Refine
Document Type
- Articles (48)
- Reviews (7)
- Books (3)
- Dissertations (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (59) (remove)
Zur Einführung
(2013)
Die pädagogischen Konzepte von Erich FROMM und Alice Miller werden verglichen. Dabei wird versucht, das theoretische Wechselverhältnis der radikal humanistischen Erziehungskritik FROMMs und der antipädagogischen Erziehungskritik Millers herauszuarbeiten. Während Miller in therapeutischer und individuumzentrierter Perspektive das Täter-Opfer-Modell vorzieht, versteht FROMM seine Aussagen zur Erziehung im Zusammenhang mit seinem Konzept des Gesellschaftscharakters und präferiert ein materialistisches und psychoanalytisches Modell des Zusammenhangs von Erziehung, Charakter und Gesellschaft. Es wird deutlich gemacht, dass die beiden Ansätze sich gegenseitig ergänzen. Unvereinbarkeiten bestehen allerdings hinsichtlich des Erziehungsbegriffs. Während Miller diesen strikt ablehnt, verbindet FROMM mit ihm befreiende und emanzipatorische Möglichkeiten.
Betrachtet man die Kompetenzen, die ein Subjekt zur Bewältigung des Lebens und der beruflichen Anforderungen benötigt, so gehören dazu auch reflexive Kompetenzen. Diese bewegen sich in der Spannung zwischen Systemzwängen und Eigensinn. Der Mensch wird als verantwortungsvoller Akteur gedacht, der sich und seine Umwelt durch schöpferisches Handeln verändern kann. Bei den Handlungsspielräumen geht es zentral um das Menschenbild, das soziale Implikationen hat. Wichtig ist, Illusionen über das eigene Selbstbild zu verlieren und gesellschaftliche Zwänge und Soziopathologien aufzudecken. Die Kategorie des Eigensinns legt nahe, dass die subjektive Logik von Erfahrung und Handeln nie vollständig in gesellschaftlichen Sinnhorizonten aufgeht, sondern es einen freien Raum der Selbstorganisation gibt, der unvorhersehbar und unkontrollierbar ist. Dies gilt es zu erkennen und auszuschöpfen.
Fromm was one of the first psychoanalysts to deal with the crisis of civilization. His ideas about human nature, the social character and the social unconscious, the pathology of normalcy and the ideal of productivity are important. Fromm criticizes industrialism for its unrealizable promises of freedom and happiness, which correspond to an ideology of growth and progress. The satisfaction of >false< needs and desires does not lead to human well-being.
In this contribution we are offered an analysis of Erich Fromm's relation to the Institut für Sozialforschung. In his capacity as director of the Department of Social Psychology, Fromm played a leading role in the empirical investigatory work carried out at the Institute, apart from being Horkheimer's principal interlocutor in questions connected with the psychoanalytic extension of Historical Materialism. Working within the framework of Horkheimer's envisaged goal of an historical-philosophical theory of the development of the contemporary era that was to draw on the various disciplines, Fromm made his own specific contribution that came to be known by the name of analytic social psychology. Fromm's departure from the Institute marked the terminal point of a whole developmental pathway, and was prompted by differences on substantial points as well as by personal differences. In particular, it was Fromm's revision of psychoanalysis that aroused Horkheimer and Adorno's critical ire. To the extent that Adorno's influence grew within the Institute, Fromm's own suffered as a result. After Adorno's appointment to full membership of the Institute in 1938, Fromm found himself increasingly reduced to a marginal position; and after a short while he accepted the consequences and left. Fromm's departure from the Institute led to a lifelong rift between him and the other members of the Institute, the consequence being that Fromm's contribution to the early versions of the Critical Theory – which he had made as head of the Department of Social Psychology and as director of research – was later deliberately passé sous silence.
