What do you think?
Rate this book
Sağlıklı Toplum
Ünlü düşünür ve ruhbilimci Erich Fromm, bu yapıtında insanın doğal yapısından hareket ederek, bugüne dek, insanoğlunun tüm gereksinmelerine yanıt verebilen sağlıklı bir toplum biçimi yaratıp yaratamadığımızı araştırıyor. Günümüz toplumlarında insanlar mutluluk içinde mi yaşamaktadırlar? Kendilerini tümüyle geliştirebilmekte, özgürlük içinde sevebilmekte midirler? Yoksa tüm sevme yetilerini yitirmiş, doğal gelişmelerini baskı altına almış, içinden çıkılmaz bir huzursuzluğun pençesinde kıvranarak, paramparça olmuş kişilikleriyle tam bir yabancılaşma içinde mi yaşamaktadırlar? Dr. Fromm, bu soruları enine boyuna irdeleyerek toplumbilimin ve ruhbilimin ışığı altında incelemektedir. Sonunda da insanların her yönüyle gelişebildikleri, mutluluk içinde yaşayabildikleri, kendi ürettikleri nesnelere yabancılaşmadıkları ve doyum içinde birlikte yaşayabildikleri sağlıklı toplumları henüz kuramadığımız sonucuna vararak, bu konuda neler yapılması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1955
690 people are currently reading
12354 people want to read
About the author
Erich Fromm
449 books5,340 followersErich 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
November 17, 2015
This book has been a psychological survival manual for me. I will always be indebted to Fromm for providing me with a way to hold on to hope in the spiritual progress of the human experiment in what is often a spiritually barren world. After all, without that hope, life doesn't really amount to much, despite all the rewards, recognition and shiny trinkets one might hoard to shore up against facing one's emptiness. He's given me better arguments than I could have forged on my own against falling into spiritual despair in the face of a world that often seems... inhuman. I guess I just didn't have the kind of insane courage to hope against all hope that is required in order to look for those arguments. You need that kind of courage, and people possessing it, in order to defend the claims of the human spirit in a civilization built upon making these seem irrelevant, even ridiculous.
Perhaps the heart of Fromm's vision in this book can be summed up thus: “The whole life of the individual is nothing but the process of giving birth to himself; indeed, we should be fully born when we die - although it is the tragic fate of most individuals to die before they are born.” This work is ultimately about the core tension that patterns the developmental struggle most of us likely experience, and namely, the tension between the requirements of our full unfolding, on the one hand, and the requirements ill-fitting and culturally-reproduced identity-construals place on us, on the other. The question, as we experience it within current cultural limitations, is not, nor can ever be, one of finding ways to full psychological realization (ie, being fully born), but one of minimizing the psychological mutilation we suffer in trying to adapt to barely adaptive cultural constructs. It is, in Fromm's words, a question of ways to postpone death before birth.
At critical junctures in my life, when I was tempted to just cave in, to make the life struggle a little easier to bear by amputating inconvenient parts of myself in order to more smoothly fall into line with the requirements of the world, I could actually fall back on his arguments, and find thereby, again and again, a renewal of the will to persist in the struggle to protect the claims of my better self. For it is invariably the claims of this better self, with its incessant nagging somewhere at the back of our minds, clamouring as it does for space to stretch and grow, that we're often persuaded require junking for easy peace of mind. (Why is it always that the situation is so rigged that in order to succeed, we must set the most vital parts of ourselves ablaze on the pyre of society?)
The two idols that most compel the sacrifice are Success and our need for Belonging. The former persuades us that if we are to succeed in the world, we must take the axe and ruthlessly chop off everything that doesn't fit into the pre-established slot that we're aiming to fill. With our Selves, that is. And if we manage to muster the endurance to sustain the suffering and privation that inevitably beset any who try and sidestep this idol, the more pressing claims of our own spirit to find belonging and fulfillment in a community of others in the end get us. The wisdom here is that should we stubbornly persist in clinging to this higher self's claims, we will pay the price in isolation. This is a hard price to pay for any human being.
Now the admittedly risky alternative of looking into recovering the deeper meaning of Success and Community Belonging is not usually recognized. Fromm acts as the Socratic gadfly by urging us to undertake just such a recovery and rethinking of the fundamental values of human life. When something inside you is nagging at you that something vital is “missing” in life, he urges you not to despair if you find no outer echo for that longing in the convenience-store-world that you see around you. We've surely all been in this dark pit at some point in our developmental struggle, and we fall there precisely in our most mundane, workaday moments while faced with the neon candy bar glare of store windows. It is hard to believe in the face of this gross matter-of-factness that we have a higher self that we should be true to. There just seems to be no room for that in this world. And the conversations with people are perhaps the most sadly alienating of all. Any notion of a higher life making claims on us seems nothing more than a wispy fantasy. The world that you see takes you so far from your most vibrantly revelatory instincts into reality. The discovery that the values that represent the highest human reality are not necessarily the values that you see reflected around you in your current socio-cultural environment is deeply disorienting. It's a Twilight Zone sort of feeling. I feel tremendous sympathy for kids, who have yet to experience the shock, the strange sense of vertigo that this grim discovery brings.
Fromm's work is at its most empowering when it asks us to side with that tenuous intuition that "there is more to life than this." He reminds us in so many ways that a community that requires that you junk your developmental requirements and places spiritual amputation as a prerequisite for participation is not worth aspiring to enter. The meaningful participation you yearn for is unattainable, anyhow, to spiritual amputees. Your real Community is the community of individuals who share with you an understanding of the values that accurately reflect and sustain human unfolding. And your real Success is your capacity to sustain the courage and the hope to stand by the claims of your own better self, and to as best as you can, try to live by them in however circumscribed a sphere you happen to have your being in. Without a sustained link to our higher self, there can be no authentic success, belonging, not to mention love or sense of meaning. In this, Fromm recalls Kierkegaard subversive insight into the real meaning of success: “The greatest hazard of all, losing one's self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss – an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc.- is sure to be noticed.” This alone can occasion a possibly life-changing perspective shift.
That a view is widespread or held in high regard in a culture is no proof of its substantiveness. In his most audacious move yet, Fromm shows how the conditions of social life in a given locale may well include ignorance, vice, and collective pathology:
“The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”
So much for orienting ourselves by culturally-coded measures of the real.
So we're tasked to go back to the beginnings of things, as unburdened by the clutter of so much cultural dead-weight as we can make ourselves, and rethink the fundamental meanings on which we build our lives. Fromm's work, whatever its failures, does help us take a step in that direction. And it is liberating work. Rethinking, as a culture, the meaning of Love, Community, Reason, Success, Wisdom, is liberating work. And in it lies, he argues, psychology's proper task and greatest gift to human culture. Fromm persuades us that the proper subject and goal of psychology must be protecting man's higher nature against the distortive identity-constructs our societies would have us cram our selves into.
“It is the task of the "science of man" to arrive eventually at a correct description of what deserves to be called human nature. What has often been called "human nature" is but one of its many manifestations - and often a pathological one - and the function of such mistaken definition usually has been to defend a particular type of society as being the necessary one.”
The great cultural tragedy of our day is that whatever of human rightful unfolding we can salvage, it is inevitably circumscribed to the private, perhaps even the merely subjective domains. A humane education of the spirit such as his work encourages can go a long way to securing inner freedom, and perhaps, some modicum of authentic freedom and meaningful participation within the social micro-unit of the family (though the latter, too, is being junked on the altar of our two chosen gods, Economy and Technology). But it alone cannot provide us with the ultimate fulfillment that only meaningful work towards a common good can provide. How this primal sense of polity and community is to be restored is one of the big questions of our time. Without it, Fromm well recognizes, there can be no full individual unfolding, either. It is meaningful participation within a working, humane society alone that can provide adequate matrix for the unfolding of relational beings such as we are.
It is, ultimately, a societal and infrastructural, as opposed to a merely cultural and educational problem. This is where Fromm's psycho-centric cultural analysis inevitably falls short.An analysis of our defunct memes is not an adequate substitute for the more fundamental structural analysis of the institutions to which whatever memes we may develop must inevitably adapt. Consciously restructuring the institutions of society so that they come to work for human growth, rather than against it, is the task. That such an endeavour seems utopian from our vantage point in itself speaks volumes about where we're at. One can but dream of a life in which work is truly rewarding us by helping us realize our potential, in which we can bring to participation in society all we have, and in which the fate of most of us is not premature psychological death come entry into a highly specialized work-force that provides greater fragmentation and furthers alienation. Why should growth end with the mid 20s?
Ultimately, his work does provide a hope, however circumscribed, that the higher life of growth is not some naive pipedream of innocent schoolchildren not yet awakened to "the reality of things." It should be mandatory reading for young adults who are soon facing entry into the great societal meat machine. It will serve them well as an encouragement to trust in their instinct to try and hold on to their own lights, no matter how all-negating the world they face is. And for older readers, it can be a potent reminder of, in Eliot's words, the Life they may have felt compelled to give up in living. In any case, it's best to be clear on this one matter: supporting something other than spiritual growth is supporting death, and thereby rendering all our actions and pursuits (even if we should succeed in attaining them) utterly meaningless. Having some perspective about real priorities instead of just going with the flow, thinking one might just somehow slide past the nauseating feeling of emptiness, can perhaps enable constructive action before more of life slips past ever more people, irretrievably. If you take from this work only one thing, take this: Authentic success is to be found in our ongoing pursuit of realization, and our true identity is to be sought in an ever-deepening understanding of that most fundamental relationship which grounds our being and transcends all our partial relations, enveloping us in the most primal and encompassing community there is: the community of Being. And here's the most inspiring light that we can hold up to the fear that besets such venturing from (false) security:
“Each new step into his new human existence is frightening. It always means to give up a secure state, which was relatively known, for one which is new, which one has not yet mastered. Undoubtedly, if the infant could think at the moment of the severance of the umbilical cord, he would experience the fear of dying. A loving fate protects us from this first panic. But at any new step, at any new stage of our birth, we are afraid again. We are never free from two conflicting tendencies: one to emerge from the womb, from the animal form of existence into a more human existence, from bondage to freedom; another, to return to the womb, to nature, to certainty and security.”
Perhaps the heart of Fromm's vision in this book can be summed up thus: “The whole life of the individual is nothing but the process of giving birth to himself; indeed, we should be fully born when we die - although it is the tragic fate of most individuals to die before they are born.” This work is ultimately about the core tension that patterns the developmental struggle most of us likely experience, and namely, the tension between the requirements of our full unfolding, on the one hand, and the requirements ill-fitting and culturally-reproduced identity-construals place on us, on the other. The question, as we experience it within current cultural limitations, is not, nor can ever be, one of finding ways to full psychological realization (ie, being fully born), but one of minimizing the psychological mutilation we suffer in trying to adapt to barely adaptive cultural constructs. It is, in Fromm's words, a question of ways to postpone death before birth.
At critical junctures in my life, when I was tempted to just cave in, to make the life struggle a little easier to bear by amputating inconvenient parts of myself in order to more smoothly fall into line with the requirements of the world, I could actually fall back on his arguments, and find thereby, again and again, a renewal of the will to persist in the struggle to protect the claims of my better self. For it is invariably the claims of this better self, with its incessant nagging somewhere at the back of our minds, clamouring as it does for space to stretch and grow, that we're often persuaded require junking for easy peace of mind. (Why is it always that the situation is so rigged that in order to succeed, we must set the most vital parts of ourselves ablaze on the pyre of society?)
The two idols that most compel the sacrifice are Success and our need for Belonging. The former persuades us that if we are to succeed in the world, we must take the axe and ruthlessly chop off everything that doesn't fit into the pre-established slot that we're aiming to fill. With our Selves, that is. And if we manage to muster the endurance to sustain the suffering and privation that inevitably beset any who try and sidestep this idol, the more pressing claims of our own spirit to find belonging and fulfillment in a community of others in the end get us. The wisdom here is that should we stubbornly persist in clinging to this higher self's claims, we will pay the price in isolation. This is a hard price to pay for any human being.
Now the admittedly risky alternative of looking into recovering the deeper meaning of Success and Community Belonging is not usually recognized. Fromm acts as the Socratic gadfly by urging us to undertake just such a recovery and rethinking of the fundamental values of human life. When something inside you is nagging at you that something vital is “missing” in life, he urges you not to despair if you find no outer echo for that longing in the convenience-store-world that you see around you. We've surely all been in this dark pit at some point in our developmental struggle, and we fall there precisely in our most mundane, workaday moments while faced with the neon candy bar glare of store windows. It is hard to believe in the face of this gross matter-of-factness that we have a higher self that we should be true to. There just seems to be no room for that in this world. And the conversations with people are perhaps the most sadly alienating of all. Any notion of a higher life making claims on us seems nothing more than a wispy fantasy. The world that you see takes you so far from your most vibrantly revelatory instincts into reality. The discovery that the values that represent the highest human reality are not necessarily the values that you see reflected around you in your current socio-cultural environment is deeply disorienting. It's a Twilight Zone sort of feeling. I feel tremendous sympathy for kids, who have yet to experience the shock, the strange sense of vertigo that this grim discovery brings.
Fromm's work is at its most empowering when it asks us to side with that tenuous intuition that "there is more to life than this." He reminds us in so many ways that a community that requires that you junk your developmental requirements and places spiritual amputation as a prerequisite for participation is not worth aspiring to enter. The meaningful participation you yearn for is unattainable, anyhow, to spiritual amputees. Your real Community is the community of individuals who share with you an understanding of the values that accurately reflect and sustain human unfolding. And your real Success is your capacity to sustain the courage and the hope to stand by the claims of your own better self, and to as best as you can, try to live by them in however circumscribed a sphere you happen to have your being in. Without a sustained link to our higher self, there can be no authentic success, belonging, not to mention love or sense of meaning. In this, Fromm recalls Kierkegaard subversive insight into the real meaning of success: “The greatest hazard of all, losing one's self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss – an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc.- is sure to be noticed.” This alone can occasion a possibly life-changing perspective shift.
That a view is widespread or held in high regard in a culture is no proof of its substantiveness. In his most audacious move yet, Fromm shows how the conditions of social life in a given locale may well include ignorance, vice, and collective pathology:
“The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”
So much for orienting ourselves by culturally-coded measures of the real.
