Alcances y limitaciones

(d) Sibling resentment Resented brother Resented sister

ES20 ES27

ES7 ES18 ES19 ES2I ES40 ES52 ES61

ES21 ES36 ES41 ES57 ES58 ES65 ES75 ES76

ES23 ES26 ES37 ES42 ES63 ES69

'

54

d i s c u s s io n

The alacrity, sometimes already noticeable in the w ording of an initial letter, w ith which index subjects presented themselves for interview did not, on the whole, represent proselytizing, nor was it straightforward exhibitionism. In the case of some older subjects it w as rather a quest for a nonjudgmental listener (they later sent letters of thanks) or even for some explanation of their sexuality. ES52 seemed to want, from somewhere, a short course of treatm ent which would magically release him from it! In m any subjects there was an underlying uncertainty about personal identity. ES22, in particular, the only quarrelsome one, might almost certainly be classed as a borderline' personality (DSM-III- R, pp. 346-347). Precisely the same overall eagerness to co-operate that I encountered with these sadomasochists was noted also by Gossehn & Wilson (1980). I believe Theodor Reik (1939) identified accurately w hat he termed the demonstrative factor' as a characteristic of masochism. Two possible aetiological explanations m ight be pu t forward tentatively for consideration. (1) The masochist, as just mentioned, often appears to have a w eak sense of his own identity, probably because he encountered little recognition' (Fonagy et a l 1991a; Hegel, 1807; discussed in Chapter 9) as a young child. He thus craves an audience, a mirror, to assure himself that he exists in his own right and has importance. (2) The eagerness to reveal, to display himself on a psychological level is usually paralleled, as can be seen at a glance from subculture magazines, by the urge, conscious or unconscious, to expose himself physically. It reminds one, of course, of an infant's delight in exposing himself and gaining attention.

The other simple and striking finding was also expected (discussed in Chapter 4 and predicted at the beginning of Section 2), namely the preponderance of males in the sadomasochists w ho came forward: 43 males versus 5 females. Moreover, one of these 5 women, ES41, despite 12 years' active association w ith the SM 'scene', insisted that her interest lay more in observing than participating, that it was largely an artistic one.

W ithout exception the sadomasochistic subjects were classified as prim arily Insecure in their attachment to their parents (Table 5.1a, Fig. 5.1). The three subjects ES28, ES41 an d ES74 received alternative classifications of F4b, F la and F2, respectively, but these secondary subcategories are not fully Secure/Autonom ous. They were aw arded in so far as these subjects showed signs of valuing attachment to some extent bu t they im ply reservations (see Appendix 2). The subclassification F4b denotes a difficult childhood that may have included traumatic events such as the death of an attachm ent figure (the twenty-year-old father of ES28 actually walked out w hen he was only a few months old) or sexual or physical abuse which still constitute a preoccupation. F la lies

on the border w ith the Dismissing category and signifies a deliberate re-evaluation and re-direction of personal life after a childhood lacking w arm th if not actually harsh. F2 im plies that the individual is somewhat dismissing or restricting of attachment. Is the link betw een the AAI scales for probable childhood experience' and those for 'state of mind' less in evidence in the index group, making the sources of insecurity in this group less clear? Even setting aside the diagnosis offered spontaneously by some subjects themselves (ES58, for instance, said that she had realized quickly that her parents "were not people who could be relied on...even in an ordinary sense they couldn't be relied on"), one may pu t forward one possible reason for this wholesale insecurity of attachment in the index group. The mean scores of scales relating to childhood experiences (Table 5.2) suggest that they probably received less than optimal parenting and the majority considered themselves to have been either rejected (e.g. ES4, E S ll, ES18, ES69) or stifled (e.g. ESIO, ES13, ES39, ES61, ES6 6, ES71). Often they were neglected at home (e.g. E S ll,

