Perversion the Social Relation

E. L. McCallumIn Freud's theory of sexuality, one earmark of perversion is its preferencefor a part over a whole. Fetishism, for instance, is commonly construedas fragmenting the object of desire (not to mention that a fetishistis also quite particular about the fetish object he or she is partial to),while voyeurism concentrates sexual pleasure strictly within the visualin lieu of any other senses. Perversion in Freud is defined as a deviationof the sexual aim, either to linger in the middle or to extend sexualpleasure to some region of the body other than the normal erogenouszone. Perversion thus shies short of union, wholeness, in favor of findingsatisfaction in fragments or parts. In his more general discussion of theperversions, Freud notes that they imply that "the sexual instinct maybe no simple thing, but put together from components which have comeapart again in the perversions." 1 On the one hand, Freud simply is statingthat the perversions offer an illustration of components of sexual instinct,a sort of analysis (in the sense that analysis means breaking downinto parts). On the other hand, we might provocatively construe Freudto be saying that perversion is where sexual instincts (Sexualtrieb) separateinto forces that take on a life of their own, becoming somethingdistinct, detached from other instincts. If the sexual instinct componentscome apart in the perversions, it behooves us to consider how perversionmight effect other detachments. In this way, we might see perversionas impinging on not just sexuality per se, but also sexuality's closerelations—narrative, narcissism, knowledge. Perversion thus threatens