In the current heavily therapized and self-help-forward society, terms like “narcissism” and “trauma” have become commonplace when describing unhealthy relationships. While it is undoubtedly helpful to understand the red flags of one personality disorder or another, sometimes, in pathologizing those who hurt our feelings, we are quick to perceive ourselves as traumatized victims entitled to rage and vengeance. These sorts of dynamics often play out in divorce cases, custody battles in family courtrooms, and politics and social justice agendas in general.

However, one interesting and extremely common pathological relational dynamic that is not talked about as often as it should be is that of sadomasochism. It’s one of the most common day-to-day psychological trends, usually only discussed in a psychosexual context and not very widely explored as a familiar relational dynamic that is often confused with love.

Perhaps it’s not a popular subject matter because, unlike victim/perpetrator dyads, in sadomasochistic dyads, both parties actively and willingly participate; hence, both are equally culpable. To authentically explore the roots of such dynamics requires an uncomfortable yet honest look at one’s unconscious desires to be controlled and desires to dominate. Perhaps if we truly understood the deep-seated and universal aspect of sadomasochism in human nature, we would better understand the very history of our civilization and its tragedy.

Sadomasochistic tendencies in people are essentially basic impulses that manifest themselves, not simply in sexual games between partners but in the unspoken contracts around control and power in relationships. According to German social psychologist Erich Fromm, sadomasochism is a psychological defense mechanism that provides an escape from an individual’s intolerable feelings of isolation, doubt, and anxiety, allowing us to forget our feelings of powerlessness. Fromm, being a German Jew and a survivor of Nazi Germany, probably had a particularly painful and intimate exposure to sadistic manifestation in the rise of fascism as a national defense against deep feelings of shame and subjugation of the German spirit after the First World War. This is an example of how extreme feelings of inadequacy and shame can give rise to sadism on a scale that surpasses individual boundaries.

The current climate of the Russian attack on Ukraine can also be interpreted in the context of Russian sadism being born out of extreme feelings of inadequacy with its neighbors. The sadomasochistic dynamic is not intrinsically a pathological dynamic, as it is universal. However, it can become pathological in the presence of trauma and manifest on a large social scale as well as individual.

Sadomasochism doesn’t only appear in a dyad; one person is not always a sadist, while the other is not always a masochist. Depending on the particular relational circumstances, a sadist can become a masochist and vice versa. This dynamic is a play of exchange of power and control, as well as responsibility.

A more emotional individual becomes infantilized, whereas an emotionally withholding one assumes the role of the parent. More often, this is an agreed-upon dynamic that can be fairly symbiotic and resemble love. However, the dynamic becomes abusive when there is concurrent psychopathology, such as a personality or a mental health disorder.

A masochist tends to acquiesce power to the dominant, freed from having to be accountable for making autonomous decisions. Hence, mistakes are made by the dominant, anguish and suffering are caused by someone other than themselves, and this lack of freedom allows an escape from responsibility.

A masochist is often stuck in their situation; there are always imagined circumstantial hurdles to their freedom. A sadist, on the other hand, is often burdened by the responsibility and resentful of their partner’s perceived inadequacies. The dominant is equally bound by the relationship with the passive, often through guilt. The tables can quickly turn, however, when a passive is tired of permission and approval seeking. They can become withholding or emotionally unavailable as a means to punish or gain control. Then the dominant succumbs, exposing emotional vulnerability and dependence on their passive partner — the submissive returns to their original role, assuring that they are integral to this exhausting game.

In these dynamics, individuals cannot be fully individuated architects of their lives. Often they don’t want to be. Being forever distracted by the drama of the relationship, escaping into their tormentor instead of risking autonomy, they become one, psychologically swallowing each other in their eternal escape from existential fear. Thus, when frustrated by another — controlled, stuck, subjugated — we owe ourselves a question: How are we succumbing to this game in exchange for responsibility? True freedom inevitably entails isolation. Would we rather be miserable together than alone yet free? spt