ANATOMIJA LJUDSKE DESTRUKTIVNOSTI I - II

by Erich Fromm

In this provocative book, the distinguished author writes to break the deadlock in the struggle between the instinctivism of Konrad Lorenz and behavior psychologist B.F. Skinner.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Science, Politics, Psychoanalysis

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1973

About the author

Erich Fromm, Ph.D. (Sociology, University of Heidelberg, 1922) was a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was a German Jew who fled the Nazi regime and settled in the United States. He was one of the founders of The William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

Fromm explored the interaction between psychology and society, and held various professorships in psychology in the U.S. and Mexico in the mid-20th century.

Fromm's theory is a rather unique blend of Freud and Marx. Freud, of course, emphasized the unconscious, biological drives, repression, and so on. In other words, Freud postulated that our characters were determined by biology. Marx, on the other hand, saw people as determined by their society, and most especially by their economic systems.

Reviews

[John G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would recommend anyone to read any of Fromm's work. This man to me, his contributions to psychology and to the understanding of the world and the human condition eclipse those of Freud and Jung. Just saying. This book gets to the questions of why things are so screwed up, why are people so violent and aggressive? I like his answers, it's a maladjusted attempt to deal with life, one way is the nihilistic (destroy that which I don't understand) or the sadistic (control that which I don't understand) but both a fear drive and destructive. Fromm knew what he was talking about and is able to share it in ordinary and compelling language. An important book.

[Peiman E iran · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، <اریک فروم> در این کتاب اغتشاش و ویران سازی را جز به جز و دقیق شرح داده است
‎عزیزانم، زمانی که انسان امید به زندگی و عشق به زندگی را از دست میدهد، یکی از نتایجِ خشنِ آن "ویران سازی و اغتشاش" است... انسان بدونِ امید قادر به زندگی کردن نیست.. زمانی که امید به زندگی در کسی از بین میرود، از زندگی متنفر میشود.. از آنجایی که نمیتواند زندگی را بیافریند، لذا زندگی را ویران میسازد، زیرا رسیدن به ویران سازی بسیار آسان است
‎شخصِ ناامید، از رهگذرِ زندگانیِ مردهٔ خویش، میخواهد از خود انتقام بگیرد و برای اینکار خود را به ویرانی کامل میکشاند و برایش مهّم نیست که دیگران نیز در کنارش نابود شوند و یا نابود نشوند
‎معمولاً ویرانگری در اشخاصی یافت میشود که به دلیلِ اجتماعی یا اقتصادی، از رفاهی که اکثریتِ مردم از آن برخوردارند محروم مانده و پایگاه اجتماعی و اقتصادی خود را از دست داده اند... البته این را هم بگویم که همیشه ناتوانی اقتصادی نیست که به تنفر و ویران سازی و یا اغتشاش می انجامد، بلکه نا امیدی از اوضاع و احوال و عهدشکنی هایِ پی در پی نیز موجبِ اغتشاش و ویران سازی میشود
‎دوستانِ عزیزم، از دیدگاه روانشناسی و روان درمانی، ویران سازی شق و طرفِ مقابلِ امید است. دقیقاً مانندِ کشش به سویِ مرگ که در مقابلِ عشق به زندگی قرار دارد
-----------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Hoda Marmar · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got this book for 3.5 $ one day as I was walking on the street, and a guy was selling those on the sidewalk. The book called out after me, the title was very attractive, but I never thought it would be such an amazing read! That was back in 2010, I believe. I used this book as a reference for many papers that I wrote, it made me love psychology even more. I shall reread it again this year.

[Osore Misanthrope]

Академска књига стара пола века мора се читати са додатним опрезом због могућности застаревања одређених података. Срећом, ова није лоше остарила.

Иако Фром увиђа да је дихотомија урођено/стечено оличена у трвењу између инстинктивиста и бихевиориста (или социјалних дарвиниста и социјалних конструктивиста) лажна, ипак предлаже постојање тзв. бенигне агресивности која је наводно еволутивно наслеђе (или пртљаг) човека. Ова одбрамбена агресија би требало да се испољи ако вам неко иде прстом у око, како бисте склонили руку, ударили нападача и/или побегли (ово последње је по Фрому највероватније). Како се због очигледних етичких разлога данас није пуно одмакло у откривању тачних нервних путева, кола и центара агресије код човека, на основу постојања еволутивно конзервисаних структура код животиња, а посебно примата, претпоставља се да је код човека изражена контрола одозго-наниже (top-down), односно од префронталног церебралног кортекса ка бадемстом језгру (амигдали), а одатле двосмерно, на хипоталамус и периаквадуктну сиву масу средњег мозга, па на моторне ефекторе. Овај поједностављени пут значи да је агресивно понашање под контролом предњег мозга и, највероватније, човекове воље, што не уклања могућност рефлексног реаговања на претњу (попут покривања главе рукама како бисмо се заштитили од ударца).

У савременој литератури, реактивна агресија представља неплански, тренутни одговор на непосредни окидач, док је проактивна (инструментална) агресија планска и може се повезати са Фромовом малигном агресијом. Потоњи тип агресије јединствен је за човека који испољава највиши степен интраспецијске агресије у животињском царству. Фром исправно полази од садејства наслеђа и средине и демонстрира извесну експланаторну моћ црпећи изворе и узроке агресије из људског карактера у чијем обликовању је само у екстремним случајевима пресудна биолошка основа (нпр. повреда мозга или малформација) или друштвени миље. Човек се не рађа ни као tabula rasa, нити са списком инстиката који се очитава са генетичког кода и сваки вид редукционизма је излишан. Ова књига пружа занимљив увид у потенцијалне психолошке диспозиције и снаге које човек мобилише, демонстрира, или пак сакрива, и тиме покушава да ослика анатомију људске деструктивности из угла који се чини најадекватнијим, иако није увек тачан. Чинећи отклон од Фројдових неплаузибилних пренагљености, Фром јасно и трезвеније анализира душевна стања, не заборављајући да се послужи у то време најновијим сазнањима биолога и антрополога. “[Ч]овекова деструктивност и окрутност не могу се објаснити у смислу животињског наслеђа или деструктивног инстинкта, већ се морају схватити на основу оних фактора по којима се човек разликује од својих животињских предака.”