So we're tasked to go back to the beginnings of things, as unburdened by the clutter of so much cultural dead-weight as we can make ourselves, and rethink the fundamental meanings on which we build our lives. Fromm's work, whatever its failures, does help us take a step in that direction. And it is liberating work. Rethinking, as a culture, the meaning of Love, Community, Reason, Success, Wisdom, is liberating work. And in it lies, he argues, psychology's proper task and greatest gift to human culture. Fromm persuades us that the proper subject and goal of psychology must be protecting man's higher nature against the distortive identity-constructs our societies would have us cram our selves into.
“It is the task of the "science of man" to arrive eventually at a correct description of what deserves to be called human nature. What has often been called "human nature" is but one of its many manifestations - and often a pathological one - and the function of such mistaken definition usually has been to defend a particular type of society as being the necessary one.”
The great cultural tragedy of our day is that whatever of human rightful unfolding we can salvage, it is inevitably circumscribed to the private, perhaps even the merely subjective domains. A humane education of the spirit such as his work encourages can go a long way to securing inner freedom, and perhaps, some modicum of authentic freedom and meaningful participation within the social micro-unit of the family (though the latter, too, is being junked on the altar of our two chosen gods, Economy and Technology). But it alone cannot provide us with the ultimate fulfillment that only meaningful work towards a common good can provide. How this primal sense of polity and community is to be restored is one of the big questions of our time. Without it, Fromm well recognizes, there can be no full individual unfolding, either. It is meaningful participation within a working, humane society alone that can provide adequate matrix for the unfolding of relational beings such as we are.
It is, ultimately, a societal and infrastructural, as opposed to a merely cultural and educational problem. This is where Fromm's psycho-centric cultural analysis inevitably falls short.An analysis of our defunct memes is not an adequate substitute for the more fundamental structural analysis of the institutions to which whatever memes we may develop must inevitably adapt. Consciously restructuring the institutions of society so that they come to work for human growth, rather than against it, is the task. That such an endeavour seems utopian from our vantage point in itself speaks volumes about where we're at. One can but dream of a life in which work is truly rewarding us by helping us realize our potential, in which we can bring to participation in society all we have, and in which the fate of most of us is not premature psychological death come entry into a highly specialized work-force that provides greater fragmentation and furthers alienation. Why should growth end with the mid 20s?
Ultimately, his work does provide a hope, however circumscribed, that the higher life of growth is not some naive pipedream of innocent schoolchildren not yet awakened to "the reality of things." It should be mandatory reading for young adults who are soon facing entry into the great societal meat machine. It will serve them well as an encouragement to trust in their instinct to try and hold on to their own lights, no matter how all-negating the world they face is. And for older readers, it can be a potent reminder of, in Eliot's words, the Life they may have felt compelled to give up in living. In any case, it's best to be clear on this one matter: supporting something other than spiritual growth is supporting death, and thereby rendering all our actions and pursuits (even if we should succeed in attaining them) utterly meaningless. Having some perspective about real priorities instead of just going with the flow, thinking one might just somehow slide past the nauseating feeling of emptiness, can perhaps enable constructive action before more of life slips past ever more people, irretrievably. If you take from this work only one thing, take this: Authentic success is to be found in our ongoing pursuit of realization, and our true identity is to be sought in an ever-deepening understanding of that most fundamental relationship which grounds our being and transcends all our partial relations, enveloping us in the most primal and encompassing community there is: the community of Being. And here's the most inspiring light that we can hold up to the fear that besets such venturing from (false) security:
“Each new step into his new human existence is frightening. It always means to give up a secure state, which was relatively known, for one which is new, which one has not yet mastered. Undoubtedly, if the infant could think at the moment of the severance of the umbilical cord, he would experience the fear of dying. A loving fate protects us from this first panic. But at any new step, at any new stage of our birth, we are afraid again. We are never free from two conflicting tendencies: one to emerge from the womb, from the animal form of existence into a more human existence, from bondage to freedom; another, to return to the womb, to nature, to certainty and security.”
February 1, 2016
A Brilliant work, a brilliant treasure from a brilliant mind. I prefer not to write a review. Just read it.
November 12, 2020
In the Sane Society, Fromm reiterates and expands upon his earlier works:
1. Escape From Freedom; a critical synthesis of Marx and Freud, and a treatise on what Fromm calls social psychology (but what would in my opinion be more accurately called socialist psychoanalysis).
2. Man for Himself; a treatise on modern humanistic, existential ethics, in which Fromm braids insights from Nietzsche and other existentialists into his psycho-social theory of ‘how to live’.
In the Sane Society, Fromm continues his critique of Freud for his myopic focus on individual neurosis, and lack of understanding of how social milieu, and economic and political systems effect and even shape the individual’s sense of self, feelings of well being, creative potential, values and relationships.
In a nutshell, Fromm is reiterating the idea that what Freud called neurosis, may in fact be a healthy response to a ‘sick’ system.
Fromm continues his critique of Marx for being tone deaf to the actual (rather than idealized) needs and motivations of human beings.
Fromm acknowledges that individualism is one of modernity’s great achievements, and competition and striving for innovation are innate human psychological needs.
Essentially, Fromm is claiming that forcing people into an artificially collectivistic ideology that does not fully satisfy their natural individualistic drives is the psycho-social equivalent of foot binding.
Fromm continues his critique of capitalism claiming that it objectifies and dehumanizes us by promoting the willful commodification of ourselves and others, basically reducing us to wage slaves that toil endlessly out of materialistic vanity and/or in avoidance of the pure terror of being homeless or broke and alone in old age.
But he’s not any less critical of Soviet style communism, claiming that, psychologically speaking, it’s essentially the same thing as corperate capitalism, with the only difference being that huge oppressive bureaucracy and police surveillance force consent in the USSR, where as money driven Madison Avenue manufactures consent in America via social pressure and manipulative psychological persuasion.
Fromm could be talking about 2020 in his descriptions of the psychology of media and information driven work.
Fromm keenly observes that concentrated activity is invigorating, and multitasking or non-concentrated activity is draining.
Fromm observes that, mindless daydreaming is not invigorating, but is in fact a signature of lacking connection with life and the here and now.
He continues by observing that modern informational life splits our attentions and drives us to distraction and dissociation.
Fromm seems to predict what life is like in 2020, and why mindfulness is such an important and prominent contemporary interest.
Fromm discusses life satisfaction from a psychodynamic perspective.
Fromm observes that it is common to feel satisfied on the conscious level and unconsciously repress feelings of dissatisfaction, particularly in our culture where being dissatisfied with life is highly stigmatized and elicits judgments of failure and feelings of shame.
As if you’re doing something wrong for feeling like life could be more than meaningless work and endless consumption of goods and pleasantries.
This could not be more apparent in the age of social media.
Getting right down to the point here.
For Fromm, the Sane Society is one in which psychological well being (sanity) is the focus.
Not ideology, not money, not guns, guts and god, not looking good, not being cool.
But simply sanity and wellness in mind, body, relationship and (yes) even spirit (although he’s not talking about anything supernatural, or magical when he makes allusions to the import of spiritual and religious life).
Basically, Fromm is promoting a fair (Marx), natural (Darwin), intrinsically motivated (Nietzsche) psychologically healthy (Freud) and awake (Buddha) way of being.
Fromm argues that Soviet era Communism and late century American democracy were more similar than distinct in so far as both cultures promoted a kind of oppressive, denatured, robotic conformity in its citizens.
Fromm proposes a type of decentralized, locally distributed, psychologically informed, modern European style humanitarian socialism as a third way, where by people are guaranteed a basic subsistence, education, healthcare etc. so that everyone can spend more time focused on personal exploration, growth, connection and innovation.
1. Escape From Freedom; a critical synthesis of Marx and Freud, and a treatise on what Fromm calls social psychology (but what would in my opinion be more accurately called socialist psychoanalysis).
2. Man for Himself; a treatise on modern humanistic, existential ethics, in which Fromm braids insights from Nietzsche and other existentialists into his psycho-social theory of ‘how to live’.
In the Sane Society, Fromm continues his critique of Freud for his myopic focus on individual neurosis, and lack of understanding of how social milieu, and economic and political systems effect and even shape the individual’s sense of self, feelings of well being, creative potential, values and relationships.
In a nutshell, Fromm is reiterating the idea that what Freud called neurosis, may in fact be a healthy response to a ‘sick’ system.
Fromm continues his critique of Marx for being tone deaf to the actual (rather than idealized) needs and motivations of human beings.
Fromm acknowledges that individualism is one of modernity’s great achievements, and competition and striving for innovation are innate human psychological needs.
Essentially, Fromm is claiming that forcing people into an artificially collectivistic ideology that does not fully satisfy their natural individualistic drives is the psycho-social equivalent of foot binding.
Fromm continues his critique of capitalism claiming that it objectifies and dehumanizes us by promoting the willful commodification of ourselves and others, basically reducing us to wage slaves that toil endlessly out of materialistic vanity and/or in avoidance of the pure terror of being homeless or broke and alone in old age.
But he’s not any less critical of Soviet style communism, claiming that, psychologically speaking, it’s essentially the same thing as corperate capitalism, with the only difference being that huge oppressive bureaucracy and police surveillance force consent in the USSR, where as money driven Madison Avenue manufactures consent in America via social pressure and manipulative psychological persuasion.
Fromm could be talking about 2020 in his descriptions of the psychology of media and information driven work.
Fromm keenly observes that concentrated activity is invigorating, and multitasking or non-concentrated activity is draining.
Fromm observes that, mindless daydreaming is not invigorating, but is in fact a signature of lacking connection with life and the here and now.
He continues by observing that modern informational life splits our attentions and drives us to distraction and dissociation.
Fromm seems to predict what life is like in 2020, and why mindfulness is such an important and prominent contemporary interest.
Fromm discusses life satisfaction from a psychodynamic perspective.
Fromm observes that it is common to feel satisfied on the conscious level and unconsciously repress feelings of dissatisfaction, particularly in our culture where being dissatisfied with life is highly stigmatized and elicits judgments of failure and feelings of shame.
As if you’re doing something wrong for feeling like life could be more than meaningless work and endless consumption of goods and pleasantries.
This could not be more apparent in the age of social media.
Getting right down to the point here.
For Fromm, the Sane Society is one in which psychological well being (sanity) is the focus.
Not ideology, not money, not guns, guts and god, not looking good, not being cool.
But simply sanity and wellness in mind, body, relationship and (yes) even spirit (although he’s not talking about anything supernatural, or magical when he makes allusions to the import of spiritual and religious life).
Basically, Fromm is promoting a fair (Marx), natural (Darwin), intrinsically motivated (Nietzsche) psychologically healthy (Freud) and awake (Buddha) way of being.
Fromm argues that Soviet era Communism and late century American democracy were more similar than distinct in so far as both cultures promoted a kind of oppressive, denatured, robotic conformity in its citizens.
Fromm proposes a type of decentralized, locally distributed, psychologically informed, modern European style humanitarian socialism as a third way, where by people are guaranteed a basic subsistence, education, healthcare etc. so that everyone can spend more time focused on personal exploration, growth, connection and innovation.
August 29, 2013
Superb book, which hides under its sober language, an anguished cry of outrage at the incredible violence done to our psyches under capitalism. The author, who was a disciple of Freud and a practising psychologist, delineates what he considers to be a 'sane society' (that is to say, a healthy society from a psychoanalytic perspective), how our society is missing this ideal by a long, long way ; and finally, what can be done to reverse this trend and bring about a state of affairs where such incredible violence no longer passes under the guise of 'normalcy'.
Of course, the book is slightly utopian, and I am sure that the author intended it as such, if simply to draw attention to the contrast between what is desirable and what is actually occurring ; and as a writer once said, 'Utopia may not exist ; but I would not be happy to live in a world where it wasn't at least marked on a map.'
Of course, the book is slightly utopian, and I am sure that the author intended it as such, if simply to draw attention to the contrast between what is desirable and what is actually occurring ; and as a writer once said, 'Utopia may not exist ; but I would not be happy to live in a world where it wasn't at least marked on a map.'
September 9, 2013
One of the most important books ever written BY FAR, by one of the top psychiatrists/social commentators of the 20th Century. I read it as part of my reading list for my graduate exams at UCSB. That was a while ago but the main issue sticks prominently in one's head: Can a person truly be sane (healthy in body, mind and soul) in a society which is insane? In other words, most criteria for judging a person mentally healthy, or not, are based upon the individual's effective adaptation, or not, to society's ethics and values. In most cases that suffices. But what if the society is Nazi Germany? In an insane society, are not those who FAIL to adapt the healthiest among us? And is any society perfectly sane (healthy? What about the United States, with its horrific levels of violence and tens of millions of poor, its CIA that undermines oeaceful, democratically-elected governments around the world? In such a society, what does it mean to go along with the program? Is that homeless guy throwing his bedroll under the freeway overpass, or that eccentric "bag-lady" with all her belongings in a shopping cart--are these the healthiest, the most sane of us all? Stir It Up: The CIA Targets Jamaica, Bob Marley and the Progressive Manley Government
August 26, 2016
تحديث:
خمس نجوم (بدل أربعة) لجرعة الإنسانية اللي فجأة هبطت عليّ بسبب الكتاب دا،
فجأة أول ما صحيت من النوم امبارح افتكرت حد متابعه على تويتر ومقرتش له تويتات من زمان فصبحت عليه وعبّرت عن هذا الشعور بعفوية، رغم إننا عمرنا ما تفاعلنا مع بعض.
عن تعبيرات دخلت فجأة لقاموسي التعبيري زي مثلا "تِسلم يا صاحبي" بدل الجُمل العقيمة زي "تسلم يا كبير" و "شكرا يا ريس" ... وأشياء أخرى من هذا القبيل.
وافتقادي لبعض الأشخاص (على الجودريدز مثلا) وبروز هذا الإحساس بطريقة واضحة.
