fetishism

1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes.
2. Excessive attachment or regard.
3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish.

For more information on fetishism, visit Britannica.com.

The concept of erotic fetishism originated with the French psychologist Alfred Binet (better known for his work on intelligence testing) in an article published in 1887 in the Revue Philosophique, and was given further currency by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. However, the idea was put into wider circulation by the great collator of sexually diverse practices, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, in many editions and translations of his Psychopathia Sexualis, up to his death in 1902. He defined erotic fetishism (differing somewhat from earlier writers) as associating strong emotions of sexual pleasure with physical or mental qualities of, or even objects used by, a beloved person, and considered this part of normal sexual attraction. However, he also suggested that a predisposition to be sexually aroused by particular characteristics could be the motive for falling in love with or becoming infatuated with a specific individual associated one way or another with those characteristics, rather than an individual leading to an obsession with characteristics connected with them.

Krafft-Ebing made a distinction between what he called ‘physiological fetishism’, or a preference for certain particular physical characteristics in persons of the opposite sex, and what he defined as ‘pathological, erotic fetishism’. This was not merely directed to particular portions of the body, but extended to inanimate objects, usually articles of female apparel, or towards particular materials such as furs or velvet. But there was no hard and fast dividing line. The fetishist of the body part was stimulated by something which would normally arouse the sexual instinct, but his sexual interests were restricted to that particular part. There were also fetishists attached to some bodily part with no obvious connection to sex, and those interested in particular kinds of bodies, e.g. those exhibiting some kind of deformity. In the case of object fetishism, Krafft-Ebing noted transitional states, from ‘mere physiological preferences’ in which intercourse with the fetish was more pleasurable, through coitus feeling less satisfactory if the fetish were not present, to complete impotence if it were absent.

Krafft-Ebing attributed the development of fetishism to some event whereby erotic feelings became associated with some particular body part or object; this is still today usually considered to play a significant part in its aetiology. While invoking environmental circumstances, he also suggested that individuals who formed these bizarre associations were predisposed to psychopathic states and excessive sexual desire, in keeping with his theories about the role of degenerate heredity and neuropathy in the aetiology of sexual disorders. Recent writers on the subject, e.g. John Bancroft in Human Sexuality and its Problems (1989), cite experimental demonstration that the male erectile response is capable of being conditioned to react to unusual stimuli. The reason why the conditioned response to particular stimuli which results in the formation of a fetish is so much more prevalent in the male may be, Bancroft suggests, because of the obviousness of penile erection. This sets up an unmissable visual and sensory link between the object of the stimulus and sexual arousal. Women may be less likely to identify pleasurable feelings invoked by certain objects or textures as specifically sexual in nature (experimental evidence demonstrating women's physiological signs of arousal, even though they denied erotic response, to sexually stimulating visual materials tends to corroborate this possibility).

The questions remain why some particular stimulus becomes the focus of erotic sensation, and why some are more likely to be conditioned than others. Fetishes are seldom completely random objects or attributes, although Bancroft points out that the particular object chosen by an individual may well have purely personal significance. There continue to be various definite areas of fetishistic interest, which, however, change over time. Krafft-Ebing considered hand-fetishism common, but Bancroft reports this as now being extremely infrequent. Feet, however, and shoes, remain an area of considerable interest. Rubber is not mentioned by Krafft- Ebing as of particular interest alongside furs, velvet, and silk, but the twentieth century saw the rise of a definite sub-group of rubber fetishists. This may be connected with the more widespread use of various rubber items for child care (sheets for changing the baby, waterproof pants, etc.). Leather and PVC also have their subcultures of devotees. This suggests that fetishes are not only psychologically determined but subject to various social influences.

The designation of particular bodily parts as sexually stimulating by particular societies could be considered as a culturally-produced form of fetishism. Certain attributes — large breasts, bound feet, a glimpse of ankle — may be preferences so deeply encoded into a particular culture's sensibility as to appear ‘natural’ and not in need of any explanation. Therefore, a man (and fetishists are almost exclusively male) whose sexual response is very specifically tied to some such apparently universal stimulus is unlikely to consider himself as a fetishist even if interest in the stimulus greatly outweighs that towards the person whose breasts or feet they may be. If, however, he is aroused by some other body part or some unusual quality in the approved attribute (small rather than large breasts, for example), he may at least be aware of something that distinguishes him from the multitude, without describing himself as a ‘fetishist’.

