The Omnipotent Anal-Sadistic Universe Defined
After reading my previous post, “The Anal-Sadistic Universe and the Passive-Aggressive Violence of Female Psychopathy,” someone posted a question to me and asked for me to explain the psychoanalytic roots of anal sadism and the reason for its existence asking, “Why someone would want to “tear down boundaries?” Of course, the very literary works that were created by the Marquis de Sade are used to help explain the phenomenon of anal sadism as the word is derived from Sade’s namesake and the Marquis suffered terribly from sadistic projections. The forbidden mixture of hubris and hybrid was best described and explained by Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, and she used the Bible as a source of reference that outlined “forbidden mixtures.” But, in particular, the “tearing down of the boundaries” have to do with the “tearing down of what separates us from them (the anal sadistic) as an Object Other” in someone’s object-relational orbit.
There are of course various “forbidden mixtures” the Bible outlines as sins which have been placed down in the Tora. The famous adage to “not through your pearls before swine” is one such forbidden mixture given to us as a metaphor. However, other examples are as follows:
Leviticus 19:19 “….Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment mingled of linen and wool come upon thee.” These laws were supposed to protect the Israelites from unnecessary pain and suffering.
Leviticus 6:18 connected incest to be against the many Laws of God:
-”None of you shall approach anyone that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness.”
-”The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.”
-”The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, her nakedness do not uncover.”
The religious reasons for the many different laws against incest and sodomy were to make clear the separateness of the Israelites from various other religions that practiced these forbidden Hellenized practices and not just Hellenized practices. All practices that threatened the order and moral systems of Israelite culture. The Egyptians were one of these cultures that practiced in-breeding. Part of the worship of Astarte was “give the son to the mother, as a possession. The Biblical Commandment would represent an attempt to destroy the matriarchal law of Astarte. A female deity closely related to Ishtar, worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity.
For the sake of time and space I will not addresses every forbidden mixture, but to say oral and anal-copulation was of course forbidden. If the reader would like to read further, they can refer to Creativity and Perversion, chapter 1, Perversion and Universal Law, pp. 1–12
Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel’s hypothesis is that “perversion represents a similar reconstitution of Chaos, out of which there arises a new kind of reality, that of the anal universe. The anal universe a steadfast foreclosure against reality, that seeks to establish a new reality, the reality of the anal-omnipotent universe. This will take the place of the psycho-sexual genital dimension, that of the Father. The world of division and separation presupposes a three-dimensional psyche: between mother and son, the Father-Creator (but in fact, reality itself) introduces a barrier, that of incest. Jeremiah describes it in the Bible in a beautiful metaphor: “Will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it? (Jeremiah 5:22).’ This boundary or barrier is the prototype of all ‘bounds’ or barriers and, consequently, of all difference.”
Chasseguet-Smirgel further adds, “at a certain level of the anal-sadistic universe of confusion and homogenization constitutes an imitation or parody of the genital universe of the father (primal scene relationship Freud gave us with Oedipus). In fact, one could say that it appears in the history of the development of the individual as a preliminary sketch, a rough draft of genitality. It is only later on in life that it becomes an imitation of it.” Here I could go further to imply Dietmut Neidecken’s work entitled, Primal Scene Symbol Formation, suggests that semiotics (linguistics of the parents) play into the preliminary sketch of the individual.
We believe that primal scene fantasies are universal expressions of internalized object relations and their vicissitudes. The concept entails much more than actually witnessing the parents’ coital patterned relationship; it depicts a blending of past, present, fantasy, and reality in the child’s relationship to the parental couple AS WELL AS the child’s perception of the parent's relationship with one another.
Sources:
Chassegeut-Smirgel, Janine. (1984). Creativity and Perversion. London. Free Association Books.
Niedecken, D. (2016). The primal scene and symbol formation. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 97(3), 665–683.
Knafo, D., & Feiner, K. (1996). The Primal Scene: Variations on a Theme. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 44(2), 549–569.