Поговор др Жарка Требјешанина треба обавезно прочитати и не заборавити да не постоје докази да је алтруизам (или “узајамно помагање”, како он каже на 463. стр.) код људи адаптација (иако може бити адаптиван) и да не постоји консензус око тога који модел изравно објашњава начин на који је алтруизам могао да еволуира. Дакле, ваљаност тврдње да су “човекове способности за емпатију, љубав и узајамно помагање еволуирале” није проверљива и може се оповргнути могућношћу да су ове способности спандрел. На сличном трагу и Фром покушава да екстраполира податке добијене посматрањем примитивних друштава на филогенетске претке човека и поштено нас упозорава на опрез. Занимљив је Фромов преглед од пацифистичког матријархата до урбаног освајачког патријархата и човека претвореног у роба/робу (“принцип контроле природе, робова, жена и деце”), али савремени подаци указују да је праисторијски матријархат мит.

“Обдарен самосвешћу и разумом, човек је свестан себе као бића одвојеног од природе и других; свестан је своје беспомоћности, свог незнања; свестан је свог краја: смрти.
Самосвест, машта и разум су пореметиле “хармонију” која карактерише постојање животиња. Њихова појава је човека претворила у аномалију, наказу свемира. Он је део природе, подложан њеним законима физике и неспособан је да их промени; ипак, он превазилази природу. Одвојен је, а ипак је њен део; без дома је, а ипак је прикован за дом који дели са свим створењима. Бачен на овај свет у насумично време и место, а изгуран из њега случајно и против своје воље. Пошто је свестан себе, схвата своју беспомоћност и ограниченост свог постојања. Никада није слободан од дихотомије свој постојања: не може се ослободити свог ума, чак и када би то желео; не може се ослободити свог тела, док год живи – а то тело га тера да жели живот.
Човек не може проживети живот понављањем образаца своје врсте; он мора да живи. Човек је једина животиња која се у природи не осећа као код куће, која има осећај да је избачена из раја, он је једина животиња за коју је сопствено постојање проблем који мора да реши и од којег не може да побегне. Не може се вратити у предљудско стање хармоније с природом и не може знати где ће стићи ако настави напред. Човекова егзистенцијална противречност доводи до стања сталне неравнотеже. Та неравнотежа га разликује од животиња које живе у складу с природом. То, наравно, не значи да животиња нужно живи срећним и мирним животом, већ да има специфичну еколошку нишу којој су њене физичке и менталне особине прилагођене процесом еволуције. Човекова егзистенцијална и стога неизбежна неравнотежа може бити релативно стабилна када пронађе, уз подршку културе, мање-више адекватан начин излажења на крај са својим егзистенцијалним проблемима. Али, та релативна стабилност не значи да је дихотомија нестала; она је само успавана и манифестује се чим се услови релативне стабилности промене.
Заиста, у процесу човековог самостварања ова релативна стабилност се стално изнова нарушава. Човек је, током своје историје, мењао своје окружење и у том процесу мењао себе. Његово знање се повећава, али повећава се и његова свест о свом незнању; себе доживљава као појединца, а не само као члана племена, и са тим расте његов осећај издвојености и изолације. Он ствара све веће и делотворније друштвене јединице, којима управљају моћне вође – и постаје уплашен и покоран. Стиче извесну количину слободе – и почиње да се плаши те слободе. Његова способност за материјалну производњу расте, али у том процесу постаје похлепан и егоцентричан, роб оних ствари које је створио.
Свако ново стање неравнотеже приморава човека да тражи нову равнотежу. Заиста, оно што се често сматрало човековим урођеним нагоном за прогресом заправо је покушај да пронађе нову и можда бољу равнотежу. (…)
Појединци живе у друштву које им обезбеђује готове обрасце који се претварају да обезбеђују значење њиховом животу.”

Поистовећивање са животињом (укључујући и човека), прави отклон од убиства (што се запажа и у језику – тело спрам меса). Да би човек/војник убијао, по Фрому, мора се индоктринисати да његове жртве нису људи, односно мора им се одузети елемент човечности/животности. Саживљавање и саосећање са другим живим бићима инхибира човеков порив да убије.

Хронична досада (као проблем савремених радника) и њено компензовање искључиво “простим” уместо “активирајућим” стимулансима (који мобилишу конативну, когнитивну и емотивну сферу тако да особа дела, промишља и (са)осећа на продуктиван и креативан начин, радознало померајући праг до неисцрпности таквих дражи), могу у најекстремнијем случају довести до агресивног и деструктивног понашања, па и убиства “из досаде”.

“[К]арактеристика савременог индустријског човека: гушење његових жижних интересовања за људе, природу, живе структуре, заједно с повећањем пажње према механичким, неживим предметима. (...) [Ф]отографисање је постало замена за гледање [које] није увек исто што и виђење.”
“[T]ехникализација деструкције, а с њом и уклањање пуне афективне свести о томе шта се чини. [Н]ико не уништава, сви само послужују машине. (...) Зар не морамо признати да савремен технички човек није мотивисан страшћу за уништавањем, већ га ваља описати као тотално отуђеног човека чија је оријентација умна, који осећа мало љубави, али такође и мало жеље за уништавањем, који је постао, у карактеролошком смислу, аутомат, али не и уништитељ? (...) Кибернетски човек је толико отуђен да доживљава своје тело само као инструмент за постизање успеха. (...) Свет постаје збир беживотних предмета; од синтетичке хране до синтетичких органа, читав човек постаје део тоталне машинерије коју контролише и која истовремено контролише њега. (...) Човек, у име напретка, трансформише свет у смрдљиво и отровно место. Загађује ваздух, воду, тло, животиње и себе. (...) Кибернетски човек (...) је моноцеребрални човек. [О]н жели да зна како ствари функционишу, како их може изградити и њима манипулисати. [O]вај церебрално-интелектуални приступ иде руку под руку са одсуством афективне реакције[,]” нарцизмом и симбиотском међузависношћу са машином.

Везе између тестостерона и људске агресивности су релативно слабе (Geniole, S. N., et al. "Is testosterone linked to human aggression? A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between baseline, dynamic, and manipulated testosterone on human aggression." Hormones and behavior 123 (2020): 104644.).

Људи са 47, ХYY синдромом нису предиспонирани за агресивно и девијантно понашање (Re, Laura, and Jutta M. Birkhoff. "The 47, XYY syndrome, 50 years of certainties and doubts: A systematic review." Aggression and violent behavior 22 (2015): 9-17.).

