You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The Chairman, Jacob A. Arlow, introduced the panel discussion with a review of the history of the theory of masochism, describing its role in the development of the dual instinct theory. Anticipating some of the subsequent discussion, he mentioned the observations of Bibring and others, that many analysts employ working hypotheses involving libido and aggression without accepting the far more inclusive biological speculations which underlie the concepts of Eros and Thanatos. Essentially, such biological speculations are undesirable in the context of clinical discussions, since they involve extrapolations which are incapable of confirmation or contradiction in this setting.
In outlining the problem of this study, the Chairman emphasized that any comprehensive theory of masochism must take into account the essential elements of pain, aggression, femininity and passivity; further, that the term "masochism" should be employed only when pain and unpleasure occur as the necessary conditions for sexual gratification.
He summarized and contrasted the work of Loewenstein, Nunberg, Bak, Brenman, Berliner, and Annie Reich, and commented on the provocative speculations of Greenacre on early trauma and excessive stimulation. He suggested that the panel consider the demarcation between sadomasochism and aggression, pointing out that not all self-aggressive acts have a sufficient libidinal component to be considered masochistic, nor does intense aggression directed by the superego and