Normal Sadism and Immoralism

There is a fundamental distinction between normal and pathological cruelty that is occasionally glossed over by psychiatrists. Generally speaking, normal cruelty may be regarded as beneficial to the organism, and pathological cruelty as basically self-damaging. Since repressed cruelty tends to be redirected against the self, the failure to be cruel can be pathological. Although pleasure obtained from cruelty is regarded by most civilized persons as eminently immoral, immorality is far from synonymous with abnormality. Indeed, regression and infantile expressions of the will to power, in the form of cruelty and hatred, are as characteristic of consistently moral persons as of habitually immoral ones.

Sadism is not only an expression of masculinity and a peculiarity or perversion of the mode of sexual excitation, but also an attitude toward life. It is particularly noteworthy that sadism was characterized by Stekel as a “power parapathy” and its masochistic counterpart, as a “subjection parapathy.”1 But is the will to power of the sadist necessarily pathological? Is love rather than hatred an expression of psychological health or is hatred also necessary to personal well-being? Considering the sequence of wars and revolutions, political intrigue and labor discontent that constitute human history, it would seem that hatred is the really great motive power of world events, and that peace is little more than war carried on by political and economic means. In such a world, hatred is necessary not only for success, but also for survival. Since the “strong” man triumphs, and the “weak” man perishes, the alternative is either to hate or to be victimized. In a world of scarce goods in which one man's gain is another man's loss, hatred is a necessity, whereas love is seemingly only a luxury. “Our need to hate is just as great as our need to love,” wrote Stekel. “As there is no one that can live without love, so there is also no being who can live