A Commentary
(1996)
Sandra Buechler's commentary provides an interesting counterpoint to Mar-golies's chapter. She observes that Fromm believed work should be an expres-sion and a vehicle for self-development and that this urge transcends historical circumstance. She questions whether the categories we create hinder or en-hance our understanding. She believes the self-developer category may have blinded the therapist to other aspects of the treatment. Her own reading of the clinical material would have led her to focus on different aspects of the patient, such as his narcissism and his sadistic sexual fantasies. Margolies would argue that these pathological elements were declining as he worked through old com-promise solutions and developed life-affirming passions in work and love-particularly as he strengthened the positive strivings of his social character ori-entation.
The case of Anna presented by Professor Giliberti is discussed from an interpersonal perspective. Attention is given to Anna's real experiences of hypocrisy, social inadequacy, hatred and blame projection. Paranoid aspects are emphasized and seen as connected with a disparity between appearance and reality in the communicative pattern of the family.
Each psychoanalytic theory influences the clinician’s focus. This paper examines the impact of Erich Fromm’s writing on the analyst’s attention to the material in sessions. Briefly, Fromm’s work highlights the importance of the analyst’s passion, courage, pursuit of truth, capacity to bear uncertainty and suffering, and dedication to helping people embrace their freedom and realize their full potential. Fromm has inspired generations of clinicians to become politically active citizens, maintain enlivening curiosity, and kindle the life force in themselves and those they treat. What role does theory play in the moment-by-moment behavior of the analyst in a session? I first address the general question of my view of the role of theory in clinical work. Then I turn to the more specific issue of Fromm’s influence.
This paper explores the current relevance of Fromm’s concept of reactive violence for understanding particular patients and for generating hypotheses about the world we live in. In his discussion of reactive violence, Fromm gives us a nuanced approach to forms of aggression that can be employed in the service of life. According to Fromm, the aim of reactive violence is preservation, not destruction. It is rooted in fear and, he believes, is the most frequent form of violence. This paper traces the evolution of Fromm’s concept of reactive violence, and considers how it might apply to today’s social and political challenges.
The analyst and the patient must feel enough hope to sustain their active effort. A significant aspect of the analyst's role is inspiring hope. This seems to require that the analyst take a life-affirming position that violates traditional notions of analytic neutrality. Yet, in facilitating the patient's full self-expression, we do not want to lose the benefits of neutrality. Fromm's work can inspire us to try to integrate an attitude of spirited hope with interpretations whose content neutrally encourages the patient to reveal his whole self.