The strict Freudian psychoanalytic interpretation of the fetish is that it represents the penis, and operates as either a protection against the fetishist's fear of castration, or a denial of the penis-less state of the woman. It seems certainly to be the case that the fetish operates as a defence against impotence if it is employed in a coital situation: it may do this by acting as a reliable stimulus to arousal and erection, or possibly more magically by its association with sexual arousal.

Not all fetishes are capable of being deployed within a reciprocal sexual relationship. Men may feel hesitant about revealing their particular quirk to a partner, or may eschew employing the fetish within marital life, going instead to prostitutes. The fetish may be associated with other minority sexual practices: in descriptions of the pleasures of rubber it is not always clear whether it is the sensation of rubber against the skin or the sense of being tightly bound in this clinging substance which is the main component of the sexual kick. Fetishism may be overtly combined with sadomasochist rituals: Maurice North, in his study of rubber fetishism, The Outer Fringe of Sex (1970) notes the pervasive elements of domination in fantasies written for the rubber market, and that rubber fetishism is but one component in a ‘syndrome’ including boots, leather, PVC, and sadomasochistic tendencies.

While many of the statistically less common forms of sexual behaviour can be shown to have been practised by individuals throughout the course of human history, even if they were not conceptualized as sexual perversions, fetishism is not so readily detected before its identification by late-nineteenth-century sexologists. It is merely conjectural that it was the ‘liquefaction’ of Julia's silks rather than Julia which allured Robert Herrick, that the abundant and curling tresses celebrated by poets were the real focus of attraction. Impotence occurring when the fetish was not present occasionally brought fetishism to medical attention, but in many cases its significance was probably not recognized. It has seldom figured in divorce proceedings. Krafft- Ebing noted that it did, however, have forensic implications in cases of fetishists compelled to steal the items of their desire — but, again, the erotic motivation may not have been recognized before he pointed it out. North, in his study, was writing at the time of the ‘Permissive Society’, when a certain degree of ‘kinkiness’ was fashionable and designers incorporated themes (such as high boots) from the sexual underworld, but he found nevertheless that rubber fetishism was largely a hidden deviance, kept deeply secret by its practitioners because of their own shame: this may also apply to other fetishes. For example, while men may readily reveal a ‘normal’ predilection for legs, breasts, or bottoms, it is less likely that a fondness for feet would be admitted.

While North found publications circulating among individuals sharing this obsession, there was no subculture comparable to that of homosexuals or even sadomasochists. At the time he wrote (and it is doubtful whether this has changed radically) most rubber fetishists wanted a relationship involving rubber items with a consenting female, but extremely few women were interested: and these were either prostitutes catering to a niche market, or wives or partners introduced to rubber sex by their male partners. Thus there was very little motivation to join a community which would include few potential partners, but competitors for any possible partners available. Most of the rubber fetishists investigated by North contented themselves with fantasy and masturbation, sometimes with the aid of fetish products and special-interest publications. As a very private vice, it did not have the visibility or social implications of other transgressive sexual behaviours. The incorporation of fetish motifs into mainstream fashion, and the appearance of a few fashionable fetish clubs in major urban centres, is not necessarily any indicator of a wider acceptance of fetishism.

— Lesley A. Hall

See also erogeneous zones; eroticism.

Fetishism first interested psychoanalysts as a sexual perversion, in the strict sense. The term referred to a man's compulsive use of an inherently nonsexual object as an essential condition for maintaining potency and achieving pleasure when having sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. This view emphasizes that perversion, as originally understood, was viewed as a strictly masculine phenomenon. Freud presented his thinking on the subject in three texts, which represented his changing ideas on the subject: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905d), "Fetishism" (1927e), and "The Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defense" (1940e [1938]). The views expressed in those essays are as relevant in the early twenty-first century as when they were first written.

In all observed cases, the fetish, in the fetishist's unconscious fantasy, is a substitute for a woman's "penis." It "completes" the woman by making her phallic. Consequently, the woman's genital organs lose any erogenous quality, in the eyes of the fetishist, erogeneity being completely transferred to the fetish. The fetish becomes the source of excitement, an idealized object capable of providing sexual pleasure to the fetishist.

