THE CONCEPTION OF SEXUALITY (IV)1

DR GLOVER'S REPLY.

MR SHAND has reviewed certain of the considerations advanced in my first paper with admirable fairness; but his reply seems to be based on the assumption that these constitute the main justification of the extended connotation of Sexuality found in Freud's Libido Theory: whereas my intention was to cite a number of significant facts which are rendered intelligible by that theory and which might impress those who, like Mr Shand, have not encountered at first hand the psycho-analytical evidence upon which it rests.

Although some acute observer might have detected a genetic connection between infantile tendencies, which we regard as the earliest manifestation of the sexual group of instincts and later tendencies, present in a modified form in the adult sexual situation and in an unchanged form in the sexual perversions, it is certain that in the absence of the mass of evidence invariably unearthed during a psychoanalytical investigation, this would have remained a mere speculation vulnerable to the arguments Mr Shand has adduced, as when he says that the onus probandi' rests on those who would extend the connotation of 'sexual' in unexpected and a priori unlikely directions.

To this demand I would reply that proof of the most convincing sort can be obtained, but that unlike the evidential data of other scientific hypotheses the evidential data of Psycho-Analysis are, for obvious reasons, accessible only to a few workers, and in the absence of first-hand investigation, even were the enormous mass of material necessary to one full case-history published in extenso, it is improbable that any real step would have been taken in the direction of securing wider acceptance of conclusions based on daily first-hand investigations of many such histories.

I did not stress this fundamental point in my first paper, for it seemed to me that, from the point of view of a general discussion, to do so would be useless, would land the disputants in an impasse. I even went further and omitted to deal with one extension of the term sexual of the utmost practical importance, namely, to include under that heading a

A contribution to a discussion at a meeting of the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society on March 25, 1925.

host of neurotic and psychotic symptoms, e.g. as when a fear of something in actuality signifies a sexual desire.

Mr Shand's main contention is that until it is proved that the tendencies in dispute are consciously experienced by all normal persons, we are not justified in taking a leap from the particular to the general and regarding them as attributes of our common human nature. In short he seems to consider that our dispute could be settled by a sufficiently extensive questionnaire.

Now suppose that such a questionnaire were undertaken, Mr Shand would be placed in an awkward quandary by the number of persons who would assert (truthfully so far as consciousness is concerned) that they have never experienced any sexual desire whatsoever and who would assert with every show of justification that, in the opinion of themselves and their acquaintances, they were normal individuals, regarding the absence of sexual desire as a cultural achievement, which in one sense it is. On the other hand the large number of such instances (e.g. a high percentage of women educated according to a certain cultural pattern) would favour our view, for it is obvious that cultural influences, which can bring about the apparent disappearance of the sexual instinct in toto, a fortiori may well have brought about the apparent disappearance of such of its components as are strongly repugnant to the cultural Ego, even when this is not highly developed.

Once concede the possibility that Man's real instinctual make-up may be masked by a cultural superstructure, to the point that he ceases to be aware of certain of its components, or of the hidden nature of their cultural displacements and Mr Shand's objection is invalidated.

Of course our real answer would be that individuals who would certainly have answered the questionnaire with a complete denial of all sexuality, would in the course of psycho-analysis come to a very different conclusion; but since such an answer tends to be monotonous and to remain unconvincing I prefer to dwell on the bearing of this factor of cultural modification of primary instinct-impulses on our present topic, and on the reason why the task of penetrating this superstructure and discovering the existence of certain primary impulses behind its distortions had to wait till a special set of circumstances led to the elaboration of a method adequate to its accomplishment.

It was inevitable that sooner or later human behaviour should be studied from the same standpoint that the habits of a beaver are scrutinised, rejoicing in the fact that unlike the beaver man could presumably also give an account of his behaviour from the inside. In the

light of our present knowledge this combined method is as trustworthy, where certain primary impulses are concerned, as an inquiry into the aggressive impulses of members of these animal happy families which delighted our childhood, carried out by someone who had never observed these creatures in their natural environments.

We now know that certain primary instinct-impulses undergo extensive and complex modifications before the so-called normality of cultural man is achieved. Moreover these modifications occur mainly during an early period of development largely inaccessible to unaided recollection. And most important of all the realization of the past and present existence of the impulses in question, is opposed by the continuous operation of powerful resistances; so that for instance an impulse, the gratification of which was once pleasurably toned, ceases to be so and cannot threaten to manifest itself without exciting some variety of unpleasurably toned repudiation. It will be said that in laying down these considerations I am begging the question, so that I must restrict myself to the point that if these considerations are at all sound (and surely the hypothesis of profound cultural modification of instinct in man is a priori a highly probable one) then it follows:

(1) That Dr Hadfield's simple biological criterion of subserving reproduction would be a very misleading instrument for the investigation of the instinctual components of Man's sexual life.

