Jordan's Questions

Freud’s Three Essays On the Theory of Sexuality

In Essay #1 of Freud’s Three Essays on Sexuality, Freud implements numerous edits to the concept of the “sexual object.” He states that overvaluation of the sexual object that is the primary genitalia leads to perversion, which can be “positive” or “negative.” The positive perversion is characteristic of viewing a mate’s entire body as a sexual entity, which is widely socially acceptable. Conversely, negative perversion deviates from the norm by substituting the drive for the primary genitalia for that of a solitary part of the body. Thus it appears a normative sexual view is that in which the whole body becomes object – the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” What’s wrong with this idea of a spectrum of perversion/sexual fetishism? In other words, why is it more acceptable to fetishize the entire body than a single component of it?

In essay #2, Freud touches on the childish idea of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” as a sort of precursor to voyeurism. Moreover, he states that voyeurism, in the perverse sense, beckons reciprocity as well, as the voyeur is too an exhibitionist at all times. Are these innate forms of reciprocity in anyway analogous to that of capitalist and/or gift exchange? Could this inherent existence of sexual reciprocity be the subconscious root of these more modern forms of exchange?

In essay #3 Freud implies that our parents provide the model for our future mates/objects of desire. Then to what extent is dating/the search for a mate simply a matching game, consisting of finding identical parts?


“Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence”

I was particularly intrigued by the author's use of the word "artful" to describe the mechanisms of disavowal of reality and fetishism as "displacement" of value. In what ways are these mechanisms analogous to the craft of artwork? And if similar, is it the subconscious process or the manifestations themselves?

~Jordan Carter~