What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Fesseln der Liebe
Book by Jessica Benjamin
Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
184 people are currently reading
2350 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
March 22, 2010
This is a fabulous fabulous book. It lags at times, but for someone who is only sparsely versed in psychoanalytic theory (as I am--now being forced out of my protective zone, since I like using people like Kristeva, sans hardcore psychoanalytic theory), Benjamin provides very accessible accounts of major frameworks and debates that have been--and are still being--articulated in the theory. For example, we all know a bit about oedipalization--but Benjamin clearly defines the parameters of various visions of the process, laying everything lucidly out in order to structure her own argument concerning identificatory development. Someone here said that the chapter on S&M is badly researched (which admittedly, using a single book as representative isn't really social critique--it's literary critique), but the explication of the Story of O. was beautifully written and certainly fit in with the rest of the text--and ill-formed or not, it was probably my favorite chapter of the book.
In any case, this one comes highly recommended for those interested in feminist psychoanalytic criticism, those hoping to read more on domination and subordination, and anyone trying to escape the specter of penis envy. I'm actually planning to read another of her books soon, as this was so engaging and fascinating a read.
In any case, this one comes highly recommended for those interested in feminist psychoanalytic criticism, those hoping to read more on domination and subordination, and anyone trying to escape the specter of penis envy. I'm actually planning to read another of her books soon, as this was so engaging and fascinating a read.
August 5, 2025
ich habe leider wenig verstanden und muss es bestimmt nochmal lesen
April 9, 2012
No, psychoanalysis is still primarily useless aside from literary analysis... but hey, sometimes it produces really stunning works of contemplative feminism. Her discussion of the Story of O is obnoxious; instead of seizing the opportunity to interview an individual involved in the BDSM community, she just interrogates a piece of erotica. Other than that, stellar book.
July 26, 2008
I was introduced to this book nearly ten years ago by my favorite professor, Dr. Schapiro, and have read and referenced it numerous times since then. I consider it one of the core books that have shaped my personal belief system and values. In fact, almost every book I read for Dr. Schapiro in college is part of that core collection!
Benjamin writes in a way that makes psychoanalysis and feminist theory accessible even to those who have not studied psychology and/or literary criticism. She ties the concepts of master and slave, dominance and submissiveness, to psychoanalytic theories such as object-relations or intersubjectivity. While she references the patriarchal order and certain societal stereotypes, she does not place blame.
This book is valuale in understanding the dynamics of relationships- In every person's life, there are those we lead, and those we follow; those we manipulate, and those we are manipulated by; those we dominate, and those we submit to. The Bonds of Love provides insight into the psychological and psychosocial causes of this dynamic.
Benjamin writes in a way that makes psychoanalysis and feminist theory accessible even to those who have not studied psychology and/or literary criticism. She ties the concepts of master and slave, dominance and submissiveness, to psychoanalytic theories such as object-relations or intersubjectivity. While she references the patriarchal order and certain societal stereotypes, she does not place blame.
This book is valuale in understanding the dynamics of relationships- In every person's life, there are those we lead, and those we follow; those we manipulate, and those we are manipulated by; those we dominate, and those we submit to. The Bonds of Love provides insight into the psychological and psychosocial causes of this dynamic.
November 10, 2025
I have a theory about book reviews that’s not based on any empirical evidence, just something derived from my own relationship to other people’s book reviews. The theory is this: Nobody actually reads book reviews. Like in theory you would think that some people must be reading these reviews — because otherwise it wouldn’t make sense why there are so many of them — but I don’t think this actually happens.
On the one hand, this is incredibly freeing. Since there’s nobody out there reading this review, it follows that there’s nobody out there to cast nasty judgments my way, and so I can write whatever I want, sharing, for example, how I enjoy smelling my own farts. Which, by the way, is not actually true, because ew — but the point is that I could write such things and write them with euphoric abandon, because there’d be no one to read it. But at the same time, this truth — which might not be true but which in my mind is rock-fucking-solid reality — is sad, because what I need, what we all need, as Jessica Benjamin poignantly writes in this book, is recognition.
Benjamin argues that we don’t feel fully, authentically alive unless there’s someone there to recognize us. When another person recognizes me as a subject, as an autonomous person with a rich inner life, I feel more real, more alive. Conversely, when someone treats me like an object, when someone talks at me but makes no point to listen, I feel diminished, invisible, less real.
She builds on the idea of Winnicott’s “good-enough mother,” reframing it in terms of recognition. The good-enough mother provides recognition. She sees her baby not as an extension of herself but as his own unique person. And because she recognizes her baby, she’s able to provide what he needs, soothing him when he cries, feeding him when he’s hungry, quieting the environment when he’s overstimulated.