Further readings:
👉🏻Longino, Helen E.. Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226921822
👉🏻Lischinsky, Julieta E., and Dayu Lin. "Neural mechanisms of aggression across species." Nature neuroscience 23.11 (2020): 1317-1328.

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

My FIRST reading of this book was when it was first published in 1973. And now I read it again. I had read other books by Erich Fromm and was reading different approaches to Psychology. It is said that Fromm was a pioneer in theoretical works with "deep insight" into the the human psyche. As you can see by the title, he explores the dark side of the huiman psyche with quotes, references, comparisons, and rebuttals of the works of others. In the last part of this text, he discusses, "Malignant Aggression: Adolph Hitler, A Clinical Case of Necrophilia". Hitler's story falls into the very dark side of human psychology. The end pages of Fromm's analysis of Hitler bear the warning of "the fallacy which prevents people from recognizing potential Hitlers before they have shown their true faces." This is followed by a brief epilogue entitled, THE AMBIGUITY OF HOPE. Then finally, he places as an appendix, Freud's Theory of Aggresiveness and Destructiveness. Fromm actually makes psychology understandable, even this dark side.

[Maria Donosa · Rating 4 out of 5]

« If other people do not understand our behavior—so what? Their request that we must only do what they understand is an attempt to dictate to us. If this is being "asocial" or "irrational" in their eyes, so be it. Mostly they resent our freedom and our courage to be ourselves. We owe nobody an explanation or an accounting, as long as our acts do not hurt or infringe on them. How many lives have been ruined by this need to "explain," which usually implies that the explanation be "understood," i.e. approved. Let your deeds be judged, and from your deeds, your real intentions, but know that a free person owes an explanation only to himself—to his reason and his conscience—and to the few who may have a justified claim for explanation »
The volume I had started with this quote, and I think it should reach out more

[Željko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unfortunately, more relevant today than when I first read (early seventies). It seems everything is going a bit backwards.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 3 out of 5]

С остра проницателност, съчетана на моменти с неадекватен и архаичен научен апарат, и поръсена с лек черноглед радикално-фанатичен гняв, Фром поднася една съвсем проста и логична теза.

Развитието на човечеството в исторически план обяснява и човешката деструктивност. Човекът и агресията му се развиват паралелно и неразривно - и заедно стават все по-комплексни. Деструктивността в най-сложните си и запомнящи се форми е рожба на цивилизацията.

Фром започва пътуването си с въпроса дали деструктивността, злото, мъченията, садизмът са вродени у човека, и следователно неизбежни и неизменни. Криволичейки из - на моменти звучащите странно от днешна гледна точка - пътеки на невробиология, зоология, палеонтология и антропология, отговорът му е твърдо “не”. Защитните инстинкти “бий се или бягай” са типични за почти цялото по-висше животинско царство, но те се активират единствено в моменти на опасност и имат за цел да съхранят живота, а не да сеят повсеместно унищожение и страдание.

Деструктивността започва да се усложнява в хода на човешкото развитие към все по-заплетени обществени, политически и културни форми. Вроденият инстинкт за самосъхранение започва да се “бъгва” и вече трудно отличава непосредствената опасност от въображаемата, като реакцията обаче се запазва. Агресията се активира от все по-сложни фактори, играещи си с прастария биологичен инстинкт и творящи всемирни поразии. Националното “достойнство” и стресът са само два примера.

Човекът обаче освен този вграден инстинкт, притежава и различни типологии на характера, които правят хората различни, независимо в каква среда живеят. Контрол, воля, съпричастност, енергия, емоции. Фром не го нарича точно така, и обърква читателя с архаичния фройдизъм, но когато излезе от него, аналогиите са ясни. С две думи - хората са различни и заради характерите си. Тези характери се влияят от куп фактори, като се започне от семейната среда и се стигне до цялото общество/ режим. Но основата им, сърцевината отвъд всякакви влияния, за всеки човек варира и не се мени.

И тук започва белята, когато обществото/ групата стимулира най-тежките, вредни крайности. Някой, имащ нужда да бъде лоялен сред братство от себеподобни, като едното нищо може да стане идеалният мъчител - и да го прави с радост и по убеждение, като от време на време претърпява някой и друг нервен срив за разнообразие. Друг, търсещ Върховния смисъл - на база достъпните идеали и примери - ще го открие е пречистващата разруха и може да поиска да изпепели доста нещо по пътя си, за да го пречисти. В един друг свят, с друг обществен модел, те биха били доста различни хора.

С две думи, деструктивността често царува по съвсем рационални и общоприети причини, които мнозина също така рационално подкрепят. Идеалната пресечна точка е подходяща черта на характера - подходящи обществени условия. Човек е едно от малкото животни, които могат да пренебрегнат инстинктите си и наклонностите на характерите си в името на нещо “по-висше”. Това фино и комплексно качество може да е за добро. А може и да е за лошо, както илюстрира цялата история.

———
Фром тук е в амплоа на философ с леко разлютен старозаветен замах. Най-интересните моменти са интердисциплинарни и философски. Тогава той се измъква от отеснелия му фройдистки корсет, който съвсем очевидно спъва и ограничава по-широкомащабния поглед и значително го принизява до твърде неясни или спорни аспекти с много тясно значение, което дори изглежда абсурдно още при написването си и спокойно подлежи и на други интерпретации. Някои медицински явления с��що изглеждат остарели като тълкуване. Садизмът, мазохизмът и некрофилията, макар да имат ценните моменти, са твърде неподходящи, объркани и неточни като глобално-всеобхватни категории. В други моменти сам признава, че спекулира без надеждни данни, но го прави смело и интересно, както винаги, но резултатът често е спорен.

Люта е ненавистта на Фром към неговото съвремие (1973 г.), което той громи за консуматорския му бяс и емоционалната му отчужденост, стимулиращи скука, безцелие, незрялост и евентуално потенциална силна деструктивност. За някои аспекти звучи съвсем актуално. За други обаче напомня разгневен старец, каращ се на всички неопитни младоци и напълно забравил, че тази ситуация се повтаря от памти века все същата. Новите времена си имат разрушителния потенциал, но и старите са си почти същите, разликата е в мащаба и взаимовръзките.

———
Психиатричните кратки скици на Сталин, Химлер и Хитлер си заслужават прочита. Но оспорването на Станфордския затворнически експеримент и експеримента с подчинението на Милграм е неубедително. Фром тук не успява да намери “третия” път между инстинктивисти и бихейвиористи. Но пък е поучителен и стимулиращ мисленето!

