(Paper presented at the International Congress: Family and Equality
'Justice and Male & Father Self-Respect‘. Drama City,
Greece, 3-5 January 2009. Organized by the Men’s
and Father’s Dignity Association Greece (SYGAPA))
Abstract:
Aim of this analysis is to describe the erotic relation as a power
game between genders. It is going to pose hypotheses and initiatives
for further research and not to present research results. Power practically
means dependence through exchange procedure and it is not a separate
type of relation. Every relation in our life, even the most “innocent”
one, is a power relation (offering-receiving). According to Popitz approach,
power can be distinguished in four categories: a) action power (violence,
deprivation, isolation), b) instrumental power (threat of action power
without implementation), c) data-setting power (inflexible mass control
based on material instrument), and d) authoritative power (love and
trust). Erotic relation can be composed of “love” (authoritative
power) and “bribery” (instrumental power). Depending on
the “value” of the gift and return, relations of different
dependence level can be recognized. A weak-dependence relation is the
“friendship”, a middle-dependence relation is the professional
cooperation, and a strong-dependence relation is the erotic relation.
The higher the dependence is, the sooner the offering should be counterbalanced
by a specific and equivalent return. Otherwise, a conflict/ breaking
of relation will take place. In case of erotic relation there is however
an obstacle: usually the partners hesitate to clarify what exactly they
expect from each other, because clarity would eliminate any “romanticism”.
Erotic relation is more susceptible to conflict than “friendship”
or professional cooperation, because erotic partners sacrifice clarity
for the sake of “romanticism”. In the case of the erotic
relation, the game becomes intractable and unclear and the dependence
gradually stronger. Thus, here we call this situation “existential
imperialism”.
Key words: dependence, clarity, romanticism, love, “bribery”
1 Introduction
Aim of this essay is to try a description of the erotic relation as
a power relation. It will pose hypotheses and questions and not present
research results. It is an essay rather than a purely “scientific”
paper. Therefore, it consists of explorative thoughts and uses only
a few references. We will argue that the erotic relation is a relation
of strong dependence (power) and leads to an intractable game, which
we here call “existential imperialism”. We will support
the position that this relation is composed by material offering (“bribery”)
and “love”.
2 Erotic relation and power
It is easy to suggest a definition, but it is difficult to suggest
a definition with properties. Social Sciences are full of definitions
without properties (or undefined concepts), and each researcher may
define differently the same word. A definition is always arbitrary.
The important question is what properties it has. For this reason, we
should not discuss a lot about a definition but about its properties.
The concept of power is the cornerstone of Sociology. In a society
without power, Sociology would be useless. Power may simply be defined
as the possibility to impose a will even against resistance. Weber had
suggested this definition which implies that the existence of power
is empirically provable only in case of resistance.
Popitz (1992) suggested a much more elaborate categorization of power:
a. action power, b. instrumental power, c. data-setting power, and d.
authoritative power. This categorization seems to be applied to all
fields of our life. Using these categories one can understand and “demarcate”
every social phenomenon. Before we further analyze these categories
we should clarify that the categories a, b, and c are used for achieving
external control, while category d is used for achieving internalized
control (internalized control is a control under which the controlled
person is obedient even when the power holder is absent or cannot directly
supervise him).
2.1 External control
- Action power
Action power is the implementation of: 1. corporal punishment (from
a slap to a child to death penalty), 2. deprivation of material resources
(from depriving a child of chocolate to a big fine), and 3. isolation
(from locking a child in a room to life sentence). This form of power
is based on the physical vulnerability and on the finite physical strength
of the human beings. Action power can take place within a couple e.g.
as a simple beat, alimony, or isolation of children from the ex-husband.
It appears in case of breaking or stress of erotic relation: depriving
someone of the purely corporal –sexual- satisfaction as material
offering, and pressing him to obtain it as paid sexual service.
- Instrumental power
While action power just “eliminates” the controlled person,
the instrumental power “instrumentalizes” him. Instrumental
power is the threatened but not implemented action power. It is based
on the plausibility of threat and on the weight of the threatened penalty
or of the promised reward. It is effective as long as it just discourages
any “undesirable” behavior, without being needed to be converted
in action power. Thus, instrumental power is hardly empirically detectable
and it often makes the false impression that it does not exist and everything
is working well because of a “natural and harmonic order”.
