In his work, Civilization and its Discontents, Sigmund Freud discusses what it is to be happy. This discussion is developed into the reasons which civilization forms and defines many characteristics which can be seen in people, such as love, guilt, happiness, and aggression. Through this discussion, the reader ends up with exactly what the title suggests, a set of discontents brought forth because many of humankind’s natural tendencies are inconsolable with civilization. Does his work, viewed through a modern lens, still hold up?
The first task undertaken in this work is that of defining happiness. Freud points out that happiness is in line with the pleasure principle; maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. He declares people generally seek to be happy and to remain so. From here the author points out that there are many ways to achieve this happiness such as through sudden action or through the more moderate, drawn-out, avoidance of displeasure. Either side has its ups or downs; On the one hand, sudden unrestricted satisfaction seems attractive but throws caution to the wind which goes against the second part of the pleasure principle which is to avoid displeasure. On the other hand, being cautious avoids displeasure yet at the same time restricts one’s ability to be happy.
Displeasure or suffering is derived from three places: our own body, the external world (nature), and relationships between people. The third kind is said to be the cause of the most suffering and from here one can see how the narrative will soon be drawn in the direction of civilization. Freud claims that civilization is largely responsible for human suffering. The reader is shown the definition of civilization; “the whole sum of the achievements and the regulations which distinguish our lives from those of our animal ancestors and which serves two purposes, to protect people against nature and adjust their mutual relations.” One should note that in many places in the text civilization is seemingly analogous with the individual. Freud at one point claims that if the motive for human activity is utility and pleasure, then the same must be true of civilization.
Freud discusses in depth the process by which civilization must have developed. This portion is crucial to Freud’s narrative as it lays down the constraints that will later be found inconsolable with human nature. At some point, primitive humans discovered that it was more beneficial for everyone if they worked together. Individuals working for their own pleasure with no regard for others only end up hurting the rest of the group. The power of the majority over the power of the individual represents the decisive step of civilization. In this, there is the claim to security for all individuals or the first form of justice. Freud claims that justice is “assurance that a law once made will not be broken in favor of an individual” which leaves “no one at the mercy of brute force.”
People are creatures that desire freedom though. So many struggles throughout history have centered on this idea and Freud clearly states this. He points out that humankind struggles to find a balance between the happiness of the individual and the claims of the group. This is one of the first inconsolable problems that are pointed out as perhaps a person’s desire for total freedom is a source of hostility towards civilization.
What then holds civilization together? If the hostility is there then why is it society does not break into chaos as men attempt to have total freedom? The author explains that love is a major factor in this. In an attempt to secure that which man loves most, he allows for the security of civilization even though civilization will in fact inhibit his ability to love. Love acts as a kind of glue for civilization even though it is another inconsolable factor for Freud.
In Freud’s opinion, a person comes to love their own family, those who are like them (their friends), those who represent their ideal, and the families of their friends. In this love, they hold to the constraints of civilization so that all that they love might remain more secure. “Civilization is in the service of Eros, combining families, races, peoples, and nations.” This love translates to happiness which has already been discussed. Freud can be criticized for his methods in defining love. He attempts to explain love as the evolution of sexual ownership. He says that man possessed the object of his sexual desire and this diminished into a more sensible form as civilization developed. It is agreeable that sexuality has diminished from its primitive form however, Freud attempts to call all kinds of love something that is a diminished form of this erotic desire. Love is more complicated than that and one could say that Freud is generalizing too much. Outside of his definition, his placement of love in the narrative is appropriate.
The largest impediment to civilization discussed is man’s inclination to aggression. The claim is that man’s natural instinct is to use his strength and aggressiveness to take that which he wants and to attack that which he does not like. Freud’s claim to the aggression of man is backed up with discussions of all manners of war and of cruelty. His description of man’s natural disposition is dubious though he makes a good case within the narrative. The aggression of man becomes yet another factor that Freud says is quite possibly inconsolable with civilization.
A long portion of the narrative is expended on explaining how man’s aggression is inhibited by civilization in such a manner that all men do not just give in to it. In this portion, the discussion of origins of conscience and therefore guilt are discussed. Guilt comes from a fear of the loss of love. This fear of the loss of love can be seen as a loss of respect from one’s peers or society as a whole due to morals set down since childhood. These morals are also set by society. The conscience, therefore, came in this way: The renunciation of the aggressive instinct owing to fear of the external, followed by the erection of an internal substitute authority and renunciation of instinct owing to fear of the internal (the conscience).
According to Freud, civilization is built on the renunciation of instinct. In this renunciation, there is a balance between the individual and group desires. Another large inhibitor which Freud mentions several times throughout the narrative is religion. Freud clearly states his position on religions early on and defines religion as something used to solve the world’s riddles and which assures compensation for this life’s struggles. His standpoint on religion will make it difficult for those who are religious to view his argument objectively as he is obviously not a proprietor of religion. How religion is another inhibitor is easy to see through. Freud “heavily criticizes the Christian ideas of loving thy neighbor and especially, “love thine enemy”. He claims that people need to do something to deserve love. He also claims that loving your enemy is simply absurd. However, this rule, while not agreed upon by him, is believed by a large portion of the population due to their religious beliefs. He understands the immense influence and scope of religion despite his disbelief. This belief in religion is an inhibitor. It requires a mandatory love for everyone and a very strong basis for one’s conscience which as discussed inhibits the natural instinct. One could argue through the number of times religion is mentioned that religion as the main inhibitor of man’s natural instincts is Freud’s primary argument.
Freud’s bias against religion is profound. He states that religion is an admittance that all that is left to the individual is unconditional submission. He also says that religion is the intimidation of intelligence and depresses the value of life. He more than once calls the dependence on religions infantile.
We can also see that from a modern standpoint some of his takes on man’s desires are a bit dated. His constant attempt to tie almost every desire of man with things erotic is a bit dated. Though he is the father of psychoanalysis many of his theories as to the subconscious workings of humankind must now be taken with this in mind.
On the whole, his argumentation of man’s source of discontent towards civilization is clear and concise. His logic is hard to argue with and the work certainly maintains relevance in the eyes of modern people. Certainly, there are many things within the desires of the individual that are inconsolable with civilization. At this point though, it could be argued that civilization has become the new natural state for man and must be observed as such.