3,5⭐️

[Rowena · Rating 5 out of 5]

This a book showing that human is more violent than animal. The more "civilized", the more violent he becomes. When reading this book, I remember a National Geographic episode showing the most dangerous cat variety. Can you imagine that tiger and lion are second to house-cat? House cat kills anything, while tiger and lion merely kill their food. Just like human, don't you think?

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Malignant aggression just by humans is what threatens mankind. Erich’s deepest concerns are sadism and necrophilia. By necrophilia, Erich doesn’t mean having sex on Halloween with someone dressed as a hot vampire, but it means “the passion to destroy life and the attraction to all that is dead.” In this book he uses stories about Hitler, Stalin, and Himmler and their character to prove his point. “Man is the only species that is a mass murderer” wrote N. Tinbergen in 1968.

This book was written decades before the Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber, yet its conclusions are the same: that it’s wrong to pretend that there was constant war before civilization. Look at Erich’s War History Chart: Between 1480-1499 there were 9 battles, between 1500-1599 there were 87 battles, between 1600-1699 there were 239 battles, between 1700-1799 there were 781 battles, between 1800-1899 there were 651 battles, between 1900-1940 there were 892 battles. This shows increasing not decreasing violence.
On the other hand, “Prehistorical man, living in bands as hunter and food gather, was characterized by a minimum of destructiveness and an optimum of cooperation and sharing.” Erich blames Konrad Lorenz for resurrecting the Hobbesian cliché that man is aggressive because he was aggressive. In the Anthropology chapter, Erich offers data that “clearly contradict the Hobbesian picture of man’s innate aggression” where the state must therefore monopolize violence and punishment.

Erich shows also supporting data from Marshall Sahlins (I’ve reviewed his great Stone Age Economics book) and his view of primitive hunters as the “original affluent society.” Primitive hunters didn’t have slaves and captives because they’d have to then feed them all which was a lot of unnecessary work. Yet, “Almost everyone reasons: if civilized man is so warlike, how much more warlike must primitive man have been.” Surplus food was needed to support craftsmen making pottery, tools, and clothing. Civilization demanded both the birth of agriculture along with animal breeding and domestication. Sheep and cattle raising increases the food supply which leads to pottery 2000 to 3000 years later – before that lived the aceramic Neolithic. Data shows they were “egalitarian, without hierarchy, exploitation or marked aggression” and were matricentric. Mumford called this behavior a democratic technic versus the authoritarian technic of Civilization (which lived by “perfecting new instruments of coercion”). “The more fields ploughed, the more marshes were drained.”

Lewis Mumford Quotes: “To exert power in every form was the essence of civilization.” He writes that Egyptian monarchs and Mesopotamian counterparts “boasted on their monuments and tablets of their personal feats in mutilating, torturing, and killing with their own hands.” Lewis Mumford refers to the two poles of civilization as “mechanically organized work and mechanically organized destruction.” Instead of first seeing someone as destroying, see them as “serving the machine.”

On pages 194 and 195, Erich posts the names of all the early societies that were either A: Cool (the Mbutus, Polar Eskimos, etc.) B: not so cool (Maori, etc.) and C: dangerously uncool (think Aztecs, etc.)

Fun Facts for Your Next Cocktail Party: “The sacrifice of children was (both) practiced in Canaan at the time of the Hebrew conquest and in Carthage down to its destruction by the Romans in the third century B.C. - British propaganda had to invent “stories of German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies”, to anger Brits to want to fight them. In the Stanley Milgram experiments, not one of the 40 experimenters balked at giving the shock level of 300, where the subject starts kicking the wall screaming and no longer answers your questions. Only 5 out of the 40 refused to continue with shocks higher than 300. Yes, the obedient experimenters showed stress, but they obeyed. This was how easily “good” Germans could become Nazis.

Erich looks at “elite hunting” (fox hunting and the like) and says it “seems to satisfy the wish for power and control, including a certain amount of sadism, characteristic of power elites.” Erich shows that destructiveness is neither innate, nor part of human nature."

Hitler: Hitler’s motive for reading was not for knowledge, but for ammunition, for persuasion. “Hitler was not a self-taught man but a half-taught man.” Like all narcissistic and authoritarian figures, Hitler felt uneasy with those who were his equals. He loved Wagner’s operas and their emotionalism, but not Bach or Mozart. “He hated the lower classes because he had to prove that he did not belong to them.” He was not rooted to any social class. I guess you could say Hitler had no class. Hitler was greatly emboldened by Western inaction after Mussolini attacked Ethiopia, and after fellow fascist Franco let loose in Spain. When Hitler saw Italy continue to get oil AFTER invading – it was game on for Lebensraum. When France and Britain still stayed asleep after Hitler occupied the demilitarized Rhineland, Hitler’s inner gambler addiction pushed the official GO button. Hitler gambled with everyone’s life and at the end of his own, he goes, “Meh…”

Hitler as Destructive and Necrophilous: Erich calls Hitler “a deeply necrophilous man” because the Jews were only ONE of the groups he wanted to destroy (like kill all Slavs) before he was stopped. Erich says zoom out and you can see Hitler hated more than Jews, he was a Germany hater (“What does it matter if a dozen of our cities on the Rhine and Ruhr are consumed by fire, and if a few hundred thousand people lose their lives.” - Hitler quote from Ernst Hanfstaengl), “a hater of mankind, a hater of life itself.” Albert Speer risked his life to sabotage Hitler’s destructive orders at the end and “Hitler’s scorched earth policy” was never carried out and the German commander in Paris refused to destroy Paris. Should you need more proof, here’s Hitler’s decree the way he demanded it be done to all German territory before falling to Allied hands: “everything, simply everything essential to the maintenance of human life would be destroyed. In addition, food supplies were to be destroyed, farms burnt down, and cattle destroyed. Monuments, palaces, castles and churches, theaters and opera houses were also to be leveled.” That last bit comes from Albert Speer. And Hitler wanted the Poles “culturally castrated.”

Erich says Hitler had “complete control over his voice” (but if that were true, he would have done dead-on impressions of other Nazis, would have a done a killer version of Neville Chamberlin groveling, or through ventriloquism made his anti-Semitic Henry Ford doll appear appropriately sycophantic, and he would have sung Wagner at rallies, etc…).

Brilliant Erich quotes: “As long as one believes that the evil man wears horns, one will not discover an evil man.” “The naïve assumption that an evil man is easily recognizable results in a great danger: one fails to recognize evil men (and women) before they have begun their work of destruction.” “Man is the only animal who does not feel at home in nature.” “The Colosseum in Rome is indeed one of the greatest monuments to sadism.”

Herbert Marcuse has praised sadism “as one of the expressions of human sexual freedom.” Himmler had a sadistic history before he became powerful. “There are thousands of Himmlers living among us.” Man knows he is rending the world soon uninhabitable in the name of progress. We flip out after learning some ancestors practiced sacrifice, while ignoring that our own culture is based on sacrificing the ENTIRE human future in a pyramid scheme with no thought beyond the next business quarter until our children or grandchildren get stuck with the entire bill.

Great Book. Five Stars. So glad I finally took the time to read it, after decades of knowing I should, but Derrick Jensen luckily prodded me again last month, this time successfully.

[Snežana · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Čak je i najveći sadista čovek u istoj meri koliko i svetac. Možemo ga smatrati izopačenim, bolesnim bićem, kojem nije uspelo naći bolji odgovor na izazov vlastitog postojanja kao ljudskog bića, što je i tačno; možemo ga nazvati i čovekom koji je izabrao pogrešan put ka svom spasenju

Ova razmatranja ni u kakvom slučaju ne znače da destrukcije i okrutnost nisu zle i pokvarene; ona samo podrazumevaju da su mane nešto ljudsko. One jesu destruktivne za život, za telo, za duh, destruktivne ne samo za žrtvu, već i za uništitelja samog. One čine paradoks: prikazuju život okrenut protiv sebe samog u nastojanju da se nađe njegov smisao”

Moram napomenuti da je ova recenzija čisto laička, znači nisam sociolog, psiholog, niti sam student istih.
U suštini, kroz njegovo prvo delo istraživanja pojave agresije kod čoveka (jer čovek je jedini masovni sadista i ubica među svim životinjskim vrstama) on odlučno, i po meni dirljivo, želi da odbrani tezu da čoveku NIJE urođena agresija, okrutnost i destruktivnost, naša vrsta nije programirana da kao muva bez glave ide i muči naokolo svoju i druge vrste, što bi značilo da agresiju koju pojedinac ili grupa ima, može da "izleči" i civilizacija može da se promeni na bolje. Odnosno, postoji nada za nas.
Dokaze svoje tvrdnje provlači u iscrpnim detaljima kroz psihološku, zoopsihološku, antropološku i neurofizološku prizma.
Pored toga što sam uživala u njegovim rečima, uživala sam i u zanimljivim primerima eksperimenata izvršenim nad životinjama i ljudima koje je on naveo.
Jedva čekam da pređem na drugi deo ovog istraživanja gde on daje svoje definicije agresije.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

During the summer between college and my first graduate school I worked as a security guard for Chicago's Womens' Athletic Club on Ontario and Michigan Avenues in the Gold Coast area. The job had been obtained for me, and others of our friends, by Mike and Tom Miley whose mother, Helen, was working as the business manager there. After graduating from seminary she was kind enough to employ me again until I found more regular work.

The position at the club was a peach. My duties consisted of guarding the service entrance, the most onerous part of which was having to arrive before the other workers did early in the morning. Other than saying "hello" to folks as they came in, there really wasn't much to do but go off to Stuart Brent books around the corner during the lunch break. Very occasionally I'd be given some stupid paperwork, but mostly I just read while sitting in an exceptionally uncomfortable chair near the time cards and service elevator and just under the service stairway. I must have read a hundred books that summer, often more than one in an eight-hour day.

Once in a while I would listen to the radio--most memorably for WFMT's multipart lecture by Erich Fromm on human aggressiveness, a series which led to the purchase of his book on the subject.

[Yaser Maadat · Rating 4 out of 5]

يحلل فروم في هذا الكتاب النزعة التدميرية البشرية من جانب فريد يركز على العوامل الاجتماعية في تكوين الشخصية التدم��رية المتطرفة،و من امثلتها النكروفيليا و السادية و المازوخية و غيرها من اقنعة التدميرية البشرية،كما يقدم فروم نقد شاملا للغريزيين من ناحية و للسلوكيين من ناحية اخرى في تحليلهم للتدميرية بناء على اتجاهاتهم النفسية دون الاكتراث بعلم الطباع الذي ينطلق منه فروم،و يفرد فروم جزءا هاما لنقد فكرة فرويد عن التدميرية و يحللها تحليلا شاملا منطقيا،يقدم فروم عدة امثلة على الشخصية التدميرية لعل ابرزها ادولف هتلر الذي يفرد له قسما كبيرا من الكتاب الثاني و يتناول فيه نشئة هتلر و العوامل المكونة لتدميريته و ما يميز تحليل فروم لهتلر هو عدم تطرفه و تسليمه بكل ما نقل عن هتلر دون تمحيص و تحليل نفسي منطقي مقنع.

[Sheziss · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me encanta el abordaje y la exhaustividad de su estudio, expuesto de una forma dirigida a un público amplio y, por ello, mejor entendible. Es como aprender de psicoanálisis por ósmosis. Me gusta la división que hace de los diferentes tipos de agresión. Aprovecha para hacer una "autopsia" de Himmel y Hitler como ejemplos del carácter sádico-anal. Y su parte sobre la necrofilia realmente me dejó su impacto, cómo algunas personas denostan la vida y todo lo relacionado con ella, y cómo eso deja huella en diversas facetas. Evidentemente, la necrofilia en su faceta sexual no hay tantas oportunidades de verla, pero la necrofilia en su faceta no sexual es increíblemente constante: cara de "olfateo" por "apetencia" a olisquear heces, colores oscuros de ropa, sensación de aburrimiento cuando se habla con ellos de cualquier tema, incluso cuando el tema es interesante o su erudición es flagrante. En cambio, con las personas vivas, quieres estar con ellas, hablar de cualquier tema por estúpido que suene, visten colores vivos... Es extrañamente absurdo y sorprendente, pero da pistas sobre lo que se puede cocer debajo de una apariencia anodina.