Of course, “maternal holding,” more than being just physical care, is a kind of emotional containment. Through her steady presence and attuned responses, the mother helps the baby manage feelings that would otherwise be overwhelming. When he cries in distress, she receives his feelings, endures them with him, and transforms them into something bearable, showing him that distressing feelings can be survived.
Over time, he learns that others are responsive and trustworthy and begins to develop a sense of agency (“I can elicit responses from you”) and, building on that, a sense of mutuality (“You and I can share feelings and influence each other”). If his mother strikes the right balance as he ages, neither dominating him (that is, failing to affirm his subjectivity), nor capitulating to his every demand (that is, failing to assert her own subjectivity), a relationship of mutual recognition can flourish.
Now you might have noticed that I’m not using gender-neutral language, and that’s deliberate, meant to highlight the traditional gender roles that still dominate much of society. In such ossified roles, the mother tends to the children while the father provides for the family, entering the picture more fully once the toddler begins to separate and assert himself. The little boy, eager to differentiate from mother, begins to identify with father. By now, mother has come to represent merger and domesticity, things that were fine for babies but not for fledgling young boys, while father stands for independence and the wider world outside the home.
You might have also noticed that I’ve said nothing about girls, and that’s also deliberate, because none of this really applies to girls, not when traditional gender roles prevail. Boys identify with their fathers in order to secure their independence, but girls don’t generally have the same option. Even though most fathers might adore their daughters, they see themselves in their sons, thus facilitating a process of mutual recognition that girls are rarely afforded.
Crucially, the boy does not just identify with father, but he also disidentifies with mother. Being masculine is seen as being like him and not like her. Consequently, all those things that mother does — “[e]motional attunement, sharing states of mind, empathically assuming the other’s position, and imaginatively perceiving the other’s needs and feelings” — become coded as “feminine” and therefore get cast off. In their place, the boy, mimicking father, seeks mastery and control in the external world as a way of reestablishing the sense of wholeness and confidence that was once sustained through connection.
And from there, things just continue to devolve. The boy stops seeing his mother, and in fact all women, as subjects, and risks spending the rest of his life unable to engage in the type of mutual recognition that characterized his early life. We in turn end up with a society kind of resembling Mad Men, emotionally stunted men viewing women as objects and women internalizing the culture’s misogyny. And much to Don Draper’s surprise, he doesn’t even get satisfying sex out of this, just repeated humping and bumping, going through the motions to discharge his pent-up frustration, not the back-and-forth of play and spontaneity that comes through mutual recognition.
At this point you might be wondering, why have I turned this review into a simple summary of Benjamin’s arguments? My first response is that, as you and I both know, there is no “you” there to be asking this question. Remember, nobody actually reads book reviews. Which, as we’ve also seen, is a major problem, since I really do need you. Second, and more to the point, I’m summarizing her arguments because I find them riveting and important. Maybe you majored in women’s studies and have long thought along these lines, but in case you don’t know, I’m a damn dude, one who has accepted many of our culture’s gender stereotypes, and so I’m just trying to sort all this out, and Benjamin has proven to be tremendously helpful.
On the one hand, this is incredibly freeing. Since there’s nobody out there reading this review, it follows that there’s nobody out there to cast nasty judgments my way, and so I can write whatever I want, sharing, for example, how I enjoy smelling my own farts. Which, by the way, is not actually true, because ew — but the point is that I could write such things and write them with euphoric abandon, because there’d be no one to read it. But at the same time, this truth — which might not be true but which in my mind is rock-fucking-solid reality — is sad, because what I need, what we all need, as Jessica Benjamin poignantly writes in this book, is recognition.
Benjamin argues that we don’t feel fully, authentically alive unless there’s someone there to recognize us. When another person recognizes me as a subject, as an autonomous person with a rich inner life, I feel more real, more alive. Conversely, when someone treats me like an object, when someone talks at me but makes no point to listen, I feel diminished, invisible, less real.
She builds on the idea of Winnicott’s “good-enough mother,” reframing it in terms of recognition. The good-enough mother provides recognition. She sees her baby not as an extension of herself but as his own unique person. And because she recognizes her baby, she’s able to provide what he needs, soothing him when he cries, feeding him when he’s hungry, quieting the environment when he’s overstimulated.
Of course, “maternal holding,” more than being just physical care, is a kind of emotional containment. Through her steady presence and attuned responses, the mother helps the baby manage feelings that would otherwise be overwhelming. When he cries in distress, she receives his feelings, endures them with him, and transforms them into something bearable, showing him that distressing feelings can be survived.
Over time, he learns that others are responsive and trustworthy and begins to develop a sense of agency (“I can elicit responses from you”) and, building on that, a sense of mutuality (“You and I can share feelings and influence each other”). If his mother strikes the right balance as he ages, neither dominating him (that is, failing to affirm his subjectivity), nor capitulating to his every demand (that is, failing to assert her own subjectivity), a relationship of mutual recognition can flourish.
