her hi s consent."
This is her fmal gesture of hero ism, her last opportunity to express her
lover's will. The gesture is in keepin g with O's paradoxical hope that
in complete surrender she will fmd her elusive self. For this hope is
th e other sid e of O's devotional servitude: in perfor min g the tasks her
masters se t her, 0 seeks affirmati on of herself. 0 is actually willing
to risk compl ete annihilation of her person in o rder to continue to be
the obj ect of her lo ver's desire-tO be recognized.
O's fear of loss and abandonment points to an important aspect of
the questi on of pain . The problem of masochism has been oversimpli
fIed ever since Freud's paradoxical assertion that the masochist takes
pleasure in pain. 9 But current psychoanalytic th eory appreciates that

61

\':J~((~ I"

amI <; Ia,c

pain is a route to pleasure only w hen it involves ~ ub m i~ sl() n to an

idealized figure. As 0 d emonstrat es, th e m asoch is t's pleasu re can not be
un derstood as a di rect, unmediated e njovment o f p ai n: " She liked rhe
idea of to rtur e, but when she w as bei ng tort ured herse lf she w oul
have betrayed the whole worl d to escape it, and yet w hen it was over
she was happy to have go ne through it." ln The pain o f v lo hti o n serves
to protect the sc!f b y substituting ph ysical pain for the psy ch ic p3 in
of loss and abandonment. In bein g hurt b y the' nthC'[, 0 fcc ls ~hc is
being reached. she is abl e to ex perience ano the r li v in g presen ce.~' O's
pleasure, so to speak, li es in her sense of h e r ow n su rv ival .:tl1 d her
connection to her powerful lover. Thus as lon g as () can tr.11l<;po5e her
fea r o f loss into submissio n, as lo ng as she remaim the (\l~l ccr and
manifestati o n of his pow er, she is safe.
Th e experience of pain has yet anoth er dim e mion. In Fre' ud\ t l'f l1lS.
p ain is the po int at w hich stimuli become to o intemc for th e bud)" or
ego to bear. Conversely, pl easure requires a certain contwl o r m aste ry
of stimuli. Thus Fr eu d suggested that the er oti za ti o n of pai n a l lC'w~
a se nse of mastery b y conve rting pain into pleasure.!! Bu t thi s is tr ue
only for the master: O 's loss of ,elf is his ga in, O's pain is /11.1 pl eas ure.
Fo r th e sla ve, intense pain ca uses th e vio lent rupture o f the sel f. d
profound ex peri ence of fragmentation and ch aos. I , It\ tr ll e th ar 0
no w welc om es this lo ss of se lf-coh eren ce, but o nl y under a specifI C
condition: that her sacrifIce actually creates t he master's power , pro
duces his coherent self, in which she can ta ke refuge. T hus in lnsin g
her own self, she is gaining access, howe ver circumscribed. to a morc
powerful o ne.

*As Masud Khan has pointed ou t, Freud la cked a rn nceptlOn ()f p~y (hi l p.lIn . ,In,'f Jl
is th e pro pert y of the self, fo r which he ~ l ~o lacked a wn cepr. Kha n d i\cm\cI rhe
importan ce of fmding a witness for one's psyc hic p ai n , a w irnc,sml' rh .ll" .tllow<. the
person to achieve a deep sense of self. H e also deSCrIbes th e ca~e Or.1 wuman t(lr whom
the immcrs io n in a compelJin g sad om asoc hi stic relations hip seemed [(\ be th e .llr('rn~ttvc
to p~ y chi c breakdown . Thi s fo rm
palO substit uted for a del' p deprcs,ioll t.;l,..d on vfry
early abandonm ent and 10SS . 11

or

THE BON DS O F LOVE

62

The rel ationship o f domination is asymmetrica l. It can be reve rsed ,

as '\l\Th en 0 tak es on th e role of torturer, but it can never become
recipr oca l or eq ual. Id entification pl ays an important part in this
reversible relati onship, but always with the stipulati on that th e m aso
chist gains her id entity thro ug h the maste r's power, even as he actively
negates his identity with her. Inflictin g pain is the master' s way of
maintai nin g his separa te identity. In her pain, O's b ody "moves" her
masters, but ch ie fl y because it displays the marks they have left. Of
course, their "emotion" is always checked, and is finall y diminished
as she becomes increasingly a dehumanized object, as her thing-like
nature makes her pain mute. N one thel ess, her submission to their will
embodies th e ultimate recogn ition of their power. Submission becomes
the "pure" form of recog nition, even as violation b ecomes the "pure"
form of assertion. The asse rtion of one individu al (the master) is
transformed into domination; the other's (the slav e's) reco gnition
becomes submission. Thus the basic tension of forces within the in di
vid ual beco mes a dynamic h('twfm indi vid uals.

DOMTNATION , DEATH, AND DISCONTENT

Th e relati onship of domination is fue led by th e sam e desire fo r recog

nition that w e find in lov e- but wh y does it takes this form? E ve n
if we accep t th at 0 is seekin g recogn iti o n, we still want to know why
her search culminates in subm ission, in stead of in a relationship o f
mutuali ty. Why this com plementar ity between the all-powerful and
the p0werless instead of the equal power of tw o subj ects?
W e alread y h ave some sense of how Freud and H egel have ap
proached these questions. Their answers, as 1 have pointed o ut, assum e
the inevitable human a.<;piration to omnipotence and they begin and
end in the same pl ace, in the no-exi t of dominati on, in the closed
system of opposites: doer and done-to, master and slave. It is true that
Hegel's discussion of recognition implies an id ea l o f mutuality in
which both subj ects p artake of the contradictory elements of negation

1aqer ilnd ~ lave

63

and recognHi on. But th e po lari z:uiol1

(1f

thl'\C nvn "mnl11 cn ts"

is a

necessary part of his dialectic, and th ercfc' rc each subj ect \\i nds lip
embody in g only o ne side of th e tensioll . In psychoa n:t1 y tl( tcrl11~. thi .
breakdown o f w holeness I S ulld ersto~)d as "spli tri n g ."* W h,,!cncss can
on ly exist b y maintaining contradiction, but this is nor ('.IS\ . In sp lit
ting , the two sides are r cprcsented as OppOS ite' ,lIld di st in ct It'ndellcle".
so that thcy are available to the <;U~Ject only as altern atives. T he' ,uhJect
can play onl y one side at a time, projecting the op posite si de ~)n tl' th ..:
other. In o the r word s, in the subj cc t' s min d, sel f an d l)thl'r .1 [C re prc
sented not as equall y balanced w holes, bu t as sp li r into It.alv es. BlJ[ i
the splitting assumed by H egel incvitab le ? Is th e t> rea k dc\\\'11 (If rcnsiol"
inescapable?
George 13ataille ha s directl y appli ed the H ege lian di ;d (,ct lc t(\ ero tic
violation . His work enables liS to look mo re cl ose ly :It .'lIMy 0/ U , to \C'
how splitting and brcakdow n assumc an eroti c furm. J nd i\,IJ ll .1 I l'x i~
tellce for Bataillc is a statc of separation and isob ti on: wc :I re as isi:tnch
connec ted yet separated by a sea of death . E roticism is rh e reri l Oll!
cross in g of that sea. It o p ens the way o ut o( iso la tion by expming 115 tr
"death . .. th e denial of o ur indi vid ual liv es."I' The bodv "t a n d~ f O I
bound ari es: discontinuity, ind ivid uali ty , a nd Ijfe. COll ,cqllcmh- th e
vio lation of the bo dy is a transgression o f the boundary bctWL'C 1l Ii le <Ull
dea th, even as it brea ks thro ugh o ur di sco ntinu ity (rom the oth er. T lll'
break, this crossing of boundar ies, is (or Bar:lille t he secret of a!