باختصار إحساس ما بإن الواحد لازم يطلّع الإنسان اللي جواه ويعبّر بعفوية أكتر (قدر الإستطاعة) لأننا كلنا في مركب واحدة، الكتاب بيلمس الضعف في الإنسان أكتر فبيدفعك إنك تُشفق على هذا الضعف، وتفكّر إنك محتاج للآخر والآخر محتاجك لأن العلاقات بين البشر لازم تَرقى عن (المصلحة) و(المادة).
هو أي نعم الإنسان اللي صبحت عليه مردش لحد دلوقتي رغم إنه غالبا شاف التويته، بس عادي، الطريق صعب بس مكملين :D
***المراجعة***
البشر مجانين، نحن مجانين أيها (العاقل)!
نحن ما نخلق الأوهام ثم نصدقها. نصنع السلاح ثم نقتل به أنفسنا، إنك إن لم تصنع سلاحًا، فلا تغتر بمثاليتك، أنت فقط لم تجد الفرصة. وعندما تُوفِّيت السيدة الطيبة سألها رفيقها في القبر وهما في انتظار الحساب:
- وأنتِ لماذا فعلتِ الخير؟
فردّت في أسى:
- لا أعرف! كأني لم أكن أفعله، كأن آخر داخلي هو من يريد، أنا كنت أريد أشياءًا أخرى!
ـــــــــــــ
الثوابت والبديهيات هي أسوأ ما يتم تداوله. والأسوأ من ذلك هو تداوله عبر سلطات أخرى غير سلطة التفكير.
الحياة مليئة بالمتناقضات، عبث هنا وخرافات هناك، هل هذا مُقدَّرٌ علينا؟ هل من الطبيعي أن تواكب أزهى عصور الإنسانية أبشع حروبها على مر تاريخها. هل نحن حقا نعيش أزهى عصور الإنسانية من الأساس؟!
بمجرد ما أن تفتحت طاقات العلم للإنسان وصار هو من يتحكم في الطبيعة، قرر أن يقتل ملايين البشر وينشرالحروب في شتّى البقاع كيفما استطاع، أمريكا راعية حقوق الإنسان تُلقي في مياه المحيط ملايين الأطنان من القمح لتحافظ على سعره مرتفعا، والملايين من البشر يموتون جوعا حول العالم!
بعد كل هذه المآسي، كيف يُمكننا أن ندَّعي تطور الإنسان، وهو ما أن يتمكن من رُقيِّه المادي حتى يطمس بواعث الإنسانية داخله ويرتفع تقديره للأشياء إلى حد التأليه؟!
أُفكّر أحياناً، هل كل ما حققه الإنسان بعد هذا العمر الطويل من الاكتشافات والخبرات والصدامات مع الطبيعة، هو مجرد صناعة سيارة حديثة لمجرد تسهيل الانتقال، أو أن التكنولوجيا والعلوم تنصبُّ في موبايل جلاكسي إس فور –مثلا- هل صناعة أقوى طائرة حربية مقياسًا يصلح للإنسانية؟
حتى إنّ ربْط ذلك بالإنسانية يبدو غريبا علينا! فنحن نتحدث عن التقدم والرفاهية والاقتصاد، كلها أرقام.. لقد تحولنا من كائنات نتعامل مع أشياء محسوسة إلى أشياء مجردة، الأرقام تحول المحسوس إلى مجرد!
ونسينا جوهرنا، نسينا سبب وجودنا الحتمي..
يا صديقي نحن جميعًا زائرون على هذا الكوكب، سقطنا بطريقة ما من السماء لنجد أنفسنا على الأرض (وهو كوكب من الأساس غريب علينا)، وبعد أيام سنرحل، لا نعرف إلى أين لكننا جميعا سنفترق، ألا يجعلنا هذا أشد تماسكا. لماذا لا نفكر بطريقة أكثر تعقُّلا...
بحق السماء ما الذي نفعله؟!!
إريك فروم يفصل بين الذكاء والعقل ويرى أن إنسان القرن العشرين يتقدم بصورة مذهلة في الذكاء، وهي القدرة على التحليل والاكتشاف، لكن عقليا أصبح مريضا والمجتمع ككل أصبح عليلا، فالعقل هو القدرة على معرفة بواطن الأمور، معرفة مايحدث خلف الظواهر، وهذا ما لا تتيحه التكنولوجيا التي تجعلنا نلهث وراء المادة. فنحن لا نعمل إلا للحصول على أجر مجزي لنتمكن من الحصول على الكثير من الأشياء، حينها سيمتليء عالمنا بالأشياء، وسنضمحل أمام أنفسنا وننفصل عنها، لذلك فإننا كثيرا ما نشعر بالقلق رغم أننا نمتلك كل ما نريد، لكننا لا نلمس ذواتنا... فليس غريب أن يكون عصر القلق –كما هو معروف عن عصرنا- هو نفسه عصر التملُك.
ما فعله إريك فروم هو نقض البديهيات، وفكرة أن كل هذا القائم لا مفر منه، وأن رغم كل مكتسبات الحياة الحديثة فلابد من بعض التضحيات، فلن نصل على أيَّةِ حالٍ إلى حالة الكمال.. لكن إريك فروم هو من أضاء فكرة انفصال الإنسان عن نفسه وعن واقعه وإنسانيته، فإن كان هذا هو الحال، فلابد إذن من مراجعة حساباتنا، فالخسارة أعظم مما نعتقد والكارثة أننا لا نشعر بها، لتلذذنا بحياتنا الآلية وبخضوعنا لقوانين الحياة الرأسمالية... لهذا فليس حقا أسوأ من البديهيات..
أعتقد أنه من الجيد منح هؤلاء الذين يحملون في رؤوسهم أفكار وأيديولوجيات معينة، يجب منحهم الفرصة للتعبير عن تلك الأيديولوجيات، وفي مواجهة الرأسمالية المستعرة يقترح فروم فكرة الإشتراكية الإنسانية، وهي تختلف اختلافا تاما عن تلك التي تم تطبيقها- بصورة خاطئة، كما يرى- في روسيا وبريطانيا. فهو ينتقد انتقادا لاذعا كل هؤلاء الذين تخلوا عن الفكرة الأم للاشتراكية والتي تم طرحها حتى من قبل ماركس وإنجلز، والتي كانت في الأساس تهدف إلى بناء إنسان متكامل في إنسانيته ليكون نواة لمجتمع سليم. وينتقد حتى ماركس الذي صب كل اهتمامه بالإشتراكية في الاقتصاد وحده وإهماله باقي جوانب الحياة، هذا إن أردنا تطبيق الاشتراكية كنظام عام في الدولة. فلن يقوم مجتمع سليم بالاقتصاد وحده أو السياسة وحدها أو الثقافة وحدها، وإنه لابد من تناغم بينهم جميعا وبين شتَّى فروع الحياة، وإلا أصاب المجتمع سقم لا يقل عما أصاب الرأسمالية، وينتهي من مقارنته بين الاشتراكية الحالية (خمسينيات القرن العشرين) والرأسمالية إلى أنهما رغم اختلافاتهم فهما يتفقان في الكثير من الأمور، مثل اهتمامهم الزائد برأس المال، وأن الآلة هي ما تدير الإنسان، أو بمعنى آخر؛ الإنسان يعمل من أجل الآلة. فبالتالي يتعزز انفصال الإنسان عن نفسه. فيتوصل في النهاية إلى تلاشي الفروق الجوهرية بينهما، حتى وإن اختلفا في الظاهر ..
أقول أنه بعد أن أضاء فروم تلك النقطة وأزاح بعض البديهيات فإنه يمنحنا بعض الأمل في أن بعض الشقاء الذي يُعانيه الإنسان قد يكون بسبب الأنظمة الوضعية القائمة، وقد تكون سعادته في نظام آخر يعطي لإنسانيته حقها. من يعرف أليس من الممكن أن تكون مشكلة الإنسان هي الأنظمة الوضعية؟ من هنا يمكننا التشبث ببعض الأمل والتغلب على أفكارنا القهرية المرتبطة بالقدر ووضع الإنسان الوجودي، فنحن لم نكتشف بعد هذا العالم الإنساني الذي يتحدث عنه فروم ويربطه برسالات الأنبياء والمبشرين والفلاسفة، فقط إن وجد الإنسان عقله وتخلّى عن سيطرة ذكاءه، حينها سنكتشف هذا العالم...
لا أُنكر أنّي استشعرت ببعض يوتوبية الفكرة، لكننا لا نملك إلا هذا الأمل الذي يجعل الإنسانية هي الهدف الأعظم من الحياة بلا أي أقنعة، أو بمعنى آخر: لنُجرب شيئا جديدا لم تعهده البشرية من قبل، لماذا لا نعيد اكتشاف أنفسنا على حقيقتها؟!
أيضا أتعجب من مدى تعطش القاريء الغربي لفكرة إريك فروم ودعوته الجادة لأنسنة العمل والعلاقات بين الناس ودعوته لتأكيد علاقة الإنسان بذاته وإحساسه بوجوده، وهذا واضح من تقييمهم للكتاب وتعليقاتهم، وهذا رغم الفكرة المنطبعة في أذهننا عنهم أنهم من ينامون ويصحون في سعادة وأحلام ملائكية للرفاهية التي نغبطهم عليها ونحاول احتذاءهم في طريقهم إليها، وهذا ما يؤكد فكرة فروم عن الآلية وتحكمها في الإنسان وانفصاله عن طبيعته وذاته، ولأن الغرب قطع شوطا كبيرا في العملية الآلية فيمكننا أن نطمئن لآراء فروم التي تحمس له مواطنو دولته..
منحت الكتاب أربع نجمات لأن أفكار فروم لازالت في طور الميلاد وهناك الكثير من الأفكار لم يوفِّها حقّها، وأحيانا لم تكن بالإقناع الكافي، بالنسبة للترجمة فهي جيدة جدا، باستثناء تدخل المترجم السافر في إضافة عبارات خاصة بآراءه الشخصية، وأحيانا التنويه بكتاب ترجمه إلى العربية ذكره فروم، كل هذا في وسط أفكار الكاتب بدون استخدام للهوامش أو حتى التنويه بذلك!
لكن على كل حال، سعيد لانتهاء العام بهذا الكتاب، أستطيع أن أقول أنه قد يكون من أكثر الكتب تأثيرًا فيّ.
خمس نجوم (بدل أربعة) لجرعة الإنسانية اللي فجأة هبطت عليّ بسبب الكتاب دا،
فجأة أول ما صحيت من النوم امبارح افتكرت حد متابعه على تويتر ومقرتش له تويتات من زمان فصبحت عليه وعبّرت عن هذا الشعور بعفوية، رغم إننا عمرنا ما تفاعلنا مع بعض.
عن تعبيرات دخلت فجأة لقاموسي التعبيري زي مثلا "تِسلم يا صاحبي" بدل الجُمل العقيمة زي "تسلم يا كبير" و "شكرا يا ريس" ... وأشياء أخرى من هذا القبيل.
وافتقادي لبعض الأشخاص (على الجودريدز مثلا) وبروز هذا الإحساس بطريقة واضحة.
باختصار إحساس ما بإن الواحد لازم يطلّع الإنسان اللي جواه ويعبّر بعفوية أكتر (قدر الإستطاعة) لأننا كلنا في مركب واحدة، الكتاب بيلمس الضعف في الإنسان أكتر فبيدفعك إنك تُشفق على هذا الضعف، وتفكّر إنك محتاج للآخر والآخر محتاجك لأن العلاقات بين البشر لازم تَرقى عن (المصلحة) و(المادة).
هو أي نعم الإنسان اللي صبحت عليه مردش لحد دلوقتي رغم إنه غالبا شاف التويته، بس عادي، الطريق صعب بس مكملين :D
***المراجعة***
البشر مجانين، نحن مجانين أيها (العاقل)!
نحن ما نخلق الأوهام ثم نصدقها. نصنع السلاح ثم نقتل به أنفسنا، إنك إن لم تصنع سلاحًا، فلا تغتر بمثاليتك، أنت فقط لم تجد الفرصة. وعندما تُوفِّيت السيدة الطيبة سألها رفيقها في القبر وهما في انتظار الحساب:
- وأنتِ لماذا فعلتِ الخير؟
فردّت في أسى:
- لا أعرف! كأني لم أكن أفعله، كأن آخر داخلي هو من يريد، أنا كنت أريد أشياءًا أخرى!
ـــــــــــــ
الثوابت والبديهيات هي أسوأ ما يتم تداوله. والأسوأ من ذلك هو تداوله عبر سلطات أخرى غير سلطة التفكير.
الحياة مليئة بالمتناقضات، عبث هنا وخرافات هناك، هل هذا مُقدَّرٌ علينا؟ هل من الطبيعي أن تواكب أزهى عصور الإنسانية أبشع حروبها على مر تاريخها. هل نحن حقا نعيش أزهى عصور الإنسانية من الأساس؟!
بمجرد ما أن تفتحت طاقات العلم للإنسان وصار هو من يتحكم في الطبيعة، قرر أن يقتل ملايين البشر وينشرالحروب في شتّى البقاع كيفما استطاع، أمريكا راعية حقوق الإنسان تُلقي في مياه المحيط ملايين الأطنان من القمح لتحافظ على سعره مرتفعا، والملايين من البشر يموتون جوعا حول العالم!
بعد كل هذه المآسي، كيف يُمكننا أن ندَّعي تطور الإنسان، وهو ما أن يتمكن من رُقيِّه المادي حتى يطمس بواعث الإنسانية داخله ويرتفع تقديره للأشياء إلى حد التأليه؟!
أُفكّر أحياناً، هل كل ما حققه الإنسان بعد هذا العمر الطويل من الاكتشافات والخبرات والصدامات مع الطبيعة، هو مجرد صناعة سيارة حديثة لمجرد تسهيل الانتقال، أو أن التكنولوجيا والعلوم تنصبُّ في موبايل جلاكسي إس فور –مثلا- هل صناعة أقوى طائرة حربية مقياسًا يصلح للإنسانية؟
حتى إنّ ربْط ذلك بالإنسانية يبدو غريبا علينا! فنحن نتحدث عن التقدم والرفاهية والاقتصاد، كلها أرقام.. لقد تحولنا من كائنات نتعامل مع أشياء محسوسة إلى أشياء مجردة، الأرقام تحول المحسوس إلى مجرد!
ونسينا جوهرنا، نسينا سبب وجودنا الحتمي..
يا صديقي نحن جميعًا زائرون على هذا الكوكب، سقطنا بطريقة ما من السماء لنجد أنفسنا على الأرض (وهو كوكب من الأساس غريب علينا)، وبعد أيام سنرحل، لا نعرف إلى أين لكننا جميعا سنفترق، ألا يجعلنا هذا أشد تماسكا. لماذا لا نفكر بطريقة أكثر تعقُّلا...
بحق السماء ما الذي نفعله؟!!
إريك فروم يفصل بين الذكاء والعقل ويرى أن إنسان القرن العشرين يتقدم بصورة مذهلة في الذكاء، وهي القدرة على التحليل والاكتشاف، لكن عقليا أصبح مريضا والمجتمع ككل أصبح عليلا، فالعقل هو القدرة على معرفة بواطن الأمور، معرفة مايحدث خلف الظواهر، وهذا ما لا تتيحه التكنولوجيا التي تجعلنا نلهث وراء المادة. فنحن لا نعمل إلا للحصول على أجر مجزي لنتمكن من الحصول على الكثير من الأشياء، حينها سيمتليء عالمنا بالأشياء، وسنضمحل أمام أنفسنا وننفصل عنها، لذلك فإننا كثيرا ما نشعر بالقلق رغم أننا نمتلك كل ما نريد، لكننا لا نلمس ذواتنا... فليس غريب أن يكون عصر القلق –كما هو معروف عن عصرنا- هو نفسه عصر التملُك.
ما فعله إريك فروم هو نقض البديهيات، وفكرة أن كل هذا القائم لا مفر منه، وأن رغم كل مكتسبات الحياة الحديثة فلابد من بعض التضحيات، فلن نصل على أيَّةِ حالٍ إلى حالة الكمال.. لكن إريك فروم هو من أضاء فكرة انفصال الإنسان عن نفسه وعن واقعه وإنسانيته، فإن كان هذا هو الحال، فلابد إذن من مراجعة حساباتنا، فالخسارة أعظم مما نعتقد والكارثة أننا لا نشعر بها، لتلذذنا بحياتنا الآلية وبخضوعنا لقوانين الحياة الرأسمالية... لهذا فليس حقا أسوأ من البديهيات..
أعتقد أنه من الجيد منح هؤلاء الذين يحملون في رؤوسهم أفكار وأيديولوجيات معينة، يجب منحهم الفرصة للتعبير عن تلك الأيديولوجيات، وفي مواجهة الرأسمالية المستعرة يقترح فروم فكرة الإشتراكية الإنسانية، وهي تختلف اختلافا تاما عن تلك التي تم تطبيقها- بصورة خاطئة، كما يرى- في روسيا وبريطانيا. فهو ينتقد انتقادا لاذعا كل هؤلاء الذين تخلوا عن الفكرة الأم للاشتراكية والتي تم طرحها حتى من قبل ماركس وإنجلز، والتي كانت في الأساس تهدف إلى بناء إنسان متكامل في إنسانيته ليكون نواة لمجتمع سليم. وينتقد حتى ماركس الذي صب كل اهتمامه بالإشتراكية في الاقتصاد وحده وإهماله باقي جوانب الحياة، هذا إن أردنا تطبيق الاشتراكية كنظام عام في الدولة. فلن يقوم مجتمع سليم بالاقتصاد وحده أو السياسة وحدها أو الثقافة وحدها، وإنه لابد من تناغم بينهم جميعا وبين شتَّى فروع الحياة، وإلا أصاب المجتمع سقم لا يقل عما أصاب الرأسمالية، وينتهي من مقارنته بين الاشتراكية الحالية (خمسينيات القرن العشرين) والرأسمالية إلى أنهما رغم اختلافاتهم فهما يتفقان في الكثير من الأمور، مثل اهتمامهم الزائد برأس المال، وأن الآلة هي ما تدير الإنسان، أو بمعنى آخر؛ الإنسان يعمل من أجل الآلة. فبالتالي يتعزز انفصال الإنسان عن نفسه. فيتوصل في النهاية إلى تلاشي الفروق الجوهرية بينهما، حتى وإن اختلفا في الظاهر ..
أقول أنه بعد أن أضاء فروم تلك النقطة وأزاح بعض البديهيات فإنه يمنحنا بعض الأمل في أن بعض الشقاء الذي يُعانيه الإنسان قد يكون بسبب الأنظمة الوضعية القائمة، وقد تكون سعادته في نظام آخر يعطي لإنسانيته حقها. من يعرف أليس من الممكن أن تكون مشكلة الإنسان هي الأنظمة الوضعية؟ من هنا يمكننا التشبث ببعض الأمل والتغلب على أفكارنا القهرية المرتبطة بالقدر ووضع الإنسان الوجودي، فنحن لم نكتشف بعد هذا العالم الإنساني الذي يتحدث عنه فروم ويربطه برسالات الأنبياء والمبشرين والفلاسفة، فقط إن وجد الإنسان عقله وتخلّى عن سيطرة ذكاءه، حينها سنكتشف هذا العالم...
لا أُنكر أنّي استشعرت ببعض يوتوبية الفكرة، لكننا لا نملك إلا هذا الأمل الذي يجعل الإنسانية هي الهدف الأعظم من الحياة بلا أي أقنعة، أو بمعنى آخر: لنُجرب شيئا جديدا لم تعهده البشرية من قبل، لماذا لا نعيد اكتشاف أنفسنا على حقيقتها؟!
أيضا أتعجب من مدى تعطش القاريء الغربي لفكرة إريك فروم ودعوته الجادة لأنسنة العمل والعلاقات بين الناس ودعوته لتأكيد علاقة الإنسان بذاته وإحساسه بوجوده، وهذا واضح من تقييمهم للكتاب وتعليقاتهم، وهذا رغم الفكرة المنطبعة في أذهننا عنهم أنهم من ينامون ويصحون في سعادة وأحلام ملائكية للرفاهية التي نغبطهم عليها ونحاول احتذاءهم في طريقهم إليها، وهذا ما يؤكد فكرة فروم عن الآلية وتحكمها في الإنسان وانفصاله عن طبيعته وذاته، ولأن الغرب قطع شوطا كبيرا في العملية الآلية فيمكننا أن نطمئن لآراء فروم التي تحمس له مواطنو دولته..
منحت الكتاب أربع نجمات لأن أفكار فروم لازالت في طور الميلاد وهناك الكثير من الأفكار لم يوفِّها حقّها، وأحيانا لم تكن بالإقناع الكافي، بالنسبة للترجمة فهي جيدة جدا، باستثناء تدخل المترجم السافر في إضافة عبارات خاصة بآراءه الشخصية، وأحيانا التنويه بكتاب ترجمه إلى العربية ذكره فروم، كل هذا في وسط أفكار الكاتب بدون استخدام للهوامش أو حتى التنويه بذلك!
لكن على كل حال، سعيد لانتهاء العام بهذا الكتاب، أستطيع أن أقول أنه قد يكون من أكثر الكتب تأثيرًا فيّ.
March 15, 2014
كتاب غير عادى بكل المقاييس... حجم البصيرة المعرفية إللى فيه مذهلة بالإضافة لموضوعية من النادر أن تجدها فى مفكر يدرك مواطن قوة كل فيلسوف ومفكر آخر ومواطن ضعفه ويشير للإثنين بذكاء... الكتاب يتجاوز كل الطبقات السطحية من الوعى ويغوص فى أشد التحليلات عمقًا.
November 16, 2009
It's been 25 years since I first read this book -- and 45 years since it was first published. It's interesting to reflect on why this book resonated so profoundly when I was a teenager. I must have already shared many of its views, but I remember having a revelatory feeling as I read it, as if truly learning something about human nature and the world we live in. I suppose that's an ancient paradox about education: we can't learn something that is utterly foreign to us, yet by definition learning means incorporating something new.
As a teenager, I did thoroughly incorporate Fromm's critique, and it changed my life, something I don't say lightly. It led me to specific sorts of political activism (bioregionalism it was called then; localism is the current, perhaps more diluted incarnation), and it actually prevented me from becoming enthralled with postmodernism throughout college (at that time, postmodernism was almost mandatory for intellectuals; I'll never forget one of my philosophy teachers squinting at me appraisingly then saying, "I get it -- you're a humanist!" as if having discovered a quaint relic of a bygone era in his very office). It solidified my respect for psychoanalytic thought, and it led me to connect with a spiritual tradition that has in turn shaped my life for the past 12 years. So my first encounter with this book was not a trifling moment in my life -- and it was high time I looked at it again!
It's interesting to reflect, too, on the fact that even when this book was published, its ideas were familiar, had been examined and dramatized by writers and artists already for a century, as Fromm himself points out. There was something about the 50s, though, that produced a lot of such literature. The sense of threat, the fear of dehumanization, must have been felt acutely in that era. They hadn't become bored by it; they hadn't become ironic about it; perhaps they felt it was possible to reverse the forces behind it. It was still an outrage, still something that could inspire a truly political act.
With this most recent reading, I did question whether "conformity" was then and is now really the specter (capitalism's functional dictator) that Fromm believed it to be. When I think about people I've known personally, none seems so driven by the need to conform that they've actually lost their uniqueness. It's only when we abstract that people appear to be conforming, and that's just a function of statistical thinking. Alienation, on the other hand, can only have increased -- but that seems more a matter of the scale of our society and its heightened selling and technological sophistication, not a matter of the particular economic system we have (which isn't purely capitalist, anyway).
The best chapters in this book remain the early ones, the ones where Fromm lays out his beliefs about human nature and asks what kinds of social structures best support the development of our best selves. Postmodernism might not have quite the same power as it did in the 90s, but Fromm's belief that there is such thing as human nature, with specific attributes and needs, and that some cultures do a better job of nurturing its development, will still be challenging for many to accept.
I had to admit, this time around, that his actual arguments were not very strong. There is little by way of empirical evidence or deductive reasoning, and much by way of simply quoting other thinkers to support his views. So again I wonder how I was so taken by these ideas upon first (?) encountering them as a teenager. It seems that they synthesize and give orderly representation to what one might simply feel when witnessing certain events around one or when absorbing certain powerful pieces of art. So one will only be excited by this book, I think, if one comes to it already having felt the yearning for a society that is in dialogue with one's soul, so to speak, rather than just one's pocketbook.
And really, who hasn't felt that yearning?
As a teenager, I did thoroughly incorporate Fromm's critique, and it changed my life, something I don't say lightly. It led me to specific sorts of political activism (bioregionalism it was called then; localism is the current, perhaps more diluted incarnation), and it actually prevented me from becoming enthralled with postmodernism throughout college (at that time, postmodernism was almost mandatory for intellectuals; I'll never forget one of my philosophy teachers squinting at me appraisingly then saying, "I get it -- you're a humanist!" as if having discovered a quaint relic of a bygone era in his very office). It solidified my respect for psychoanalytic thought, and it led me to connect with a spiritual tradition that has in turn shaped my life for the past 12 years. So my first encounter with this book was not a trifling moment in my life -- and it was high time I looked at it again!
It's interesting to reflect, too, on the fact that even when this book was published, its ideas were familiar, had been examined and dramatized by writers and artists already for a century, as Fromm himself points out. There was something about the 50s, though, that produced a lot of such literature. The sense of threat, the fear of dehumanization, must have been felt acutely in that era. They hadn't become bored by it; they hadn't become ironic about it; perhaps they felt it was possible to reverse the forces behind it. It was still an outrage, still something that could inspire a truly political act.
With this most recent reading, I did question whether "conformity" was then and is now really the specter (capitalism's functional dictator) that Fromm believed it to be. When I think about people I've known personally, none seems so driven by the need to conform that they've actually lost their uniqueness. It's only when we abstract that people appear to be conforming, and that's just a function of statistical thinking. Alienation, on the other hand, can only have increased -- but that seems more a matter of the scale of our society and its heightened selling and technological sophistication, not a matter of the particular economic system we have (which isn't purely capitalist, anyway).
The best chapters in this book remain the early ones, the ones where Fromm lays out his beliefs about human nature and asks what kinds of social structures best support the development of our best selves. Postmodernism might not have quite the same power as it did in the 90s, but Fromm's belief that there is such thing as human nature, with specific attributes and needs, and that some cultures do a better job of nurturing its development, will still be challenging for many to accept.
I had to admit, this time around, that his actual arguments were not very strong. There is little by way of empirical evidence or deductive reasoning, and much by way of simply quoting other thinkers to support his views. So again I wonder how I was so taken by these ideas upon first (?) encountering them as a teenager. It seems that they synthesize and give orderly representation to what one might simply feel when witnessing certain events around one or when absorbing certain powerful pieces of art. So one will only be excited by this book, I think, if one comes to it already having felt the yearning for a society that is in dialogue with one's soul, so to speak, rather than just one's pocketbook.
And really, who hasn't felt that yearning?
May 29, 2016
Erich Fromm, a more rational, humanist successor of Freud, is, historically, a victim of his own temperance. He's not got much of a name in the psychology game anymore, and through the screen of 2016, his diagnoses can come off as incredibly pedestrian and obvious, and his solutions as the stuff pipe-dreams are made of. With his previous work, Escape from Freedom, I chose to judge it based off how I thought someone in the 1940s (when it was published) might view it as opposed to how I actually felt. In EFF, I agreed with the thesis and found his historical analysis illuminating, yet I was left with a 'so what?' feeling due to his argument sounding almost cliche by today's standards and due to the impracticality and halfheartedness of his answers (admittedly, I read Fromm more for his diagnoses than his answers, as I find 'solutions' to issues so complicated as imposing and ineffective). So this gives rise to the question, 'how do you judge a work that feels like it has more or less been completely embedded in the collective consciousness of the modern man, and thus comes across as negligible?' The most clear answer to me is to judge how well the argument is argued. Hence the three stars, maybe even a bit less.