The psychopathological behavior of the fetishist can be considered exacerbation of a universal anxiety. Freud saw in this perversion one of the clearest demonstrations of the difficulty that some men (perhaps all men) experience in accepting the differences of the sexes.

It has become clear that the most important factor behind this perversion is castration anxiety experienced to an extreme degree. Fetishism arises entirely from defensive measures unconsciously adopted to reject castration and eliminate it from the field of possibility. Only a part of the man believes that a woman does not have a penis. So as far as the fetishist is concerned, castration is still possible under these circumstances. But if both sexes are equipped with a penis, castration cannot occur in this world. It thus becomes essential to remedy this unacceptable reality by attributing a penis to the woman at any cost. Creating such a reality is the primary function of the fetish in the unconscious imagination of the fetishist. The fetishist must then shelter his fragile mental apparatus from the return of disturbing sexual perceptions. He does so by choosing as a fetish an object that is always available, like a high-heel shoe. One fetishist is quoted as saying, "Every time I am in the presence of a naked woman, I imagine a high-heel shoe; I couldn't tell what a vagina looks like." As Freud demonstrated, the fetish makes the woman "acceptable" as an object of sexual love.

Freud considered fetishism important because this pathological structure can be used to observe the workings of two important defense mechanisms that had been partially ignored until then: splitting and denial. Fetishism enabled Freud clearly to identify the mechanism of splitting for the first time, that is, splitting of the thinking ego (to be distinguished from the splitting of the object representation). The fetishist demonstrates that he can accommodate two clearly contradictory conceptions of a woman within himself: a conscious affirmation ("The woman does not have a penis") and an unconscious fetishistic affirmation ("The woman has a penis"). The first is unimportant in the mental representations of the fetishist. These two modes of thought operate in parallel and have no effect on one another. The second mode of thought, a defense mechanism, denies castration, the lack of a penis, the crucial difference between the sexes. Most authors see splitting as arising to ensure the continuity of the denial, though it may be that splitting and continuity of denial occur simultaneously.

Since splitting and denial are observed in psychosis, some see fetishism as a protection against an otherwise threatening psychosis. Fetishism is also thought to protect against homosexuality. We should not conclude, however, that the fetishist is homosexual. In terms of his own feelings of identity and his own self-representations at all levels of thought, he sees himself as a man, a man in relation to a woman, except that the woman in this case also has a penis, according to the man's unconscious imagination. This is a major difference with the transvestite, who sees himself as a woman, in this case, a woman with a penis. Overall, in spite of the exceptions encountered, the transvestite is much closer to homosexuality than the fetishist. Rare cases of fetishism alternating with homosexuality have been observed, however.

It follows from the above that fetishism is a sign of narcissistic pathology, with mental operations functioning at a very archaic level, primarily through the extensive use of primitive identification (which some authors refer to as "narcissistic identification" or "projective identification"). This assertion is based on the fact that by endowing the woman (the mother, in the unconscious) with a penis, the fetishist preserves his own sexual organ by identifying with the mother. In doing so, the fetishist exhibits considerable narcissistic vulnerability regarding the integrity of his physical image.

Although opinions are divided, it seems justified to view the mechanism and structure of fetishism as resulting from a massive regression following the oedipal stage. The oedipal conflict was traumatic and results in significant regression to all levels of pregenitality, accompanied by strong anal and oral components. These components are manifest in an anxiety of disintegration, which is very noticeable during psychoanalysis. Another school of thought suggests viewing fetishism as essentially determined by pregenital conflicts.

Psychoanalytic work in the 1990s has shown that the fetish can also take on, in most cases, several other functions in varying proportions. These secondary functions include protection against trauma and depression, release from the outward expression of hostility and contempt while expressing them secretly, relief from psychosomatic symptoms, control over separation anxiety. As a partial delusion, fetishism protects the subject from the delusion. And finally, fetishism provides access to the maternal breast and full possession of the idealized mother.

Bibliography

Freud, Sigmund. (1905d). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. SE, 7: 123-243.

——. (1927e). Fetishism. SE, 21: 147-157.

——. (1940e [1938]). Splitting of the ego in the process of defence. SE, 23: 271-278.

