Love, Seduction, and Trauma

In the wake of the furor recently created by Masson (1984), I believe it would be useful at this time to examine the theory of seduction and the uses to which it has been put. This will inevitably entail a discussion of psychoanalysis as method, science, and movement and of Freud as its founder. I believe that Masson's central claim that Freud abandoned the seduction theory to serve his own political and theoretical interests is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of seduction and on his misreading of Freud. I propose to illustrate that both the apostate Masson and the orthodox apostles of Freud have misunderstood Freud's insights about seduction due to mistaken assumptions, confusions, and reductions, to which Freud's own struggles to define the concept contributed.

The word seduction which is derived from the Latin root, ducere, meaning “to lead,” “to guide,” “to draw,” has historically been defined as an interaction of the nature of influence, persuasion, and participation between a person who acts in ways said to be seductive upon another who lets himself be thusly influenced. It implies the reciprocal action of leading and being led. No less important than the phenomenon of leading and following are the moral values chosen by the leaders and the led: There is leading and misleading, guiding and misguiding.

There are many definitions of seduction: broadly, as a social and spiritual act of deceiving, misleading, or corrupting a person, or, narrowly, as a sexual pursuit of a person for sexual surrender. To seduce in the narrow and legal sense, as defined by Webster's Dictionary (1971), is to entice a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse