This paper explores Erich Fromm’s concept of humanism, arguing that it provides us with a unified theory for both clinical work as well as social criticism. Fromm’s humanistic ideas are rooted in a structure of thought that sees our existence, our ontology as human beings, as constituted by our inherent capacities for both relatedness as well as positing ends and purposes in the world. By cultivating a self-awareness of these dual capacities, we can achieve a state of freedom, a self-consciousness of our capacity to shape our reality as opposed to conforming ourselves to it. In this way, Fromm’s ideas constitute a critical humanism that can be realized in the world via self- and social transformation and not merely an abstract set of principles or concepts.
This article examines Fromm’s 1935 paper, >The Social Determinants of Psychoanalytic Therapy,< situating it in the context of Fromm’s life and setting forth its contrast between Freud’s >authoritarian, patricentric attitude< and the >humane, philanthropic attitude< of Ferenczi, who was deeply influenced by Groddeck. Despite critiquing Fromm’s tendency to give insufficient attention to the >the individual fate of the person,< such as would be necessary to explain the differences between Freud and Ferenczi, in expounding his concept of the >social character,< the present paper argues that Fromm’s >calling card,< published while Freud was still alive, is >one of the greatest papers in the psychoanalytic literature.<
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.
In 1950, sociologist David Riesman published a best-selling book entitled The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. Famously, he described the ascendant >other directed< person as being haunted by an inner loneliness. This paper seeks to explain the current phenomenon of the cyber mob, an online crowd of peers gathered together to intimidate and >cancel<” others, as a form of group behavior founded in profound aloneness and alienation brought about by neoliberal society. While the existence of online groups or mobs is overdetermined, the desire to belong, to feel a part of something larger than oneself, and to escape a haunting inner loneliness may be the twenty-first-century corollary of what Reisman described 73 years ago. With the rise of authoritarianism throughout the world, climate change, massive inequality, pandemic, and the breakdown of moral authority, people on both the Left and the Right cling to cyber mobs to escape aloneness, discharge fear and rage, and acquire affirmation and acceptance through >likes< and >retweets.< While they seem to provide bonding and empowerment, what cyber mobs offer in truth is greater ferocious tribalism and the further undoing of social bonds, fellow feeling, and the remnants of civil society.
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.<