Now you might have noticed that I’m not using gender-neutral language, and that’s deliberate, meant to highlight the traditional gender roles that still dominate much of society. In such ossified roles, the mother tends to the children while the father provides for the family, entering the picture more fully once the toddler begins to separate and assert himself. The little boy, eager to differentiate from mother, begins to identify with father. By now, mother has come to represent merger and domesticity, things that were fine for babies but not for fledgling young boys, while father stands for independence and the wider world outside the home.
You might have also noticed that I’ve said nothing about girls, and that’s also deliberate, because none of this really applies to girls, not when traditional gender roles prevail. Boys identify with their fathers in order to secure their independence, but girls don’t generally have the same option. Even though most fathers might adore their daughters, they see themselves in their sons, thus facilitating a process of mutual recognition that girls are rarely afforded.
Crucially, the boy does not just identify with father, but he also disidentifies with mother. Being masculine is seen as being like him and not like her. Consequently, all those things that mother does — “[e]motional attunement, sharing states of mind, empathically assuming the other’s position, and imaginatively perceiving the other’s needs and feelings” — become coded as “feminine” and therefore get cast off. In their place, the boy, mimicking father, seeks mastery and control in the external world as a way of reestablishing the sense of wholeness and confidence that was once sustained through connection.
And from there, things just continue to devolve. The boy stops seeing his mother, and in fact all women, as subjects, and risks spending the rest of his life unable to engage in the type of mutual recognition that characterized his early life. We in turn end up with a society kind of resembling Mad Men, emotionally stunted men viewing women as objects and women internalizing the culture’s misogyny. And much to Don Draper’s surprise, he doesn’t even get satisfying sex out of this, just repeated humping and bumping, going through the motions to discharge his pent-up frustration, not the back-and-forth of play and spontaneity that comes through mutual recognition.
At this point you might be wondering, why have I turned this review into a simple summary of Benjamin’s arguments? My first response is that, as you and I both know, there is no “you” there to be asking this question. Remember, nobody actually reads book reviews. Which, as we’ve also seen, is a major problem, since I really do need you. Second, and more to the point, I’m summarizing her arguments because I find them riveting and important. Maybe you majored in women’s studies and have long thought along these lines, but in case you don’t know, I’m a damn dude, one who has accepted many of our culture’s gender stereotypes, and so I’m just trying to sort all this out, and Benjamin has proven to be tremendously helpful.
October 2, 2021
I thought this book was really insightful. Benjamin's use of Hegel's master-slave dialectic was excellent and prepared the way for her wider points about how both philosophy and to some extent psychoanalysis have been trapped in the Cartesian view of the subject with this monad then having to make contact with an other who is called (and seen) as an object. Against this, Benjamin emphasies intersubjectivity and the possibility of avoiding the master-slave dialectic of one subject seeking (fruitlessly) to dominate the other by instead focusing on the mutual recognition of two subjects. The problem otherwise is that as one subject reduces another to an object they lose the possibility of their subjectivity being recognised, so domination ends up destroying both the subject and the other.
The other big influence on Benjamin is Winnicott and she makes great use of his paradoxical idea that we can only make contact with the other if we destroy them. I think what he (and she) means is that our need for the other makes us fear them and when we seek to destroy them to overcome our fear and our dependency, then if they survive, we discover the limits to our omnipotence which although disappointing moderates the guilt we would feel if our rage turned out to be as totally destructive as we hoped (then feared) it would be. It also convinces us that the other is genuinely independent of us and so creates the scope for having a relationship with the them. However, if rather than enduring and surviving, the other flees or retaliates, the master-slave dialectic continues indefinitely.
Benjamin is keen to show that domination is a two-way relationship, i.e. there are attractions both to being the master and to being the slave. The master hopes to establish his subjectivity by violating the subjectivity of the slave, but the slave may share the master's ideal of omnipotent subjectivity and seek to connect to this ideal not actively but passively via identification. Her argument is that they may share the dream of finding salvation in asserting their subjectivity over that of others even if this dream is more immediately apparent in the master than the slave.
I also liked Benjamin's deconstruction of the classic Freudian account of the Oedipus complex. The traditional account does seem sexist and her alternative (grounded in a Winnicottian view of the pre-Oedipal period) seemed both interesting and compelling. I thought it also carried forward well into her discussion of the social and political world. So overall a powerful and thought-provoking book. Definitely one I will come back to!