[Aleksandra Jagielska · Rating 5 out of 5]

,,Kolejna strona "mieć, czy być".
Czy Erich Fromm wiedział, jak żyć
W rzeczywistości ciągłej sprzedaży,
Gdzie "być" przestaje cokolwiek znaczyć? :))))''

czuje sie smartass i mam ochotę studiować psychologię/filozofię jeszcze bardziej
polecam każdemu zapoznać się z twórczością fromma, ogromny wkład w psychologię i rozumowanie świata
pls dosłownie mam notatki z tej książki

[Dylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fromm immediately endeared himself to me with this epigraph: "When I look at history I am a pessimist... but when I look at prehistory I am an optimist." (Incidentally, this was taken out of context. The writer, JC Smuts, actually only likes prehistory because he believes it shows how far we've come. Quite contrary to the point Fromm is making.)

The first and shortest part of the book is dedicated to a discussion of psychological theory (Instinctivism vs. Behaviorism), and, not being a psychologist, I honestly have forgotten how exactly Fromm comes down on these issues. In the second part, my favorite, Fromm discusses human psychology and society in an evolutionary context. Here, he is trying to systematically debunk the notion that human aggression, most clearly demonstrated in Nazi Germany, is biologically innate or culturally inevitable. Toward the end of this part, in an "analysis of thirty primitive tribes," Fromm classifies each as one of three types: "Life-Affirmative Societies," "Nondestructive-Aggressive Societies," and "Destructive Societies."

In the third part, occupying over half the pages, Fromm identifies two main character traits that lead to "malignant aggression": sadism (the Destructive Character, demonstrated by the cases of Joseph Stalin and Heinrich Himmler) and necrophilia (the Necrophilous Character). The latter is broadened far beyond the usual sexual connotation and seems to be Fromm's most significant innovation. The final chapter is an analysis of "Adolf Hitler, A Clinical Case of Necrophilia."

The underlying theme, which I find most significant, is that Nazi Germany is not so much an historical aberration as an extreme case, and the only solution to this malignant aggression is to change the social conditions which precipitate the development of the character types which cause it.

[Hikaoru · Rating 2 out of 5]

It took me an entire March to finish this.
Read it for Bookends.my thick book challenge. It was soooo so dry but I couldn't drop it because I was halfway done with it and mama ain't raise no quitter.

I got this from Odilo@upustaka, anyone from Msia check that app out for free stuff.

I dunno how to summarise this.
It argues nature vs nurture on why humans are terrible. Quotes a lot of psychologists and I think it lost me at the necrophilia chapter. Then I just slogged through. Hitler chapter was a good summary on his life tho.

My rudimentary level of psychiatry is useless in understanding this.

Maybe this is my last book of substance for the year. I'm either gonna start tackling my TBR pile or just mindlessly read manga. We'll see.

[Ahmad · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this perhaps most important of his pioneering theoretical works, the distinguished author writes with brilliant insight in attempting to break the deadlock in the struggle between the instinctivism of Lorenz and behaviorist Skinner. Later, he moved towards a provocative conclusion which involves a critical revision of Freud’s theory of death instinct in man. Fromm’s studies of Stalin and Himmler and especially his penetrating psychos of Hittler, fascinatingly support his thesis.

In all, this was immensely instructive and stimulating.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

The closest book that scientifically supports The Fall. Why are humans the only creature which has such calculated cruelty? Which is particularly potent from a Holocaust survivor.

[Gabriel Moragues Corbí · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fàcilment entra en el pòdium de llibres llegits. Poques voltes he vist un autoretrat individual i col·lectiu tan complet com aquest. S'ha sentit com si et passaren la torxa de l'esperança. Espere poder continuar el seu camí.

[Prokop Holy · Rating 5 out of 5]

We need to create the conditions that would make the growth of man, this unfinished and uncompleted being - unique in nature - the supreme goal of all social arrangements. Genuine freedom and independence and the end of all forms of exploitative control are the conditions for mobilizing the love of life, which is the only force that can defeat the love for the dead.
It is much easier to get excited by anger, rage, cruelty, or the passion to destroy than by love and productive and active interest, that first kind of excitation does not require the individual to make an effort - one does not need to have patience and discipline, to learn, to concentrate, to endure frustration, to practice critical thinking, to overcome ones narcissism and greed. If the person has failed to grow...
...social character - i.g., of a syndrome to be found in the majority of people
...the sick individual finds himself at home with all other similarly sick individuals. The whole culture is geared to this kind of pathology. The result is that the average individual does not experience the separateness and isolation the fully schizophrenic person feels. He feels at ease among those who suffer from the same deformation; in fact, it is the fully sane person who feels isolated in the insane society and he may suffer so much from the incapacity to communicate that it is he who may become psychotic...
In referencing, "Malignant aggression: premises. The Anatomy Of Human Destructiveness" by Erich Fromm, it is becoming apparent that malignant aggression is based on the desire to be destructive in order to express an unhappiness. It has been concluded from research that children have more emotional and social issues than adults because they are developing their personality. A child acts out in this manner because his parents, does not give him or her the attention he or she needs or wants.
“Since our whole economic system rests on generating desires that the commodities can profitably satisfy, it is hardly to be expected that a critical analysis of the irrationality of desires would be popular.”
“Scarcity is the peculiar obsession of a business economy….The market makes freely available a dazzling array of products – all these ‘good things’ are within a man’s reach – but never his grasp, for one never has enough to buy everything.”

[Пламен Минчев · Rating 5 out of 5]

Това е една от най-академичните книги на Ерих Фром. Всъщност Фром е искал да пише за теория на психоанализата, но широко разпространеното погрешно разбиране за агресията и идеята, че човека е агресивен по природа го кара да пренасочи усилията си. Тази представа за агресията кара Фром да предприеме едно пътешествие из антропологията, неврофизиологията, палеонтологията, психоанализата и т.н., за да покаже убедително, че има различни видове агресия и че трябва да се прави разлика между тях и че деструктивността (разрушение заради самото разрушение) е типично човешка. Отсъства при животните. При хората обаче, тя е вторично решение на проблема за живота, а не "вродено" поведение. Целият този анализ се допълва с блестящи анализи на характерите на Хайнрих Химлер, Адолф Хитлер и Йосиф Сталин. Уникални клинични профили, които биха били в помощ дори и на клиничните психолози. Като психолог и учен мога да потвърдя, че тогавашните открития на Фром днес се потвърждават все повече и повече за това, че например на нас не ни е вродено да бъдем агресивни, освен някои общи типове агресия като игрова или защитна.