The book's basic thesis is that capitalist America is a sick society and not a society with an abundance of sick (maladjusted, 'insane') citizens. Capitalism, Fromm notes, is a fundamentally exploitative relationship between individuals which results in the oppressor's indifference to the oppressed and either a growing hatred or irrational admiration of the oppressed for their oppressors. He tracks the history of capitalism over the past few centuries and highlights the shift from the blatant and brutal cruelty/negligence towards the individual in slavery-era America and early Jungle-esque 20th century where people got digits and limbs accidentally hacked off in factories, to the rise of complete reliance on conformity and consensus belief/fear of alienation as the motivator of the individual. While working conditions, pay, and benefits gave unprecedented power to the average Joe, Joe finds himself as not really that satisfied and maybe even a little blue despite his new car and dishwasher and color TV. Joe feels small, maybe like he only wants things because other people have got 'em, and maybe we're all just doing what we're told to but not told to do. That our economic machine depends on a system of mass production and mass consumption and, with the help of our wonderful credit system, we can spend just as much as we want and not have to think about whether being in debt might be a bad thing (Joe suspects it might be). Bus to train to 9-5 at a job pushing papers, getting paid a heck of a lot more than the fellow exerting 100x more energy, thanks to his diploma which his parents forced him to get. The opiates of Marilyn Monroe and DiMaggio and I Love Lucy not really doing the trick anymore. Joe wonders to himself if he might be abnormal for feeling unfulfilled, but he says nothing because no one else is talking about it. Fromm argues that Joe feels this way because the capitalist system fails to nurture the mental health of the individual, which he defines as follows: "Mental health, in the humanist sense, is characterized by the ability to love and to create, by the emergence from the incestuous ties to family and nature by a sense of identity based on one's powers, by the development of objectivity and reason." Thus, the blame rests on the society, not the individual.
We can't love our fellow man because we feel we're in competition with him. We can't create because we're cogs. We can't develop a sense of identity via our own power because the individual in a conformist society is naturally powerless. We can't develop objectivity and reason because we're so self-concerned. Basically, Fromm thinks the individual is screwed on an emotional level unless he lives in a Socialist society, which he controversially (in the 50s HUAC climate) believed to be the best political/economic institution in regards to the individual's sanity. This is where the book takes a hard-left. Since the effectiveness of large-scale Communism/Socialism has been pretty much debunked at this point and proven just as corruptible and easily misguided as just about any other institution, the entire second half of The Sane Society comes off as pointless. Unlike Escape from Freedom, which relegated its 'solutions' to the last, like, three pages, Fromm spends about the last 200 of this work giving us unfeasible and very tedious answers. So, to me, about half of this book is relevant, but even the relevant half doesn't quite match the concision and insight of EFF, and his historical examples aren't as interesting for the most part. Still, sections like the 'Human Situation - Key to Humanistic Psychoanalysis' I found fascinating, as he breaks down the essence of what it means to be a human (half animal, half God, hopelessly stuck in the middle) with clarity and wit. While The Sane Society is very much a product of our times and is concerned with spiritual crises of the individual under capitalism, it is dated in ways that would turn most off to its bloated worship of the ideal-and-well-meaning-but-ultimately-just-as-flawed-as-everything-else Socialist movement.
I think perhaps Fromm gives too much credit to the human race, who have a tendency to spoil the party for everyone.
The book's basic thesis is that capitalist America is a sick society and not a society with an abundance of sick (maladjusted, 'insane') citizens. Capitalism, Fromm notes, is a fundamentally exploitative relationship between individuals which results in the oppressor's indifference to the oppressed and either a growing hatred or irrational admiration of the oppressed for their oppressors. He tracks the history of capitalism over the past few centuries and highlights the shift from the blatant and brutal cruelty/negligence towards the individual in slavery-era America and early Jungle-esque 20th century where people got digits and limbs accidentally hacked off in factories, to the rise of complete reliance on conformity and consensus belief/fear of alienation as the motivator of the individual. While working conditions, pay, and benefits gave unprecedented power to the average Joe, Joe finds himself as not really that satisfied and maybe even a little blue despite his new car and dishwasher and color TV. Joe feels small, maybe like he only wants things because other people have got 'em, and maybe we're all just doing what we're told to but not told to do. That our economic machine depends on a system of mass production and mass consumption and, with the help of our wonderful credit system, we can spend just as much as we want and not have to think about whether being in debt might be a bad thing (Joe suspects it might be). Bus to train to 9-5 at a job pushing papers, getting paid a heck of a lot more than the fellow exerting 100x more energy, thanks to his diploma which his parents forced him to get. The opiates of Marilyn Monroe and DiMaggio and I Love Lucy not really doing the trick anymore. Joe wonders to himself if he might be abnormal for feeling unfulfilled, but he says nothing because no one else is talking about it. Fromm argues that Joe feels this way because the capitalist system fails to nurture the mental health of the individual, which he defines as follows: "Mental health, in the humanist sense, is characterized by the ability to love and to create, by the emergence from the incestuous ties to family and nature by a sense of identity based on one's powers, by the development of objectivity and reason." Thus, the blame rests on the society, not the individual.
We can't love our fellow man because we feel we're in competition with him. We can't create because we're cogs. We can't develop a sense of identity via our own power because the individual in a conformist society is naturally powerless. We can't develop objectivity and reason because we're so self-concerned. Basically, Fromm thinks the individual is screwed on an emotional level unless he lives in a Socialist society, which he controversially (in the 50s HUAC climate) believed to be the best political/economic institution in regards to the individual's sanity. This is where the book takes a hard-left. Since the effectiveness of large-scale Communism/Socialism has been pretty much debunked at this point and proven just as corruptible and easily misguided as just about any other institution, the entire second half of The Sane Society comes off as pointless. Unlike Escape from Freedom, which relegated its 'solutions' to the last, like, three pages, Fromm spends about the last 200 of this work giving us unfeasible and very tedious answers. So, to me, about half of this book is relevant, but even the relevant half doesn't quite match the concision and insight of EFF, and his historical examples aren't as interesting for the most part. Still, sections like the 'Human Situation - Key to Humanistic Psychoanalysis' I found fascinating, as he breaks down the essence of what it means to be a human (half animal, half God, hopelessly stuck in the middle) with clarity and wit. While The Sane Society is very much a product of our times and is concerned with spiritual crises of the individual under capitalism, it is dated in ways that would turn most off to its bloated worship of the ideal-and-well-meaning-but-ultimately-just-as-flawed-as-everything-else Socialist movement.
I think perhaps Fromm gives too much credit to the human race, who have a tendency to spoil the party for everyone.
March 11, 2016
بعد تحليل المجمتع من قبل فروم ومناقشة عيوبه وتأثيرها يبدأ يناقش تلك المشاكل والعلل وأثرها على الإنسان وكيف أنهكت الرأسمالية والاشتراكية والدكتاتورية على عقل الإنسان. ليطرح في الجزد الأخير من الكتاب حلوله الاجتماعية والاقتصادية والسياسية وكل ماهو مرتبط بالإنسان..
يحاول فروم مناقشة الإنسان في التاريخ الحديث وسط تحديات المجتمع الإقتصادي / الرأسمالي والإشتراكية ليخرج لنا فروم مايسميه هو الإشتراكية الاجتماعية لفهم ونهوض ونمو هذا الإنسان البسيط ليكون هو ذاته وليس آلة لخدمة غيره. هذا جل ما يتبناه فروم في كتابه ليعيد الإنسان لمكانه الصحيح في المجتمع .
يحاول فروم مناقشة الإنسان في التاريخ الحديث وسط تحديات المجتمع الإقتصادي / الرأسمالي والإشتراكية ليخرج لنا فروم مايسميه هو الإشتراكية الاجتماعية لفهم ونهوض ونمو هذا الإنسان البسيط ليكون هو ذاته وليس آلة لخدمة غيره. هذا جل ما يتبناه فروم في كتابه ليعيد الإنسان لمكانه الصحيح في المجتمع .
December 31, 2024
A unique contention in Fromm's work is that human nature is highly variable in that the natures of actually-existing, corporeal persons are historically conditioned but also highly invariant in that the normative measures of human well-being are universal. That is to say, people's default cognitive modes may vary from culture to culture as a consequence of social conditioning, but this social conditioning cannot alter what the ideal cognitive mode is. None of that I disagree with; where Fromm errs is in his seeming belief that he knows what that ideal is. That Fromm is too attached to conventional Enlightenment values is an issue I've acknowledged for a while—it's the charge Marcuse infamously used to tarnish Fromm's reputation in radical circles—but the core issue isn't actually that the content of his values is problematic; it's that he arrived at those values by ahistorical means, i.e., he attempts to root his values in a scientifically verifiable understanding of human psychology.
That ultimately leads him to be unaware of (or at least inattentive to) the tensions within the monoculture he critiques, the resistance to that monoculture's expansion from subcultures and counterculture, and—most importantly—the potential for new, alternative cultures to emerge from the struggles against monoculture's material base. While Fromm was a Marxist and thus correctly understood that social transformation ultimately must come from the class whose role in the reproduction of daily life leads them into conflict with that very process itself (and thus their radicalism is an emergent property of its very object of critique), he fails to extend that insight into the realm of morality.
That Fromm fails in this way is interesting to me, as it's a critique I make entirely within the bounds of Fromm's conceptual framework. If, as he asserts, there is a universally applicable normative standard latent in all people (regardless of how social-historical circumstance has altered their behavioral instincts) and that only a socialist society will adequately conform to this normative standard, why does he not then conclude that the best means of gaining insight into the content of this standard would be through the various efforts at pushing back against the degradation inherent to liberal-capitalist society? It speaks to a profound separation from the movement from below that this realization failed to dawn on him, and thus a profound alienation at the heart of his work.
I may sound more critical of Fromm than I am. If my critiques parallel Marcuse's influential objection to his work in key respects, I'd nonetheless highlight that critical theory operates from an idealist perspective of pure negativity rather than being animated by the critical-creative principle of the negation of the negation arising from the subjectivity and activity of the working masses and thus is no more capable (indeed, less capable) of serving as a guide to revolutionary action than that which it strives to be an alternative to. Fromm's real failures are ultimately a failure to live up to the standards implicit in his own work; Fromm's work is not wrong so much as it is underdeveloped. That's far more than I can say for those who cast aspersions on his radical credentials!
That ultimately leads him to be unaware of (or at least inattentive to) the tensions within the monoculture he critiques, the resistance to that monoculture's expansion from subcultures and counterculture, and—most importantly—the potential for new, alternative cultures to emerge from the struggles against monoculture's material base. While Fromm was a Marxist and thus correctly understood that social transformation ultimately must come from the class whose role in the reproduction of daily life leads them into conflict with that very process itself (and thus their radicalism is an emergent property of its very object of critique), he fails to extend that insight into the realm of morality.
That Fromm fails in this way is interesting to me, as it's a critique I make entirely within the bounds of Fromm's conceptual framework. If, as he asserts, there is a universally applicable normative standard latent in all people (regardless of how social-historical circumstance has altered their behavioral instincts) and that only a socialist society will adequately conform to this normative standard, why does he not then conclude that the best means of gaining insight into the content of this standard would be through the various efforts at pushing back against the degradation inherent to liberal-capitalist society? It speaks to a profound separation from the movement from below that this realization failed to dawn on him, and thus a profound alienation at the heart of his work.
I may sound more critical of Fromm than I am. If my critiques parallel Marcuse's influential objection to his work in key respects, I'd nonetheless highlight that critical theory operates from an idealist perspective of pure negativity rather than being animated by the critical-creative principle of the negation of the negation arising from the subjectivity and activity of the working masses and thus is no more capable (indeed, less capable) of serving as a guide to revolutionary action than that which it strives to be an alternative to. Fromm's real failures are ultimately a failure to live up to the standards implicit in his own work; Fromm's work is not wrong so much as it is underdeveloped. That's far more than I can say for those who cast aspersions on his radical credentials!
January 6, 2019
Nach Haben oder Sein, Die Furcht vor der Freiheit, und Die Kunst des Liebens ist dies nun mein viertes Werk des deutschen Psychoanalytikers und Anthropologen Erich Fromm (gestorben 1980). Allgemein kann ich die Lektüre seiner soziokritischen Thesen sehr empfehlen, da sie kaum an gesellschaftlicher Relevanz eingebüsst haben.
In Wege aus einer kranken Gesellschaft, welches 1955 erstmals in den USA veröffentlicht wurde, analysiert Fromm die zunehmende Entfremdung des (westlichen) Menschen von seiner defekten Gesellschaft und zeigt mögliche Lösungsansätze auf. Dabei gelingt ihm eine damals äusserst aktuelle Reaktion auf den Zweiten Weltkrieg und dem drohenden Kalten Krieg, als auch ein Rundumschlag mit scharfen Analysen von Werken und Thesen von Aldous Huxley, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoi, Henry Thoreau, Jack London, und dem Schweizer Jakob Burkhardt. Interessant sind Fromms Passagen und Herleitung der sogenannten 'Defekten Gesellschaft', in denen Menschen zunehmend von eher negativen Unterstützungen ("Opiaten") in Form von Religionen, Totalitarismus, Kommunismus, Dauerablenkung (s. Huxleys Brave New World) sowie Süchten abhängig werden.
Wenn man diesen Menschen das Opiat gegen den gesellschaftlich vorgeprägten Defekt entziehen würde, so käme die Krankheit zum Ausbruch. (S. 22) - Gesellschaftskritik vom Feinsten.
Ebenso zieht Fromm die Schlussfolgerung, dass die weitgehende Einführung der demokratischen Verfassungsform in den meisten westlichen Ländern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht zur erhofften Genesung der Gesellschaftsdefekte führte - im Gegenteil:
Die Einführung des allgemeinen Wahlrechts enttäuschte nicht nur die Hoffnungen der Chartisten, sie enttäuschte auch all jene, die geglaubt hatten, dass es dazu beitragen würde, die Bürger in verantwortungsbewusste, aktive und unabhängige Persönlichkeiten zu verwandeln. Es stellte sich heraus, dass das Problem der Demokratie heute nicht mehr in der Einschränkung des Wahlrechts, sondern in der Art und Weise, wie dieses [von den Bürgern] gehandhabt wird, besteht. (S. 160)
Und:
Wie können Menschen "ihren" Willen zum Ausdruck bringen, wenn sie gar keinen eigenen Willen und keine eigene Überzeugung besitzen, wenn sie entfremdete Automaten sind, deren Geschmack, Meinungen und Vorlieben von den grossen Konditionierungsapparaten manipuliert werden? Unter diesen Umständen wird das allgemeine Wahlrecht zu einem Fetisch. - Diese Aussage hat meiner Meinung nach auch im Internetzeitalter keine Aussagekraft eingebüsst.
