Civilization and Its Discontents

By Sigmund Freud

The struggle between the urgencies of instinct and the restrictions of civilization is addressed throughout the works of Sigmund Freud, and in Civilization and Its Discontents the theme is developed with particular richness and depth. This famous study explores the guilt that arises when personal desires clash with social norms, and it examines attempts to reconcile the conflict.
In a sense, such guilt is among civilization's building blocks, keeping aggressive and selfish instincts within bounds. But it can also be a source of great frustration, and Freud examines at length many ways of dealing with guilt, from artistic and scientific pursuits to abuse of drink and drugs. The great psychologist offers revealing insights into the motivation behind human behavior as well as the evolution of many social institutions. This seminal study reveals the struggles to resolve conflicts and cast off guilt as spurs to the growth of civilization and culture.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Release date: May 13, 2016
• ISBN: 9780486812014

Book preview

VIII

I

THE impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards, that everyone seeks power, success, riches for himself and admires others who attain them, while undervaluing the truly precious things in life. And yet, in making any general judgment of this kind, one is in danger of forgetting the manifold variety of humanity and its mental life. There are certain men from whom their contemporaries do not withhold veneration, although their greatness rests on attributes and achievements which are completely foreign to the aims and ideals of the multitude. One might well be inclined to suppose that after all it is only a minority who appreciate these great men, while the majority cares nothing for them. But the discrepancy between men's opinions and their behaviour is so wide and their desires so many-sided that things are probably not so simple.

One of these exceptional men calls himself my friend in his letters to me. I had sent him my little book which treats of religion as an illusion and he answered that he agreed entirely with my views on religion, but that he was sorry I had not properly appreciated the ultimate source of religious sentiments. This consists in a peculiar feeling, which never leaves him personally, which he finds shared by many others, and which he may suppose millions more also experience. It is a feeling which he would like to call a sensation of eternity, a feeling as of something limitless, unbounded, something oceanic. It is, he says, a purely subjective experience, not an article of belief; it implies no assurance of personal immortality, but it is the source of the religious spirit and is taken hold of by the various Churches and religious systems, directed by them into definite channels, and also, no doubt, used up in them. One may rightly call oneself religious on the ground of this oceanic feeling alone, even though one reject all beliefs and all illusions.

These views, expressed by my friend whom I so greatly honour and who himself once in poetry described the magic of illusion, put me in a difficult position. I cannot discover this oceanic feeling in myself. It is not easy to deal scientifically with feelings. One may attempt to describe their physiological signs. Where that is impossible—I am afraid the oceanic feeling, too, will defy this kind of classification—nothing remains but to turn to the ideational content which most readily associates itself with the feeling. If I have understood my friend aright, he means the same thing as that consolation offered by an original and somewhat unconventional writer to his hero, contemplating suicide: Out of this world we cannot fall.¹ So it is a feeling of indissoluble connection, of belonging inseparably to the external world as a whole. To me, personally, I may remark, this seems something more in the nature of an intellectual judgment, not, it is true, without any accompanying feeling-tone, but with one of a kind which characterizes other equally far-reaching reflections as well. I could not in my own person convince myself of the primary nature of such a feeling. But I cannot on that account deny that it in fact occurs in other people. One can only wonder whether it has been correctly interpreted and whether it is entitled to be acknowledged as the fons et origo² of the whole need for religion.

I have nothing to suggest which could effectively settle the solution of this problem. The idea that man should receive intimation of his connection with the surrounding world by a direct feeling which aims from the outset at serving this purpose sounds so strange and is so incongruous with the structure of our psychology that one is justified in attempting a psycho-analytic, that is, genetic explanation of such a feeling. Whereupon the following lines of thought present themselves. Normally there is nothing we are more certain of than the feeling of our self, our own ego. It seems to us an independent unitary thing, sharply outlined against everything else. That this is a deceptive appearance, and that on the contrary the ego extends inwards without any sharp delimitation, into an unconscious mental entity which we call the id and to which it forms a façade, was first discovered by psycho-analytic research, and the latter still has much to tell us about the relations of the ego to the id. But towards the outer world, at any rate, the ego seems to keep itself clearly and sharply outlined and delimited. There is only one state of mind in which it fails to do this—an unusual state, it is true, but not one that can be judged as pathological. At its height, the state of being in love threatens to obliterate the boundaries between ego and object. Against all the evidence of his senses, the man in love declares that he and his beloved are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact. A thing that can be temporarily effaced by a physiological function must also of course be liable to disturbance by morbid processes. From pathology we have come to know a large number of states in which the boundary line between ego and outer world become uncertain, or in which they are actually incorrectly perceived—cases in which parts of a man's own body, even component parts of his own mind, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, appear to him alien and not belonging to himself; other cases in which a man ascribes to the external world things that clearly originate in himself, and that ought to be acknowledged by him. So the ego's cognizance of itself is subject to disturbance, and the boundaries between it and the outer world are not immovable.

