Gin > Recent Status Updates

“We cannot simply focus on the individual, as such, from society, for the individual is determined, right down to its innermost composition through society, and further, that it is actually much harder to determine what is truly individuated, that which differs from the merely social, than it is to determine the opposite.”

“what matters is not the human being as such, but the concrete relations of actual living human beings and the relationship of human beings to the prevailing institutions and arrangements, to existing property relations and to objective social reality”.

Sounds like what he said in the previous chapter about the point of sociology.

“ however important it is to know the direction in which the political sentiment of the people is moving, one could only offer a reliable prognosis if one knows the specific interests and political perspectives of the key groups which occupied the economically most important positions and to a large extent are in a position to affect all direct to behaviour of human being themselves.”

On sociology: “the objective, sustaining foundation of our society… the forms of organisation through which society produces and reproduces itself today.”

Sociology “is principally concerned, not only with human being and their behaviour, but [also]… with the objective forces on which their behaviour depends… objective mechanisms which affects the social life of human beings behind their backs”

Adorno mentioning it being necessary to take what we now call an inter-disciplinary approach to understanding and diagnosing social problems.

Mentions to not just focus on administrative and managerial questions when doing empirical sociology as such an approach “ encourages us to prioritise the inessential in essential, and to conceive of human beings, as objects to be administered rather than as subjects.”

What I got from this chapter was that the built urban environment needs to reflect the existing social order and be fit for purpose for humans to live as human beans, rather than as Adorno stated on page 14, “simply as appendages of the machinery of civilisation.”

“If we attempted to orient urban architecture and development to fundamental social conditions that for underlying economic reasons no longer really obtain, we would slavishly fall victim to a historicising romanticism that would simply end up in proximity to certain nineteenth century intentions that we really have to leave behind.”

Quotable quote: “Inability of human beings today acknowledge the past, and the tendency of contemporary humanity… to repudiate everything that is no longer immediately present to it and to throw everything historical onto the rubbish heap, has led to the appalling examples of humanity we have all witnessed under fascism”

‘The despair of the human automaton is fertile soil for the political purposes of Fascism.’

Fromm really knows how to turn a phrase.

“We are informed of the individual name of the railroad clerk we buy our tickets from; handbags, playing cards, and portable radios are "personalized", by having the initials of the owner put on them. All this indicates the hunger for "difference" and yet these are almost the last vestiges of individuality that are left. Modern man is starved for life.”

As relevant when he wrote it as it is a 100 years later.

Under “Automaton Conformity” ‘… the individual ceases to be himself; he adopts entirely the kind of personality offered to him by cultural pattern; and he therefore become exactly as all others are and as they expect him to me.’

A good summary here of what he had covered in the pre ending chapters. Hostility of the middle class - unable to enjoy life as they would like and envious against those who can - repression of desires as leading to destructive tendencies manifesting consequently?

Could the first paragraph be explain MAGA?

“Once man was ready to become nothing but the means for the glory of a God who represented neither justice nor love, he was sufficiently prepared to accept the rôle of a servant to the economic machine - and eventually a “Führer”.”

Protestantism and the link between Capitalism and Authoritarianism - submission to a force bigger than the individual - the economy or an authoritarian leader like Hitler.

Sounds like the MAGA folks, for which they readily submit to Trump and hope to share and bask in his glory. MAGa substituted the Christian god for Trump. Fromm’s analysis is every bit as relevant today, especially in present day America.

The suggestions are highly US centric.

Some of the examples here are very US and/or Anglo-centric. Need to keep in mind when trying to apply the insights and findings to other societies. Especially Asian societies. The graph in Chapter 1 on Asia bucking the trend is itself interesting and needs to be further investigated.

Wow, the chapter on Crimes of Envy is really pushing the use of Envy to its limit. Even accounting for the fact that criminological, psychological and brain science is not as further developed as it is today, it’s doubtful that all the cases that he mentioned can be really attributed to Envy.

Keeps questioning and pointing out why Envy is not more studied or included by philosophers, social scientists and the like. Feels though like he is trying to make Envy a thing, which to be honest, at this point doesn’t seem convincing.

Odd conclusion that he comes to “that man experiences his membership of a group not as fulfilment but as diminution”, and seems more of a statement that betrays his ideological inclination than a statement of fact.

Schoeck writes somewhat disapprovingly about Miligram’s acceptance of restrictions in Norwegian society in the interest of the community. I think that it can be a bit of balanced between the two sides - not for total individuality at the expense of the group, but neither should group cohesion suffocate the individual.

The book was written in 1966, and it shows. Chapter 5 feels like an indictment of the pursuit of equality, and uses cases from primitive tribes to make the case against greater equality. It feels like a stretch though, that just because envy stifles innovation and development, and the only way to guard against envy is to be the same (equal), thus the implication is that the pursuit of equality is undesirable.