The other big influence on Benjamin is Winnicott and she makes great use of his paradoxical idea that we can only make contact with the other if we destroy them. I think what he (and she) means is that our need for the other makes us fear them and when we seek to destroy them to overcome our fear and our dependency, then if they survive, we discover the limits to our omnipotence which although disappointing moderates the guilt we would feel if our rage turned out to be as totally destructive as we hoped (then feared) it would be. It also convinces us that the other is genuinely independent of us and so creates the scope for having a relationship with the them. However, if rather than enduring and surviving, the other flees or retaliates, the master-slave dialectic continues indefinitely.
Benjamin is keen to show that domination is a two-way relationship, i.e. there are attractions both to being the master and to being the slave. The master hopes to establish his subjectivity by violating the subjectivity of the slave, but the slave may share the master's ideal of omnipotent subjectivity and seek to connect to this ideal not actively but passively via identification. Her argument is that they may share the dream of finding salvation in asserting their subjectivity over that of others even if this dream is more immediately apparent in the master than the slave.
I also liked Benjamin's deconstruction of the classic Freudian account of the Oedipus complex. The traditional account does seem sexist and her alternative (grounded in a Winnicottian view of the pre-Oedipal period) seemed both interesting and compelling. I thought it also carried forward well into her discussion of the social and political world. So overall a powerful and thought-provoking book. Definitely one I will come back to!
read-enough-of
July 7, 2013Not sure this belongs on my "read-enough-of" shelf (for books where I think I've got the gist adequately) rather than on my simply "unfinished" shelf, but what the heck. I'm gonna live dangerously. The first chapter is on some competing theories of the development of the ego, focussing mostly on what the author calls "intersubjective theory," inspired by Hegel (on the master-slave dialectic) and Winnicott - her approach - and the alternative ego-psychology account (associated here with Margaret Mahler). The former, preferred, account sees subjectivity as arising from the beginning on the basis of mutuality and recognition of the other. The latter sees the ego as as differentiating itself from a primal unity with the early caregiver (referred to as the mother, since it is usually the mother) and deploying a range of identifications and introjections in its engagement with the world, thus not really confronting the other in her own reality.
The second chapter, near the end of which I felt I had read enough of the book, deals with the problem of domination in the erotic context, via a lengthy discussion of The Story Of O. After a while, the descriptions of what goes on in this book in terms of recognition, annihilation, ideal other, dependence, and so on becomes like white noise. If all the sentences were shuffled into paragraphs randomly, I suspect I would not be able to tell the difference. I seem to have this reaction to some psychoanalytic writing (see my review of Bechdel's Are You My Mother?). Not sure whether this is a deficiency in me or it.
The second chapter, near the end of which I felt I had read enough of the book, deals with the problem of domination in the erotic context, via a lengthy discussion of The Story Of O. After a while, the descriptions of what goes on in this book in terms of recognition, annihilation, ideal other, dependence, and so on becomes like white noise. If all the sentences were shuffled into paragraphs randomly, I suspect I would not be able to tell the difference. I seem to have this reaction to some psychoanalytic writing (see my review of Bechdel's Are You My Mother?). Not sure whether this is a deficiency in me or it.
September 9, 2007
I've read this book several times before, and am skimming through it once more as I prepare to write a diss chapter that uses psychoanalytic theories of masochism as an allegory for racial/political desire in Octavia Butler's novel "Kindred." Benjamin is brilliant and wonderfully accessible. I alternate between convictions that I am a masochist/that I am a sadist.
March 7, 2013
It is pretty good and easy to read. I've read it enthusiastically as if it were a novel...
December 13, 2022
really into books that call Christopher Lasch a dumbass
December 11, 2020
Second attempt reading this one -- finally clicked! Benjamin walks us through the gendered processes of human development (in which boys are encouraged to differentiate and girls to remain connected), which she argues lay the foundation for dominant boys and submissive girls. Each side of the polarity is frustrated: the boy because he must renounce his mother's love in order to differentiate, and the girl because she can't differentiate, as there appear to be no other options for her than identifying with her mother. The result, Benjamin argues, is a loss of ability by both parties to recognize the girl as an independent subject. With this comes a loss of vital tension, the tension between two mutually recognizing, self-asserting subjects. Domination is a way of reestablishing tension, though Benjamin warns that it's a slippery slope: as one submits more and more of themselves, they become less of a subject and therefore less able to recognize the other -- thus, they eventually get "used up" and become worthless. Quite sad.
Benjamin doesn't exactly give us a road map to establishing intersubjectivity, but she does paint some beautiful images: the "container" self who cultivates inner space in which to establish an authentic self, and the "endless shores" of intersubjective possibility are my two favorites.
It takes some determination to get through all the subject/object/splitting/etc. jargon, but for me it was well worth it. Would recommend for anyone hoping to better understand, well, psychoanalysis, feminism, and/or domination! 5 stars.
Benjamin doesn't exactly give us a road map to establishing intersubjectivity, but she does paint some beautiful images: the "container" self who cultivates inner space in which to establish an authentic self, and the "endless shores" of intersubjective possibility are my two favorites.