Wie schon Die Furcht vor der Freiheit lassen sich die meisten Analysen Fromms auch auf heutige ‚defekte’ Gesellschaften wie die der Türkei, China oder neu auch Brasilien anwenden. Das macht für mich Fromm bis heute lesenswert, und er geniesst einen Sonnenplatz in meinem Bücherregal ;)
In Wege aus einer kranken Gesellschaft, welches 1955 erstmals in den USA veröffentlicht wurde, analysiert Fromm die zunehmende Entfremdung des (westlichen) Menschen von seiner defekten Gesellschaft und zeigt mögliche Lösungsansätze auf. Dabei gelingt ihm eine damals äusserst aktuelle Reaktion auf den Zweiten Weltkrieg und dem drohenden Kalten Krieg, als auch ein Rundumschlag mit scharfen Analysen von Werken und Thesen von Aldous Huxley, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoi, Henry Thoreau, Jack London, und dem Schweizer Jakob Burkhardt. Interessant sind Fromms Passagen und Herleitung der sogenannten 'Defekten Gesellschaft', in denen Menschen zunehmend von eher negativen Unterstützungen ("Opiaten") in Form von Religionen, Totalitarismus, Kommunismus, Dauerablenkung (s. Huxleys Brave New World) sowie Süchten abhängig werden.
Wenn man diesen Menschen das Opiat gegen den gesellschaftlich vorgeprägten Defekt entziehen würde, so käme die Krankheit zum Ausbruch. (S. 22) - Gesellschaftskritik vom Feinsten.
Ebenso zieht Fromm die Schlussfolgerung, dass die weitgehende Einführung der demokratischen Verfassungsform in den meisten westlichen Ländern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht zur erhofften Genesung der Gesellschaftsdefekte führte - im Gegenteil:
Die Einführung des allgemeinen Wahlrechts enttäuschte nicht nur die Hoffnungen der Chartisten, sie enttäuschte auch all jene, die geglaubt hatten, dass es dazu beitragen würde, die Bürger in verantwortungsbewusste, aktive und unabhängige Persönlichkeiten zu verwandeln. Es stellte sich heraus, dass das Problem der Demokratie heute nicht mehr in der Einschränkung des Wahlrechts, sondern in der Art und Weise, wie dieses [von den Bürgern] gehandhabt wird, besteht. (S. 160)
Und:
Wie können Menschen "ihren" Willen zum Ausdruck bringen, wenn sie gar keinen eigenen Willen und keine eigene Überzeugung besitzen, wenn sie entfremdete Automaten sind, deren Geschmack, Meinungen und Vorlieben von den grossen Konditionierungsapparaten manipuliert werden? Unter diesen Umständen wird das allgemeine Wahlrecht zu einem Fetisch. - Diese Aussage hat meiner Meinung nach auch im Internetzeitalter keine Aussagekraft eingebüsst.
Wie schon Die Furcht vor der Freiheit lassen sich die meisten Analysen Fromms auch auf heutige ‚defekte’ Gesellschaften wie die der Türkei, China oder neu auch Brasilien anwenden. Das macht für mich Fromm bis heute lesenswert, und er geniesst einen Sonnenplatz in meinem Bücherregal ;)
December 27, 2015
لمن أراد أن يقرأ عن أمراض المجتمعات والسلوكيات "الغير سويّه" للجماعات فهذا فروم يبحث في الطبيعه الإنسانيه السويه حتى يُرسخ مفهوماً جديداً في الطبيعه البشريه متجاوزاً بذلك خطوه جديده في علم النفس .
كتاب مهم لجميع فئات المجتمع
كتاب مهم لجميع فئات المجتمع
November 4, 2017
How can a book like this exist since 1955? I've been hearing all these arguments my entire life, who knew they started even earlier then that (well technically they started around Marx).
Fromm's central premise is that an entire society can have lost its sanity, and as an example for that kind of insane society he uses 1950s capitalism with a few side-excursions into Soviet-style Communism (I wonder what he would think of neoliberalism - probably the same things, but even more disgust). In capitalism, you are alienated from everything. You are alienated from political decision making: you can vote but that has very little influence on what is happening on the state level. Why should you keep informed then? Why would you vote in the first place?
Similar for labor - he often echos and quotes Marx while expanding greatly on what Marx said by not focusing on capital alone, but also on the world of the worker's psychology and society. The majority of workers is alienated from work since they have no input on what's being done or made, they have no influence on company decisions, they have (Marx!) only access to a tiny portion of the product.
Alienation has also crept into interpersonal relationships. People are not interested in each other as people, but as commodities. You don't work on yourself to improve yourself, but to increase your employability. (I'm reminded on the main arguments against taking up more asylum seekers - the usual argument in Australia is that they cost tax-money, completely ignoring that these people are humans).
Where to go from here? I've read many of those criticisms before (but then again, the majority I read were from the 80s, not from 30 years before that), how to transform into a sane society? Tony Judt recently wrote a book called Ill Fares the Land with many similar criticisms and concludes that a return to full social democracy (think Europe) would fix most things. To Fromm that is not enough - we need to change things in several spheres, in the social sphere, in the sphere of work, in the sphere of democracy, all at once, patching things up in one corner won't help man. It doesn't matter whether a factory is run by The People or by a capitalist if the workers are still alienated from the labor.
What I loved specifically is that Fromm never tries to go 'back' to some imagined state, like so many other critics of capitalisms are proposing (examples: Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit, The One-Straw Revolution, or whatever Pentti Linkola is on about). These imagined returns are to me the ultimate in laziness - if we all just go back to 'that one past state I imagined and was not a part of' (usually a pre-industrial society), then all of the problems will fix themselves. To me that often implies that a lot of people will starve. To him Communism is also not a solution, to him that's just robotism with the same levels of alienation. Since Fromm is all about alienation he wants to involve people in all kinds of spheres - he calls this system Humanistic Communitarian Socialism.
In this system the state is reasonably strong but many local groups of citizens come together for discussions, and their discussions and suggestions are sent to the next level, which in turn sends it up to the next level etc., and the state's actions are based on all of those small committees (this is actually more reasonably now with the Internet, the Pirate Party has experimented with basic democracy like that). The same goes for work, industrialism is retained but decision making is not. Many small discussion groups get together and their discussions and suggestions are collated into the company's strategy. It is the state's task to not only educate the children, but keep a lifelong interest in the education and growth of its citizens. Art needs to be revived and put back into the hands of everyday people.
What's also interesting is that he proposes a 'universal subsistence guarantee', a variant of the currently highly discussed universal basic income (his variant is closer to regular unemployment money as it expires after a few years so people don't just sit around and do nothing). To him (and I highly agree!) such a guarantee is the first step towards human self-development. You cannot work on your self and take risks if your income has you stuck in a specific situation. If the state guarantees a certain income you can risk more - you can switch life directions, you can switch jobs, you can go back to educate yourself.
Anyway, I could write more, but this is highly, highly recommended.
Here are some more quotes:
On modern politics, perhaps (remember again - this is from 1955):
On current discussion practices (think modern liberals), applicable towards the current discussion on whether you should discuss with the new Nazis in the first place:
Can you rebel against this society?
--------------
----------
And to summarise:
I highly recommend to read The Art of Loving first, even though it came out a year later. In it Fromm develops his concept of love in much more detail, the few mentions of 'love' in The Sane Society could get confusing without knowing about Fromm's wider concept of love.
P.S.: There's a fun thing happening in Fromm's use of English, since he seems to have written this first in English, then translated to German. Fromm often uses English's duplicity for the word 'man', as it can mean 'male human' and 'human in general on a higher scale' in English. In his original German no such duplicity exists, one is Mann, the other is Menschheit. It's interesting that he incorporated this English peculiarity in his writing.
Fromm's central premise is that an entire society can have lost its sanity, and as an example for that kind of insane society he uses 1950s capitalism with a few side-excursions into Soviet-style Communism (I wonder what he would think of neoliberalism - probably the same things, but even more disgust). In capitalism, you are alienated from everything. You are alienated from political decision making: you can vote but that has very little influence on what is happening on the state level. Why should you keep informed then? Why would you vote in the first place?
Similar for labor - he often echos and quotes Marx while expanding greatly on what Marx said by not focusing on capital alone, but also on the world of the worker's psychology and society. The majority of workers is alienated from work since they have no input on what's being done or made, they have no influence on company decisions, they have (Marx!) only access to a tiny portion of the product.
The use of man by man is expressive of the system of values underlying the capitalistic system. Capital, the dead past, employs labor— the living vitality and power of the present. In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labor, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs labor, and not labor capital. The person who owns capital commands the person who “only” owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative productivity. “Things” are higher than man. The conflict between capital and labor is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity.
Alienation has also crept into interpersonal relationships. People are not interested in each other as people, but as commodities. You don't work on yourself to improve yourself, but to increase your employability. (I'm reminded on the main arguments against taking up more asylum seekers - the usual argument in Australia is that they cost tax-money, completely ignoring that these people are humans).
His sense of value depends on his success: on whether he can sell himself favorably, whether he can make more of himself than he started out with, whether he is a success. His body, his mind and his soul are his capital, and his task in life is to invest it favorably, to make a profit of himself. Human qualities like friendliness, courtesy, kindness, are transformed into commodities, into assets of the “personality package,” conducive to a higher price on the personality market.
Where to go from here? I've read many of those criticisms before (but then again, the majority I read were from the 80s, not from 30 years before that), how to transform into a sane society? Tony Judt recently wrote a book called Ill Fares the Land with many similar criticisms and concludes that a return to full social democracy (think Europe) would fix most things. To Fromm that is not enough - we need to change things in several spheres, in the social sphere, in the sphere of work, in the sphere of democracy, all at once, patching things up in one corner won't help man. It doesn't matter whether a factory is run by The People or by a capitalist if the workers are still alienated from the labor.
What I loved specifically is that Fromm never tries to go 'back' to some imagined state, like so many other critics of capitalisms are proposing (examples: Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit, The One-Straw Revolution, or whatever Pentti Linkola is on about). These imagined returns are to me the ultimate in laziness - if we all just go back to 'that one past state I imagined and was not a part of' (usually a pre-industrial society), then all of the problems will fix themselves. To me that often implies that a lot of people will starve. To him Communism is also not a solution, to him that's just robotism with the same levels of alienation. Since Fromm is all about alienation he wants to involve people in all kinds of spheres - he calls this system Humanistic Communitarian Socialism.
In this system the state is reasonably strong but many local groups of citizens come together for discussions, and their discussions and suggestions are sent to the next level, which in turn sends it up to the next level etc., and the state's actions are based on all of those small committees (this is actually more reasonably now with the Internet, the Pirate Party has experimented with basic democracy like that). The same goes for work, industrialism is retained but decision making is not. Many small discussion groups get together and their discussions and suggestions are collated into the company's strategy. It is the state's task to not only educate the children, but keep a lifelong interest in the education and growth of its citizens. Art needs to be revived and put back into the hands of everyday people.
What's also interesting is that he proposes a 'universal subsistence guarantee', a variant of the currently highly discussed universal basic income (his variant is closer to regular unemployment money as it expires after a few years so people don't just sit around and do nothing). To him (and I highly agree!) such a guarantee is the first step towards human self-development. You cannot work on your self and take risks if your income has you stuck in a specific situation. If the state guarantees a certain income you can risk more - you can switch life directions, you can switch jobs, you can go back to educate yourself.
Anyway, I could write more, but this is highly, highly recommended.
Here are some more quotes:
On modern politics, perhaps (remember again - this is from 1955):
They use television to build up political personalities as they use it to build up a soap; what matters is the effect, in sales or votes, not the rationality or usefulness of what is presented. This phenomenon found a remarkably frank expression in recent statements about the future of the Republican Party. They are to the effect that since one cannot hope the majority of voters will vote for the Republican Party, one must find a personality who wants to represent the Party—then he will get the votes. In principle this is not different from the endorsement of a cigarette by a famous sportsman or movie actor.
On current discussion practices (think modern liberals), applicable towards the current discussion on whether you should discuss with the new Nazis in the first place:
What matters is to transform value judgment into matters of opinion, whether it is listening to “The Magic Flute” as against diaper talk, or whether it is being a Republican as against being a Democrat. All that matters is that nothing is too serious, that one exchanges views, and that one is ready to accept any opinion or conviction (if there is such a thing) as being as good as the other. On the market of opinions everybody is supposed to have a commodity of the same value, and it is indecent and not fair to doubt it.
Can you rebel against this society?
Authority in the middle of the twentieth century has changed its character; it is not overt authority, but anonymous, invisible, alienated authority. Nobody makes a demand, neither a person, nor an idea, nor a moral law. Yet we all conform as much or more than people in an intensely authoritarian society would. Indeed, nobody is an authority except “It.” What is It? Profit, economic necessities, the market, common sense, public opinion, what “one” does, thinks, feels. The laws of anonymous authority are as invisible as the laws of the market—and just as unassailable. Who can attack the invisible? Who can rebel against Nobody?
--------------
Free man is by necessity insecure; thinking man by necessity uncertain.
----------
The majority of us believe in God, take it for granted that God exists. The rest, who do not believe, take it for granted that God does not exist. Either way, God is taken for granted. Neither belief nor disbelief cause any sleepless nights, nor any serious concern.
And to summarise:
The aim of life is to live it intensely, to be fully born, to be fully awake. To emerge from the ideas of infantile grandiosity into the conviction of one’s real though limited strength; to be able to accept the paradox that every one of us is the most important thing there is in the universe—and at the same time not more important than a fly or a blade of grass. To be able to love life, and yet to accept death without terror; to tolerate uncertainty about the most important questions with which life confronts us—and yet to have faith in our thought and feeling, inasmuch as they are truly ours. To be able to be alone, and at the same time one with a loved person, with every brother on this earth, with all that is alive; to follow the voice of our conscience, the voice that calls us to ourselves, yet not to indulge in self hate when the voice of conscience was not loud enough to be heard and followed. The mentally healthy person is the person who lives by love, reason and faith, who respects life, his own and that of his fellow man.