"The psychoanahtic conccpt of splitting, hke that (If r.:prcSSlon . h 3' l narrow . technlc;1
as well as ~ broader mcrapsyci1o l'Jf!; lcal and mctJ plw ri c f11 cJnin~ . .111" J \ repn's,i",
became a paradigm fo r a large r Clil tur JI pr"ccss, Sf) I11 I ~ht splitttng [,l' \1I~~l"S[)VC nr
only for individual psychic pr oc c~sc~ but als(l for supr;Jll1div j du~1 P ill', . r t'c hnlolh
splitting n:f<:f1 to .1 defense aga inst aggrcs~ i ()ll . all dfo rt to prNcCI tht' "~I'('Id " "b.in
by splming o ff its "h:ld" aspects thar have IncurreJ aggre:;Slon . 1)U I III 11' hrna.lrr ,t'n"
sp litting means any breakdown of the who le, in wh ich paris of ,,If (' r " the! .tr~ ,pi
off and projected elsewhere. In both usc, it indi cares;] p" h n7 HII ~ n, 111 wlm h "pr,l\!fC\
espcciallv good and bad--can no l on ~cr be inccgr:ltcd: in v..h,,h <lilt sill. i, ,kqlm'(
the otha idealized. and each is prolected onto d ifrercnt obll'cts. I

liSt'

64

TH E BONOS OF LO V E

M:l~ ter

65

and S La\'l~

cro[j cism; and it JSSUl11es its starkest expression in erotic violation. It

Althoug h t he elements o f se lf-co ntrol, intent IO nali t y , and :utt hllllty

shou ld be no ted, however , that the break must never really diss01 ve the
boun da.r ies- else d e:lt h results. Excitement resid es in the risk of death ,

are meant to upho ld the d iffe rence betwee n Violator ;md \'i nhtcd .

no r in death itse lf. And it is erotic complementarity that offers a way to

each partner represents o nl y one p o le in a split u ni ty crl':1tl'\ tht' maJo r

simul tan co usly br ea.k through and pr eserve the boundaries: in the

diffi culty in sustaining tension. T he con tlllu:d problem in rd1ti~m<; of

oppo <:itio n between violator and violated, one person maintains hi s

b o u ndary and the other allows her boundary to be broken. One remains

domina tion, says Bataille in his commentary on Hc~(' l. 1\ "that th e

slave by accepting defeat ... has lost tbe q ll<dity W ltlWU l ,,,hic h he

ration al and in control, while the other loses her self. Put another way,

is una b le to recognize the con q ueror so a.' to sat isf v h im . T he slav e IS

unable to give th e master the satis(aairJ/ w ithou t w h ich the m asfcr can
no longer rest." 18 The master's denial of the orhe r\ sLlbj ec n v ity \t-;WC\

complem entarit y protects tbe sel f. Were both partners to giye up

contro l, th e disso lution of self would be total. The violated partner
would have no controlling partner to identify with; she could not

"safely" abandon herself. W hen both partn ers dissolve the boundary,
both experience a fundamental sense of breakdown, a kind o f primary,

contro l, as we ha ve seen , tend s to become sc lf-d efca ti n?:. The fac t t ha

him faced with isolatio n as the onl y altern a tiv e tel being engulfed h:'
the dehumanized o ther. Tn e ith er case, the nu ster is <lCn d lv .1ll1ne.

exist e ntial an xiety ; 1l1stead of connection to a defin ed other, there is a

because the p erson he is with is n o person at :111. A nd likL\\, I\l. (Ilr her
part, the slave fear s that the nus ter w ill a.b.m d on her t el <lII I Dl'm's~ \\ IV'I!

terrifying void. Thus the desire to inAict or receiv e pain, even as

he tires of being wJth som (,o ne who is not a p (' r ~n n .

to break thro ug h boundaries, is also an effort to find them.

It

seeks

16

Eventuall y the other's un rcali ty b ccol1lc~ to o po werfu l: tilL' \adist

the m aster provides are essential to the erotic experience of submissi o n.

is in danger o f becoming th e will-less thin g he comume ~ 111lks~ hl'

separates himself compl etel y. And the maso chi st in creasinglv (c.:e l, that

Indeed , it is the master's rational , calculating, even instrum e ntalizing

she does not exist, that she is without will or desire , that ,he h.s

attirude that excites submission; it is th e image of his exquisite control

life apart from the other. Indeed, once the te nsion between subjtH~atlnn
and resistance disso lves, dea th o r aband o nm en t is the incvnahll' end III
the story, and, as we h ave Sl:cn. Story r( n is d cltbnatc l:-: Idr open t()

A s we have seen in Stor), r{ 0, the control, order, and boundary that

tha.t m akes for his thrilling mac hismo. The pl easure, for both p artners,
is in hIS mastery . His intentions, with their sacramental formality, take

11r'

on th e p urposefu ln ess of a higher order. The sadi st's disinterestedness,

both conclusions. Th is ambiguity is appro pr ia te b cc.lusc for (he m.1~0-

the fact th at he docs it "less for [his] pleasure than for [the masochist's]

chi st the intolerable end is aband o nment, w hil e fo r the sadi st It i~ the
death (or murder) of the oth er. whom he destro ys. A pa ra ll cl dVll<ll11 ic.

enlighte nm ent, " offers containm ent and protection. This protective
pow er con stitutes the all-important aspect of authnritv, without which
the fantas y is not satisfying.~' This autbority is what inspires love and
transform s violence into an oppr)rtunity for voluntary submission.

in w hich comp lementari ty replaces reciprocity , is a freq uen t lInJnrow

in "ordinary" intimate relati o nships: o ne g i ves, th e othe r refuses tc:
accept; one pursu es , the other loses interest; nne cri tici zes, th e other
fee ls annihilated. For both p ar tners. the se nse o f co nll eCt i(ln is lost
extreme self-sufEciency leads to detach men t f rom the other: extrcm

'1[\ woma n wh'1

hlJ n nce been inv o lvc:J

In

a sadn l113soc histi c relation sh ip complained

p ~ r rncr th at "he: was bumbling . he nev er hun mc where or how I wanted to be

hun ." Indeed. a e;ood sadi , [ i, ha rd to fmel : he has to intuit his victi m's hidd en desire'S ,

,li her

FrN~'cr rhl' ill usion of <'ncn css ~ nd mastery

dur stem from his kn owi n g w h a t she wants. 1

dependency vitiates the sC'pa rate rea lity of th e other.