All our life is, though, full of networks of instrumental power. The
threat of police guns and of imprisonment is also the basis of the state
and the law order. Examples of instrumental power within a couple are
the threat of divorce and alimony, or of prohibition of using the car,
or of not giving jewelry as a present etc. The interdependence within
a couple is partly based on instrumental power: e.g. threat of not offering
sexual satisfaction, which cannot be obtained by the wife (or husband)
against her (or his) desire, because violation is penalized. In case
of this deprivation, the only peaceful solution is the paid sexual service,
which is often of unpredictable quality. Thus, as we will discuss below,
a very important component of erotic dependence has the form of “bribery”
(sexual satisfaction as material offering).
- Data-setting power
This form of power is always implemented through inflexible material
instruments (e.g. buildings) and produces mass effects. A wall, for
instance, separates the changing rooms of men from those of women. Data-setting
power is based on the physical vulnerability and on the finite physical
abilities of the human beings. One could claim that data-setting power
is identical with action power because of its similar basis. However,
it is not really identical because data-setting power works at macro-level
(inflexible mass effects) and action power at micro-level (it has more
immediate, flexible and individualized effects). This form of power
could influence the erotic relation game at macro-level. If, for instance,
there was no wall between male and female changing rooms, then the erotic
relation could become more accessible and more “demystified”.
2.2 Internalized control
- Authoritative power
Authoritative power is distinguished in 1. gaining trust and 2. gaining
love. As mentioned above, contrary to the other power categories, authoritative
power does not necessitate the presence of supervisor. A possible disadvantage
is, yet, that it may need more time to bring results. Trust can be defined
as not feeling any need of checking/ examining/ supervising. If A follows
what B says without considering necessary to examine it, then A trusts
B. “Love” is here defined as letting someone influence one’s
character or as identifying one’s sentimental status with the
sentimental status of someone else 2.
When A lets B influence A’s character, then A loves B. When A
feels every time what B feels, than A loves B. A man, who cleans his
shoes on the doormat because his wife demands to do so and continues
to do so even after the death of his wife, loves his wife. We can say
that his character is strongly influenced by his wife or he wants to
make her (spirit) happy. This cannot be just an adopted routine at this
age and if he hated her, he would even get rid of the doormat. A woman
who loves her husband may try to satisfy him by a tasty lunch. A man
who loves his wife may try to satisfy her by offering small presents
(not necessarily expensive) which he believes they express deeper emotional
messages. Thus, it is not always easy to distinguish “love”
from “bribery” empirically.
In general, trust is based on the lack of knowledge, while “love”
on sentimental weakness.
Both are quite strong and “dangerous” forms of power.
A patient takes a medicament without examining it because he just trusts
the doctor, even if he visits him first time. Thereby, the doctor can
poison him. A parent may love his children and try to make them happy
but and he wants to control them when crossing the street. In the first
case, the patient trusts the unknown doctor without loving him. In the
second case, the parent loves the children but does not trust them to
cross the street alone. We see that trust and love are de facto different
forms of power.
A man can trust a woman without loving her. Can he also love her without
trusting her? The answer is that one can trust without loving, love
without trusting and, of course, love and trust simultaneously. Sometimes,
the genders feel emotional attraction to each other even if they do
not know each other. This attraction is already a degree of “love”
(at least according to the definition of “love” given here).
It practically means that the man is interested in the opinion of the
woman about himself (or inversely). Afterwards, they are expected to
become more familiar with each other and ascertain whether they are
“loyal” and “trustworthy” or not. In some cases,
a man tries to make his wife feel happy (e.g. with presents or compliments),
but he also controls always what she does and where she is.
3 The erotic relation as “existential imperialism”
Power is practically expressed through the dependence and thus through
the exchange of a gift with another gift (return) between the exchangers
3.
These exchangers are interdependent: A expects to receive a gift from
B, and B expects to receive a return for this. The higher value recognized
by the B on the gift of A, the more dependent B becomes and the more
power A exerts over B. The higher the value is, the stronger the dependence
is.
Popitz was quite pragmatist when he stated that power is not a separate
kind of relation, but every relation, even the most “innocent”
one, is a power relation. Power appears between “friends”
(e.g. exchange of a nice chat with a drink), between generations (e.g.
exchange of obedience with ethical and material support), between politicians
and voters (e.g. exchange of favorable policies or promises with votes),
between genders (e.g. exchange of sexual satisfaction with jewelry or
a positive comment in public) etc.
When the gift and the return are considered by the exchangers to be
of low value, then this is a weak-dependence relation. In this relation,
A does not expect a specific return counterbalancing accurately the
value of the gift nor in specific time in order to avoid conflict. Such
a relation is the “friendship”. A pizza of 5 euro should
not necessarily be compensated with another pizza of 5 euro or with
5 drinks of 1 euro very soon in order to maintain the “friendship”.
A satisfactory return for the pizza may even be non material (e.g. a
nice chat) and not in the next day or next but perhaps in one year or
even later and the “friendship” will probably be maintained.
This is a generalized exchange (gift and return of no specific value
and in no specific time). A generalized exchange should be a weak-dependence
relation in order to avoid conflict.
In an erotic relation, the gift and the return are of high value for
the exchangers. Thus, this is a strong-dependence relation. A high value
gift like sexual satisfaction from A to B cannot remain uncompensated
too long and of course it should be compensated with a specific return
of equal value. The higher the value of the gift, the sooner it should
be compensated. Every day, every hour or even every second passing without
a “worthy” return is an accumulative reason for conflict.
The return for a sexual satisfaction can be another sexual satisfaction,
jewelry, compliment or perhaps even a nice chat. An exchange of gift
and return of specific value within specific time is a balanced exchange.
A strong dependence should be a balanced exchange in order to avoid
conflict.
For better understanding we also present the case of professional relation
as a complementary example. This is a middle situation. The value of
gift and return is not as high as in erotic relation and not as low
as in “friendship”. Thus, a middle level of clarity of value
and of deadline is enough. Indeed, sometimes a businessman cannot pay
debts to other businessmen just in time. However, this does not necessarily
cause big conflicts. Also, he may sell products at lower prices to clients,
though he knows that he will not gain their preference surely and immediately.
A freelancer (e.g. an attorney) often does not offer advice with the
“dropper” but he demands an approximate total price at the
end.
The three types of exchange relation can be depicted as geometric
areas on the diagram 1 (satisfaction of gift x waiting time for return).
The area expresses the feeling of the “favor” one partner
does to the other. Areas with same shadow pattern refer to the respective
exchange relation type. The area of A quadrant should be in any type
of exchange relation (balanced, middle and generalized) counterbalanced
by an equal area of B quadrant in order to avoid conflict. The higher
the value of gift, the shorter the waiting time should be in order to
avoid the conflict and of course the return should be of specific equal
value. In an ideal erotic relation, the areas should be as narrow as
possible. When they are so narrow that they become a single vertical
line throughout both quadrants, then this is the case of simultaneous
orgasm.
Diagram 1. The position of erotic relation among exchange relations
Also, we understand from the everyday life, that if two partners can
well manage a relation of weak dependence, this does not assure same
success at a relation of stronger dependence, while the inverse is more
possible. If some partners are well cooperating professionally, this
does not mean that they also succeed in marriage, but there are many
examples of partners who opened a store while they were married and
they cooperated harmoniously also as professionals.
An erotic relation can be finished without conflict and even converted
into “friendship”, if the “areas” are exactly
counterbalanced. Very often this is extremely difficult because the
gifts and returns remain unspecified, though they are of very high value.
In erotic relation, though it is a strong dependence relation, and the
gift, the return and the deadline should be specified in order to avoid
conflict, normally no one of the partners dares to talk clearly 4
about his/her expectations because clarity would spoil the “romanticism”
of the erotic relation. What we define here as “romanticism”
in an erotic relation is nothing but the satisfaction of successful
using of emotional intelligence on gender-specific expectations. Each
partner should prove his/her ability to “guess” alone what
the other partner expects. Otherwise he/she is not considered to be
“worthy” of love by the disappointed partner. A “knight”
should be able to “guess” what his “princess”
needs. Otherwise, he is degraded in a “servant” who just
executes her specific and explicit orders and this is no “romantic”
at all. What we here define as “romanticism” is perhaps
the feeling which some people may call “intimacy” in the
everyday language.
Diagram 2. “Romanticism” and clarity
For this reason, erotic relation is developed to a hard power game
without rules in which the dependence may become unpredictably stronger
and stronger because of gradually accumulated gifts which are practically
translated in debts and often should be compensated with continuously
accumulated, valuable but unspecified returns. This intractable game
which may lead even to suicide is here called “existential imperialism”.
Winner is the partner who feels more “bored” and the final
winner is the partner who stops “loving” first. A situation
of erotic relation where there are completely clear rules but no “romanticism”
is e.g. the prostitution. In prostitution, sexual service is accurately
compensated with money in cash after 60 minutes. In prostitution, there
are no accumulative reasons for conflict and consequently no “existential
imperialism” because prostitution is characterized by very high
clarity and very low “romanticism”. This is the most honest
and peaceful erotic relation.
4 The composition of erotic relation: instrumental and authoritative
power
In erotic relation, smiling and tears, meekness, gentleness and aggressiveness,
sexual satisfaction and deprivation are some forms of reward and threat.
The power of erotic relation can be composed of “bribery”
(form of instrumental power: reward which can be deprived in case of
disobedience) and “love” (form of authoritative power).
With “bribery” we here mean sexual satisfaction only as
a material resource which can be offered by another woman of equivalent
physical status and skill who is paid in cash, as well as the return,
when it is material (in this case, we have to do with a professional
relation). The “formal” wife may also demand material return
(e.g. jewelry, car, expensive entertainment or also money) for offering
a “willing” sexual satisfaction to the husband. This “bribery”
is institutionalized (if A tries to get it against the will of B, then
A will be charged with violation or theft).
Contrary to “bribery”, “love” cannot be purchased,
as it is person-dependent. For this reason, “love” is the
cornerstone of “existential imperialism”. When A –the
“lover”- is controlled by the “loved” B, then
he/she adjusts his/her behavior to the desire of B in order to offer
maximal satisfaction and may gain only B’s appreciation as return,
which is of course costless for B. Appreciation can just be expressed
by smile or words and does not necessitate any serious behavior change
or anything else from the “loved” B. This appreciation is
regarded by the A as “love” of B to him. Sometimes, A does
not expect any appreciation from B immediately nor even in future. But
even in this case there is an expected return: A may feel that he gains
appreciation from the image of B which A has constructed in his mind.
In other words, A sees B in this rare case as an idea and not as a common
person. In simpler words, A does not want to accept that “B is
not person he supposed to be” at the beginning of the relation.
This is the strongest and “worst” case of “existential
imperialism”.
When “lover” has not enough erotic emotional intelligence
to guess the specific desire of “loved” and nobody speaks
clearly for the sake of “romanticism”, the game of “existential
imperialism” becomes sharper. “Love” can be exerted
during sexual exchange or in the rest of a couple’s life. The
“lover” should guess the specific sexual fantasy of the
“loved” or the specific compliment that the “loved”
wants to receive from him etc. Here we must clarify that compliment
which is expected in public and aims at image-making is also “bribery”
because it could be made by a paid person (as in the case of some politicians
who pay people to hurrah them), while a compliment expected when the
couple is alone is “love”.
Diagram 3. Power composition of erotic relation: a challenge for
quantitative social research
What is the average composition of erotic relation (percentage % of
“bribery” and “love”) in erotic relations which
lead to marriage or are broken without hostility and converted in “friendship”
or in marriages which are relatively free of conflicts? (diagram 3)
Can “love” (e.g. adjustment to sexual fantasy) be well outbalanced
only with “love” (e.g. adjustment to sexual fantasy too)
in order to eliminate the probability of conflict or also with “bribery”
(e.g. jewelry)? And if “love” should be counterbalanced
only with “love”, then should it be of same nature (e.g.
compliment) or a compliment can also be counterbalanced with adjustment
to sexual fantasy? “Bribery” should be counterbalanced only
by “bribery” or also with “love”? All these
are questions of quantitative social research and can be answered in
terms of social statistics or quantitative network analysis. If they
are answered with strong statistical coefficients, the sociologists
and psychologists may be able to give more effective advice against
conflicts and divorces.
5 Problematization instead of conclusions
First of all, we should not forget that this text is written by a male
author and it is not based on empirical results. Thus, it inevitably
expresses a personal “male view” which is not necessarily
representative of the male population. As this was an essayistic rather
than a scientific text, we can suggest problematization rather than
make conclusions.
A main question is, who is the winner and who is the victim of “existential
imperialism”. Both genders can be at the position of “lover”
and “loved” and both have always their arguments and complaints.
Females e.g. may believe that they should be justified for any behavior
that can be characterized by men as “irresponsible” or “ungrateful”,
as they are “fishers” and not “hunters” in partner
selection or because they are (or going to become) “mothers”
and so they have the right to do anything they believe it is “right”
for the children they have (or they are going to have). They may justify
their behavior as the only possible strategy against a system that it
is still under the control of men or as a strategy for rapid progress
and balancing of “rights” after many centuries of “oppression”
and “exploitation”. Male victims believe that women demand
various “bribery” (money, jewelry etc) and offer only the
standard “bribery” of corporal sexual satisfaction and/or
appreciation, which cost nothing for the women. They also accuse women
that sometimes they only enjoy the generous male “bribery”
without returning anything (ungratefulness, cheat). This “bribery”
is also converted into alimony without being combined with father’s
co-influence in the upbringing of children.
Giddens (1992) stated also that the main weakness of men is of sentimental
nature, while the main weakness of women is of economic nature. One
also says that the two erotic lives of a man are the “real”
and the “imaginary” which are completely different, and
the two erotic lives of a woman are the “economic” and the
“sentimental” which are almost identical. An answerback
of women is that the men want from the women always the same thing (sexual
satisfaction), while women expect from men something special. The criticism
of men to this is that the women do not know what this “special”
thing should be and they are never satisfied. Thus, they are “immature”
to use the freedom they have acquired for their own interest as well
as for the common interest and thus they lose in reliability, they spoil
the trustfulness and the “social capital”, and they destroy
their psychological health.
Theories suggested from time to time about the phenomenon of “love”
have just posed hypotheses concerning the development of “love”
(e.g. intimacy, passion, commitment- Triangular Theory of Sternberg)
or concerning the sentimental weakness (Attachment Theory: Jealousy
and Possessiveness) (Kelly 1998). However, they do not examine the relation
between “love” and “bribery” as well as their
connection with the gender.
What strategy can one follow, if he/she wants to avoid “existential
imperialism”? Giddens (1992) suggested democratization of erotic
life: passing from “you should be so…” to “we
should be so…”. In this way, both genders will obey to objective
principles. However, Giddens does not say who is supposed to pose these
principles objectively, as long as any “legislator” can
be either male or female and it is questionable whether there can be
understanding between male and female world. “Average” solutions
may sound “democratic” and “fair” but they may
dissatisfy both male and female part.
Not to “love”? This sounds a decisive but too hard strategy.
Of course there are men who have developed so individual and intellectual
worldview that they have gained independency of women appreciation (and
perhaps of the appreciation of anybody else). However, this requires
mental effort, intellectual and wealthy life and perhaps “illuminative”
incidents (these are, for instance, relations which are characterized
by some people as “deep disappointments”). This solution
is surely not feasible to and not desirable by everyone.
The most feasible strategy to all –however still not easy- seems
to be the clarity. Of course we are far away from the complete clarity
but we are also far enough from older patterns of “romanticism”
(e.g. “knight- princess” role pattern). The genders could
try to find out new and simple patterns of “romanticism”
or to replace the demand of emotional intelligence with more explorative
discussions between them and tolerance. The genders should not forget
that they were two different and isolated “worlds” for many
centuries (perhaps since the genesis of humanity). So, it is not a shame
to explore each other sincerely and explicitly.
In any case, there is a factor which reduces “romanticism”
nowadays and thereby we could say that it works in the war of “existential
imperialism” like the winter in Stalingrad battle. This factor
is the increasing anxiety for the career and the economy: Anxiety not
only makes both genders more reluctant for “romanticism”
but may also deprive men of the time to think of women appreciation.
In general, genders seem to have more and more other things to do than
being involved in “existential imperialism”. Although the
anxiety is supposed to have come about from the “loss of paradise”,
the steadily increasing anxiety of our days is perhaps a new “common”
enemy, which may bring the genders someday together.
Notes
