Title: Back Fromm the Dead

Prompt

Erich Fromm is almost offhand in declaring that disobedience is a first act of freedom. Keeping in mind that all of us are urged to be obedient from our early years onward, why would Fromm say that we should be disobedient? And what kind of disobedience is he talking about? Obviously, disobedient people (especially children) are often a pain and are considered undesirable. What, then, is he really driving at when he counsels disobedience?

Plan

Title: Back Fromm the Dead

Introduction:

Author’s background

When Fromm states that we should be disobedient, he refers to the idea of individuals needing to act on their own terms, to distinguish the causes that impel them.

Thesis:

When Fromm states that people should be disobedient, he refers to the idea that individuals need to act on their own terms by distinguishing the causes that impel them, even when it means non-compliance.

Body Paragraph 1: Why Fromm says we should be disobedient

Discuss being able to listen to one’s own conscience and not conform to the majority.

Body Paragraph 2: What kind of disobedience is he talking about and not talking about.

When Fromm advocates disobedience, he is suggesting that an individual should be able to distinguish which situations apply and not apply.

Body Paragraph 3: When Fromm counsels disobedience, what he is really driving at is individuals’ ability to think for themselves.

Conclusion: Fromm’s offhand claim that disobedience is the first step to freedom has a great purpose: the individual must break through the “chains of illusion” in order to preserve one’s own self-interests. Discuss all three points from body paragraphs and conclude with the world becoming empowered and free.

Potential Quotes:

“Nationalism killed humanism” (335).

“The nation and its sovereignty . . .” (335).

“If the capacity . . . (332).

“Transcending . . . (335).

Essay

Back Fromm the Dead

Erich Fromm was a well-known psychoanalyst who held a unique perspective in regard to society’s influence on an individual and the subsequent effects that this influence had on a global scale. Fromm was born in Frankfurt, Germany and lived through World War I and World War II. This time frame in history undoubtedly had a significant influence on Fromm’s career, specifically due to the tremendous global chaos that had taken place. He considered World War I as a perfect example of the negative influence of nationalism. He would define nationalism as a political ideology that revolves around the loyalty and devotion that an individual has to one’s own country. Fromm’s definition of nationalism assumes that an individual’s desires are subservient to that of the nation and its values. Fromm develops this conclusion after witnessing the mass destruction from each world war. This destruction demonstrated the fact that nations were “operat[ing] under illusions that were politically promoted to rob the individual of independent thought” (327).

In “The Individual in the Chains of Illusion,” Fromm addresses the underlying issue of his theory that “[n]ationalism killed humanism” (335). The basic idea of this claim is that individuals lose their sense of individualism and conform to the needs of the state. He uses many examples to support his argument, including the threat of nuclear obliteration and the role that an individual would have in saving the planet from this form of destruction. He stresses the fact that people need to exert a certain level of disobedience when it comes to being a part of a larger community, especially when the interests of the state negatively affect their own interests. When Fromm states that people should be disobedient, he refers to the idea that individuals need to act on their own terms by distinguishing the causes that impel them, even when it means non-compliance.

When Fromm states that we should be disobedient, he refers to the idea that individuals, on their own terms, need to distinguish the causes that impel them to act from the causes that promote their own self-interests. Fromm contends, “the nation and its sovereignty become the new idols to which the individual succumbed” (335). He describes the atomic age and the mastery of technology that resulted in a level of political control over the individual as a significant factor in understanding his expression of disobedience. If a nuclear weapon were detonated, it would occur because one nation was protecting its own sovereignty, as Fromm suggests, and not the welfare of the people it represents. After all, during this time, the idea of mutually-assured destruction, which was the concept that if one nuclear weapon were detonated in an act of war, the other countries would counter the attack until their nuclear arsenal was depleted, seemed like an imminent threat. Fromm underscores the obvious in that nuclear weapons have an enormous negative effect on individuals; these weapons are really just a form of establishing power for the nation. Fromm’s point is that although it would be the nation’s decision to move forward with mass destruction, it would the individual who would literally press the button to trigger an attack. Fromm argues that some individuals in society have stopped thinking for themselves and blindly follow orders. After all, it would be this sense of misdirected patriotism, this obedience, that would result in the annihilation of the individual and the world.

When Fromm advocates disobedience, he is simply suggesting that an individual should be able to distinguish which situations apply and do not apply. Disobedience, in the context that Fromm is referring to, revolves around a lifestyle that promotes individuals’ moral values rather than values forced upon individuals from a central organization. Fromm stresses the importance of this concept when discussing his fears about weapons of mass destruction. He argues that only a humanist would encompass the moral value to not press the button, rather than adhering to authoritarian values and destroy the world. He states, “If the capacity for disobedience constituted the beginning of human history, obedience might cause the end of human history” (332). The obedience Fromm is referring to is that of the soldier blindly taking orders from a commander, even when the soldier is not necessarily promoting her/her own moral values. Fromm argues that “cliché thinking, conformity, and obedience to the anonymous authority of public opinion” (332) is what distinguishes obedience from disobedience. This is because someone who is obedient is more concerned with a sense of patriotism, even when it conflicts with an individual’s own welfare. It should be noted that Fromm is not talking about disobedience as a way to justify an individual’s selfish needs, such as disobeying abolishment of slavery in the Post-Civil War period to protect the comfort of white men. Rather Fromm stresses the importance of protecting an individual’s own values over the values and interests of the larger organization.

When Fromm counsels disobedience, what he is really driving at is individuals’ ability to think for themselves and consciously deter conformity. It is the ability to recognize when it is appropriate to stand up for what an individual believes, even if it means having a minority view. This occurs due to Fromm’s hope of “transcend[ing] the narrow limits of the nation” (335). He points out the fact that the concept of obedience continues to overpower the idea of disobedience. Fromm illustrates that after each world war, the likelihood of a nuclear threat quickly increased as the sense of nationalism, which is directly attributed to a sense of obedience, increased. Surely, Fromm’s point when he counsels disobedience is to show how non-compliance can actually be beneficial to the individual, even when it directly contradicts the interests of the state.

Fromm’s offhand claim that disobedience is the first step to freedom is a powerful message. Its purpose is to remind individuals that they must break the “chains of illusion” that are manufactured by the state in order to preserve their self-interests. He argues that the relevance of this statement can be the difference between life and death, as described by his fear of nuclear destruction. Fromm recognized the importance of individuals listening to their own conscience when it comes to advocating disobedience without succumbing to the influence of social pressures. Fromm encourages diversity of thought, especially when it corresponds with one’s own sense of individualism. If he could be described as having one goal, it would be to awaken the conscience of passive individuals and remind them that with an appropriate measure of disobedience, society can evolve from being controlled to being empowered.