Gillespie, William H. (1964). The psychoanalytic theory of sexual deviation with special reference to fetishism. In Ismond Rosen (Ed.), The pathology and treatment of sexual deviation (pp. 123-145). London: Oxford University Press.

Lussier, André. (1983). Les déviations du désir:Étude sur le fétichisme. Revue Française de Psychanalyse, 47 (1), 19-142.

Rosolato, Guy.(1967).Étude des perversions sexuelles à partir du fétichisme. In Guy Rosolato, Piera Aulagnier-Spairani, Jean Clavreul, François Perrier, and Jean-Paul Valabrega (Eds.), Le désir et la perversion (pp. 9-52). Paris: Seuil.

Further Reading

Bak, Robert. (1953). Fetishism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1, 285-298.

Greenacre, Phyllis. (1960). Further notes on fetishism. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15, 191-207.

——. (1969). The fetish and the transitional object. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 24,144-164.

Nersessian, Edward. (1998). A cat as fetish: A contribution to the theory of fetishism. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 79, 713-726.

Renik, Owen. (1992). Use of the analyst as a fetish. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 61, 542-563.

—ANDRÉ LUSSIER

A term formerly used to discuss various aspects of African religions, especially the use of objects believed to be inhabited by spirit beings. It was a term that grew out of an inadequate understanding of traditional African religious faith and was abandoned in the late twentieth century.

Sources:

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Collier, 1961.

This article concerns the concept of fetishism in anthropology. For other uses, see Fetish (disambiguation).

Depiction of a fetish in South Africa by the London Missionary Society, circa 1900

A fetish (from the French fétiche; which comes from the Portuguese feitiço; and this in turn from Latin facticius, "artificial" and facere, "to make") is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a man-made object that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is the attribution of inherent value or powers to an object.

Contents 1 History 2 Practice 3 Theories of fetishism in the West 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

History

Initially, this concept was used by the Portuguese to refer to the objects used in religious cults by the West African natives.

The concept was made known in Europe by Charles de Brosses in 1757, while comparing West African religion to the magical aspects of Ancient Egyptian religion. Later, Auguste Comte used the concept to apply an evolution theory to religion. In Comte's theory of the evolution of religion, he proposed that fetishism is the earliest (most primitive) stage, followed by the stages of polytheism and monotheism.

That said, some artifacts of monotheistic religions are fetishes according to ethnography and anthropology. For example in some forms of Christianity, which is a monotheistic religion, the Holy Cross and consecrated host are examples of fetishism. However, this vision is denied by monotheist practitioners.

In the 19th-20th century, Tylor and McLennan held that the concept of fetishism allowed historians of religion to shift attention from the relationship between people and God to the relationship between people and material objects. They also held that it established models of causal explanations of natural events which they considered false as a central problem in history and sociology.

Practice

Theoretically, fetishism is present in all religions, but its use in the study of religion is derived from studies of traditional West African religious beliefs, as well as Voodoo, which is derived from those beliefs.

Blood is often considered a particularly powerful fetish or ingredient in fetishes. In addition to blood, other objects and substances, such as bones, fur, claws, feathers, gemstones and crystals, water from certain places, certain types of plants and wood are common fetishes in the traditions of cultures worldwide.

Fetishes were commonly used in Native American religion and practice.^[1] The bear represented the shaman, the buffalo was the provider, the mountain lion was the warrior, and the wolf was the pathfinder.^[1]

Theories of fetishism in the West

• In the 19th century Karl Marx appropriated the term to describe commodity fetishism as an important component of capitalism. Nowadays, (commodity and capital) fetishism is a central concept of Marxism.
• Later Sigmund Freud appropriated the concept to describe a form of paraphilia where the object of affection is an inanimate object or a specific part of a person; see sexual fetish.

See also

• Idolatry
• Animism
• Totemism
• Taboo
• The Power of Myth

References

1. ^ ^{a b} "Animals: fact and folklore," New Mexico Magazine, August 2008, pp. 56-63, see New Mexico magazine website.

External links

• The Catholic Encyclopaedia: fetishism - The Catholic View.
• Andrew Lang, Fetishism and Spiritualism, The Making of Religion, (Chapter VIII), Longmans, Green, and C°, London, New York and Bombay, 1900, pp. 147-159.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)