It takes some determination to get through all the subject/object/splitting/etc. jargon, but for me it was well worth it. Would recommend for anyone hoping to better understand, well, psychoanalysis, feminism, and/or domination! 5 stars.
July 12, 2024
Didn't finish, read 3/5 chapters - very interesting but a bit too heavy for a psychology and feminist noob. Will come back when I read up on the Freudian paradigm.
May 27, 2014
I found it fairly dense, and Benjamin makes very clear the historical positioning that she is coming from. I found this great and informational, but at times it was also hard to follow because of how careful she was in laying the groundwork for how domination comes to exist in individual and cultural experiences. Her thoughts are using Hegel's dialectic of master and slave were informative and I believe influence the way we can think about culture, and microaggressions. It reframes many of the discussions around cultural competence, into a discussion of acknowledging power, and working towards having a mutual view of the other, instead of a tokenizing or exoticizing view. It is hard to imagine a world that is not at least subtly influenced by these bonds of domination, but Benjamin does provide one possible way forward in this regard.
March 21, 2018
I love this book. I picked it up together with "Like subjects, love objects" and started with the latter. After some time the book became intolerable and foreign, I couldn't follow it at all. I decided this author is not for me and almost returned both books. It's good I decided to look into this one at least a bit before giving it away. Now I am completely hooked. It gave me some profound insights. I like that the author has balanced views. She doesn't strive to prove this or that but favors embracing contradictions. She points out and criticizes the gender polarity that exists in our current collective consciousness and public discourse. It's an essential feminist read.
It's difficult but worth it. I'm planning to read it again to metabolize the information fully.
It's difficult but worth it. I'm planning to read it again to metabolize the information fully.
March 31, 2021
This book is a very challenging read. If you are prepared to struggle through the thicket of psychoanalytic theory and critique, and a tiresome reference to a host of eminent thinkers on the subject, there are some worthwhile gems of wisdom to be gained, as well as shifts in perspective that can be awakening. It is definitely thought-provoking in parts and merits discussion. The book does seem to have something important to say and for this reason I would recommend it to others if they are conscientious and up for the challenge. Unfortunately, I think the significance of what this book has to say is a little too mired down in all the theory and footnoting, and it was a bit overladen with psychobabble for my liking.
July 1, 2018
Overall it was a decent historical/psychoanalysis history of the psychology behind gender social norms; it is too wordy. Each chapter can be cut in half and still say the same thing. Yes, the way we were brought up is affected by the societal norms from generation from generation. Yes, all the males in psychology focused on men in their study and assumed that duality in things makes women the opposite. We know now that is not the case. But the book was interesting in regards that I read the 1988 edition and see how far we have come in a short matter in time in understanding but not in reality.
August 22, 2009
Changed my mode of apprehension from as an object to be seen, back to a subject that sees, the original position. I also began to write my novel at this time. I began staring strangers down on the sidewalk to experiment with Benjamin's idea of personhood as colored by this neat dichotomy. Poof, like that, I was looking, seeing thinking and writing.
October 22, 2021
Hat mein Gehirn auseinandergenommen
July 31, 2021
Reading this book felt like both being on a really fun rollercoaster— things whizzing by (aka, large academic fields I have no big background in haha), the wind in my hair, the thrill and excitement!— AND this sense crouching on the ground, looking at very small rocks and examining them slowly in the palm of my hand...
What an extremely strange way to feel while reading a book. Not sure I've ever felt that way before, that sense of thrill, excitement, and extreme rigor. The fact that reading this took about 30-40 hours was also a part of this experience.
Though I'm sure a lot of it went over my head, and structurally, I'm going to miss things explaining this to others, this is a book I never... thought I would have been able to read, and I am surprised how enjoyable that was. It was also really satisfying to see that a lot of the "random" undirected reading of papers I've been doing over the past 10~ months was useful! And Benjamin helped give me context for all of those readings in her book, too, since it was mercifully written for someone without any psychoanalytic background.
I feel somehow internally changed, and yet I cannot say exactly how yet.
I will say that it was extremely gratifying to see my intense and healing experiences with my psychoanalytically-leaning therapist mirrored in this book.
I am also just so happy someone out there decided to sit down and think about how to rigorously integrate psychoanalysis and feminism, as I've come to really love what I've discovered in psychoanalysis thus far. I partially read this because I was concerned about some of the... misogynistic whiffs I was getting from some of the classical Freudian work I'd been reading about, and wondered if psychoanalysis could be "saved" theoretically for me... and I'm really glad to say that yes, this book has certainly made me feel that, even if not everybody agrees about it (even within the feminist and psychoanalytic umbrellas), there are at least a group of people that have found a way through this theoretical framework that is redemptive and with plenty of room for truthful paradox.