(2) That Mr Shand's use of the descriptive criterion in what I might call the statistical or questionnaire form (e.g. Does every normal person experience this?) would be equally inadequate to elicit the facts.

Further if this hypothesis be sound, we see further, why its secure establishment and detailed working out had to await that special set of circumstances which led to the elaboration of the psycho-analytical technique, for if it be true that powerful obstacles stand in the way of a thorough-going scrutiny of Man's instinctual life, these could be overcome only with the help of powerful motives, operating alike in investigator and in the subject. These motives were provided by the desire to alleviate intense suffering on the one hand and the desire to be rid of it on the other. Certain unfortunate individuals, in whom the work of instinct-modification had but imperfectly succeeded and who in consequence suffered from certain painful and disabling disabilities, expressing an unsatisfactory compromise between cultural development and the pressure of imperfectly mastered instinct-impulses, came under the notice of a physician with an unusual flair for psychological investigation, and the motives mentioned above provided the necessary

incentive to the elaboration and carrying out against strong resistances, of the prolonged and painstaking enquiry into hidden motives, which ended in the isolation and genetic study of hitherto unexpected primary impulses continuing to operate undetected in human behaviour.

Since then, similar investigations have been carried out by workers of diverse races and temperaments, upon subjects normal and abnormal, exhibiting an equal diversity and, provided that certain technical precautions are taken and certain technical rules are observed, the results are found to tally in essentials without exception.

But although this set of circumstances had this fortunate consequence, it has exposed the findings arrived at to certain reiterated criticisms. These findings are said to be valid only in a special field of enquiry labelled clinical, the confusion here being due to the traditional medical view of the disturbances investigated, which, in ignorance of the fact that they were the expression of mal-adaptations of instinctimpulses to cultural requirements, classed them as diseases in the ordinary sense. Dr Hadfield has admitted that these findings have a large measure of validity in Clinical Psychology, but, under the influence of this point of view, has questioned their utility for General Psychology. This point has already been dealt with succinctly by Dr Ernest Jones in his paper on Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology1, in which he explains his reasons for holding the exactly contrary view, that the findings of Clinical Psychology are necessarily more relevant to the needs of Social Psychology than those of any other branch of psychological enquiry. Mr Shand too writes constantly in his present contribution, under the influence of this tendency to rule out of court as unworthy of consideration, data observed by physicians in the course of their investigations into the deeper sources of what are essentially social maladaptations and not diseases in the ordinary sense. Had it so befallen that the first insight into the nature of these disorders had been achieved by a general psychologist and their technical treatment become the monopoly of pedagogic psychologists, then I am sure that Mr Shand with his immense range of erudition would have been a worthier exponent of the Libido theory than I can hope to be.

Before leaving this question of the onus probandi,' it must be granted that even the high degree of conviction regarding its general validity gained by those whose daily first-hand investigations seem at all points to confirm the Libido theory, falls short of absolute proof in

1 In the Morton Prince commemorative volume, Problems of Personality, published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co. Ltd., pp. 15–25.

the sense which Mr Shand seems to desiderate. The Libido theory is a flexible hypothesis which has been modified and still is in course of undergoing modification in the light of increasing knowledge and Freud himself would claim for it no more than a high degree of heuristic value and pragmatic justification.

It should now be clear that in criticising my descriptive criterion (according to which a specific pleasure-gain termed 'libidinal' includes the phenomenon in question under the heading of sexuality) on the grounds that all normal persons do not experience it in this or that instance, Mr Shand has failed to take into account even as a possibility the cultural repression of components of the sexual instinct repugnant to the Ego.

Another important criticism is aimed at the proposition that there is a psychological identity discoverable in processes grouped as sexual. Here our difference of opinion is no doubt due to a misunderstanding.

When I postulated a psychological identity present in processes grouped as sexual, I did not mean that the processes themselves were in all respects identical. I merely meant that, inherent in each was a certain quality described as libidinal.

The technical phrase runs: "this or that sensation, activity, idea, etc., is invested with Libido, an investment which varies considerably in intensity but not in quality.”

Limiting ourselves for the moment to the instance of erotogenic zones, Mr Shand considers it prima facie improbable that the sensations of any organ or zone should be identical with those of any other, and I should agree with him if this meant that they were identical in all respects. Obviously different structural and functional settings must affect the totality of the experience.

To take the case he instances, the comparison of oral and genital sensations-it is not asserted that libidinal excitation of the mouth zone (which can be recognised as such, e.g. in 'sensual' kissing) is in all respects identical with genital excitation, which is much more intense and especially in men accompanied by a different urge. It is merely asserted that in this and in all other physical experiences which when they are conscious are usually termed 'sensual' there is a quality which is termed 'libidinal' and which is derived from the sexual group of Instincts. The 'energy' giving rise to this libidinal excitation is supposed to be capable of displacement from one organ, activity, idea, etc., to others and is conceived as hypothetically measurable. The erotogenic zones are asserted to be the site, in especially high degree, of such excita