[Mina Talaat · Rating 5 out of 5]

مراجعة مطولة، بعد لما أخلص امتحانات.

[Ayca Adenli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erich Fromm'un fikirlerini ve analizlerini çok seviyorum. İnsandaki Yıkıcılığın Kökenleri kitabı her türlü şiddet ve kötülüğün temellerinin neden kaynaklandığını ve sebeplerini detaylı bir şekilde anlatıyor. Kitap için tek eleştirim bazı fikirlerde tekrara girmesi oldu. Onun dışında psikoloji okumayı sevenlere tavsiye ederim.

[Katja Vartiainen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really good book. Fromm has a pretty clear view of humanity, having spend observing it for all his life, and having lived during the tumultuos times of second world war. He is a humanist and very intelligent, and the bestparts in this book are his comments that sum up our issues.
The first thing he addresses , is the innate insticts. Is aggression a normal human instinct. He seperated defensive aggression and malignant aggression,a nd concludes, no, it is a wrong and lazy statement.
This was written in 1970, but his view of the problems of consumer society could be used today, also for social media issues. The psychology of man was in 1940 as it is today: 'If the leader is convinced of his extraordinary gifts and of his mission, it will be easier to convince the large audiences who are attracted by men who appear to be so absolutely certain.' Anybody come to mind? There are also couple of insights into political situations in history, which I found comparable of what is going on today in Ukraine.
This book gives a good explanation of a sadistic character and the difference between necrophiliac character. The extreme cases of these are ,of course, a minority, but larger group has the tendencies in smaller amounts,, and if the social situation allows, the wrong people get into power. He gives examples of different types: Himmler is a sadist, Hitler a necrophiliac. There is a lot of good stuff related to aggression, such as narcissism, boredom, and in the end the reader gets an extra of Fromm criticism of Freud's theory.

[GREGORY · Rating 1 out of 5]

"We arrive at this concept by empirical analysis of the anatomical and neuophysiological structure and its psychical correlations which characterize the species homo. We thus shift the principle of explanation of human passions from Freud's physiological to a sociobiological and historical principle. Since the species Homo sapiens can be defined in anatomical, neurological and physiological terms, we should also be able to define him as a species in psychical terms."
This was page 7. If you can read & fully or even partially understand what Fromm is saying read on. However, if you are anything like me & will get nothing but a terrible headache..... pass.

[Olafs · Rating 3 out of 5]

An engaging read - would expect nothing less from Fromm. Topics dealt with, have not lost relevance and could be regarded as extremely important.

Information on which analysis is based, however - partly outdated (e.g., on chimpanzee behavior). This might lead readers to question other assumptions and claims that are made as well. Some claims seem to be unsubstantiated and not supported by even faulty data.

Despite flaws could be regarded as a very stimulating work and presents ideas worth discussing.
Must read for anyone interested in Heinrich Himmler's anal cravings.

[Yousef Mahmood · Rating 5 out of 5]

لتتمكن من رؤية الشر عليك بتطوير الشر في داخلك،
ولتفعل ذلك عليك ان تمر عبر الجحيم وتخرج منها
لكنك ستخرج انسانا اخر :
اما فريسة خائفة لتختبئ في جحرك كالأرنب للأبد،
وما من طريقة للتعافي من ذلك ..
او وحشا ضاريا مستعدا للقتال
هذا الكتاب تحفة فنية في كونه يساعدك في عملية التحول من الحالة الاولى الى الثانية، انه ضروري جدا لأي معالج نفسي كونه يحتوي على فلسفة وطريقة تفكير الجانب العدواني والشرير من الانسان ..
وما تصبح هذه الفلسفة جزءا منك .. ما من شئ سيتمكن من أن يصدمك
انني و حين انتهيت من قرائته (خصوصا الجزء الثاني) كان له تأثيرا علاجي علي ..

[Moor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inhalt:

Vorwort
Terminologie
Einleitung
Die Instinkte und die menschlichen Leidenschaften

ERSTER TEIL
Instinktivismus, Behaviorismus, Psychoanalyse
1. Instinkt- und Trieblehren
- Ältere Instinkt- und Triebforscher
- Neuere Instinkt- und Triebforscher: Sigmund Freud und Konrad Lorenz
- Freuds Aggressionsbegriff
- Die Aggressionstheorie von Konrad Lorenz
- Freud und Lorenz: Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede
- «Beweis» durch Analogie
- Schlußfolgerungen über den Krieg
- Die Vergötzung der Evolution
2. Die Vertreter der Milieutheorie und die Behavioristen
- Die Milieutheorie der Aufklärung
- Der Behaviorismus
- B. F. Skinners Neobehaviorismus
- Ziel und Werte
- Die Gründe für Skinners Popularität
- Behaviorismus und Aggression
- Über psychologische Experimente
-Die Frustrations-Aggressions-Theorie
3. Triebtheorien und Behaviorismus: Ihre Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten
-Gemeinsamkeiten Neuere Auffassungen
- Der politische und soziale Hintergrund beider Theorien
4. Der psychoanalytische Weg zum Verständnis der Aggression
- Zusammenfassung

ZWEITER TEIL
Befunde, die gegen die Thesen der Instinkt- und Triebforscher sprechen
5. Neurophysiologie
- Die Beziehung zwischen Psychologie und Neurophysiologie
- Das Gehirn als Grundlage für aggressives Verhalten
- Die Defensivfunktion der Aggression
- Der Flucht-Instinkt
- Das Verhalten von Raubtieren und die Aggression
6. Das Verhalten der Tiere
- Die Aggression in der Gefangenschaft
- Menschliche Aggression und Übervölkerung
- Die Aggression in der freien Natur
- Territorialismus und Dominanz
- Die Aggressivität anderer Säugetiere
- Besitzt der Mensch eine Hemmung zu töten?
7. Paläontologie
- Ist der Mensch eine Art?
- Ist der Mensch ein Raubtier?
8. Anthropologie
- Der Mensch als Jäger - Der anthropologische Adam?
- Die Aggression und die primitiven Jäger
- Primitive Jäger - die Wohlstandsgesellschaft?
- Die Kriegführung der Primitiven
- Die neolithische Revolution
- Prähistorische Gesellschaften und die menschliche Natur
- Die städtische Revolution
- Die Aggressivität in primitiven Kulturen
- Analyse von dreißig primitiven Stämmen
- System A: Lebensbejahende Gesellschaften
- System B: Nichtdestruktiv-aggressive Gesellschaften
- System C: Destruktive Gesellschaften
- Beispiele für die drei Systeme
- Hinweise auf Destruktivität und Grausamkeit

DRITTER TEIL
Die verschiedenen Arten der Aggression und Destruktivität und ihre jeweiligen Voraussetzungen
9. Die gutartige Aggression
- Vorbemerkungen
- Die Pseudoaggression
- Die unbeabsichtigte Aggression
- Die spielerische Aggression
- Aggression als Selbstbehauptung
- Die defensive Aggression
- Der Unterschied zwischen Mensch und Tier
- Aggression und Freiheit
- Aggression und Narzißmus
- Aggression und Widerstand
- Die konformistische Aggression
- Die instrumentale Aggression
- Die Bedingungen für eine Reduzierung der defensiven Aggression
- Uber die Ursachen des Krieges
10. Die bösartige Aggression:
- Prämissen
- Vorbemerkungen
- Die Natur des Menschen
- Die existenziellen Bedürfnisse des Menschen und die verschiedenen in seinem Charakter verwurzelten Leidenschaften
- Orientierung und Devotion
- Verwurzelung
- Einheit
- Das Bestreben, etwas zu bewirken
- Erregung und Stimulation
- Langeweile und chronische Depression
- Die Charakterstruktur
- Die Voraussetzungen für die Entwicklung der charakterbedingten Leidenschaften
- Die neurophysiologischen Voraussetzungen
- Die sozialen Bedingungen
- Über die Rationalität und Irrationalität der Instinkte und Leidenschaften
- Die psychische Funktion der Leidenschaften
11. Die bösartige Aggression: Grausamkeit und Destruktivität
- Scheinbare Destruktivität
- Spontane Formen
- Geschichtlicher Überblick
- Rachsüchtige Destruktivität
- Ekstatische Destruktivität
- Die Anbetung der Destruktivität
- Kern, von Salomon: Ein klinischer Fall des Götzendienstes an der Zerstörung
- Der destruktive Charakter: Sadismus
- Beispiele für den sexuellen Sadismus und Masochismus
- Jossif Stalin, ein klinischer Fall von nichtsexuellem Sadismus
- Das Wesen des Sadismus
- Bedingungen, die Sadismus hervorrufen
- Heinrich Himmler, ein klinischer Fall des anal-hortenden Sadismus
- Zusammenfassung
12. Die bösartige Aggression: Die Nekrophilie
- Der traditionelle Begriff
- Der nekrophile Charakter
- Nekrophile Träume
- Unbeabsichtigte nekrophile Handlungen
- Die nekrophile Sprache
- Nekrophilie und die Vergötterung der Technik
- Hypothese über den Inzest und den Ödipuskomplex
- Die Beziehung von Freuds Lebens- und Todestrieb zur Biophilie und Nekrophilie
- Klinisch methodologische Prinzipien
13. Bösartige Aggression: Adolf Hitler, ein klinischer Fall von Nekrophilie
- Vorbemerkungen
- Hitlers Eltern und frühe Kindheit
- Klara Hitler
- Alois Hitler
- Hitlers frühe Kindheit bis zum Alter von sechs Jahren (1889-1895)
- Hitlers Kindheit von sechs bis elf (1895-1900)
- Voradoleszenz und Adoleszenz: 11 bis 17 Jahre (1900-1906)
- Wien (1907-1913)
- München
- Ein Kommentar zur Methodologie
- Hitlers Destruktivität
- Die Verdrängung der Destruktivität
- Andere Aspekte von Hitlers Persönlichkeit
- Hitlers Beziehungen zu Frauen
- Gaben und Talente
- Die Tarnschicht
- Willensdefekte und Mangel an Wirklichkeitssinn

Epilog: Über die Zwiespältigkeit der Hoffnung

Anhang: Freuds Aggressions- und Destruktionstheorie
- Die Entwicklung von Freuds Aggressions- und Destruktionsbegriff
- Analyse der Wandlungen von Freud:
- Theorie der Aggression und eine Kritik
- Macht und Grenzen des Todestriebs
- Kritik der Substanz der Theorie
- Das Prinzip der Spannungsreduktion: die Grundlage des
- Lustprinzips und des Todestriebs

Bibliographie
Register

[×× ri ×× · Rating 1 out of 5]

This should be called The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, with Weird Hitler Fanfiction on the Side. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Here is my rant.


Fromm opens with a premise I don't necessarily disagree with: a man is the most cruel animal in existence. But the reasons he gives are absolutely retarded. He believes that humans deserve this title because of torture methods we invented or because of sheer scale of our destructiveness, and he is also weirdly dead set on overlooking animal aggression or straight up minimazing it. The reason why human is the cruelest animal in the world is because it is the only animal concern with moral implications of cruelty. It's not a coincidence that we juxtapose the word cruel with such terms as humane. The animal isn't concerned with the amount of suffering it causes once it resorts to aggression, nor is it always raional, like Fromm postulates (the idea of animals being rational is also retarded. Rationality/irrationality is A HUMAN CONCEPT. Animals just do what has been working for that particular environment. Change the environment a little bit, and see what happens.). Think about a bear just eating its prey alive because it doesn't give a fuck, or dolphins using other animals as balls.


Fromm mentions that this book is a psychoanalytic overview, and unfortunately it is the worst kind. Here you will find idiotic speculations about prehistoric societies based on nothing but vibes, and exteeennnsiiive exploration of such concepts as anal or necrophilic character. I am officially over it. I could live the rest of the year without touching any book on psychoanalysis. Hey, but at least he calls out Freud on his mysoginy.


Something weird happens in the latter part of the book, and Fromm starts writing strange fanfiction about nazis. Well, he calls them case studies, but he barely ties it back to the main topic, and instead he provides such bright ideas as "Hitler had necrophilic character because he cringed in photos". Yeah. It gets that bad.


At least Fromm ties his tangent about Himmler back to the destructiveness by saying well, having said all that, in another world he may not have become the Himmler we know. Yes, okay??? Lmao??? but wouldn't it be more interesting to delve into societal conditions that made it possible for such figure to gain so much power?? The Hitler chapter just gave me the ick. But! On that note, if you are interested in really gross stuff, check out the beginning of necrophilia sections to see how freaky people can get. Honestly, my jaw was on the floor.