![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Notes
In States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 29–32. Reprinted in Charles Lemert's Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, 2nd ed. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 397–400.
See his President's Lecture, “The University: Does it Have a Future?” (New York: CUNY Academy for the Humanities and Sciences, 6 May 1996).
In his Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1947 [Fawcett Premier edition, 1968]).
In a chilling note, Fromm observes that: The marketing orientation … does not develop something which is potentially in the person …; its very nature is that no specific and permanent kind of relatedness is developed, but that the very changeability of attitudes is the only permanent value of such orientation. In this orientation, those qualities are developed which can best be sold. Not one particular attitude is predominant, but the emptiness which can be filled most quickly with the desired quality. This quality, however, ceases to be one in the proper sense of the word; it is only a role, the pretense of a quality, to be readily exchanged if another one is more desirable. … Some roles would not fit with the peculiarities of the person; therefore, we must do away with them—not with the roles but with the peculiarities. The marketing personality must be free, free of all individuality. (The reviewer is thinking of those offshore tele‐marketers, now often employed in India, going to language classes to sound mid‐American, or some such persona, to earn a minimal wage.) (pp. 84–85).
The coined term comes from literary critic Kenneth Burke, who defines it as rhetoric employed to obscure and/or deflect reality (of the humane kind).
Again, the infamous en vogue practice of UNESCO co‐branding “in‐bedded‐ness” at work! Is the organization too strapped for funds to host an Expert meeting and to publish the results all by itself, or does it think it needs the holy imprimatur of big capital to be seen as serious?