ES28, ES51, ES81), sometimes sent away to boarding schools (e.g. ESI, ES2, ES15, ES52, ES69, ES81). They were also bullied and maltreated at school (e.g. ES4, ESIO, ES17, ES18, ES20, ES23, ES37, ES51, ES62) - another factor predicted at the end of C hapter 4 (additional hypothesis B). The same damaging events came to light also in the control interview s but not to the same extent and more amongst the depressed than the nondepressed controls. Although the mean AAI scale scores (Table 5.2) for rejection and neglect, for instance, are not significantly greater, statistically, for the SM group than the control group, they differ in the same direction and imply that these adverse experiences may have contributed to the greater insecurity of the SM group. Only in the am ount of pressure to achieve do the scores point in another direction, albeit the differences again not achieving statistical significance - the parents of the 'neutral' controls appear, on average, to have applied more pressure whilst those of the depressed controls were more neglectful, though again, the mean level of neglect was not as high as that experienced by the index subjects (Table 5.2). One expectation would be that neglect w ould cause these index subjects to be depressed at some stage of their childhood and, in fact, several stated explicitly that they were.

However, depression is likely to be, quite generally, only one result of insensitive parenting. The correlation of AAI scale scores shows clearly that for nondepressed control subjects (Table 5.4) rejection on the part of parents is also likely to be associated w ith dam age to metacognitive processes and this damage will almost inevitably be reflected in diminished coherence.

Perhaps it would be wise to pause at this point and establish w hat is m eant in this context by coherence. In her 1991 paper on the subject Mary Main makes a distinction

156

betw een two philosophical theories of truth: a coherence theory relying upon internal consistency and a correspondence theory relying upon plausibility in the w ider context of reality (Main, 1991, p.144). These two concepts are m easured by the AAI scales of coherence of transcript and coherence of mind, respectively. Main has, in fact, linked this to Bowlby's working models: coherence of transcript meant that it was possible to construct a single mental model from it. "Coherent subjects seemed to be working w ith a singular model, whether of favorable or unfavorable experiences and their effects" (Main, 1991, p.l42).

M ultiple models of attachment

Where the information reaching a child about his parents is severely conflicting - they insist they are devoted to his welfare, he experiences only harshness and neglect from them - he can either (a) break away from his parents, (b) endorse their version, (c) try to m aintain both pictures, oscillating between them, or (d) attem pt to integrate them, possibly suffering mental breakdown under their incompatibility (Bowlby, 1973, pp.362- 363). These incompatible representational models are, in fact, created in pairs, each pair comprising a model of his parent and a complementary, confirmatory model of himself. Multiple conflicting images of close family members are likely to relate to discrepancies betw een memories of actual interactions, stored in episodic memory, and generalized propositions about these people, stored in semantic memory. These discrepancies are precisely w hat questions 3 and 4 of the A dult Attachment Interview are addressing. The five adjectives selected by the interviewee to describe his early relationships first w ith his mother then with his father may or may not be supported by actual childhood memories. In the case of the sadomasochistic group they were often unsupported or contradicted.

This w as bu t one manifestation of the lack of coherence which chiefly distinguished the index from the control group as a whole (see bottom of Table 5.2 and Table 5.5). In Mary Main's words: "...these adults were exhibiting (a) m ultiple models of their histories and attitudes while (b) seemingly intending to present a singular model" (Main, 1991, p .143). To state their problems using the formulation of Main & Goldwyn (1984), index subjects, more than controls, found it difficult to obtain access to inform ation relating to attachment, to maintain organization in this information and to prevent it from undergoing distortion. The final point made by John Bowlby in delineating this conceptual framework is a critical one: "On the way in which an individual's attachment behaviour becomes organized w ithin his personality turns the pattern of affectional bonds he makes during his life" (Bowlby, 1980, p.41). Both ES35 and ES50 had, for instance, two opposing representational models of women. ES35 w anted to 'worship' a

i?7

M ad o n n a/w h o re image (cf. Estela V. Welldon's controversial portrayal of female psychopathology Mof/ïer, Madonna, Whore, 1988). ES50 carried w ithin him the opposing faces of the teacher in his first nursery class, "a real tartar of a woman...feared throughout the land as a very very strict disciplinarian" and of another teacher when he was eight or nine, "just so gorgeous-looking...she had this lovely Welsh accent...! always had the feeling I w anted to kiss her...she was very w arm and friendly and interesting". He displayed a marked ambivalence towards his adoptive mother, with whom he lived until her death w hen he was 41.