Further reflection shows that the adult's sense of his own ego cannot have been the same from the beginning. It must have undergone a development, which naturally cannot be demonstrated, but which admits of reconstruction with a fair degree of probability.¹ When the infant at the breast receives stimuli, he cannot as yet distinguish whether they come from his ego or from the outer world. He learns it gradually as the result of various exigencies. It must make the strongest impression on him that many sources of excitation, which later on he will recognize as his own bodily organs, can provide him at any time with sensations, whereas others become temporarily out of his reach—amongst these what he wants most of all, his mother's breast—and reappear only as a result of his cries for help. Thus an object first presents itself to the ego as something existing outside, which is only induced to appear by a particular act. A further stimulus to the growth and formation of the ego, so that it becomes something more than a bundle of sensations, i.e., recognizes an outside, the external world, is afforded by the frequent, unavoidable and manifold pains and unpleasant sensations which the pleasure-principle, still in unrestricted domination, bids it abolish or avoid. The tendency arises to dissociate from the ego everything which can give rise to pain, to cast it out and create a pure pleasure-ego, in contrast to a threatening outside, not-self. The limits of this primitive pleasure-ego cannot escape readjustment through experience. Much that the individual wants to retain because it is pleasure-giving is nevertheless part not of the ego but of an object; and much that he wishes to eject because it torments him yet proves to be inseparable from the ego, arising from an inner source. He learns a method by which, through deliberate use of the sensory organs and suitable muscular movements, he can distinguish between internal and external—what is part of the ego and what originates in the outer world—and thus he makes the first step towards the introduction of the reality-principle which is to control his development further. This capacity for distinguishing which he learns of course serves a practical purpose, that of enabling him to defend himself against painful sensations felt by him or threatening him. Against certain painful excitations from within, the ego has only the same means of defence as that employed against pain coming from without, and this is the starting-point of important morbid disturbances.

In this way the ego detaches itself from the external world. It is more correct to say: Originally the ego includes everything, later it detaches from itself the external world. The ego-feeling we are aware of now is thus only a shrunken vestige of a far more extensive feeling—a feeling which embraced the universe and expressed an inseparable connection of the ego with the external world. If we may suppose that this primary ego-feeling has been preserved in the minds of many people—to a greater or lesser extent—it would co-exist like a sort of counterpart with the narrower and more sharply outlined ego-feeling of maturity, and the ideational content belonging to it would be precisely the notion of limitless extension and oneness with the universe—the same feeling as that described by my friend as oceanic. But have we any right to assume that the original type of feeling survives alongside the later one which has developed from it?

Undoubtedly we have: there is nothing unusual in such a phenomenon, whether in the psychological or in other spheres. Where animals are concerned, we hold the view that the most highly developed have arisen from the lowest. Yet

Reviews for Civilization and Its Discontents

[eromsted_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Utter nonsense.The basic intellectual procedure seems to be thus:Take commonplace and stereotyped social observations and jam them into dubious theoretical constructs. Then build these constructs into an edifice that purports to explain all of human behavior. Never look back for alternate explanations, or even to see if the resulting theory stands up to reality.Furthermore, Freud's main argument sells humanity extremely short. He seems to believe that human behavior can be explained as the attempt to seek pleasure in the fulfillment of instinctual drives like sex and aggression, or as the "sublimation" (whatever that means) of these drives into other activities. What a dim and constricted worldview.I have a difficult time understanding how Freud could ever have been taken so seriously.

[sgarnell_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Even though not every theory of Freud can be easily understood or even accepted, he has a lot to say about civilization. What I found quite striking was his detailed analysis of freedom, and the tradeoffs we make of it in order to be part of our chosen society. I for one feel there is much to learn here, and recommend this book to all those who wish to pursue the question of who we are, and what we can become as a species.

[torikton · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The single most important book I've ever read.

