In 1941, Fromm wrote Escape from Freedom, under the shadow of Nazi dictatorship. In it he outlines how over the course of human evolution and history, humans have obtained more freedom, specifically what he calls “freedom from,” or freedom from external constraints. Modern American and European history is centered around the efforts to gain freedom from political, economic, and religious constraints, which has been successful.
But, being “freaks of the universe,” this is both good and bad, because with more “freedom from”,comes increased feeling of being alone and powerless, or basic anxiety, in Horney’s terms.
In his book, he argues that people respond to this anxiety by escaping from the very freedom from which they’ve fought so long and hard.
Fromm suggests that people can do this by submitting to an authority, or becoming the authority, in both cases this involves a dependence on other people. Another means of escape involves destroying others. Both of these mechanisms apply to Nazi Germany, and help to explain it.
The last way that people go about escaping freedom is what Fromm called automaton conformity. Fromm suggested that people can escape the feelings of isolation by becoming like a robot, and conforming to what others expect them to be. He suggested people often don’t even know what they think or feel, nor do they realize how much they conform. This is the type of escape that we probably see the most of in our contemporary culture.
Ideally, people embrace their freedom. Fromm referred to this as “freedom to,” or positive freedom. It involves spontaneous and full expression of rational and emotional potentialities, uniting with the world without giving up integrity. This is similar to his position on love. Neither one is particularly easy.
Fromm assumed that humans have an existential need to overcome isolation, and that love is the ideal means to fulfill this need.
In The Art of Loving, Fromm describes some of the ways this is sought out. For example through orgiastic states, transitory, intense moments and feelings. People can also try to merge with others though conformity, which he suggests in a pseudo unity. Or even by uniting the self with material in a creative endeavor. These are all partial solutions. He suggests that love is the only complete solution.
But what is love? Fromm defined loveas the ability to unite with another while retaining one's own individuality and integrity. So it is freely given, not compulsory. It is also about giving, and not the need to receive. But at the same time, it’s not a sacrifice. Fromm also suggested that it also depends on the character of the person, and that nonproductive orientations and narcissism get in the way of love.
What I love about this book is that Fromm presents love as a skill that can be taught and developed. He rejects the idea of loving as something magical and mysterious that can’t be analyzed and explained, and is therefore skeptical about ideas such as “falling in love.”
In particular, he proposed four elements of love, which he suggests have to be practiced in concert with each other. Each complements the other and counteracts their potentially negative aspects.
The first fundamental element of love is care, or a concern for others. Fromm defines care in terms of concrete actions. He argues, for example, that people wouldn’t generally accept the claim of a person to love plants if she forgot to water them, or a mother to love her child if she neglected her child.
Related to this is the element of responsibility, or responsive to the needs, expressed and unexpressed, of another human being. “The loving person responds,” Fromm writes.
The third essential element of love is respect. Fromm argued that practicing respect keeps care and responsibility from spilling over into domination and possessiveness. He was clear to distinguish genuine respect from fear and awe, in contrast, it requires the ability to see a person as they are.
Which leads into the last element, knowledge. Fromm recognized a positive motivation behind some cruel, acts, such as when children dissect animals to study them. This reflects a desire to know another. But, he emphasized that knowledge, like respect, can’t emerge in relationships of domination and exploitation. Developing real knowledge, the real understanding that forms an essential part of love, requires the ability to see people and things as they are.
So love is an orientation of character, it goes beyond the love object.
What do you think about his point that you cannot love one person and be indifferent to all others?
To love one means to love all, including one’s self.
You can watch this interview with Mike Wallace where he talks about love and why it’s so difficult.
With these two books, Fromm captured large audiences extending beyond the discipline of psychology. Both were international best sellers and both have broad sociological implications. They extend Fromm’s basic assumptions to realms that most people view as pretty important.