FROMM: EVIL: HEART & ANATOMY
Fromm, “The Heart of Man”(Harper & Row, 1964)
Man - Wolf or Sheep?
There are many who believe that men are sheep; there are others who believe that men are wolves. Both sides can muster good arguments for their positions. Those who propose that men are sheep have only to point to the fact that men are easily influenced to do what they are told, even if it is harmful to themselves; that they have followed their leaders into wars which brought them nothing but destruction; that they have believed any kind of nonsense if it was presented with sufficient vigor and supported by power - from the harsh threats of priests and kings to the soft voices of the hidden and not-so-hidden persuaders. It seems that the majority of men are suggestible, half-awake children, willing to surrender their will to anyone who speaks with a voice that is threatening or sweet enough to sway them. Indeed, he who has a conviction strong enough to withstand the opposition of the crowd is the exception rather than the rule, an exception often admired centuries later, mostly laughed at by his contemporaries. …
But if most men have been sheep, why is it that man’s life is so different from that of sheep? His history has been written in blood; it is a history of continuous violence, in which almost invariably force has been used to bend its will. Did Hitler alone exterminate millions of Jews? Did Stalin alone exterminate millions of political enemies? These men were not alone; they had thousands of men who killed for them, tortured for them, and who did so not only willingly but with pleasure. Do we not see man’s inhumanity to man everywhere - in ruthless warfare, in murder and rape, in the ruthless exploitations of the weaker by the stronger, and in the fact that the sighs of the tortured and suffering creature have so often fallen on deaf ears and hardened hearts? All these facts have led thinkers like Hobbes to the conclusion that homo homini lupus (man is a wolf to his fellow man); they have led many of us today to the assumption that man is vicious and destructive by nature…
Yet the arguments of both sides leave us puzzled. It is true that we may personally know some potential or manifest killers and sadists as ruthless as Stalin and Hitler were; yet these are the exceptions rather than the rule… There are numerous opportunities for cruelty and sadism in everyday life in which people could indulge without fear of retaliation; yet many do not do so; in fact, many react with a certain sense of revulsion when they meet cruelty and sadism.
Is there, then, another and perhaps better explanation for the puzzling contradiction we deal with here? Should we assume that the simple answer is that there is a minority of wolves living side by side with a majority of sheep? The wolves want to kill; the sheep want to follow. Hence the wolves get the sheep to kill, to murder, and to strangle, and the sheep comply not because they enjoy it, but because they want to follow; and even then, the killers have to invent stories about the nobility of their cause, about defense against the threat to freedom, about revenge for bayoneted children, raped women, and violated honor, to get the majority of the sheep to act like wolves. This answer sounds plausible, but it still leaves many doubts… How is it that sheep can be so easily persuaded to act like wolves if it is not in their nature to do so, even providing that violence is presented to them as a sacred duty?… Maybe man is both wolf and sheep - or neither wolf nor sheep? …
Love of Death and Love of Life
There is no more fundamental distinction between men, psychologically and morally than the one between those who love death and those who love life, between the necrophilous and the biophilous… The person with the necrophilous orientation is one who is attracted to and fascinated by all that is not alive, all that is dead; corpses, decay, feces and dirt. Necrophiles are those people who love to talk about sickness, about burials, about death. They come to life precisely when they can talk about death. A clear example of the pure necrophilous type is Hitler. He was fascinated by destruction and the smell of death was sweet to him… The necrophilous dwell in the past, never in the future… They are cold, distant, devotees of “law and order.”… The lover of death necessarily loves force. For him the greatest achievement of man is not to give life, but to destroy it… While life is characterized by growth in a structured, functional manner, the necrophilous person loves all that does not grow, all that is mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic to the inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all living people were things… This aspect of the necrophilous person has been demonstrated to the world by the figure of Eichmann. Eichmann was fascinated by bureaucratic order and death. His supreme values were obedience, and the proper functioning of the organization. He transported Jews as he would have transported coal. That they were human being was hardly in the field of his vision, hence even the problem of whether he hated or did not hate his victims is irrelevant. …
Let us begin with the consideration of the simplest and most obvious characteristics of contemporary industrial man: the stifling of his focal interest in people, nature, and living structures, together with the increasing attraction of mechanical, non-alive artifacts. Examples abound. All over the industrialized world, there are men who feel more tender toward, and are more interested in, their automobiles than their wives. They are proud of their car; they cherish it; they wash it (even many of those who could pay to have this job done), and in some countries many give it a loving nickname; they observe it and are concerned at the slightest symptom of a dysfunction. To be sure a car is not a sexual object - but it is an object of love; life without a car seems to some more intolerable than a life without a woman. Is this attachment to automobiles not somewhat peculiar, or even perverse? …
The fusion of technique and destructiveness was not yet visible in the first World War. There was little destruction by planes, and the tank was only a further evolution of traditional weapons. The second World War brought about a decisive change: the use of the airplane for mass killing. The men dropping in the bombs were hardly aware that they were killing or burning to death thousands of human beings in a few minutes. The air crews were a team; one man piloted the plane, another navigated it, another dropped the bombs. They were not concerned with killing and were hardly aware of an enemy. They were concerned with the proper handling of the complicated machine along the lines laid down in meticulously organized plans. That as the result of their acts many thousands, and sometimes over 100,000 people, would be killed, burnt, and mamed was of course known to them cerebrally, but hardly comprehended affectively; it was, paradoxical as this may sound, none of their concern. It is probably for this reason that they - or at least most of them - did not feel guilty for acts that belong to the most horrible a human being can perform.