[garywolf_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The impact of Sigmund Freud on contemporary Western thought can hardly be underestimated. Many of the key "psychological" terms we employ can be traced back to his writing. Although fascinating and often insightful, much of his influence has been destructive, providing comfort and a scientific imprimatur for a large portion of the anti-Western diatribes of the last generation.Let us first dispose of several misconceptions that have clouded the popular image of this brilliant thinker. To begin with, Freud is no touchy-feely, tree-hugging, crystal-gazing therapist from Vermont. He is a hardened observer of human nature, quite Hobbesian, convinced that aggression and unbounded self-interest are primary factors in the motivation of human behavior. He mocks those who preach unlimited love, as well as those who would coddle criminals. His views on women would shock many an unsuspecting feminist.Likewise, Freud is clear in his opposition to utopian political schemes, such as communism. He writes that the Marxist view of private property is based on a fallacy:"The psychological premises on which the [communist] system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property."It is quite possible that Freud's psychoanalytic treatment of mentally ill individuals, or even of merely miserable ones, has proven to be highly effective. This is arguable, but it belongs to another discussion. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that his contribution in this field was worthy of his reputation.The problem begins where psychoanalysis ends and the development of a comprehensive theory of human society begins. Percolating throughout his writing is a misapplication of concepts from the psychology of the individual to the level of civilization--which, incidentally, is one of Freud's favorite words. For example, take the notion of guilt, which he claims is the "most important problem in the development of civilization." Guilt certainly has a role to play in our lives, and the shedding of unnecessary guilt goes a long way to ameliorating one's peace of mind, but the most important problem?Freud's highly influential work, "Civilization and Its Discontents," abounds with such sweeping, grandiose statements, the applicability of which seldom extends further than the Viennese café in which he was seated when the epiphany struck him. Here's another one:"Civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another."One might think that the study of aesthetics could somehow rise above the fray of the battling instinct gods, but this also is traced back to the shadowy domain of individual impulses:"All that seems certain is [beauty's] derivation from the field of sexual feeling. The love of beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its aim. `Beauty' and `attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object. It is worth remarking that the genitals themselves, the sight of which is always exciting, are nevertheless hardly ever judged to be beautiful..."One could easily imagine this being said by a character in a film by Fellini, in a scene satirizing the mumbo-jumbo of ivory tower academics.Freud's remarks on religion, which he holds in the highest contempt, are indicative of an abysmal ignorance. He claims that religion derives from the "infant's helplessness and the longing for the father aroused by it." Other factors are later admitted, but (as in the case of aesthetics) everything is traced back to the individual and his instincts. There is no consideration of the actual content of religion, its insight and its wisdom. Even Nietzsche, certainly no friend of Judeo-Christian teachings, once remarked that the Old Testament was the greatest work of literature ever produced by man.Freud's macro-level analysis fails because he has seized upon a certain realm, individual psychology, and inflated it to supernatural dimensions. Certainly, it has an impact, but it is only one slice of the societal pie, or more accurately, one ingredient therein. It can never explain all of human existence. Human society is a complex organism, with multiple and criss-crossing influences.Freud's error is only too typical of the modern mind, estranged as it is from the profound ocean of history. What escapes Freud completely is the fact that culture has an existence that is independent of any given individual or group of individuals. Culture is produced layer upon layer. It is much greater than the sum of its human parts, and does not result from the intent or design of any single person, group, or generation.Thus an analysis (were it possible) that could aggregate the thoughts and impulses of every human mind that has ever existed would still be insufficient for understanding the essence of culture.In Freud's world view, man is wrested from his culture; he is fragmented, alienated, and made a slave of his animal self. Freud inherited and expanded the legacy of Darwin, who attempted to prove that man is nothing more than an animal. Freud went one step further, in attempting to demonstrate that all of man's creations--so utterly at variance with the animal world--can nevertheless be traced back to instincts and bodily functions that we have in common with apes and aardvarks. To say that this has provided fuel for deconstructionists of every variety would be to state the obvious.Freud's most impressive feat may have been to complete the work of Hegel and Darwin in constructing the new secular religion for Western man. Hegel, through his "world-historical spirit" and immutable "laws" of society's development, strips man of his free will, and paves the way for the unbounded totalitarianism that has so marked modern society. Darwin teaches that man is an animal, a shock treatment that has led people to despair of the perennial search for a higher nature--a quest that had run like a thread through the annals of Western civilization. Freud adds the third idol of the trinity, that of the instincts, particularly the sexual.Put the three together, and there is nothing left of God, reason, art, the intellect, purpose, wisdom, or contemplation.