>Drive Structure or Social Relationships<: After his departure from the Institute, Erich Fromm pursued with renewed intensity his sociological revision of psychoanalysis that was to touch off the debate with Herbert Marcuse, his earlier colleague at the Institute, and which came to be known as the culturalism-revisionism controversy. The charge leveled at Fromm was that he had moved away from recognizing the drive structure as the key bearer of the resistance potential in the Critical Theory and had instead thrown the central focus onto social relationships, where it is the Ego as the mediating factor – rather than the Id – that is geared to alienated reality. But while it is true enough that Fromm did shift the emphasis away from the drive structure to social relationships, it should be added that he grouped these social relationships very much under the rubric of >the pathology of normality< and criticized them as bearing the stamp of the underlying economic order. This contribution examines the background to the controversy between Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm, and sets out the principal arguments advanced by the contending parties. What emerges, interestingly enough, is that both protagonists never diverged as much in their respective positions as the noisy exchange of blows perhaps suggested. There is little to distinguish both camps in their common humanistic concern for the advancement of human happiness. Undoubtedly Marcuse and Fromm are at one in advancing a radical social critique: but whereas the one critique is premised on the need to inculcate a drive structure capable of withstanding the forces of repressive socialization, the other seeks its inspiration in a critical anthropology that keeps alive the idea of a more humane society – even in the face of the negation of this idea.
Ausgehend von einer persönlichen Erfahrung (gescheiterte Ehe) werden Überlegungen zur Lösbarkeit von zwischenmenschlichen Konflikten angestellt. Diese Überlegungen werden in einem mit den Begriffen >Haben< und >Sein< bezeichneten Raum angesiedelt. Diese Begriffe werden aus den Schriften von E. FROMM, B. Stähelin und G. Marcel abgeleitet. Folgende Arbeitshypothesen wurden aufgestellt: (1) Der Konflikt der Nicht-Integrität von Identität und Sozietät ist der Grundkonflikt des menschlichen Zusammenlebens, unabhängig von Sein und Haben. (2) Die Ausprägung dieses Konfliktes gestaltet sich in der Weise des Habens oder des Seins und charakteristisch für eine dieser beiden Sphären (habenmässig und seinsmässig). (3) Konflikte sind unter den Bedingungen des Seins lösbar, unter denen des Habens hingegen nicht. Bei der Diskussion dieser Hypothesen wird die zu diesen Fragen vorliegende relevante Literatur referiert und kritisch gesichtet. Die erste Hypothese wird nach der Diskussion der Literatur für wenig problematisch gehalten. Divergenzen kommen hingegen in bezug auf die zweite Hypothese zum Vorschein; diese Divergenzen beziehen sich insbesondere auf die Konzeptualisierung der zentralen Begriffe >Haben< und >Sein<. Die dritte Hypothese wird zurückgewiesen, da die Schematisierung des Gegensatzes von Haben und Sein nicht aufrechterhalten werden kann. (Rainer Neppl – ZPID)
>Links between Work, Character, and Education<: The transformational processes presently occurring in the techno-economic bases of industrial life are, inevitably enough, accompanied by changes in social character. Though the significance of work for character formation has declined as other influences have moved to centerstage, >work< still remains an important dimension by which human beings define and anchor themselves in the world. Indeed, this >anchoring through work< allows the characterological status quo in the present to be read off. This essay takes the Frommian concept of social character as its departure point, asking what work experiences lead to what character structures and also what work ethic results from these characterological features. An analysis is given of the social-characterological conditions necessarily imported by workers into their job situations, simply in order to break even in an evolving industrial labor process marked by structural unemployment. More stringent vocational requirements, plus an increased release from the coercion of having to work for one's daily bread, pose a real danger for one's psychic balance and make flexibility an imperative. If the identity crisis brought on by the deprivation of work is to be mastered, new vocational outlets must be developed that are removed from financial remuneration and accountability – as an alternative to work in the traditional sense. At the same time, jobs and wages need to be uncoupled and a society-wide minimum income guaranteed. These transformational processes are giving rise to a >post-industrial character structure< principally characterized, in its productive variants, by flexibility andsocial competence; moreover, its behavior patterns are loosened up by quality-orientated, diversified job (or other vocational) requirements capable of appealing to the whole person.
Organisation und Charakter. Sozialpsychologische Aspekte zur Analyse von Sekten und Psychogruppen
(1998)
Erich Fromms Beitrag zur Pädagogik. Notizen zur pädagogischen Dimension des Frommschen Denkens
(1986)
Der Kulturismus-Revisionismus-Streit – Annäherungen Dortmund 1987, 42 pp. (Private Typoscript)
(1988)
Das Unbehagen im Konsumismus
(2002)
Wege aus der Nekrophilie
(2002)