I have no idea if this is a book that others would enjoy, but I feel compelled to say: thank you Jessica Benjamin, for writing this book that has been so helpful to me at this very strange and particular phase of my life.
What an extremely strange way to feel while reading a book. Not sure I've ever felt that way before, that sense of thrill, excitement, and extreme rigor. The fact that reading this took about 30-40 hours was also a part of this experience.
Though I'm sure a lot of it went over my head, and structurally, I'm going to miss things explaining this to others, this is a book I never... thought I would have been able to read, and I am surprised how enjoyable that was. It was also really satisfying to see that a lot of the "random" undirected reading of papers I've been doing over the past 10~ months was useful! And Benjamin helped give me context for all of those readings in her book, too, since it was mercifully written for someone without any psychoanalytic background.
I feel somehow internally changed, and yet I cannot say exactly how yet.
I will say that it was extremely gratifying to see my intense and healing experiences with my psychoanalytically-leaning therapist mirrored in this book.
I am also just so happy someone out there decided to sit down and think about how to rigorously integrate psychoanalysis and feminism, as I've come to really love what I've discovered in psychoanalysis thus far. I partially read this because I was concerned about some of the... misogynistic whiffs I was getting from some of the classical Freudian work I'd been reading about, and wondered if psychoanalysis could be "saved" theoretically for me... and I'm really glad to say that yes, this book has certainly made me feel that, even if not everybody agrees about it (even within the feminist and psychoanalytic umbrellas), there are at least a group of people that have found a way through this theoretical framework that is redemptive and with plenty of room for truthful paradox.
I have no idea if this is a book that others would enjoy, but I feel compelled to say: thank you Jessica Benjamin, for writing this book that has been so helpful to me at this very strange and particular phase of my life.
May 31, 2024
Intellectually: I was surprised by how much Benjamin drew from the Marxist tradition in her psychoanalytic theorizing without ever referring to Lacan. It was very cool seeing her variety of psychoanalysis engaging with Lukacs, Adorno and Hegel via relatively mainstream American clinical terminology rather than relying on the "philosophy-ready" vocabulary of the French analysts.
Emotionally: This book hit me hard at times. I started it out of pure personal curiosity regarding psychoanalytic thinking on BDSM, but it's only barely about that. The other four chapters are about the different ways that other forms of connection between men and women (and between men and other men, and women and other women, etc.) are often psychically pre-empted within the individuals themselves by Benjamin's reformulated and historicized version of the Oedipus complex. Ultimately, it ends up being a book about loneliness, and that really resonated with me. This book was a major factor in my recent decision to enter into analysis.
Politically: At the end of the day, this is still a feminist book, not a Marxist book. It presents reification (described by Benjamin in the more Weberian terminology of "rationalization") as a socially generalized expression of male-supremacist thinking, surprisingly failing to account for the (obvious to Marxists) point that the very category of "male" is itself a reification. She acknowledges this impasse, but doesn't put the cart back behind the horse where it belongs (at least not in the main body of the text - I must confess to not having read the footnotes.) That said, she goes some way towards historicizing gender roles, and advocates more or less for their abolition, but doesn't complete the analysis by locating their true origin in private property.
All things considered, this was a deeply affecting book that made me think deeply about my life and relationships. I am better off for having read it.
Emotionally: This book hit me hard at times. I started it out of pure personal curiosity regarding psychoanalytic thinking on BDSM, but it's only barely about that. The other four chapters are about the different ways that other forms of connection between men and women (and between men and other men, and women and other women, etc.) are often psychically pre-empted within the individuals themselves by Benjamin's reformulated and historicized version of the Oedipus complex. Ultimately, it ends up being a book about loneliness, and that really resonated with me. This book was a major factor in my recent decision to enter into analysis.
Politically: At the end of the day, this is still a feminist book, not a Marxist book. It presents reification (described by Benjamin in the more Weberian terminology of "rationalization") as a socially generalized expression of male-supremacist thinking, surprisingly failing to account for the (obvious to Marxists) point that the very category of "male" is itself a reification. She acknowledges this impasse, but doesn't put the cart back behind the horse where it belongs (at least not in the main body of the text - I must confess to not having read the footnotes.) That said, she goes some way towards historicizing gender roles, and advocates more or less for their abolition, but doesn't complete the analysis by locating their true origin in private property.
All things considered, this was a deeply affecting book that made me think deeply about my life and relationships. I am better off for having read it.