The finding that index subjects had significantly less coherence of mind than controls (Tables 5.2, 5.5) was not unexpected. That they w ould harbour split and conflicting images of their parents and siblings had been predicted at the end of Chapter 4 (second hypothesis). It was, however, necessary to demonstrate that diminished coherence was characteristic of sadomasochism, that depression was not a confounding variable in this particular result, and neither was it produced by demographic factors such as age, sex or marital status. The issue of depression as a possible nuisance variable was tackled by an analysis of covariance w ith depression statistically controlled (Table 5.6). Even w hen depression was 'partialled' out in this way the difference in coherence between index and control subjects remained highly significant (f^ go) = 64.61, p < 0.0001). The other concerns were addressed and removed by stepwise regression (descriptive use), though the correlations presented in Table 5.7 already implied that the difference in coherence was genuinely associated with index or control group-mem bership not w ith how old subjects were, whether they were male or female, w hether they were m arried or unmarried. It wül be recalled that for the purposes of this analysis the three AAI scales of metacognition, coherence of transcript and coherence of mind were combined. They are, of course, closely related (Table 5.3). It might be said that incoherence arises through a deficit in metacognition. W hat emerged, in fact, from the interviews of these 48 sadomasochistic subjects, from the accounts they gave of their parents' behaviour and their own interpretations of it, was a lack of theory of mind. Their early relationships had afforded most of them little opportunity for the developm ent of an awareness of mental processes motivating behaviour. Their low scores for metacognition and coherence were a reflection of this deficit.

A ny attem pt to interpret the interactions plotted in Fig.5.2fl-e betw een sadom asochism and depression as they affect single variables (certain AAI scales) can only be tentative. Univariate analysis of variance revealed all five of them to be

\s%

significant at the 5% level. In the case of the interactions depicted in Fig.5.2fl-c it w ould appear that accordingly as they were depressed, sadomasochistic subjects suffered rather less neglect from their mothers (or thought they did), were rather less derogatory about their fathers and about attachment in general, whereas the reverse w ould seem to be true for the control group. It is perhaps hardly surprising that nondepressed ('normal') controls should have less maternal neglect to report and should be less derogating than depressed controls. In the light of the interaction plotted in Fig.5.2e, passivity m ight be an explanation of the contrary behaviour of the index group. As already mentioned, a majority (10 out of 14) of the depressed subgroup were passively preoccupied w ith childhood and attachment issues (assigned an El prim ary or alternative AAI classification. Table 5.1a) and they were also older than the other subgroups (mean age 47.36, range 25-77, Table 5.1). The more active sadomasochists were conceivably less depressed in proportion as they externalized their (possibly greater) resentm ents, for example, frequenting SM clubs. Regarding the interaction appearing in Fig. 5.2d, it was very noticeable whilst transcribing and rating the interviews of passive and depressed sadom asochists that they were not accustomed to monitoring mental processes - their capacity for metacognition was generally poorer than that exhibited by those w ho were m ore angry and less depressed. In contrast, depressed controls were sometimes more realistic and more penetrating in their assessments than normal' control subjects, w ho tended to become more bland the lower their BDI score, a finding which emerged, incidentally, even from my pilot study.

The Adoptees

The unusually large num ber of adopted subjects in the sadomasochistic group, significant at the 1% level of probability, in a sense provides support for an aetiological

factor hypothesized at the end of Chapter 4 (hypothesis 3e), namely the early loss of a p aren t, before assimilation of such a loss was possible. A m onth before his interview ES69 went, at the age of 59, to look at his adoptive grandparents' graves, though they were really no relatives of his and the grandm other had told her daughter at the time of his adoption to "take the bastard back!" However, the need for surrogate blood relatives w as equally evident in one of the two adoptees in the control group, CS284, w ho felt deeply attached to the parents of his adoptive mother.