Metaphorically, then, an d som etimes Ji rer::d l y. rhe sadomasochwic
relationship ten ds toward d ea th , or, at

:1I1V

rate, to\var d dcadncs.\

numbness, the ex haus tion of sensation. T hi s end i ~ iro n ic bccallSt' Sl lci

T HE

SO N DS

or

LOVE

66

a relati onship is initi ated in o rder to reintrod uce tension- to co un

tcr act numbn ess with pain, to break encasement thro ug h vio lation.
Batail1c imp lies that we need the spilt unity o f master and slave in
order to maintain the: boundaries that erotic union- the " little death"
of the self- threate ns to d isso lv e. But , as we see, split unity culminates
in disconn ect ion. The ex haus tion of sa ti sfaction th at occurs when all
r esistance is vanquished, all tensi on is lost, m eans that the relati onship
has come full ci rcle, returned to th e emptiness from which it was an
effort to escape.
But why is loss of tensio n the beg inning and inevi table end of this
story? Freud's theory of the instincts offers us one lnterpreta tion.
Inde ed, hi s whole explanation of th e discontents of civ ilization hinge s
on hi s interpreta ti on of loss of tension. 19 Freud believe d that o nl y th e
idea o f a death drive that impels us toward compl ete abse nce of tension
could explain the prevalence of destruction and aggression in human
life. PrOjecting the death drive outward in th e form o f aggression or
m astery was our main protection against succumbi ng to it. H ere, as
I sec it, is F re ud' s eff,r t to expla in domination, hi s parall el to th e
master-sla ve paradox.
D omi nation , for Freud , is inevitable si nce o th erwi se th e death in
sti nct, that primary driv e toward not hin gness (complete loss of ten
sio n), would turn in wa rd and destroy life itself. But fo rtunatel y
aggr ession must contend w ith its "immortal adversary," the life in
stinct, Eros. Eros . in general, and sex uality, in particul ar, neutralize o r
bind aggression. Freud writes th at the life and death instin cts almost
never appear in isolati on, b ut "arc alloyed with each o th er . .. and
so become unrecn ~~ nizable ." Th e best place to observe and analyze thi s
merger is ernti c life: sadism and masochism ar e "manifestations of the
destructive instin ct .. . stron g ly alloyed with erot ism. "20 Ind eed, ero tic
dom ination, Freud contin lles, may be the prime place t o apprehend the
alliance of Iros and th e dea th instinct:
It is in sadism , where the death instinct twists the erotic aim in
its own sense, and ye t at the sam e time fully sa ti sfJ es th e erotic

Ma\tl'r ;m.t s13\'c

67

ur gt" that w e succeed in o btaining th e

ck.lf(~~ t insi ght ill ttl ll .

n ature, and its rel ati o n to F ros. But cv en w here it cmcr~cs

with out an y sex ual purpo se, in the blin dest Cury o f destructive
ness, we cannot fail to recogn ize that th e sati sfac tin ll nC th e
[d ea th] instinct ... [presents] the q;o w ith .l flJ!fIl lm cnr
the
latter's o ld wishes for o mni p o ten cc . ~1

or

W hen aggression is prOjected o utward and h;1rncs\ed b y u\' i!i7,l ti ()J1,

it w inds up d0in g Milside w hat it v,;ould otherwi se Ll o ill.':id, redu cing
the world , objectifyin g it, su b.ill ~at i ng it. If we translate rlm p rnccs~
back into H egel's terms, thi s means th ;H th e self refus es the cl :llm of
th e outsid e w o rl d (th e othe r) ro limit his ;lb s() lutc ne~s. H e ;1\<;crrS
o mnipotence. O mnipo te nce. we might then ,av , is th (' J1l ,lndi..<;t:H ip n
of Freu d 's death instinct. W hen the d estructi ve in stin cl is pW)l'cted
ou tw;ud , the problem o f omni potence is nN so lved , bu r m enlv n Jp
cated. Nor docs the fusio n of th e dea th insti nc t w ith Eros sl, jve r1w
probl,. m. For e": n the a ll o y
destr ucti on and Eros, as the c\'ck
escape from an d return to deadness in erotic d ominati on iJI\Jstr.HCs.
brin gs us back to th e death dri ve's o ri gin al JIm: th e reduct ion of al
tension.
Omnipotence and loss o f tens ion actuall y refer to th e S.1 ll1l' phennm
no n. Omnipotence, w hethcr in the fo rm of merging or ;\ gg r e~~ i o n.
m eans the complete ass imila tio n o f the o ther and th e sell. It corrc
spon ds to th e zero po int o f tension between ~clf and (, ther. D om i
nati on, as Freud see~ it, is both all t'x prcs, io n of o mn lpote ncc
death)-thc comp lete absence of tension- and an cffor t to pro tcct th
', elf from it: to crea te tcnsi o n , to break up this assi mil at ion o f or by
th e other that allC'"vs nothin g to exist outsidc. Yc t it comes fu ll Clrcle,
and leavc; th e self encapsul ated in a cl osed system-thc l)m ni potcnt
mind - at leas t until the ot her flg ht s back.
Let us no w see w h at happens w h en we exam ine thc cycle of
o mnipotence, from one po int of zer o tcmion to the o thn, in term'
of intersubjective theor y. In this view, th e circu b r mo v('m eJ1[ fro
numbn ess to exhaustion wh ich characteri zes dom ination i ~ a mamfesta

or

or

10r

T I l E BON D 'i OF L O V E

68

tion not of the death instinct toward zero tension, but of the break
down of recognition between self and other. Domination presumes a
subject already caught in ,lTTmi potence, unable to make "liven contact
with outside reality, to experience the other person's su bjectivity. But
this apparent fmt cause is itself the result of an earlier breakdow n
between self and other-which, though pervasive, is not inevitable.
Insofar as domination is an alienated form of differentiation, an effort
to recreate tension through distance, idealization, and objectification,
it is destined to repeat the original breakdown unless and unSil the
other makes a difference.

D ESTRUCTION AN D SUR VIV AL

Win nicott's idea of destruction is about the difference the other can
make. Destruction, after all, is a way of differentiating the self-the
attempt to place the other outside one's fantasy and experience him as
external reality. I suggest that erotic domination expresses a basic
differentiating tendency that has undergone a transformation. As we
have seen, the fate of this tendency depends on whether it is met with
the other 's ca pitulation/retaliation or survival. In intersubjective
terms, violation is the attempt to push the other outside the self, to
attack the other's separate reality in order finally to discover it. The
adult sadist, fo r example, is searching for a surviving other, but his
search is already prejudiced by his childhood disappointment with an
other who did not survive. Likewise, the adult masochist continues to
fmd an other who survives, just as she did in childhood, but again loses
h erself in th e bargain.
The contro lled practice of sadomasochism portrays a classic drama
o f destruction and survivaL The thrill of transgression and the sense
of comp lete fr eect o m for the sadist depend on the masochist's survivaL
When the masochist endures his unremitting attack and remains intact,
the sadist experiences this as love. By alleviating his fear (guilt) that
h is a~grcss ion wil l annihilate her, sh e creates for him the fmt condition

Master ~nJ

69

51.1'"

of freedo m . By the same token , the masochist ex periences as love the

sharing o f ps ychic pain, the o p pommity to ?;iv(' over t(l pain in tht"
presence of a trusted other who compreh en ds the suffer ing he inR icts.
Hence the love and grat itude that can accompany the- riw:tl \If dntll l
nation when it is co ntained and lim ited . 22
In a child's development the initial destructio n can be seen ~i m p"
as p art of assertion: the desire to affect (nega te) l""' thers, to be reco!!
n izcd . When destruction fails, the aggression gocs insi de and fue ls the
sense of omnipotence. 23 Orig inally, there is a kind of inn oce nce to the
project o f d estruction. In Freud's theory o f sadism- clc vc lppl' c1 before
he introduced the death instin ct 24 - thc in fa nt at first ruthkssly att.1cb
and devours the w o rld with no se nse of co nscl1uences. At rhis ~t~l gC of
primary sadism the child docs not kn ow about inni cting hu rt: hl
simply expects to have his cake and cat it too. Onl y when t he chi lL
internalizes his aggression and moves into th e maso chi st ic pnsiu011 cal
he imagine the pain that might come to the other. Then " rt':t r ' sadism
the desire to hurt and reduce the other as one has been hurt () Il cs clt
comes into being. 1n short, a~gression, interna Ji 7C~d a~ nusochi qr
reap pears as sadism .* Throu g h this internalizati o n comes the ab il ity ['

r~ych"an ~l\"St, Ius elabor ated on r rl'u, l', m",\r:1 "f Ii

~aclism to Ilu)ocill sm tn 'dd151ll p roper. lie Sllt.:!!CS!' th,lt (I

*J call Lapla llc hc, th e Frc-nch

moveJTIe nt from primary

move ment of intern alintion turns a ~!! rCSllOn il1 l0 scx u.t! fa ntasY : [h:\! is,

111

rurnll

in\\"~rcl, a g:~ r('ssio n IS " a ll o yed '" wi tb sex uality, Whe ther the f allr:lIY 15 ;I CtlVC ('r r ;lS'1\

rh e act of "fantasmatization " is d eCIS ive: indeed , It Jcw "ll" c() m ri wtc\ scxu,l li tv al1,1 1
Ul1con~ClO liS. Sexuality, by whi ch Laplanche me ans thl' r(".l lm of ~(-x tla l f"~ nt :l.~ Y j, [
opPQ, itc 0F Ero s, a kind of " fren et ic ~nt i-li fl' . " c', F. r o ~, If wr r~-clll [' rellcl\ ll,;l ~('
dlrec[ c~ p utw ard, to w ard [he other-hence [h e 0 PP C'Sltc'

sian th:n

lS

,'f rhe

l11war d -'llr l1m ~ :li!'l!r

sex ualit y , It fo llows fr o m bp h ncb c\ ar ~ ume nr th~t rlw trUt' nppO<l ri o n.

IIlstinc[s IS n" t bet ween Ero s and death , bu t Eros :lnd at;~rc"i"l1 , rh,- LHte r <"'t
~ppc ari n t;

In

th e ~lIIS" o f se xua lity . This comes cl osf

to

the ltlt c r~lIbi n't i",' ,'ppe",'lt

nc~a[i n g ~nd recognl z.in g t he orhn _ Jnelced , Lapl.lnche"s lei",] "," rh,- in tern all
tion o f ag?; rcssioll as ~'x ll,,1 t.1I1raw 1\ c("mparablc to Wl1 lnicott 's idea rh :H w

between

destru cti on cannot be directed row:m.l rh e other. th e <u hleet rema ins caught
omni pote nce. Hi s Idea of til<:

()rp(\~ 1tinn betwe(' n Er", .Ind s,'xualit \

If1 nK1

SIHtc,:sts "pm C t\1

70

Tf-l E BON OS OF l O V E

M:I~[l'r

71

alld S laVl'

play b o th roles in fantasy , to expcnence vi cariou sly th e other's part,

an d SO enjo y the act of violation.

fin ds no li mits, no o thern ess. The wor ld now see m s emp (v

In much of early life, destruction is pro perly directed tOward th e

o ther, and is internalized when the other can not "catch" it, and sur
vive. Ordinarily, som e failur e to survive is inevItabl e; for that matter,
sO is the internalization of aggression. When the parent fails to survI ve
attack-to withstand the destruction without retaliating or retreat
ing-th e child turn s its aggression inward and develops what we know
as rage. But when things go w dl this rage o ften dissipates throu,gh a
movement in the relationship, a shift back to mutual understanding
that enables th e child o nce again to feel the presence of the other. (For
example , th e child accepts th e fru stra tion but communicates the fantasy
of retaliation to the parent who has frustrated him , as in, " Her e is a
[,ulldozer c omin g to knock down the house.")
W hen the child experiences the parent as caving in, he continues
(\ attack, in fantasy o r reali ty , seeking a boundary for his reac tive rage.
The child who has been indul ged, allowed to abuse hIS moth er (or bo th
parents), and given no limits to his fant asy of omnipotence, is the
typical " sadistic" child. ("I can't control him," says the parent, and th en
repeats for the f[fth time "M.ichacl, if y ou do n't behave yo u' ll have
[0 leav e the table and go up to your room.") Fo r him, the rea l object,
the one who cannot be destroyed, never comes into view. Fo r him ,
agency and assertion are not integrated in the context o f mutuality and
respect for th e other but in the context of control and retaliation. The
sadist-child is [o~~ 11 itively aware of the difference between self and
other, but emotionally thi s awareness is hollow and docs not counteract
the desire to control the other.
\Vh en the parent caves in , the child exp er iences hi s expanding
clation, grandiosi ty, and self-absorption as fl ying off into space-he

analys t Sheldo n Bach descr ib C's it, whe n th e self fecls absnlutc. :\ loss

~imi l ar to ~r innicott's distinction betw een hav in g an int t: r ~ction with th e o utsi de 0lhcr
Jnd relat ing tt) thr.' o bject as onc's mental product- a tw o-person v ersu.~ a one-person

cx perience.

llf all

hlllna11

life, there is no o ne to co nn ect with, "the w orld is al l m e." As the

of diffe rentiation occurs in wh ic h "the subject an d object :n c l1n e; the
[pe rson] has eaten up reali ry ."2(, W h at the child feels is s0111c rh in!.! lik e

Ill y aer, th ell my

act seems to drop off the ed g e of the w o rld inra cmptines'\, ,l1ld I [cel
this: W hen the other crum b les und er the impact nf

that I wi ll soon follow. In thi s v o id beginS (h e Joss o f tenSion or

boundaries, a by-product of losing th e o ther.
Sur v iv ;d m eans that th e pare n t can tol era te d e Aati ll ~ rh e child 's
gra ndiosity enough- hu t Ju st Cl10 Ugh-to let h im kn ow t\ut be em
go o n ly so far and no further, th at someo ne el se 's necds :lnd rC31tty
se t a limit to his mental feats. T he parent must feel se parate :lnd secure
enou g h to b e ab le to to lerate the th w:lr ted chJl d's ange r Wlthr lll l ~ l vin~
in. Otherwise the parent is dest ro yed

In

tht' c h il d' s C'ves. The child

in vo lved in the process o f des truction is li ke lcaru, fl yi ng tflO l1l' J.f the
sun. W hen th e parent sC' ts limits, she is actuall y protcc (in ~ t he child
from t he disso lution that occurs when the abs() lute sel f has m \vay. Of
course, as w e will see in our discussion o f ma so chism, the child who
is never all o wed to d estroy can nl'\'l'r assumc the power lO Av or
di sco ver his lim its.
The con ve rsion from assertion to agg r e~~ i on, fro m intcractlon (t)
mental control, work s in tandem. Wh('n th in gs a rc no t resolved " (lllt
side," between self and other, t he in teractio n is transferred into t he
world of fantasy; this includes identify in g with th e o ll e we h;mn . The
drama of reversible violator and v ictim disp laces

til(' tem ion of interac

ti o n w ith the o the r. This drama now occurs withi n th l' (l mn ipL'tcncc
of mental life, the encapsu lated sp here o f th e intrapsych ic. In successfu l
destruction (when the o ther sur v ives), the d istin cti on be tween men tal
acts and w ha t happens out th ere in "reality" b ecornc.~ more th an a
cog n iti v e aw aren ess; it becomes a fe lt exper ience. The dl~tinction
between my fantasy o f you anJ yo u as a real person is the ve r y c~smce
o f co nnecti on.
T h e u nd erly ing them e of sad ism i ~ th e arrcm p r

[0

brcrik th rough to

THE

BONDS OF LOV E

72

the o th er. Th e desire to be discovered underlies its counterpart,

namely, masochism. Emmanuel Ghent has called this desire the wish
for surrender, for which sub mission is th e "ever-ready 100k-alike."27
Like the sadist's aggression, the masochist's submission is ambiguous,
conf1ating the repetition of an old frustration and the wish for some
thing new. Ghent suggests that it is a wish to break out of what
Winnicott called the "false self." The false self is the compliant,
adaptive self that has staved off chaos by accepting the other's directi o n
and contro l , that has maintained conn ection to the object by ren.ounc
ing explo ration, aggression, separateness.
This co mpliance is associated with ano ther kind of fail ed childhood
destruct ion, o ne in w h ich the sclfhas not survived. Th e " masochistic"
child has endured not cav ing in but retaliation, in the form of either
pun lsh ment or withdrawal. He destroys the oth er only in fantasy; he
will never take a full swing at the parent to test if sh e will survive.
His rage is turned inward and apparently spares the other, yet the loss
of a viable external other overshadows the struggle to differentiate.
The masochist despairs of ever holding the attention or winning the
recognition of the other, of being securely held in the other's mind.
Co ntemporary Freudian ego psychology has often understood sub
mission as a failure to separate and as an inhibition of aggression. But,
as Ghent suggests, framing masochism as the desire for self-disco very
in the space provided by the other allows us to recognize the wish as
well as the defense. The masochist's self is "false" because, lacking this
space, he h as not been able to reaL ze the desire and agency that come
from within. He has not experienced his impulses and acts as his own,
arising wi th o ut direction from outside. This experience is what he
longs for , al though he may not know it. 28
Masochism can be seen, therefore, not only as a str.ategy for escaping
lone ness, but also as a search for aloneness with the other: by letting
the othe r rem ain in control, the masochist hopes to fmd a "safe" open
space in which to abandon the protective false self and allow th e
nascent, hidd en sel f to emerge . Within thi s space, he seeks an opportu
nity for W innicott's transitional experience fre e of the self-conscious

73

\1a~rtr <1l1d

Slavl'

ness and adaptation th a t in h ibit him. T he masocll ist 's w ish to be

reached, penetrated , found, released- a \\ish th at can be cx prc<;scci in
the met aphor of violence as well as in m etaphors ()f redemptio n-is
the other side of the sadist's w ish to di scove r th e o th e r. The masocnls[s
wish to ex perience his au th entic, inn e r reality in the compaIlV of an
other parallels the sadist's w ish to get outside the self il1w :l ,h:lrecl
rea li ty.
These d y namics, then. arc not m erel y the stuff o f d omInat ion; they
are also what make mutuali ty possible. Th ey all ow us to m aintain
connection so that we are no t shut off from the w orld in thl." m o nadi c
capsule of the mind. M ental o mnipote nce slgniflcs the :lb~{"ncc of th i,
connection, a breakdow n of d iffe rent ia tion in wh ic h self i ~ a"s lm il ated
to other or o ther is assimila ted to sci f. Interna l izat iol1 then rep lace,
Interaction or exchange w ith the oll tsi de.
The state o f omnipo tence. with its absr ncc o f te nsion , ~i'\'c, birth
to domination. In the absence of a diffe rentiated se nse of self all J Nhc. .
the vital sharing between separate minds is repl aced by al most exclu
sively complementary rela ti onships. In infancv , the comp lclllcnrar:
interaction, in which the parent facilit ates a pos iti ve chJ ngc in th e
infant's statcs, is often a prel ude to in tc rsubJect ivc sharing. Th e o th e r
mu st often do something to regulate, soothe. and nu ke the ~ cl r recep
ti ve for such exch ange. Bu t increasing ly the r cl at i~ \ns hip shc'ld d ~hif(
in emphasis from regulation to the true exch:lngc of recogni t ion Itse lf.
What we see in domination is a relationship in which complem entari ty
has completely eclipsed mutu al ity, so tha t the u nderl yin g wish to
interact wi th someone truly outsi de, with an eq ll iva le nt center of
desire , docs not emerg e.
This dynamic o f destruction and sur v in l is th e central pa ttern 01
erotic union. In ero tic un in n, th e other rece ives and recogn izes t he
subject's acts including his acts of d esrructi on. Er os is cert:li n l)" nN fr ee
of all that w e associate with aggression, asserti o n, mastery, aJl d domI
nation. But what makes scx uali ry ero tic is rhe surviv al o f lhe o ther
with and despite destruction. What di sti n gu ishes E r os from perve rsion
is not fre edom from fantasies o f power an d surrender. for Eros JC'c.

E BO N DS Of L OV E

74

lO t purge sexual fantasy-it plays with it. The idea of destruction

cIl1 inds us that th e element of aggression is necessary in erotic life; it
S the element of SUTiJ/IJo/, the difference the other can make, which
hstinguishes erotic union, which plays with the fantasy of d '~)mination,
:rorn r ea l dom ination.
As I suggested earlier, in erotic union losing onesel f and being
wholly there occur together, as if with ou t contradiction. The se nse of
los ing oneself creatively , of becoming absorbed in the other is often
only a hairsbread th away from self-absorption. 2 9 In ero tic union, the
fundamental experience o f attum:ment-that separate individuals can
share the same feeling- is affIrmed. Erotic domination, on the other
h and, exemplifIes the fatality of disso lving paradox into polarity (split
ting) e ven as it sh o ws it to be the endpoint of a complex process, and
n ot simplY the orig inal human condition.

DOMINATION AND THE SEXUAL DIFFERENCE

It might seem that the aSSOciation of domination and gende r is obvious:

men, after all, have ev erywhere dominated women, and one would
expect this to color erotic relationships as well. Yet, eve n if w e
accepted this logic, we would still want to understand how the subJU
ga tion of women takes hold in the psyche and shapes the pattern of
domination. Furthermore, it is increasin g ly apparent that the roles of
master and slave are not intrinsically or exclusively male and female
respecti vely; as th e original " masoch ist" o f Venus in Furs (Leopold von
Sacher-Masoch) reminds us, th e opposite is often true: the actual
practice of sadomasoc hism freguently reverses het erosexual patterns.
And, for that matter, sadomasochism is just as likely to occur in
lornosexua l relationships. The question w e are addressing, therefore,
is not why are m en sadists and women masochists, since thi s need n o t
be the case; but rather, how have sadism and masochism become
associated w ith masculinity and femininity?
The deep structure of gend er complementarity has pc rsisted despite

7S

Mas te r anri Sla"c

the increased flexi bili ty of con temporary ~e x [() k~ , To Ll l1d emand th e

origi ns o f mal e mastery and fe male submiss ion, w e m ust look :It th e
cha racteristic course taken b y each gender in th e ea rl y d i ffCrt,nti .lt lnn
process. Since women have almost every w here been th e prim:lry care
takers of small children, both boys anJ ~i rls have diffc rcnti:ttcd in
relation to a w o man - the m Other.* W hen we loo k to the ty pica l
course of male differentia tion, we see ar once that this creates a sr~:ci;1 1
difficulty for bo ys . While all children identify with their fi N lo v e d
one, boys must dissolv e thi s identifIcati on and defll1c thcm sdvn .15 t h e
differe nt sex. Initi all y all infants fee l themselves ro be like their 111orh
ers. But boys di scover that they cann ot g row up to /7 ('((1 11/1' ha; dll'y
can only /](1!J C h e r. This discov ery leads to a hreak in ick m i(i c ui n n
for boys which g irls arc spared. M 31e children :lchi cvt' tiw lr m,\\cu
lini ty by den y ing their origina l idenri fl C:ltioll or o nc ness \\. j th thei r
moth ers. 11l
R obe rt Stoller\ work on the develo pment and disrupti OIl of gender
identIty has offe red much insight into this process. H e has pm pmcd
that male identity is a secondar y phenomen o n, since it is achi eved h v
overcomin g a primary identification with the mother. This pl)s iti o n.
so contrary to F reud's assumpti o n thar children of both \C" l'~ b('~ i ll as
"little men," has wide ramifIcati ons. Fur t he boy to bcn)tn v masculin e,
writes Stoller, "h e must separ:n e himself in the out!\id c wor ld tWill h is
mother's female body and in his insid e worlel from his ow n alread v
formed primary ide ntifi cation with femalen ess 3.nd fc m in il1J t\ . Th i ~
grc lt task is often not completed .... "31
The boy d eve lo ps his gender and id enti ty by m eans (1f estab lishin g
discontinuity and difference from the person to w hom he is mo s

*Despirc wOl1l cn 's uni v<"rsa l ro le a.~ p rim .try care takers "f ,ma ll lhl ldren, rilt'n: I~ C!n:.1t
variati on in the 0rg am za ti on of c hil drc,l ri n ~. On ly in ' N estlT ll mHJdlt'-cl.l ~' bmtlll"

til)
Lw n ne It'lle l1l(lchcr. T hm o ur rhnlry, IIl1lc\<
a m ended . mi{!hr strictl y apply !U suc h fam ti ll's. Dn the nrh l'r hanJ , pa[[n m ",. Lhi ldrc.H
lng have been chang in~-tn favor ot" palrrnal P:lrr lc il'Jt lOll- in thnc LU1ll11l.,.
we see th e typi cal parrcrn o fb ah ics ~m'ndrd

TH E BONDS OF LOVE

76

attac hed. This process of disid entific ation 32 explains the repudiation of
the mother that underli es conventional masculine identity formation,
and results in a kind of "fault lin e" runn ing through the mal e achieve
m en t of individuality .
The tendency of erotic love to become erotic domination can be
seen as a casualty of this characteristically male form of establi shing
separation. The need to sever th e identification with the mother in
orde r to be confmned both as a separate person and as a male person
and for the boy these are hard to distinguish-often prevents th e boy
from recognizing his mother. She is not seen as an independent person
(another Sll byct), bu t as something other-as nature, as an instrumen t
or obj ect, as less than human. Th e premise of hi s independ ence is to
,ay, "1 am nothin g like she who cares for me." An objectifying attitude
comes to replace the earlier intera ctio ns of infancy in which mutual
recog nition and proud assertion could still coexist. Mal e identit y, as
N ancy Chodorow points out, emphasizes only o ne side of th e balance
of differentiati on- difference over sharing, separati on over connec
tion, boundaries ove r communi on, self-suffici ency over dependency. ))
In breaking th e identificati on with and dependency on mother, the
boy is in dan ger of losing hi s capacity for mutual recognition alto
gether. The emoti o nal attunemcnt and bodil y harmony that character
ized his infantile exchange with mother now thr ea ten his identity. H e
is, of course, able cognitively to accept the principle that the other is
separate, but without the experience of empathy and shared fe eling
that can unite separate subJectivities. Instead, th e other, especially the
female other, is related to as object. When this relationship with the
other as object is generalized, rationality substitutes for affective ex
change with the other.)~ This rati onality bypasses real recogn ition- of
the other's subjectivity. The process might be called "false differentia
.

tlOp.

"

l Violatiory is an elaboration of this one-sided, or "false," differentia

tion, assert in g absolute difference from ltsobJ ect, an obj ect we can now
sec as representing the m oth er. 35 A fantas y of m a ternal power, of bei ng
reabsorbed , underlies this curious method of asserting djfference. Th e

77

M;)S(cr ann S I ~

danger that violation is meant to oppose- t he u ltimate lnl\~ of t c

sion- is easily equated w ith the return to onen ess wit h the moth c
and can now be evoked by an y pw fo u n d exper ie n ce o f cl cpcndcn
or communi on (emoti onal o r ph ysICal), slIch :l.S erotic I(lVt' . T he 011
defense against los in g difference lies in rever ~ il1 g th e power feLu io
ship so that the master now co ntro ls the o th e r, \\hilc su ll procla imu
hi s boundari es intact. *
l

Erotic domination represell ts an intensifi cation o f malt- .1Ilxict) al

defense in relation to the m o ther. The rcplld i~ted materna l b~...,(
persists as th e object to be done to and violated , to be scpaf:ncd frnI
to hav e power over, to d en i gr~te. 'f> Thus, on a visit to Sir Sterhe)
v illa in the South, 0 thinks h ow fortun a te it is th at d l (,\ ;,n' (ar (1'1 1
the sea, for the sea smells lik e dUlI g ( lJIer = sea; 1I1 ,;n = 1//(l(/JI' r/.
furtber compli es in the denigr~ ti O I1 o f wh a t is specifi cal l\' fC ll1.l l t'
her sexuality when Sir Stephen uses her "as a boy," th:l r is, deni ('~ h
feminine organs. The anal allLl~i()ns degrade \'v ha t wo man h :t~ to Ilill
her bodily differ ence from man.
I t is precisely thi s obj ectification, com bin ed wi th maintai n i ng :lbst
lute difference and control, that informs the master's tra nsg ression . TJ
vulnerability of a masculinity that is forge d in th e cruc ihle oj" fl'll1mi,
ity, the "great task" of separa tio n that is S0 se lck'm comp leted , la yS rl
groundwork for the lat er objectification of wom en . Th e m oth er stan,
as the prototype of tb e undifferenti ated obyct. S he serve~ m en as [h e
other, their counterp~rt, the side of th emse lves they repress. \
Th e view of moth er as o~ject resound ~ thro u g h o ut o ur cu lture. I
general psych oanal y tic discourse , the child rela tes to the )1 lOrhcr as

*Of co urse, as we have sce n , the inllnt is neve r iitcrall y one with mother , hUf rill' r~ r

ident ificati on is retro acti ve ly called (rC'p rcsl"ntcd m t r~ pwchi ca lly a,) "')ll<"ne.. ~. " I.e.. rI

absence of a fundamental differen ce. The derm se agai ns t I)n cn C5S cl evl'lops Kcord in g

a pri nciple of reversal: I will do to y"' u what I perceive you a rc dO lllg tn Ille, If J r crcl'I'

y o ur love as stifling Ill)' subjectl vlfy, J will - agai n. t h rou~h Jon

.den\' V \)lIr~. Th l

as comp lem entarit y is no lo n ger temp e red bv co m m ona lity. "on cll<'<~ "
mor e absolute and thr ea.tening.

arr:'ar \

I.' v,

TJ-t E BOND S OF I.O VE

78

a n o bject of his drives, and correspondingly deva lu es her indepe ndent

su bjectivity. Ind epende nce from the mother as obj ect rath er than rec
o g nition of h er as subject constitutes the essence of individ ua tiOli . And
these assumptions arc part of a large r problem: to th e extent that until
r ecently "man" and "individual" were syno nymous , the mal e experi
e n ce of diffe rentiati on has stamped th e im age o f individuality. The
image o f the o ther that pred ominates in Western thou g h t is no t that
of a vitall y real presence but a cognitiv ely perceived object. In this
sense "falsc" differentiation has been a constant component of the
Western version of individuation. Rec ognizin g the other has been th e
exceptional m o m ent, a moment of rare innocence, the recovery of a
los t p arad ise.
The complement to the mal e refusal to recogni ze th e other is
woman's ow n acceptance of her lack o f subjectivity, her willingness
to offer recognition w ithou t expect in g it in return. (The classic mater
nal ideal of m otherhood- a paragon of self-abne ga ti o n-is only a
beautification of this lack.) The female difficulty in differentiation can
be described almost as the mirror image of th e male's: not the d enial
of the other, but the den ial of the selJ. Thus the fact of women's
mothering n o t only explains m asculine sadism, it also reveals a "fault
line" in fe male development that leads to masochism. Whereas the
boy's earl y difficulty see ms to occllr in making th e switch to a mascu
line identifIcation , the girl req uires n o such shift in identification away
from her mother. This mak es her ide ntity less problematic, but it is
a disadvantage in that she possesses no o bvious way of disidcntifying
from her mother, no hallmark of separateness. The feminine tende ncy
therefore is n ot to emphasize but to und erplay independe nce.
As Chodorow has argued, mothers tend to identify m ore strongly
with their daughters; whereas they push their sons o ut of the nest, they
have greater difficulty separating from daughters. 38 Thus it is more
likely that girls would fear separateness and tend to sustain the tie to
mother thro ugh compliance and self-denial. If not acute, this tenden cy
would be unremarkable. But the girl's relationship to the moth er,

79

las t!.'r ~ 11 ,I

S by('

emphasizing mergi ng and continui ty a t the cxpe Jl ~<.' of indivi llu.lliry

and in dependence , provides fertile gn) lll1 d for submiss ion.
Submiss ion , as we saw in S tM}' ~/ O! is often Ill Niva tcd h ~ till' fC.J.r
of separatio n an d abando nment: lll as()ch i~m rct1ect~ th e ina hlli ty t<.l
express o n e's own desire and agency. In submiss io n, e\'ell till' ( u ltill
m ent of dcsire is made to appear as the exp rcs~!O n of the !.lthas wi! I.
T he mas0chist abrogate~ h e r w ill bec;]u se the exerCl~C o( inllcr el1den c('
is experienced as danger o us. T o the ex tent r1nt the moth er hao, \.1Cri
fl ced her own independ ence. th e g irl's a tte mpt al md c pendcl1C"l' w o u Id
represent an asse rtion u f po wer for w h ich she has n o basis 1I1 id ent ifi ca
ti on. (As we sh all see in chapter 3, the ~i rl m a) id clH it"v wlrh he r
father . but thi s has its o wn difficu lti es.) Th e gir l's Sl'n\e \)f sl'11 I~ .,h:lpcd
b y the realization that h e r moth er's so urce uf po we r rc\idn III her
self-sacri fice. Fo r the g irl the a ~o ny of as:o.err in~ d iffe rence i~ th.1t sh e
will destro y (internally ) her m o ther, w ho is not l)nl y an objCct o f love
but also a mainstay o f ident ity. Thus sh e profects the all-!!;()od . JI I
powerful maternal objl:ct, at the pr ice o f co mp lia nce. She hl'cnm t'~
unable to distinguish w hat she wants f rom w hJ t m o the r W.1I1 tS. The
fear of separation and difference h as been transpo se d into \uhmi \sion .
Sadomaso chi sm gives th is fear o~iect i ve form. Tn erOtic suhmi \s io ll,
fear of the master 's power ta kes the pl ace o f the d eeper rca r----of till'
separati on that feels like death. The d eep est anxi etv call be contro ll ed
throu gh " the di scipline of se rvice and ohcdic ncc." w [n s llbmi s~i (ln . the
masoch ist al so protects the oth er from damage by tak i n~ the i"auh and
the injury upon hl:e.df. At the same tim e, she is ab le to "enJ oy" the
sadist's attack. His :.1SScrti o n of subjecti vi ty and di ffe rence is like a
breath o[ the in accessible o utd oo rs . H e embocl ies act iv ity 3111 1 diffe r
ence for her. The vicariolls quality of he r cllJ<1yme nr recapitul a tes the
vicarious pleasure of th e self- sacrificin g m o ther w it h w hom she id enti
fI es. T hus, submission for women allows a reenactment of th eir early
identificatory rel ationship to the modler; it is a re p lica tion l' [ the
maternal attitude itself.
T his cy cl ical mecha nism all o ws us to untang le the fa teful a~~oci at1on

THE DONDS

or

LO V E

RO

that has dogged psychoana l yttC deba te sin ce Freud' s co ncept of "femi
nine masochism" was elaborated by Mari e Bonaparte and Hc!ene
D e utsch to include the notion that masochism is an inev itabl e compo
n ent offemale sexuality, chIldbea rin g, and motherhoo d .4 'J Und ema bly,
femininity and motherhood as we know them h ave been tainted wi th
submission, self-abnegation, and helple ssness. This is true even when
submission works to con ceal or delly the power that women as mothers
do exercise.
And this fact, that women participate in th eir own submission, has
often embarrassed critics of psychoan alytic theory . Some feminist
critic s, who feel that \\'Ol11en have unjustl y borne the burden of their
v ictimjza tio n, have insisted th at women are simpl y u nw illin g con
scripts in an erotic fantasy formed by and for men- v ictims of the
m ale porn og raphic imagi nation. Susan Griffin, for example, argu es
that the subjuga tion of wo men can be equated with th e repression of
natUfe.41 But, in fact, women arc not the embodiment of llature,
althou gh they have long been captives of that metaphor. Ind eed , in
accepting that equation, women once again participate in their ow n
subjugation. \Vomen , like men , are by "nature" social, and it is the
repression of th eir sociabil ity and social agency-the repress ion of the
social , intersubject ive side of the self _. that is at issLle. The equatio n
woman = tnothcrhood = nature is a sy mptom, not a cure. Fmbrac in g
this equati on, femini sts have become cau gh t in a contradiction: ex alt
ing women's maternal "nature" while di sclaiming wom en's masochis
tic "nature."
Ar guing from a different standpoint, the psychologist P aula Caplan
has renewed the battle against the psychoanal yti c positio n that women
are "innately" masochistic. Caplan attacks the idea of " pleasure in
pain" in g reat detail , but, unfortunatcl y, sides teps th e issue of su bm is
sion. Her exp lanation for m asochism is that w ha t is "called m asoch ist ic
has tended to be the very essence of train ed feminini ty in W estern
culture."42 H er argument implies that social learning of a cultural
myth abo ut w omanhood suffices to explain the presence of masochistic
fantasi es in women , or that the asso ciati on of femin inity with maso

81

Master and Slave

chism is the res ult merel y of a p er joratlve vie w o f l1l <l tcmall1l1rtllfance
and altruism. Caplan is ri g ht th at the a~~o ci ,Hi o n o f fcmin i111ty wah
masochism persists in th e cult ure; bur the ('xpia n:ltion for that persis
tence cannot be soug ht in soc.ial lrarnin~
. .H
~