I highly recommend to read The Art of Loving first, even though it came out a year later. In it Fromm develops his concept of love in much more detail, the few mentions of 'love' in The Sane Society could get confusing without knowing about Fromm's wider concept of love.
P.S.: There's a fun thing happening in Fromm's use of English, since he seems to have written this first in English, then translated to German. Fromm often uses English's duplicity for the word 'man', as it can mean 'male human' and 'human in general on a higher scale' in English. In his original German no such duplicity exists, one is Mann, the other is Menschheit. It's interesting that he incorporated this English peculiarity in his writing.
May 4, 2015
"...greediness, ambition, and so forth are forms of insanity, although usually one does not think of them as 'illness.'"
Benedictus (Baruch) de Spinoza
Erich Fromm was born in Frankfurt am Main, in 1900, into a cultivated and religious milieu. As an adolescent, he was particularly attracted to the Messianic visions of universal peace and harmony in Jewish thought, and later belonged to the same circle as the existential theologian Martin Buber. After an extensive study of psychology and sociology at the universities of Heidelberg, Frankfurt and Munich, he obtained psychoanalytic training at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. Although, unlike most analysts, he had no medical training, Fromm began a clinical practice in 1926 which he was to continue for the rest of his life.
The Sane Society (1955) is a continuation of author's previous works and I assume reasons of feeling so reluctant to rate it high now is perhaps I'm missing the other two. For readers who follows, I think reading Mr. Fromm's previous works first is the best to do. I'll for sure be back to write detailed review as I was contemporary with former Yugoslavian state that he claims as example form any future modern society could be considering as more human, much livable than modern capitalism has to offer.
For now, I'd and I must to express my appreciation and astonishment about the author's massive, staggering knowledge in field of human psychology. However, in same time I must admit I feel profound inconsistencies when it comes to fit psychology into the social aspect of matter. When he describes the system that has potential to save us from further alienation, it is as he discards all the facts he knows about human nature and suddenly appears to me as an utopistic dreamer. Still, I like dreamers, just who serve the benefits of humanity and there is nothing to bother about..., except one fact: The Sane Society is dated 1955 and now is 2015 and I'm reading it (I'm scientific book reader and honestly I don't read outdated books) and not just me, this masterpiece is still and appears to be actual today and perhaps in future as well. The fact this book is not forgotten and it is still actual read, that is something we should be worried about!
Benedictus (Baruch) de Spinoza
Erich Fromm was born in Frankfurt am Main, in 1900, into a cultivated and religious milieu. As an adolescent, he was particularly attracted to the Messianic visions of universal peace and harmony in Jewish thought, and later belonged to the same circle as the existential theologian Martin Buber. After an extensive study of psychology and sociology at the universities of Heidelberg, Frankfurt and Munich, he obtained psychoanalytic training at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. Although, unlike most analysts, he had no medical training, Fromm began a clinical practice in 1926 which he was to continue for the rest of his life.
The Sane Society (1955) is a continuation of author's previous works and I assume reasons of feeling so reluctant to rate it high now is perhaps I'm missing the other two. For readers who follows, I think reading Mr. Fromm's previous works first is the best to do. I'll for sure be back to write detailed review as I was contemporary with former Yugoslavian state that he claims as example form any future modern society could be considering as more human, much livable than modern capitalism has to offer.
For now, I'd and I must to express my appreciation and astonishment about the author's massive, staggering knowledge in field of human psychology. However, in same time I must admit I feel profound inconsistencies when it comes to fit psychology into the social aspect of matter. When he describes the system that has potential to save us from further alienation, it is as he discards all the facts he knows about human nature and suddenly appears to me as an utopistic dreamer. Still, I like dreamers, just who serve the benefits of humanity and there is nothing to bother about..., except one fact: The Sane Society is dated 1955 and now is 2015 and I'm reading it (I'm scientific book reader and honestly I don't read outdated books) and not just me, this masterpiece is still and appears to be actual today and perhaps in future as well. The fact this book is not forgotten and it is still actual read, that is something we should be worried about!
September 13, 2007
For the most part, I loved Fromm's analysis of contemporary (industrialized, Western) society (I did, though, see his views on homosexuality and international relations as troubling); I found his critique of Sigmund Freud affirming and highly relevant. As I've found, though, with many who take a critical view of the current state of affairs, Fromm here seems far less imaginative in his prescriptions and suggestions for how to move society beyond the alienation, repression, boredom, anomie, and suicide he sees it as entailing. He spends a good third of his book writing on 'man in capitalistic society,' attempting to show how the socio-economic structure of such results in the insanity he sees as so prevalent, yet, taking after R.H. Tawney and other moderate social democrats, he seems to advocate a society in which workers have a greater place in decision-making processes--at best, he seems to prescribe (even if, in my view, it doesn't follow from his premises) capitalism without the capitalists, to allude to one of Murray Bookchin's concerns with moderate socialist movements. In this sense, Fromm seems to suffer from the decided lack of imagination on the part of many 'leftists' of his day (it's hardly different now...) to focus on achieving 'concrete' possibilities; the result--a vision of increased comfort within alienation (to paraphrase Raoul Vaneigem) instead of a call for the doing away with such alienation (which, I would say, could follow from his analysis, before he takes a different path in the last third of the book)--is, then, hardly surprising. The rejection of the contemplation of utopian possibilities here is, however, no less depressing for that.
June 15, 2019
In retrospect, the early psychologists and sociologists and all philosphers all vaguely remind me of the think-tank writers that flood the space now, they speak in absolute abstractions: abstract ideals which are held to be absolute truths.
This book, it's pompous, it's nonsense, it's sexist as hell, and generally exhausting. There's a reason I can't stand "philosophers" -- well, most of them were actively hateful people, but apart from that -- philosophy is verbal masturbation, receding into coherent structures of meaninglessness, blind to the contingency of reality, pretending to seek, or even find, things that don't exist.
Put another way - the first lecture of the book is "So, it's inherent to man to want to fuck his mum, let's talk about that." And women, aren't human, they're mothers, icons, little else, and they certainly are not portrayed as having wants, needs, or thoughts. And if Fromm didn't mean to say that, then he shouldn't have written it. I've been away from 'literature' long enough that casual genocidal racism and utterly inhuman sexism no longer go unnoticed. I already knew the likes of Kant and Rousseau were beyond salvage, but add Fromm to the pyre.
TL;DR -- Yes, society can be bad, sick, a failure under its own terms, whatever you want to call it - it can be pathological, and ours certainly is. It doesn't take hours talking about weird sex shit to get there. One breath of poison air answers the question for itself.
This book, it's pompous, it's nonsense, it's sexist as hell, and generally exhausting. There's a reason I can't stand "philosophers" -- well, most of them were actively hateful people, but apart from that -- philosophy is verbal masturbation, receding into coherent structures of meaninglessness, blind to the contingency of reality, pretending to seek, or even find, things that don't exist.
Put another way - the first lecture of the book is "So, it's inherent to man to want to fuck his mum, let's talk about that." And women, aren't human, they're mothers, icons, little else, and they certainly are not portrayed as having wants, needs, or thoughts. And if Fromm didn't mean to say that, then he shouldn't have written it. I've been away from 'literature' long enough that casual genocidal racism and utterly inhuman sexism no longer go unnoticed. I already knew the likes of Kant and Rousseau were beyond salvage, but add Fromm to the pyre.
TL;DR -- Yes, society can be bad, sick, a failure under its own terms, whatever you want to call it - it can be pathological, and ours certainly is. It doesn't take hours talking about weird sex shit to get there. One breath of poison air answers the question for itself.
December 17, 2015
من أعظم ما قرأت لاريك فروم و من أعظم ما قرأت في علم النفس الاجتماعي،كتاب يركز فيه فروم على عورات المجتمعات الغربية و يبين حجم تدمير النظام الرأسمالي لأي مكانية لبناء سوي للمجتمع،يبدأ فروم بعرض وجهة نظره للمشاكل التي تجعل المجتمع مريضا غير سوي،مثلما تجعل الفرد متغربا في هذا المجتمع الذي يخلق نسخا متماثلة من البشر تسحق شيئا فشيئا أي انتماءات لهوية انسانية لديهم،ينتقل بعدها الى عرض نماذج واقعية تاريخية تبين تأثير الايديولوجيا و الصراع بين الرأسمالية و الاشتراكية في سحق الهوية الانسانية للمجتمعات الغربية التي بدورها كانت تسحق غيرها من المجتمعات،و يركز فروم هنا على الظروف الاجتماعية المتطرفة التي اوجدتها الرأسمالية بالذات مع عرض نماذج لتجارب اشتراكية بعيدة عن الديماغوجية او الصراع الامبريالي الامريكي السوفيتي،على غرار مجتمع روبرت اوين الاشتراكي او مبادىء شارل فورييه و غيرهم من الاشتراكيين،ممهدا لعرض وجهة نظره في الوصول الى مجتمعات سوية تتخذ من الكوميونيتارية الاشتراكية نمطا لها من اجل محاولة استعادة الانسان لنفسه بعيدا عن التماثل و النمطية القاتلة التي تزداد يوما بعد يوم.
September 23, 2008
How sane are we? This is a very hard question to answer because we do not know the line that demarcates sanity and insanity. Erich Fromm investigates the sanity of the present society. He found out that there are manifestations of social sickness that afflicts and distorts human relationship. Freedom is diminished in its worth and human dignity becomes something very ambiguous.
May 7, 2007
"good quote"; "fantastic quote"; "good quote"; "good quote"; "good quote"; "good quote"; "good quote"; "good quote"; "holy shit"; "good quote"; "wow";"good quote"... you get the idea.
True enlightenment is on the horizon...a MUST read!
True enlightenment is on the horizon...a MUST read!
March 15, 2011
A great read. This book gives the reader a good overview of the ideas and ideals behind Fromm's democratic socialism. A critique of both US capitalism and Soviet communism.
March 19, 2024
Elegant critiques of conformity, market worship, alienation due to capitalism, and a glowing endorsement of worker-owned ventures. Anarchists and libertarian socialists win again 💪🏿
February 11, 2023
“It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health. Just as there is a "folie a deux" there is a folie a millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”
I’ve been putting off writing this review, paradoxically because this was a very important book. Erich Fromm, here and in the other two works of his I have read, really captures the problems I have with my life and society, and earnestly attempts to generate solutions, although he himself pessimistically admits that these are unlikely to be implemented.
The central premise of this book, as perhaps hinted at by the title, The Sane Society, is an attempt to illustrate what a society based on real human needs would look like in value. In the process, Fromm defines both what he thinks the fundamental human needs are, the ways in which our society (that of the 1970s in his case) is ill-suited to these needs, and ways that we can get there from here.
Fromm starts the book with a short chapter that makes that radical (in the eyes of some) that our society is actually insane, using suicide and homicide rates in a bunch of western countries over the past hundred years to make the case that something has gone wrong spiritually. You can quibble about the statistics, talk about the arc of history bending towards justice, or point out that materially we have never been better off. All three points may be true, but it’s hard to deny, at least from the point of view of my lying eyes that something has gone wrong spiritually.
I think the first time I realized this was when I was a freshman in college. For most of my life up until that point, I had been motivated by whatever the “next step”: doing well in school, so I could take harder classes, and eventually get into the best college (MIT), or in running, so I could run in bigger, faster races, and improve my standing on the team. Although things appeared to be following the same trajectory in the first months of college, progress no longer seemed like it would continue. How could life have any meaning if my material, and hierarchical progress would not continue? When I asked my parents for advice, my mom told me that it was still important to keep working hard, so I could earn money and consume things, but also not feel guilty for not contributing to society. At the time, this answer was completely unsatisfying to me: how could consumption, which is be it’s very definition short-lived, provide long-term meaning? How could “working hard” on something that I didn’t care about, bring me joy or intellectual fulfilment?
I read The Sane Society nearly seven years after that freshman fall and conversation with my mom, and I think the book provides a cogent thesis for both her advice, and my reaction.
Fundamental human needs according to Fromm consist of not only the basic material needs as posited by Marx (food, water, shelter), but also a non-alienated existence with the freedom to influence one’s own environment, self-regard (not treating the self as an object), and the ability to enjoy the fruits of his labor. According to Fromm, both the Soviet and capitalist systems have managed to produce to cover the basic material needs of its citizens, but fail to provide a cure for alienation. Part of this is the feature both systems share in common: industrialism has made modern man alienated from the fruits of his labor. It is much more difficult to be satisfied as an assembly line worker, or even as part of the modern scientific apparatus than it was to be an artisan would made tables from start to finish, or a farmer who grew his crops from seed. Matthew Crawford talks about this topic more in his book Shop Class as Soulcraft, and the diagnosis of both him and Fromm is something that I agree with.
This is why I’m opposed to things like further automation and AI. Labor does not need to become even more alienated. Although I suppose the internet and specialization has already done a lot of the damage, I fear AI may do the same thing for knowledge work that the assembly line has done for craftmanship. No longer will you midwife an idea or a theory from conception to execution, but merely obtain fragments of your thought nearly fully formed from a computer algorithm that has done most of your thinking for you.
Critics may argue that this automation of jobs allows for greater leisure time. Not only has the historically not been the case (see the early industrial revolution), but leisure is an essentially unproductive and consumptive activity that does not lead to spiritual growth or the exercise of man’s will. Leisure activities like training for sport, language learning, or craftsmanship would count as work in Fromm’s system. Although I don’t take as strong of a stance on Fromm against leisure, I can again say from personal experience that there’s only so much relaxation and leisure that I find to be enjoyable before I want to work on something meaningful again (like writing these huge reviews)
The other shared feature of Capitalism and Soviet Communism that Fromm highlights is their conformity. The reason for this in the Soviet system is rather obvious (top-down dictatorship), but in capitalism stems from commodification of the human individual. Both in the labor and “personality” (dating) market, Fromm argues, one must conform to societal standards or risk being labeled as a defective “product” and end up being out of a job or a husband/wife.