May 23, 2025
In questo influente saggio del 1988, Jessica Benjamin — psicoanalista e teorica femminista — esplora le radici psicologiche della dominazione nelle relazioni umane, concentrandosi su come essa si sviluppi nell’interazione tra sé e l’altro. Utilizzando concetti psicoanalitici e filosofi come Hegel, Freud e Winnicott, Benjamin rilegge la questione del dominio non come un semplice esercizio di potere, ma come risultato di un fallimento nella reciproca riconoscenza soggettiva tra individui. La dominazione non è solo un atto unilaterale di oppressione, ma un processo relazionale, in cui anche i soggetti dominati partecipano. Benjamin propone che il dominio emerga quando fallisce la tensione tra autoaffermazione (self-assertion) e riconoscimento reciproco (mutual recognition), ovvero quando l’individuo non riesce a vedere l’altro come un soggetto autonomo e separato. Benjamin propone una visione relazionale della soggettività: essere soggetti implica un dialogo costante con l’altro, un equilibrio fragile tra affermazione e riconoscimento. The Bonds of Love è un’opera cruciale per comprendere come il dominio si radichi non solo nella struttura sociale, ma nella psicologia dell’individuo e nelle sue relazioni affettive.
È stata per me una lettura illuminante e molto interessante, mi ha fornito una prospettiva di pensiero a tratti anche radicalmente diversa dalla mia, spingendomi ad andare oltre le mie credenze personali e fornendomi molti spunti di riflessione personale. A fine lettura mi sono trovata d'accordo su alcune cose mentre su altre sono rimasta sulle mie idee precedenti, ma in ogni caso è stata una lettura che mi ha tenuta costantemente coinvolta, e che quindi consiglierei.
È stata per me una lettura illuminante e molto interessante, mi ha fornito una prospettiva di pensiero a tratti anche radicalmente diversa dalla mia, spingendomi ad andare oltre le mie credenze personali e fornendomi molti spunti di riflessione personale. A fine lettura mi sono trovata d'accordo su alcune cose mentre su altre sono rimasta sulle mie idee precedenti, ma in ogni caso è stata una lettura che mi ha tenuta costantemente coinvolta, e che quindi consiglierei.
July 21, 2024
Questo libro era una doccia fredda e un abbraccio allo stesso tempo. Ne avevo veramente bisogno dopo aver vissuto un'altra situazione in cui mi ero sottomessa alla volontà di un maschio, idealizzandolo come una potenziale fonte di riconoscimento reciproco. Mi manca il suo sguardo ancora e Jessica Benjamin mi ha aiutato a capire perché. Non conoscevo né lei né la sua opera (non so perché, come tante femministe, anch'io ignoravo lo psicoanalisi femminista). Il libro mi ha regalato la voglia di approfondire questo campo del femminismo.
Questo è anche un esempio potente di come a volte, i libri ci chiamano per essere letti. Ho trovato questo completamente a caso nella Libreria delle Donne a Bologna -- non avevo nessuna intenzione di comprare un libro quella sera, figurati uno che costava 25 eur, ma mi ha ispirato e l'ho preso. Devo dire che i primi tre capitoli (compreso l'introduzione) sono una vera bomba, e il titolo è un po' ingannevole. Mi aspettavo un'esplorazione più dettagliata dei rapporti romantici (la copertina me l'ha fatto credere) ma lei passa subito alle conseguenze sociali dei rapporti del dominio (il che va bene, ma non era esattamente quello che la descrizione del libro prometteva).
Ciononostante, è una delle mie scoperte teoriche preferite negli ultimi anni, e lo userò senza pietà nelle mie letture di Ferrante (lei sicuramente si è informata ben bene, chissà se anche lei abbia letto questo). Tornerò a prendere appunti sui primi capitoli, soprattutto sul bisogno di riconoscimento dall'altro e la psicologia della sottomissione (da sottona disperata, quanto lo capisco, mamma mia).
Questo è anche un esempio potente di come a volte, i libri ci chiamano per essere letti. Ho trovato questo completamente a caso nella Libreria delle Donne a Bologna -- non avevo nessuna intenzione di comprare un libro quella sera, figurati uno che costava 25 eur, ma mi ha ispirato e l'ho preso. Devo dire che i primi tre capitoli (compreso l'introduzione) sono una vera bomba, e il titolo è un po' ingannevole. Mi aspettavo un'esplorazione più dettagliata dei rapporti romantici (la copertina me l'ha fatto credere) ma lei passa subito alle conseguenze sociali dei rapporti del dominio (il che va bene, ma non era esattamente quello che la descrizione del libro prometteva).
Ciononostante, è una delle mie scoperte teoriche preferite negli ultimi anni, e lo userò senza pietà nelle mie letture di Ferrante (lei sicuramente si è informata ben bene, chissà se anche lei abbia letto questo). Tornerò a prendere appunti sui primi capitoli, soprattutto sul bisogno di riconoscimento dall'altro e la psicologia della sottomissione (da sottona disperata, quanto lo capisco, mamma mia).
July 13, 2020
I found it very convoluted, maybe because I'm not familiar with the psychoanalysis way of writing. I think the best part was the conclusion where she summarizes everything she wrote about. Maybe one should start there and then dive into the book. The worst part, however, were the many claims which were either not referenced, or if referenced, then poorly. Some claims were preposterous, like the little boy in the bathtub that was afraid of the drain because the hole would swallow him and his toys, after his mom explained to him what a vagina is, which in a Freudian sense, turned the boy scared of the hole/drain. Ridiculous! The best part was: treat your child fairly, don't smother her/him, don't be a helicopter parent, and don't neglect her/him, give them just the right amount of love and space and they will be fine. And treat them as subjects not as objects and don't become an object yourself.
January 21, 2025
"Masochism can be seen, therefore, not only as a strategy for escaping aloneness, but also as a search for aloneness with the other: by letting the other remain in control, the masochist hopes to find a 'safe' open space in which to abandon the protective false self and allow the nascent, hidden self to emerge... The masochist’s wish to be reached, penetrated, found, released—a wish that can be expressed in the metaphor of violence as well as in metaphors of redemption—is the other side of the sadist’s wish to discover the other. The masochist’s wish to experience his authentic, inner reality in the company of an other parallels the sadist’s wish to get outside the self into a shared reality."
March 19, 2025
Es fällt schwer, die Tatsache zu begreifen, daß das Zentrum männlicher Herrschaft nicht in direkten Ausbrüchen persönlicher Gewalt liegt (so weit verbreitet diese auch sein mögen), sondern in der gesellschaftlichen Rationalität, ob sie von Männern verteidigt wird oder nicht. Männliche Herrschaft wirkt, wie Weber es über die Rationalisierung sagte, durch die Hegemonie der entpersonalisierten Organisation: durch formale Regeln, die für die möglichen Interaktionen autonomer Individuen gelten; durch instrumentelles Wissen, das auf der Kontrolle des Subjekts über die Welt der Objekte beruht; durch das Prinzip der Profitsteigerung, das sich weder nach Bedürfnissen noch nach Traditionen richtet. Gerade dieses proteisch Unpersönliche macht die männliche Herrschaft so schwer faßbar.
November 4, 2025
Die Gedanken um eine notwendige Spannung von Anerkennung und Selbstbehauptung für eine funktionierende herrschaftsfreie Beziehung sind sehr aufschlussreich. Ebenso die Notwendigkeit dieses Spannungsfeld, welches immer wieder in Herrschaft (erstarrte Machtstrukturen) und Dominanzbeziehungen von Herr und Knecht erstarrt, zu erneuern, ist schlüssig. Die Verbindung mit der psychoanalytischen Theorie bleibt mMn trotz vielseitiger Kritik einseitig und spekulativ. Aber das ist ein grundsätzliches Problem der Psychoanalytik und soll dem Buch nicht angelastet werden. Schließlich braucht man sich nicht wundern, wenn man Psychoanalyse liest und dann auch Psychoanalyse bekommt.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 3, 2021
Delves into the oedipal complex in a manner that addresses the position of the woman as an active figure, instead of the passive and docile creature. The concept of sexuality is engaged with more rigorously and effectively than many other psychoanalysis works (including that of Freud and other male writers such as Marcuse, and Reich).
Ultimately discusses domination and why we are psychically orientated towards domination. What then is the solution to the problem of domination? How can domination be countered? Frustratingly, that is left open - as it should be.
Ultimately discusses domination and why we are psychically orientated towards domination. What then is the solution to the problem of domination? How can domination be countered? Frustratingly, that is left open - as it should be.
June 10, 2018
PRO: States the problem clearly: Many women get turned on by fantasies of submission.
CON: Never quite manages to generate a convincing answer. The reason, I think, is that like Freud, Benjamin assumes this must reflect a "wrong path taken" in girl's development.
I think we're better off with a default assumption that says the capacity to be turned on by erotic submission might be something more elemental.
I discuss this at length on pages 258-259 of my book, Love Worth Making.
CON: Never quite manages to generate a convincing answer. The reason, I think, is that like Freud, Benjamin assumes this must reflect a "wrong path taken" in girl's development.
I think we're better off with a default assumption that says the capacity to be turned on by erotic submission might be something more elemental.
I discuss this at length on pages 258-259 of my book, Love Worth Making.
October 1, 2023
3.7 I think. Good writing, but I feel that it lags for time and is very gender binary. All the chapters analyzing early childhood differentiation made me terrified to ever have children as the “mother”.
April 21, 2025
there are virtually no books I've given five stars. This is one of the very few. Benjamin provides a indepth analysis of the desire of women to submit to an idealized dominant man -- the origin of this desire and the consequences, all from a psychoanalytic perspective.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews