Refine
Language
- English (8313) (remove)
Document Type
- Articles (8313) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (8313) (remove)
Erich Fromm is not generally associated with policy positions and politics. Yet, Fromm was an early proponent of guaranteed income as an important practical entitlement necessary if greater human freedoms were to be realized. The article traces the development of the idea of basic (or guaranteed income) in US social movement history going back to the 1960s and including the writings of Erich Fromm on this topic. It argues that the concept of guaranteed income flows easily from, and is consonant with, Fromm’s humanistic philosophy overall. Four reasons are offered, including those that are politically, ethically and pragmatically oriented, as to why providing basic income to all citizens has major advantages over the kind of economic precarity and anxieties that many people currently experience. Lastly, after making a multi-dimensional case for guaranteed income, the article responds to a common objection – namely, if basic income became universally available, people would not wish to work. Quite to the contrary, and as empirical experiments have shown, Fromm’s ideas suggest that guaranteed income would encourage people to work with increased commitment and passion and that more positive than negative consequences would ensue from the concept becoming a widespread and much more generally accepted public policy.
Erich Fromm’s book >The Sane Society< was published in 1955, the second year of President’s Eisenhower’s administration, but had a profound impact on the ideas and agendas of social activists during the 60s and 70s, including this author. Its central theses were that the middle-class prosperity characteristic of that era masked a >pathology of normalcy,< and that capitalism transforms active citizens into passive consumers by compelling people to fill their material needs in ways that are at variance with their existential or human needs. The result is a dramatic diminution of their critical faculties, an atrophy of conscience, and the proliferation of a >marketing character,< a kind of alienated, hedonistic lifestyle whose emptiness is palliated by the consumption of ever larger quantities of consumer goods. Fromm’s analysis still rings true in some respects, but the middle-class prosperity and bland uniformity of opinion he critiqued began to wane in the late 1970s, gradually giving way to sharp extremes of poverty and wealth. The resulting political polarization has now reached a critical point, where the future of American democracy – or what little is left of it – is now in peril. So, as we approach 2025, Fromm’s analysis of America in the mid-20th century must be updated and modified to fit the contours of contemporary social realities. In so doing, however, we discover that American society is even more alienated, more atomized and fragile than it was in Fromm’s day.
Today, a plague of certitude is spreading within American psychoanalysis. This socially constructed virus is increasingly dominating our unmoderated list serves, appearing in our journals, and slowly seeping into our institutes. Having transcended the objectivism of traditional Freudian analysis, we seem to be revivifying its spirit. Rigorous claims to truth, superior knowledge, and contempt for those not in agreement abound. The life and work of psychoanalyst and sociologist Erich Fromm is offered as an antidote and model for resistance to this plague. He consistently objected to all forms of authoritarianism, from the Right and the Left. As a radical humanist he viewed us all as responsible selves, not mere vessels for instinctual drives or victims of unbearable circumstances. As Paul Roazan said about Fromm: >It still seems to me remarkable how he was willing to stand up for what he believed in. He should be a model of independence and autonomy for us all.<
>I shall not hate.< This sentence ends the production at the Staatsschauspiel Dresden about Izzeldin Abuelaish’s biography, who lost three of his daughters in the violent conflict between Israel and Palestine. This particular attitude within a crisis situation becomes the starting point and framework of a teaching unit in which the students deal with the following questions: What is hate? Is it possible not to hate? How can hate be classified in the field of tension between the instinctual nature of human beings and a conscious attitude? How are crises and loss of orientation related to hate? Can a society be sick? How are Izzeldin’s attitude and Fromm’s theory of a productive character orientation connected and how is Izzeldin’s or Fromm’s offer of orientation to be judged against the background of crises and conflicts in the students’ lifeworld? Through a visit to a performance as well as theatre pedagogical forms of work, an access to this complex thematic field will be created.
Erich Fromm offered two key psychoanalytic concepts that bridge the psychic and the social: social unconscious and social character. In his view, these concepts are not only critical for understanding socio-historical phenomena but also ought to inform psychoanalytic clinical practice such that it might resist unconsciously encouraging patients to adapt to inequitable social conditions. This essay pays tribute to Fromm’s thinking while elaborating some of the differences between Fromm’s understanding of social unconscious/social character and my own. I argue that >social unconscious< does not quite capture the dynamic and conflictual nature of unconscious process, the ongoing conflict that social demands for conformity create in subject formation. To address that conflict, I propose the bridging concept of normative unconscious processes, processes that are always in conflict with counter-normative resistances. Points of both conflict and dissociation are precisely where analysts can challenge the psychic effects of oppressive social norms. Further, while agreeing with Fromm that analyzing social character ought to be central to clinical work, I argue that various and overlapping systemic oppressions – e.g. racism, heterosexism, classism – create, in any given society, multiple social characters and not just one dominant type. In agreement with Fromm’s argument that analysts themselves need to reckon with their own social character, I stress the importance for all of us to be as aware as possible of our own identity investments and social locations within unequal and overlapping power hierarchies.
The current political climate is marked by polarization, which presents new difficulties for psychoanalysis. Erich Fromm, as a Freudian theorist and clinician, is uniquely positioned to address these issues. Fromm is a politically radical thinker who can help psychoanalysis think about society and social injustice beyond the clinical context while avoiding the dangers of excessively orthodox left-wing thinking that risks taking the field away from its core mission. Fromm can help psychoanalysis avoid what we are calling the >Peterson problem,< which is partly the result of provocative and extreme ideas in institutions and psychoanalytic publications that create reputational problems for the field. The >Peterson problem< brings new attention to the political bias of left-liberal authoritarians inside the profession, who focus on changing society rather than healing individuals and neglect audiences outside the liberal university and highly educated classes and thus create space for polarizing figures like psychologist Jordan Peterson to fill the gap. Peterson’s fame and influence serves as a lightning rod for the wider critique of left leaning political and cultural currents in psychoanalysis. Fromm can act as a role model as well as provide the intellectual resources for responding to these challenges.
Humanism has been criticized as a philosophical and political stance from different points of view in recent decades. The paper summarizes four common types of criticism, stemming from political, ethical, technological, and ecological concerns. These criticisms relate back to a preoccupation with the respect for otherness or difference, either toward human or non-human beings. The paper tries to demonstrate that these concerns are also to be found as essential elements in the development of humanism itself, not only among its political and theoretical opponents. It does so with reference to Erich Fromm’s works, where a life-oriented ethics is coupled with a demand for sustained political relatedness to difference, without giving up notions of a radical humanism and the anthropology that accompanies it.
Learning >in the Hive<: >Social Character< and Student Wellbeing in the Age of Psychometric Data
(2023)
Growing societal concern about a crisis in the wellbeing of young people has prompted a range of responses from governments and corporations, predicated on an ideal of the resilient, self-reliant individual. Behavioural economists, data scientists and educational technology companies now offer a variety of psychological interventions based on psychometric data, aimed at ‘equipping’ individual students with the necessary skills and character to enable them to withstand the pressures of contemporary life. As a consequence, the critical importance of mutually supportive interpersonal relationships continues to be neglected in mainstream approaches to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). This article draws on Fromm’s theory of social character and Zuboff’s analysis of >life in the hive< to challenge the assumptions about human behaviour underpinning data science and its application in digital tools for social and emotional learning and self-managed wellbeing. To improve students’ wellbeing, we need to begin with an understanding of why they are more likely to thrive within a network of mutually supportive social relationships than a digital >hive<.
This chapter introduces a psychosocial strand of thinking that offers a way to conceive of creative relations between the psyche and the world. Whereas much current psychosocial theory stresses how anxieties are managed by defending the self against the world or fuel subjection to oppressive social norms, the theories we engage with here point to ways in which anxieties can be employed in the urge to bridge inner longings and external realities. These ideas took form in the early Frankfurt School, which despite their comprehensive integration of psychoanalytic and social theory until recently has been comparatively marginalized in Anglophone Psychosocial Theory.– The chapter presents and discusses three notions: Erich Fromm’s Freedom, Hans Loewald’s Resonance, and Alfred Lorenzer’s Interaction. Even though different in emphasis and outlook, these notions contribute to a shared intellectual project, namely, to point to potentially productive and non-antagonist interactions between the psyche and society. They do so not by virtue of some resistant part of unspoiled nature residing in the body or in the mind, but by virtue of being able to point to the more or less life-enhancing and life-impeding forms this interaction of psychic energies and societal needs may take.– We argue that these theorists and their notions of freedom, resonance and interaction, contribute to further developing the materialist conception of the psychosocial in ways that appear specifically urgent today. They enable us to theorize tensions within current society, between dynamics that drive instrumentalization and reification on the one hand, and more life-enhancing and mutually enriching interactions between human beings, social structures, and natural environments on the other.
The Courage of Disobedience
(2023)
Albert Camus, Emmanuel Levinas, Erich Fromm, Paulo Freire, and Mahatma Gandhi take issue, each in their own way, with the individualism and pessimism of Existentialist philosophy. They also question the ideological complacency and oversimplifications of social evolutionism. While these thinkers disagree on the role of God and rational thought in human affairs, they see courage as an important lever for resisting oppressive systems that undermine people’s freedom, their capacity for self-affirmation, their hopes for lasting peace, and their sense of humanity and ethical responsibility. The critical and progressive stance they take on the ravages of modern-day authoritarianism, colonialism, and imperialism is a world away from Hitler’s heinous call for the >courage of aggression< and the horrors that ensued.