The disquieting and, at first, surprising element in w hat these sadomasochistic adoptees related about their upbringing was the damaging treatm ent they had received from their adoptive parents. One might reasonably expect a couple whose longing for a child has driven them to seek and accept responsibility for someone else's to cherish that

isr<i

infant. It would seem instead that the absence of a genetic relationship was crucial in the life histories 1 heard. ES4, ES51 and ES69 were frequently and severely beaten. ES69 reflected: " 1 think they knew my background or they knew my parents and they p u t it

d o w n to inbred badness or whatever - that's w hat 1 think. That's w hat 1 think. " The adoptive mother of ES51 had failed to protect him from sexual abuse by her older male friend and business associate. The sexual development of ES19 and ES50 was inhibited and w arped by the prim, puritanical attitude of their ad o p tiv e mothers tow ards sex. Both ES19 and ES69 envied and hated their sisters who had also been adopted.

Claims to superior ability

M any index subjects, most notably ES27, ES30, ES50, ES62, ES74, ES77, made claim s of outstanding ability at an early age. In the case of ES30 and ES74 it might perhaps be regarded as the spoilt-only-child syndrome: above-average abilities of a precocious nature which then 'drop back'. However, ES35 and ES36 exemplified the pendulum swings in self-assessment from which we all suffer bu t the masochist, w ith his impedimenta of insecurity and anxiety, probably suffers more acutely than most. These pendulum swings between high and low self-esteem, which make him convinced he is a genius one day and totally inept the next, are, of course, closely linked to his weak sense of personal identity (the conflicting internal working models of himself which com plem ent those of his original caregivers), to his preoccupation w ith control (each situ atio n m ust entail either winning or losing, either dom ination or submission) and probably, on a behavioural or even a physiological level (see the next subsection on somatization), to the scheduling of his sadomasochistic activities.

A uthority is not the same as pow er or control. A uthority m ight be defined as know ledge and experience which perm it one to arrive at correct judgm ents, sound decisions and to speak illuminatingly and w ith understanding. It is confident in itself. The insecure turn to authoritarian regimes because they are in themselves insecure. It is not surprising that the masochist, who is insecure, should place so m uch em phasis on power and control, the potentially dangerous substitutes for inner security, for authority.

Somatization

The interview question "what w ould you do as a child w hen you were upset?" probes further w ith respect to childhood illness and injury. As hypothesized at the end of Chapter 4 (additional hypothesis C), this brought to light many instances of prolonged, sometimes excruciating pain in the childhood of index subjects (Table 5.8, A ppendix 3). It also revealed their marked tendency to somatize', to enact their distress in the theatre

lC>û

of the body' (McDougall, 1989). When asked whether his many childhood illnesses meant that he had been in pain a lot, ES27, for instance, replied: "Em - not really, just ill, just a general malaise. I'd get sore throats, you know, and bad like cough, and I had like rheumatism at one point. This was w hen they realized that like this tonsillitis was really serious - I couldn't move my legs periodically and that was quite painful - bu t no, I was never in a great deal of enduring pain - it was just - just, you know, 'Damn! I'm ill again!' kind of thing..."

Physical characteristics and behaviour

Several index subjects were apparently left-handed - ES30, ES35, ES50, for instance - bu t probably no more than in the control group or, indeed, the general population.

When, after the interview, the administration of the Beck Depression Inventory and the performance of the 'emotional' Stroop task, discussion finally turned directly to sadomasochism, a few subjects displayed clear physical signs of emotional arousal. ESS, ESI9 and ES24, for instance, developed such a marked hand tremor that they had difficulty in writing on the questionnaire forms. The tremor was clearly, in all cases, one of excitement, not one of embarrassment.

Habits of speech

There was noticeably more stereotypy in the linguistic usage of index subjects