The ontological structure of Erich Fromm’s critical humanism

Abstract

This paper explores Erich Fromm’s concept of humanism, arguing that it provides us with a unified theory for both clinical work as well as social criticism. Fromm’s humanistic ideas are rooted in a structure of thought that sees our existence, our ontology as human beings, as constituted by our inherent capacities for both relatedness as well as positing ends and purposes in the world. By cultivating a self-awareness of these dual capacities, we can achieve a state of freedom, a self-consciousness of our capacity to shape our reality as opposed to conforming ourselves to it. In this way, Fromm’s ideas constitute a critical humanism that can be realized in the world via self- and social transformation and not merely an abstract set of principles or concepts.

Key words:

• humanism
• Erich Fromm
• ontology
• critical psychoanalysis
• social psychoanalysis
• transformation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Fromm sees his ideas as a separate paradigm from that of Freud who, he maintains, “saw man as a closed system driven by two forces: the self-preservative and the sexual drives” (Fromm, 1970b, p. 45).

2 In describing Fromm’s views on this point, Patrick Mullahy argues that: “Since the disharmony of man’s existence with the rest of nature generates needs which far transcend those of his animal origins, such as an imperative drive to restore a unity and equilibrium between himself and the rest of nature, he has to erect a mental reference-frame, an orientation, from which he can derive an answer to the question of where he stands and what he ought to do” (1948, p. 246).

3 Compare also Fromm’s ideas with those of Ronald Fairbairn, who, in many respects, Fromm anticipated with his own ideas: “the ultimate principle from which the whole of my special views are derived may be formulated in the general proposition that libido is not primarily pleasure-seeking, but object-seeking” (Fairbairn, 1952, p. 137). It should be emphasized here, however, that Fairbairn, in strong contrast to Fromm, emphasizes only the object-relational needs of the ego and not the practical, productive needs/capacities.

4 Otto Rank comments on the association of death with separation for the child: “To be dead has the same meaning for the child as to be away (Freud) – that is, to be separated – and this directly touches on the primal trauma” (Rank, 1993, p. 24, emphasis in original). For Fromm, this association between death and separateness is a powerful force shaping the desire for defective modes of relationality in both childhood and adulthood. See Fromm (1964, pp. 62ff).

5 For his part, Bachofen describes the power of the “mother right” (Muterrecht) as follows: “more strongly than later generations, the matriarchal peoples feel the unity of all life, the harmony of the universe, which they have not yet outgrown; they are more keenly aware of the pain of death and the fragility of tellurian existence, lamented by women and particularly the mother” (1964, p. 91).

6 Fromm also notes elsewhere on the concept of objectivity: “Objectivity does not mean detachment, it means respect; that is, the ability not to distort and to falsify things, persons, and oneself” (1947, p. 111).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael J. Thompson

Author

Michael J. Thompson, is professor of political theory in the Department of Political Science, William Paterson University, NJ, USA, and is an advanced candidate in psychoanalytic training in the Division 1 Program at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. His most recent book is Twilight of the self: The decline of the individual in late capitalism.