Modern aerial warfare destruction follows the principle of modern technical production, in which both the worker and the engineer are completely alienated from the product of their work. They perform technical tasks in accordance with the general plan of management, but often do not see the finished product; even if they do, it is none of their concern or responsibility. They are not supposed to ask themselves whether it is a useful or harmful product— that is a matter for management to decide; as far as the latter is concerned, however, “ useful” simply means” profitable” and has no reference to the real use of the product. In war “profitable” means all that serves the defeat of the enemy… For the engineer as well as for the pilot it is enough to know the decision of management, and he is not supposed to question them, nor is he interested in doing so. Whether it is a matter of killing 100,000 people in Dresden or Hiroshima or of devastating the land and people of Vietnam, it is not up to him to worry about the military or moral justification of the orders; his only task is to serve his machine properly.
One might object to this interpretation by stressing the fact that soldiers have always owed unquestioning obedience to orders. This is true enough, but the objection ignores the important difference between the ground soldiers and the bomber pilot. The former is close to the destruction caused by his weapons, and he does not, by a single act, cause the destruction of large masses of human beings whom he has never seen. The most one can say is that traditional army discipline and feelings of patriotic duty will also, in the case of pilots increase the readiness from questioning execution of orders; but this does not seem to be the main point, as it undoubtedly is for the average soldier who fights on the ground. These pilots are highly trained, technically-minded people who hardly need this additional motivation to do their job properly and without hesitation.
Even the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis was organized like a production process, although the mass killing in the gas chambers did not require a high degree of technical sophistication. At one end of the process the victims were selected in accordance with the criterion of their capability for doing useful work. Those who did not fall into this category were led into the chambers and told that it was a hygienic purpose; the gas was let in; clothes and other useful objects such as hair, gold teeth were removed from the bodies, sorted out and “recycled,” and the corpses were burned. The victims were “processed” methodically, efficiently; the executioners did not have to see the agony; they participated in the economic-political program of the Fuhrer, but were one step removed from direct and immediate killing with their own hands. No doubt, to harden one’s heart against being touched by the fate of human beings whom one has seen and selected, and who are to be murdered only a few hundred yards away within the hour requires a much more thorough hardening than is the case with the air crews who drop bombs. But in spite of this difference the fact remains that the two situations have a very important element in common: the technicalization of destruction and with it the removal of the full affective recognition of what one is doing. Once this process has been fully established there is no limit to destructiveness because nobody destroys: one only serves the machine for programmed - hence, apparently rational - purposes.
If these considerations regarding the technical – bureaucratic nature of modern large-scale destructiveness are correct, do they not lead to the repudiation of my central hypothesis concerning the necrophilious nature of the spirit of total technique? Do we not have to admit that contemporary technical man is not motivated by a passion for destruction, but would be more properly described as a totally alienated man whose dominant orientation is cerebral boredom, who feels little love but also little desire to destroy, who has become, in a characterological sense, an automaton, but not a destroyer?
Simultaneously with the increasing necrophilious development, the opposite trait, that of love of life, is also developing. It manifests itself in many forms: in the protest against the deadening of life, a protest by people among all social stratum and age groups, but particularly by the young. There is hope in the rising protest against pollution and war; in the growing concern for the quality of life; in the attitude of many young professionals who prefer meaningful and interesting work to high income and prestige; in the widespread search for spiritual values - misguided and naive though it often is. … The opposite of the necrophilous orientation is the biophilous; its essence is love of life in contrast to love of death. Like necrophilia, biophilia is not constituted by a single trait, but represents a total orientation, an entire way of being… The full unfolding of biophilia is to be found in the productive orientation. The person who fully loves life is attracted to the processes of life and growth in all spheres… He wants to mold and to influence by love, reason, by his example; not by force, by cutting things apart, by the bureaucratic manner of administering people as if they were things. He enjoys life and all its manifestations rather than mere excitement… The conscience of the biophilous person is not one of forcing oneself to refrain from evil and to do good… the moral effort consists in strengthening the life-loving side in oneself. For this reason the biophile does not dwell in remorse and guilt, which are, after all, only aspects of self-loathing and sadness. He turns quickly to life and attempts to do good. …
As to the social conditions for the development of biophilia… Perhaps the most obvious factor that should be mentioned here is that of a situation of abundance versus scarcity, both economically and psychologically. As long as most of man’s energy is taken up by the defense of his life against attacks, or to ward off starvation, love of life must be stunted, and necrophilia fostered. Another important social condition for the development of biophilia lies in the abolition of injustice. … I refer to a social situation in which a man is not an end in himself, but becomes the means for the ends of another man. Finally, a significant condition for the development of biophilia is freedom. But “freedom from” political shackles is not a sufficient condition. If love for life is to develop, there must be freedom “to”: freedom to create and to construct, to wonder and to venture. Such freedom requires that the individual be active and responsible, not a slave or a well-fed cog in the machine. … Even a society in which security and justice are present might not be conducive to love of life if the creative self-activity of the individual is not furthered. It is not enough that we are not slaves; if social conditions further the existence of automatons, the result will not be love of life, but love of death.
Freedom, Determinism, Alternativism
These considerations lead us to the problem of man's freedom. Is man free to choose the good at any given moment, or has he no such freedom of choice because he is determined by forces inside and outside himself? …
If we mean by freedom freedom of choice, then the question amounts to asking whether we are free to choose between, let us say, A and B. The determinists have said that we "are not free, because man - like all other things in nature - is determined by causes; just as a stone dropped in mid-air is not free not to fall, so man is compelled to choose A or B, because of motives determining him, forcing him, or causing him to choose A or B. … Can one really claim that a man who has grown up in material and spiritual poverty, who has never experienced love or concern for anybody, whose body has been conditioned to drinking by years of alcoholic abuse, who has" had no possibility of changing his circumstances - can one claim that he is "free" to make his choice? Is not this position contrary to the facts; and is it not without compassion and, in the last analysis, a position which in the language of the twentieth century reflects, like much of Sartre's philosophy, the spirit of bourgeois individualism and egocentricity…
Whether we apply determinism to social groups and classes or to individuals, have not Freudian and Marxist analysis shown how weak man is in his battle against determining instinctive and social forces? Has not psychoanalysis shown that a man who has never solved his dependency on his mother lacks the ability to act and to decide, that he feels weak and thus is forced into an ever increasing dependency on mother figures, until he reaches the point of no return? Does not Marxist analysis demonstrate that once a class - such as the lower middle class - has lost fortune, culture, and a social function, its members lose hope and regress to archaic, necrophilic, and narcissistic orientations?
Yet neither Marx nor Freud were determinists in the sense of believing in an irreversibility of causal determination. They both believed in the possibility that a course already initiated can be altered. They both saw this possibility of change rooted in man's capacity for becoming aware of the forces which move him behind his back, so to speak, and thus enabling him to regain his freedom. … Both proposed that man is determined by the laws of cause and effect, but that by awareness and right action he can create and enlarge the realm of freedom. It is up to him to gain an optimum of freedom and to extricate himself from the chains of necessity. For Freud the awareness of the unconscious, for Marx the awareness of socio-economic forces and class interests, were the conditions for liberation; for both, in addition to awareness, an active will and struggle were necessary conditions for liberation. …