[gbill_7 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I’m not an expert in psychology or a believer in many of Freud’s theories, but I found “Civilization and its Discontents” to be an interesting read for its ideas on history and culture.At the outset of the book, Freud states that religion is infantile, that there is no inherent meaning to life, and that what drives us is the fulfillment of the pleasure principle. Pretty strong stuff for 1930. Our pleasure is threatened by our own mortality and the breakdown of our body as we age, but more importantly it is threatened by civilization, which naturally must erect laws to prevent individuals from wreaking havoc by following their baser instincts of pleasure, e.g. violence and sex. This societal force also applies to man’s more noble instinct to love, which it restricts by creating various laws and taboos.This rub between the individual and society is the basis for the book; Freud essentially says that the civilization we built to protect us and to preserve our happiness from what would otherwise be a wilderness turns out to be the prime source of our misery. I don’t believe all of what follows, e.g. the ego-instinct of thatanos and that type of thing, but found a good portion of it to be thought provoking. It also brought a smile to read his descriptions of the ways in which unhappiness can be avoided in chapter two. I would briefly summarize these as isolation from people, intoxication, mastering or controlling one’s instincts, seeking pleasure internally, utilizing imagination, looking for all one’s satisfaction in love, and looking for happiness in the enjoyment of beauty.As an aside, where does translator James Strachey get off being listed as the author of this book? This is like seeing “War and Peace” listed as written by Constance Garnett because she wrote the introduction and translated it. Sheesh. I manually changed it to Freud.Quotes:On God:“…by his science and technology, man has brought about on this earth, on which he first appeared as a feeble animal organism and on which each individual of his species must once more make its entry (‘oh inch of nature!) as a helpless suckling – these things do not only sound like a fairy tale, they are an actual fulfillment of every – or of almost every – fairy-tale wish. … Long ago he formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience which he embodies in his gods. To these gods he attributed everything that seemed unattainable to his wishes, or that was forbidden to him. One may say, therefore, that these gods were cultural ideals. To-day he has come very close to the attainment of this ideal, he has almost become a god himself.”On meaninglessness:“The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; it has never yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit of one. Some of those who have asked it have added that if it should turn out that life has no purpose, it would lose all value for them. But this threat alters nothing. … Nobody talks about the purpose of the life of animals, unless, perhaps, it may be supposed to lie in being of service to man.”On religion:“The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.”

[madepercy-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It is quite clear that Freud was so far ahead of his time that some of his theories may still prove to be correct, in spite of what "modern" evidence suggests. Freud resonates with so many unspoken thoughts it would seem that psychoanalysis provided his laboratory of the unspoken, enabling him to grasp what others had or could not. Given the context of the times, Freud appears to me to have seen through the veneer of the Victorian era, and even grasped the problems of the present era. It is more than obvious he was well-read in art and literature and rightly deserves the title of "genius". I went to Freud after reading Andy Warhol (despite the seemingly disparate connection it made sense to me) and now I am compelled to explore Voltaire and Kant. Voltaire to comprehend the context of the sublime and Kant to try to discover how one could articulate so much from so little observation.

[serinachaoalonzo · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's very clear the Freud was way ahead of his time. That is what I love about his books personally. With this one, however... I usually don't stop and go back to read the chapter until I got its meaning.. But this time I did. Freud made me realize how society is now. A huge example is religion. Which is mentioned in the book. It made me realize that it is just something that was brought on to us. It's not a 'real' thing. It's an ideal thing that has been embedded into our own minds to make it seem real. This is such a great read, and such an eye opener on society.

[rampaginglibrarian · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

We used this book for my history of film class which gives you a really interesting perspective on Freud--a rather different one than a got from my psychology classes anyway. Anyway this is a seminal text that i think every person who considers himself well-read should read.

[justine_3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Classic Freud where he extends his psychological theory from the individual's development toward a universal theory of cultural development.

[tnilsson_24 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Utter, made-up, nonsense. Read Frederick Crews' book, Freud: The Making of an Illusion, for a (very long) description of what a pseudo-scientist Freud was and how his writings, including this one, are based on nothing but his personal delusions and ambitions. If I could give this 0 stars, I would.