I found this argument to be one of the most convincing critiques of capitalism that I had read/heard of. The material critiques of Marx and other 19th century socialists (i.e. that capital was exploitative and would be unable to meet people’s material needs), were proved wrong in the 20th century when the system was incentivized to produce people rich enough to become consumers. However, just paying people more doesn’t change the fact that you are paying them for their labor, meaning they are making themselves into a commodity, a thing, which cannot have anything but bad knock-on effects on the psyche.
So what do we do about all of this? How can I move past both my ideas of progress, and my mom’s consumptive mindset? Fromm basically thinks we can’t, unless we radically overall society. I’m not so sure. Two other books that I will be reviewing soon: the Illusion of Self by James Garfield and Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot provide alternate answers, which I will explore in later posts. But what I will say for now that I do think personal change is possible.
How I will be changing my life as a result of this book:
The Sane Society underlined something that I already knew: the collective norms of our American, western society are neither necessary, sufficient, or even good for human thriving. I’m not sure what the exact right norms are yet, but embracing the Kantian, Stoic, and Christian ethic of loving thy neighbor as thyself, and embodying meaning in work seem like good places to start.
I’ve been putting off writing this review, paradoxically because this was a very important book. Erich Fromm, here and in the other two works of his I have read, really captures the problems I have with my life and society, and earnestly attempts to generate solutions, although he himself pessimistically admits that these are unlikely to be implemented.
The central premise of this book, as perhaps hinted at by the title, The Sane Society, is an attempt to illustrate what a society based on real human needs would look like in value. In the process, Fromm defines both what he thinks the fundamental human needs are, the ways in which our society (that of the 1970s in his case) is ill-suited to these needs, and ways that we can get there from here.
Fromm starts the book with a short chapter that makes that radical (in the eyes of some) that our society is actually insane, using suicide and homicide rates in a bunch of western countries over the past hundred years to make the case that something has gone wrong spiritually. You can quibble about the statistics, talk about the arc of history bending towards justice, or point out that materially we have never been better off. All three points may be true, but it’s hard to deny, at least from the point of view of my lying eyes that something has gone wrong spiritually.
I think the first time I realized this was when I was a freshman in college. For most of my life up until that point, I had been motivated by whatever the “next step”: doing well in school, so I could take harder classes, and eventually get into the best college (MIT), or in running, so I could run in bigger, faster races, and improve my standing on the team. Although things appeared to be following the same trajectory in the first months of college, progress no longer seemed like it would continue. How could life have any meaning if my material, and hierarchical progress would not continue? When I asked my parents for advice, my mom told me that it was still important to keep working hard, so I could earn money and consume things, but also not feel guilty for not contributing to society. At the time, this answer was completely unsatisfying to me: how could consumption, which is be it’s very definition short-lived, provide long-term meaning? How could “working hard” on something that I didn’t care about, bring me joy or intellectual fulfilment?
I read The Sane Society nearly seven years after that freshman fall and conversation with my mom, and I think the book provides a cogent thesis for both her advice, and my reaction.
Fundamental human needs according to Fromm consist of not only the basic material needs as posited by Marx (food, water, shelter), but also a non-alienated existence with the freedom to influence one’s own environment, self-regard (not treating the self as an object), and the ability to enjoy the fruits of his labor. According to Fromm, both the Soviet and capitalist systems have managed to produce to cover the basic material needs of its citizens, but fail to provide a cure for alienation. Part of this is the feature both systems share in common: industrialism has made modern man alienated from the fruits of his labor. It is much more difficult to be satisfied as an assembly line worker, or even as part of the modern scientific apparatus than it was to be an artisan would made tables from start to finish, or a farmer who grew his crops from seed. Matthew Crawford talks about this topic more in his book Shop Class as Soulcraft, and the diagnosis of both him and Fromm is something that I agree with.
This is why I’m opposed to things like further automation and AI. Labor does not need to become even more alienated. Although I suppose the internet and specialization has already done a lot of the damage, I fear AI may do the same thing for knowledge work that the assembly line has done for craftmanship. No longer will you midwife an idea or a theory from conception to execution, but merely obtain fragments of your thought nearly fully formed from a computer algorithm that has done most of your thinking for you.
Critics may argue that this automation of jobs allows for greater leisure time. Not only has the historically not been the case (see the early industrial revolution), but leisure is an essentially unproductive and consumptive activity that does not lead to spiritual growth or the exercise of man’s will. Leisure activities like training for sport, language learning, or craftsmanship would count as work in Fromm’s system. Although I don’t take as strong of a stance on Fromm against leisure, I can again say from personal experience that there’s only so much relaxation and leisure that I find to be enjoyable before I want to work on something meaningful again (like writing these huge reviews)
The other shared feature of Capitalism and Soviet Communism that Fromm highlights is their conformity. The reason for this in the Soviet system is rather obvious (top-down dictatorship), but in capitalism stems from commodification of the human individual. Both in the labor and “personality” (dating) market, Fromm argues, one must conform to societal standards or risk being labeled as a defective “product” and end up being out of a job or a husband/wife.
I found this argument to be one of the most convincing critiques of capitalism that I had read/heard of. The material critiques of Marx and other 19th century socialists (i.e. that capital was exploitative and would be unable to meet people’s material needs), were proved wrong in the 20th century when the system was incentivized to produce people rich enough to become consumers. However, just paying people more doesn’t change the fact that you are paying them for their labor, meaning they are making themselves into a commodity, a thing, which cannot have anything but bad knock-on effects on the psyche.
So what do we do about all of this? How can I move past both my ideas of progress, and my mom’s consumptive mindset? Fromm basically thinks we can’t, unless we radically overall society. I’m not so sure. Two other books that I will be reviewing soon: the Illusion of Self by James Garfield and Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot provide alternate answers, which I will explore in later posts. But what I will say for now that I do think personal change is possible.
How I will be changing my life as a result of this book:
The Sane Society underlined something that I already knew: the collective norms of our American, western society are neither necessary, sufficient, or even good for human thriving. I’m not sure what the exact right norms are yet, but embracing the Kantian, Stoic, and Christian ethic of loving thy neighbor as thyself, and embodying meaning in work seem like good places to start.
August 11, 2023
4.5 stars!
'How can a sensitive and alive person ever feel secure? Because of the very conditions of our existence, we cannot feel secure about anything. Our thoughts and insights are at best partial truths, mixed with a great deal of error, not to speak of the unnecessary misinformation about life and society to which we are exposed almost from the day of birth. Our life and health are subject to accidents beyond our control. If we make a decision, we can never be certain of the outcome; any decision implies a risk of failure, and if it does not imply it, it has not been a decision in the true sense of the word. We can never be certain of the outcome come of our best efforts. The result always depends on many factors which transcend our capacity of control. Just as a sensitive and alive person cannot avoid being sad, he cannot avoid feeling insecure. The psychic task which a person can and must set for himself, is not to feel secure, but to be able to tolerate insecurity, without panic and undue fear.
Life, in its mental and spiritual aspects, is by necessity insecure and uncertain. There is certainty only about the fact that we are born and that we shall die; there is complete security only in an equally complete submission to powers which are supposed to be strong and enduring, and which relieve man from the necessity of making decisions, taking risks, and having responsibilities. Free man is by necessity insecure; thinking man by necessity uncertain.
'How can a sensitive and alive person ever feel secure? Because of the very conditions of our existence, we cannot feel secure about anything. Our thoughts and insights are at best partial truths, mixed with a great deal of error, not to speak of the unnecessary misinformation about life and society to which we are exposed almost from the day of birth. Our life and health are subject to accidents beyond our control. If we make a decision, we can never be certain of the outcome; any decision implies a risk of failure, and if it does not imply it, it has not been a decision in the true sense of the word. We can never be certain of the outcome come of our best efforts. The result always depends on many factors which transcend our capacity of control. Just as a sensitive and alive person cannot avoid being sad, he cannot avoid feeling insecure. The psychic task which a person can and must set for himself, is not to feel secure, but to be able to tolerate insecurity, without panic and undue fear.
Life, in its mental and spiritual aspects, is by necessity insecure and uncertain. There is certainty only about the fact that we are born and that we shall die; there is complete security only in an equally complete submission to powers which are supposed to be strong and enduring, and which relieve man from the necessity of making decisions, taking risks, and having responsibilities. Free man is by necessity insecure; thinking man by necessity uncertain.
August 1, 2024
可真超前啊 咱就说研究社会心理和哲学的人写东西都这么扎人吗？“十九世纪的问题是上帝死了，二十世纪的问题是人类死了。”“人的工作就是做机器还不能做的事。”被异化的人是活死人，人制造的机器却像人一样思考（并超越） 难以想象这是1955年的作品……当脱离个体病例层面的精神病 提升到不健全社会（不以人为本的资本主义）造就的被动异化的人 疏离的劳动与不必要的生产消费和欲望 被性化的爱……很久以前因为人追求自由而成为人 而人的智力却在很久以后让人成为机器 人没有能力去控制自己的创造物 人类一思考上帝确实要发笑的。
看来我还是爱人 只是恨失去感受自我感受世界没有创造力的机器人。昨天我崩溃的同事礼貌的问电话里的客服：请问您是活人还是机器人？实在是荒谬。
不过还是觉得大家过于美化“自由” 又或者是概念诠释的过程出了错。有了生存保障的人也不一定自发创造注定学习 躺家里刷一宿短视频也是常有的事嘛 混沌一生多正常呐
（2010年才终于有未删减版译著 还要在译后记写乃们不懂东方误读了我们的优越性！真·健全的社会噢
看来我还是爱人 只是恨失去感受自我感受世界没有创造力的机器人。昨天我崩溃的同事礼貌的问电话里的客服：请问您是活人还是机器人？实在是荒谬。
不过还是觉得大家过于美化“自由” 又或者是概念诠释的过程出了错。有了生存保障的人也不一定自发创造注定学习 躺家里刷一宿短视频也是常有的事嘛 混沌一生多正常呐
（2010年才终于有未删减版译著 还要在译后记写乃们不懂东方误读了我们的优越性！真·健全的社会噢
Read
March 31, 2024Overraskende relevant til å være over 50 år gammel. Kommer man seg gjennom et par lange rants om fabrikkens uutholdelige tilværelse vil man få nokre veldig gode takes på samfunnsdiagnoser heile vegen fra venstre til høgre på det politiske spektrum:)
January 4, 2017
I like how the author explains his theories and defends them with other sources and also criticizes the sources at the same time. This way of writing can be misinterpreted, but the author revisits and explains every contradicting thought or something related to that.
Even though this was written in 1950s, yet the book is very accurate on various aspects of modern society mental problems that are rooted in the problems of materialism and overconsumption. As the author says, this is mainly due to the subordination of 'machines', or technology in modern terms, to man, or that man is enslaved by the overproduction and consumption of products to feel satisfied and 'happy' about life.
The solutions might seem idealistic, yet it is a call for the humanitarian process of life in a way that we improve the economic, social, and spiritual aspects of our lives.
I recommend this book to everyone who is interested in socialist ideals, and the perfect solution to modern societal issues.
Even though this was written in 1950s, yet the book is very accurate on various aspects of modern society mental problems that are rooted in the problems of materialism and overconsumption. As the author says, this is mainly due to the subordination of 'machines', or technology in modern terms, to man, or that man is enslaved by the overproduction and consumption of products to feel satisfied and 'happy' about life.
The solutions might seem idealistic, yet it is a call for the humanitarian process of life in a way that we improve the economic, social, and spiritual aspects of our lives.
I recommend this book to everyone who is interested in socialist ideals, and the perfect solution to modern societal issues.
Read
October 24, 2010This may have been considered revolutionary at one point, but all these old-left guys have started to sound the same to me. Ultimately, they're espousing the Ten Commandments. Which is fine, but it's as watery as hell and has all the intellectual rigor of a human interest special on the local news.
But Fromm is a bit better than that. He does a pretty good job of winnowing what's valuable about Freud from what's not. And his warnings against the economism of society are as prescient as ever. That said, it's easy to complain about people weighing their lives in dollars and cents when one lives a comfortable, middle class existence. He's right-- it is an indicator of an insane (or, as the contemporary types like to say nowadays "unsustainable") society-- but it's a survival strategy for us wage slaves in that insane society.
But Fromm is a bit better than that. He does a pretty good job of winnowing what's valuable about Freud from what's not. And his warnings against the economism of society are as prescient as ever. That said, it's easy to complain about people weighing their lives in dollars and cents when one lives a comfortable, middle class existence. He's right-- it is an indicator of an insane (or, as the contemporary types like to say nowadays "unsustainable") society-- but it's a survival strategy for us wage slaves in that insane society.
September 22, 2017
Some good diagnosis, poor treatment
Fromm has some decent insights into man's problems: his fear of freedom, his alienation, his tendency toward self destruction. His remedies, however are inadequate in the first place, and are worse than the disease in the second. The book is dated, the industrial revolution is over, many of the opportunities Fromm pined for are realized, yet man is as sick and alienated as ever. His brokenness lies elsewhere; his sickness is alienation from God, not from himself, as Fromm opines.
Fromm has some decent insights into man's problems: his fear of freedom, his alienation, his tendency toward self destruction. His remedies, however are inadequate in the first place, and are worse than the disease in the second. The book is dated, the industrial revolution is over, many of the opportunities Fromm pined for are realized, yet man is as sick and alienated as ever. His brokenness lies elsewhere; his sickness is alienation from God, not from himself, as Fromm opines.
October 7, 2007
Writing in the era of encroaching Communism and the rise of the Evil Empire, 2 years before the successful launch of Sputnik. One choice excerpt from pg. 363:
"Man today is confronted with the most fundamental choice; not that between Capitalism or Communism, but that between robotism (of both the capitalist and the communist variety), or Humanistic Communitarian Socialism."
"Man today is confronted with the most fundamental choice; not that between Capitalism or Communism, but that between robotism (of both the capitalist and the communist variety), or Humanistic Communitarian Socialism."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews