An Analysis of "Civilization and Its Discontents"

In his book Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud eventually gets around to making a comparison between civilization and the super-ego. He traces the origin of the super-ego back to primitive man, and discusses its destructive role in the modern individual. It seems that we must find a way to tame the super-ego in order to escape repression.

According to Freud, the super-ego is "an agency which has been inferred by us, and conscience is a function which we ascribe, among other functions, to that agency" (100). In other words, the super-ego has the power of making us feel good or bad about the things we do, and even the things we contemplate doing. Before the super-ego developed, an external force, as Freud points out - a father figure, punished individuals for the wrongful acts they committed. Over time a super-ego formed as an interior force. Any aggression felt by the ego toward anything, is superimposed upon that ego by the super-ego, rather than the individual releasing that aggression on the external object for which it was originally intended. The super-ego punishes the individual for the acts that they think of, making it hard for them to actually commit said acts, because "the distinction, moreover, between doing something bad and wishing to do it disappears entirely, since nothing can be hidden from the super-ego, not even thoughts" (86).

However, many of these acts are such that they entice the ego, and so, they must be pleasurable to some degree. If the instincts of the ego are consistently overruled by the super-ego, the individual will experience an unhealthy internal tension. A greater problem arises when the super-ego will not allow the ego any pleasure, propelling the individual into a neurotic state:

In our research into, and therapy of, a neurosis, we are led to make two reproaches against the super-ego of the individual. In the severity of its commands and prohibitions it troubles itself too little about the happiness of the ego, in that it takes insufficient account of resistances against obeying them - of the instinctual strength of the id [in the first place], and of the difficulties presented by the real external environment [in the second]. (108)

The manner by which the super-ego punishes the ego is guilt: "The tension between the harsh super-ego and the ego that is subjected to it, is called by us a sense of guilt; it expresses itself as a need for punishment" (84). This sense of guilt often oppresses the ego so much, that individuals often feel overwhelming guilt for thoughts or deeds that others would see no problem with. Freud mentions different degrees of the super-ego, using saints as an example of a fanatically overbearing super-ego, so much so that, although these saints are entirely virtuous, they often believe that they are sinners. It seems that the more imposing the super-ego is, the less pleasure the ego experiences, while at the same time the fanatical super-ego punishes the innocent ego with feelings of guilt. The less the ego does "wrong" the more powerful the super-ego becomes.

The destructive power of the super-ego is not only problematic because it causes neurosis, but it is also a problem because, while it reprimands the ego for "bad" thoughts and actions, it seems more hesitant to reward the ego for "good" thoughts and actions. Here the pleasure principle can be mentioned in describing the relationship between the ego and the super-ego: The ego does not seek reward from the super-ego for "good" thoughts and actions. Instead, it merely wishes to forgo the reprimand. Therefore we, as individuals, become more intent on satisfying the super-ego, than on satisfying our other human needs. This can be more, or less, problematic depending on the degree of harshness of the super-ego.

The destruction of the individual by the super-ego is exhibited on a larger scale in civilization as well. The way in which a civilization shows symptoms of this destruction is explained as follows: "...it is very conceivable that the sense of guilt produced by civilization is not perceived as such either, and remains to a large extent unconscious, or appears as a sort of malaise, a dissatisfaction for which people seek other motivations" (99). An even greater problem ensues when one does not correctly identify the root of the initial problem.

Using one of his usual examples, Freud draws attention to the fact that religions "have never overlooked the part played in civilization by a sense of guilt. Furthermore...they claim to redeem mankind from this sense of guilt, which they call sin" (99). However, it is important to take into consideration the fact that religion is often a cause of guilt in the first place. Although the ego is internally guided, or overshadowed, by the super-ego, religion plays an important part in establishing the morals of society, acting as a strict external guide. Government, too, acts in a similar manner - where one threatens punishment after death, the other threatens immediate punishment. This brings into question the idea of "nature versus nurture" to which there is no single answer. Is our super-ego merely imposing the morals of society onto the ego, or did the morals of society stem from the super-ego?

Freud seems to think that the super-ego is bound to develop, and that genetics and social factors are not the only things that contribute to the type of super-ego an individual has. It seems that many people are born with the innate ability to restrain from doing things, even if those things are attractive. Others seem to have a more relaxed super-ego, and may engage in activities that please the ego. One must wonder whether that self-indulging individual actually has a less-strict super-ego, or whether that individual has found switch with which to turn off that nagging conscience, even if only momentarily - Bringing one to wonder just how, and if, that switch can be manipulated.

When considering the ways in which our egos can coexist happily with the super-ego, I thought immediately of two vastly different people that I know. One, an individual who allows her ego to run rampant, indulging in all manner of intoxicants and sexual pleasure; and the other, a completely "straight-edge" individual who refuses to indulge in anything whatsoever, besides schoolwork. What allows one to ignore her super-ego, while the other is a slave to hers?

I do not think that this question can be answered. However, one can explore these matters, and try to reach a better understanding of the two extremes, in hopes that one will find, somewhere between the two, a happier state of being. While the individual with the rampant ego often finds herself threatening her physical condition, she is also often unhappy emotionally. The individual who heeds her super-ego religiously is often overstressed mentally, leading to physical symptoms of extreme fatigue and susceptibility to illness. Since both extreme individuals often find themselves in a state of ill physical and mental health, it can be concluded that both extremes of the super-ego are unhealthy to the individual. Where Freud mainly discusses the overly strict super-ego, we must also pay attention to that overly lenient super-ego that allows the individual to be in certain harmful situations. It only stands to reason that one must find the perfect balance of ego and super-ego in order to live a healthy life.

One way to satisfy the ego, when influenced by a vindictive super-ego, may be to try to ignore some of the super-ego's messages. If an individual has a great desire to do something, and there is no feasible harm in doing it, then the ego should have the power of "veto" over the super-ego. If Freud believes that those who feel the most guilt are those who pay the most heed to their super-egos, then it would make sense that one's ego can be partially weaned off of that feeling of guilt by satisfying some of the ego's desires. If the super-ego starts to feel threatened, as it were, by an unheeding ego, then the super-ego may lighten up on the punishment.

As was discussed briefly in class, everyone has at least one activity that he loves to do. Often, that activity has a relation to the super-ego and the ego. The activity is probably something that satisfies the ego in some way, but since the individual enjoys it enough to say that he "loves" it, one can assume that he performs this activity on a fairly regular basis. In doing so, it is probably not an activity that results in feelings of guilt from the super-ego. One way to keep the destructive powers of the super-ego to a minimum is to do those things that we love. These activities are probably of the relaxing nature, in that they allow one to take one's mind - the collective ego and super-ego - off of other problems or issues.

Another, more obvious way of reducing the power of the super-ego, is the use of intoxicants. Alcohol certainly can remove some inhibitions that we have about certain things - inhibitions that were likely put into place by the super-ego. I believe Freud would also argue that love is an intoxicant of sorts, and that in many cases love can change the nature of the super-ego. As Freud points out, fear of external reprimand is often translated as a fear of the loss of love, or "social anxiety" (85). Although the reprimand is now derived from an internal force, the individual will still view love with great regard. When an individual is in love, he is often willing to overcome great obstacles for the sake of his libido-object. However, when "threatened by such a loss of love, he once more bows to the parental representative in his super-ego - a representative whom, in his days of good fortune, he was ready to neglect" (88).

In trying to subdue the super-ego, I believe that each person must find a solution that meets his individual needs. Some people turn to religion, believing that the external forgiveness will lead to internal forgiveness. In the highly religious person, this might be true, as the super-ego has probably been trained to act in harmony with the individual's religious beliefs. An individual who has few or no religious convictions will probably have a more self-determined super-ego.

Freud claims that the super-ego is extremely destructive, not only to the individual, but also on a larger scale - to civilization. These "discontents" of civilization can be interpreted as tension between the collective ego and the collective super-ego. Many groups are aware of the desires of the ego, but unable to fulfill them, while others, like the United States (as an entity), not only manage to synthesize the ego and super-ego in order to achieve goals, but also end up imposing their super-egos on people in other groups. While some super-egos and egos can be simultaneously satisfied, it is hard, in individuals especially, to reach the perfect state of balance between the two - probably a reason for all the unhappiness we see in the world today. Even affluent countries, like Europe and the United States, are full of discontented individuals. The greatest philosophers have been those with criticisms of their societies, but maybe they were merely projecting their resentment of the super-ego onto their external enemies.

In any case, the dissonant bond between the ego and the super-ego is one that needs attention. However, it is also one that needs to be brought to attention. Not everyone is familiar with Freud and his theories on the super-ego. If more people knew that a tension does exist, then more people may be able to relieve that tension, in whatever manner works best for them.

Work Cited

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1961.