From a psychoanal ytic po int of view , it is unsa ri sfacton t ll tl1nc ly

attribute the perv asiveness o f mbmiss io n f;llltas ics in l'WtlC Ille to
cultural labeling or the de rogation of women. T he alternative to ,-l
biolog ical explanation of m asoc hism m ust be sou g h t n o t on lv in
culture, bu t in th e interaction (If culture and psycho log ical processes.
Cultural my ths and label s, w hi le ul1c-\rlUbtc dly dest ructive , st ill dn not
explain bow th e "essence of t rained fe rn i nini t )''' ~ets inl () W{)ll1('n \;
head s and is there converted in to pleasurable fantasies of ernr ic sl1hmi~
sion . To begin to explai n it, w e m us t start With rh e way ill \~ hieh the
mo th er's lack o f subjectivity, as p ercei ved by hot h mak :lf1d fc m ak
children, crcates an internal propemity ro w ard fe minine mJ.\()chi~lll
and male sadism . Label ing is a result, not a ca llse, of that pro pens ity_
Notwithstanding the persistence of these gend er asso ciati o ns, it 1:;
safe to <;ay th at the mainstream o f psych oanal yti c th0ught t()(h v rCJects
the id ea of feminine masochi sm . (Caplan has a hard ti mt~ actua lly
findin g recent psyc hoanalyti c p ropo nents.) T he analysi s o f SUblllis<;inn
as a defensive stra tegy of th e self has hecome f:lr morc popubr th:11l
Freud's notio n of femininity in ex pl aining m asochism. If ;:lI1ythinp:, we
are fa ced w ith th e oppos ite p ro blem: w ith a few ex ccpt iom (llllt;lbly.
in Stoller), these problems of the self have largely been co nstru cted as
though gender p layed no ro le whateve r. Nowhe re do w e fine! the
explanatio n that gender polarity pla ys a ro le in f0sterin g the break
d ow n in the balan ce of differe nti ation. Yet clearl y, the splnring th:tt
is so typical in sadomasochism is in large p art a pro blem o f gende r.
The defensive masculine st an ce pr omotes a dual ism, a polanzatlon of
subj ect and obj ect. T he assi gn m en t of subject status to m alL- and object
status to female fo llows from the seeming ly un avo idab le fact that rhe
boy must struggle free with all the violence o f a second bIrth from
the woman w ho bore him. In this second bi rth. the fantasv ()f omnipo
tence and erotic d o m ination begins.

TH E

BONDS OF LOVE

82

At the s:tmc time, and ironicall y, the fantasy of erotic dominance

and submissio n expresses the deep longing for who leness. But as long
as the shape o f the wh ole is not informed by mutuality, this lon gin g
o n l y leads ~o an unequal complementarity in which one person pl ay~
rna.ster, the other slave. And even when m en and women reverse their
roles, as they often do, the sense o f "playing the oth er" is ne ver lost.
Gend er contimlf's, consciously and unconsciously, to represe nt only
onC part of a polarized whole, one aspect of th e self-other relationship.
One person (" th e woman") is not allowed to play the subj~c t; o ne
p erso n ("th e m an") arrogates subjec tivit y o nl y to himse lf. Again, the
groundwork for thi s division is laid in th e ,mother's renunciati on o f
her o wn \": i 11, in her CODS('qllent lack of su bjecti vi ty for her children,
and particularly in tl,, male chiler, rep"Jiation o f his , n mJ1lonality
with her.
It would seem obv ious that this la ck of maternal subjectivity is a
great, if n o t the greatest, impedimen t to the experience of succe$stul
destrllcti o n and surv ival by both male and female children. Only a
mother who feels entitl ed to be a person in her own right can ever
be seen as slIch by her child, and o nl y such a m o ther can appreciate
and set limits to th e inevitable aggression and anxiety that accompa ny
a child's grow in g independence. Only someone who fully achieves
subjecti vi ty can survive destruction and p ermit full differentiation.
This fact has been remarkably elusive. It seem s intolerable to the
narcissism of adults and children alike that the limits a mother sets
sho uld not merely be an occasional d ose of medicine correspondin g to
the child's needs, but might actu ally proceed from the moth er's asser
tion of her ow n separate selfhoo d. The possibi li ty of balancin g th e
reco gnitio n of the child's needs with th e assertion of o ne's own has
scarcel y b een put forward as an ideal.
It is thus necessary to reconceiv e th e ideal-and the reality- o f
motherho od in order to realign the process o f differentiation, to miti
gate the splitting into complementarity. Th e structure of individuation
which permeates our culture, and which privileges separation over
dependence, cannot simpl y be countered b y its mirror opposite.

RJ

\1;!Q c:r anrl

"i l ;t'\'~

R a ther , it must be critici zed in lilZh t of a vi ~ i o ll o f a b .1l:ll1Cl' in which

neith e r polt: domi nates th e other, in w h ich parado x i~ ~mr.1il1l'd .

This vis ion is importallt to a fcminist crJtiq ul' o f~ nc il' ty l'spt'Clal ly now
that m ale and female roles arc n o l ~' nge r as bind in g as t hey ',111Cl' were.
Toda y wo men in som e sertor~ of soci ety may :lclo pt t he S:lmL' L'm ph:uic
autonom y, the same " fa lse " diffe rentia ti on at the ('xpeme llf rca l
recogni t ion and attunement, that has hern c,[orc characterized the ideal
of mascu line individuality . The stCfeo ty pe of the " ca reer v\'nman" i\
th 3t she is able to be as detached and imptrsnnal "as a 111:111 ." Hut rhi~
individuation based on d en ying th e need for others is h:1rd ly lib<.r.lt iot1 .
Story ~r 0 supports our suspicion that this k ind of individu;mon ,
rather than d issolving domin at ion, f()sters it. 0\ <; tnry i\ no o..imrlc
h o usewi fe 's ta lc; it is rather that o f the "new wom:l1l" V,. lll) emer ged
in th is century. 0, herself a fashion photographer, is as much a prc'
ducer o f o bjectifICati o n as its v ictim . Thus 0 is not ~o diffl'rC'll t Cwm
the m asochist of a more recent novel. Pat C lli fl a's jl'ssic, a thllnlughl)
independ e nt woman, wh o descr ibes erotic v iola ti0n as fm allv r c l ea~ i ng
her fr o m " the bubble o f the self, the prison of the min d. " 11 To repeat.
erotic domination, fo r both sid es, dra ws its appea l in p:lrt from its offer
to break the encasement of th t: isola ted se lf. to ex p lod e the llu mbnes<;
that comes o f "false" differenri ati on . It i, a rea ction to the p redica rn cn l
of solitary confinement- being unable to get th roug h to the other. ('Ir
be gotte n through to-w hich is our particu larl y m odern form of
bondage. The castl e of Roissy marshals the old f0rms
bOl1 tb gc-thc
ritual trappings of male domi nion and fema le 'u bmi$$ i()n -.~~ if rhey
could red eem us from the ster ility of modern ra ti o Tlalit\ ,. ~o in nur
era of sex u al equality and liberation, the fantJs y o f crotlc dOlnin.nioll
returns like the repressed. But th is return docs not si~na l an end to
confinement, only a further twistin g in the chains, a te!itim0llY to t he
persistence o f splitting and gen d er polaritv in our stru cture
i 11
di v id uality.
To uncover this persistence is to co nFro nt the o ri gina l ,in p(dl'n ytng

or

or

TH

BONDS OF LOVE

84

recognition to the other, and to rediscover the lost tension be tw een

self and other. Th is ,tension, a fragile balance, to be sure, can only be
sustained through the lived experience of recognitioni the meeting of
separate minds. I have argued that the longing for recognition lies
beneath the sensationalism of power and powerlessness, that the un
recognizable forms often taken by our desire are the result of a
complicated but ultimately understandable process-a process which
explains how our deepest desires for freedom and communion become
implicated in control and submission. From such desi res the bonds of
love are forgcJ.

CH A PTER

T H R E E

WOIIl a n 's

Desir e

DISCUSSION OF erotic dominati o n has show n

how the breakdown of the te nsi o n between asseru on
and recognition becomes aSSOCIated wi t h the polar in
tion of gender identity. M ale and fema le each adopt one
side of an interlocking who le. T his o n e-sIded charactC[
of differentiation evol ves in response to th e mothe r 's
lack of subjectivity, WIth w hich the g irl identifIes and
the boy disiden tifics.
This chapter will focus on woman's lack of subj ccti\'
THE