_
First of all, before responding to Eagleton’s arguments on Freud’s pessimism, I should say that I agree with Eagleton’s discussion regarding Freud’s thesis on civilization as “self-marring”. It is clear that in “The Idea of Culture”, Eagleton stays critical and on some aspects opposes “culturalist” thought. In the argument of rejecting nature, culturalists’ suggestion is about to see everything as purely cultural; like there is no idea of a mountain, and we cannot speak of a mountain without culture. Besides, relation with nature is mediated by culture. In addition, structuralist and post-structralist views point out language as a model and that everything is a sign, and thus cultural. Such that the moment we say “tree” while speaking, that tree becomes cultural. On the other hand, Eagleton oppositely argues that the fact that real, natural, biological exist is independent from that cultural mediation. In a sense, he agrees the understanding of culture as “mediating” concept, however for him it’s not the mediation of culture which enables materials to exist.
_
At this point, we can absolutely be sure of position of Freud in this kind of discussion. He sees people as predominantly and inescapably biological entities although he thinks of human beings as to be oppressed, distracted by culture (permanent internal unhappiness) from birth till death (blissful state of invulnerability before culture ever emerged). This act of shaping of culture is handled by civilization, which is the source of several contradictory behaviors. On the other hand, Eagleton emphasizes another aspect of culturalist thought that is called as “voluntarist approach”. Culturalist voluntarism suggests that human activity is completely shaped by human decision. For Eagleton, this kind of approach is a sort of wishful thinking that forgets the majority of humanity is restricted by very basic materials. Voluntarism is in fact an optimistic attitude which reserves not that much interest in social inequalities. In addition, it is a forgetting of human limitation. On the other hand, culturalism in this sense proposes the idea that human beings can control everything; both politically and technologically everything in human life is a product of human activity.
_
I think that Freud, in the voluntarism discussion, is between naturalists and culturalists. At this point, we should remember how Freud defines civilization: “We shall therefore content ourselves with saying once more that the word civilization describes the whole sum of achievements and the regulations which distinguish our lives from those of animal ancestors and which serve two purposes – namely to protect men against nature and to adjust their mutual relations.” Besides, the reason of human beings seeking pleasure and coming together to form a civilization is basically their need for survival, security, threats presented by life. For Freud, it’s hard to be happy, just because of three reasons; the superior power of nature, the feebleness of our own bodies and inadequacy of the regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society. Freud’s arguments reveal that human beings will never completely master nature; however they also claim that human organizations and associations which are the society and state are constructed by human beings, due to their needs. Additionally, Freud’s arguments on “family” suggest that family is constructed willfully. The male needed the female next to him, so that he can enable the continuity of his sexual pleasure and the female was weaker than the male and needed be near the male for her security and her children’s survival. This initial form of society later leads to civilization, and at this point Freud is a “voluntarist” in the ways which he emphasizes the very voluntarily actions of males and females together constructing the very basis of society according to their needs and pleasures.
_
On the other hand Freud’s ideas oppose “voluntarism” whenever they come up with the claim of “limitation”. For Freud, on one hand family is a need for civilization but on the other, it leads to isolation. Furthermore, Freud talks about the incest taboo which came up as an agreement of family male members, to protect themselves from rivalry in the family. They prohibit the intercourse within the family. Freud points out that the fact never changes; the greatest, most satisfying pleasures are more immediate instinctual pleasures. No pleasure such as friendship, work, listening to music is as powerful as the immediate satisfaction of the sexual instinct. But, there is always a loss. You always gain something and you always give up something. There is a permanent need for society which is a compromise for need. At this point, human beings cannot simply look for gaining pleasure and therefore try to avoid pleasure. According to Freud, it is the “rearticulation of the pleasure principle” as a consequence of development of strategies that help us avoid displeasure as much as possible, with substitutive satisfactions, intoxication and powerful deflections. Social relations, laws, regulations human beings come up with limit their satisfactions. Society itself becomes a threat. Human beings escape from one threat and meet another. That is why Eagleton describes Freud’s ideas on civilization as “ultimately self-marring”. Nevertheless, Eagleton’s arguments against culturalist notion of voluntarism seem to be focusing on “limitation of material needs for human beings” while Freud’s thoughts are centered on “limitation which human beings experience as a result irresistible repression of their very instinctual needs”.
_
Freud’s ideas on creation of society at primitive stage seem to have commonalities with the culturalist notion of “voluntarism”. However human beings are incapacitated and limited in their own social constructions. Lastly Freud nicely describes the relation between Eros and Death. He states that “civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind.” Later, humans’ “aggressive instinct” which is the representative of “death instinct”, distorts the unity of mankind, while “death instinct” stays alongside Eros, one is the instinct of destruction, the other is the instinct of life. Freud’s scheme of evolution of civilization is like a circle; you get started from one point, turn around continuously, experiencing every single opposite instinctual drives altogether.
_