A personality model for dominance and submission

By -
I have had a conviction which has been growing for a long time that dominance and submission are fundamental human traits, which everyone has to some degree or other. I used to believe that sadism and masochism were the primary traits, but I now suspect that these are more like tools or strategies - sadism being a tool for achieving dominance and masochism a strategy for handling submission.

How pleasing then to discover a psychological model of personality that has dominance and submission at it's core. I'm talking about the Interpersonal Circumplex model, originally proposed by the infamous Timothy Leary of psychedelic drugs fame. Leary's model defines personality in terms of two axes - love/hate on the horizontal, and dominance/submission on the vertical. All other personality types are represented as points on a circle centred on these axes (i.e. as mixtures of these fundamental traits).

I haven't yet studied this model enough to fully understand it, but one obvious implication is that dominance and submission are at the very core of who we are. If we ignore these traits, whether in therapy or in life, they will be active nevertheless, as they are fundamental (according to this model). How much better then to be fully aware of them, to name them, and to openly discuss them?

If dominance and submission are primary drives or instincts, and our biological make-up uses feelings of pleasure to reward us when we follow our instincts, then surely sadism is biology's way of implementing the instinct to dominate, and masochism becomes it's way of encouraging us to be submissive.

So why feel guilty about them?

Comments

  1. Anonymous13 April 2007 at 22:11

    I believe this is definitely worth pursuing as a line of research and thought. I have not heard of Leary's theory before, but will definitely check it out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Slaves

By -
In corresponding with some of the submissives who send me e-mails, I have noticed a disturbing pattern - the number of women who are getting emotionally wounded by prematurely attempting to become “slaves”. Now it’s important to get the terminology right, and I don’t know what other Doms and subs mean precisely when they talk about Master / slave relationships. For me becoming a “slave” represents an extremely intense and challenging form of D/s relationship, one in which the slave surrenders a significant proportion of her freedom, independence, rights and control to the Master. To me, this is something which should only be attempted by someone who has been thoroughly trained as a submissive by a Dom who knows what he is doing, and who has spent a considerable period of time exploring her submissiveness. Some of those who I hear from haven’t even reached the point where I would regard them as submissive, let alone ready to become slaves. Some are surprised to learn that train...
Read more

Theory of human dominance and submission - an outline.

By -
If you have been reading my earlier posts you will have probably realised by now that I am working towards a scientific understanding of dominance and submission. I now feel ready to put forward the outline of a theory, although many of the details have still to be worked out. Firstly, I want to acknowledge that I would not have reached this point without the encouragement of readers of this blog who have posted comments and sent me emails. I am also aware that despite the fact that it has taken me a lot of hard work to get to this stage, the amount of work needed to take the theory on to the next level will be infinitely greater. For both these reasons I would like to open out this work to others in the online community who want to get involved. At the moment I can think of several areas where I could use some help, and I am sure others will emerge: 1. A theory needs to be able to answer questions and to make predictions which can be tested. Please let me know wh...
Read more

Edges

By -
In psychotherapy there is the concept of an "edge". It's not the same as the edges talked about in business such as "cutting edge", "leading edge" or "competitive edge". The psychotherapy edge could be thought of as a "growing edge" - it represents the boundary between what I think of as "me" and what I don't. I haven't been able to find out who first introduced the idea so I can't give them credit, but I know that it forms a core concept in Process Oriented Psychology - as documented in Wikipedia: Experience is found to be of two kinds: that with which the client identifies, and that which is experienced as “other” or alien to the client. Experiences with which the client identifies are called “primary process”, to emphasize their place in the foreground of awareness. Experiences which the client marginalizes as “other” are called “secondary process”, to emphasize their place in the background of aw...
Read more