Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Fromm's focus in this work is on the question of why people systematically give up their freedom when they get it. In particular, it is devoted to the problem of totalitarian regimes and why such regimes are supported, despite the fact that people tend to declare freedom as a value worth fighting for, and even quite fought for it during various revolutions. The book was written in 1941, so the author not only observed the entire evolution of the Nazi regime in Germany, but by the time the book was written, he had already seen with his own eyes its consequences in the form of the World War that began in 1939.
“In the years since the victory of fascist regimes, … we had to admit that in Germany millions of people gave up his freedom with the same fervor with which their fathers fought for it; they did not aspire to freedom, and was looking for a way to get rid of it; that millions of others were indifferent and did not consider that freedom is worth to fight and die” – wrote Fromm.
In fact, this is the problem statement – a problem that, by the way, in addition to Fromm, some other very important authors will also work on, in particular, you can recall the works of Hannah Arendt, Jean-Paul Sartard, Paul Feyerabend and Michel Foucault. All of these authors, including Fromm, analyze the reasons for the formation of totalitarianism and the collapse of democratic societies in order to understand what the problem is and what means should be used to make a democratic regime sustainable.
Each author offers a different perspective on this issue. Fromm's answer is that the origins of the problem are psychological and are rooted in the additional burden that freedom and progress bring with them. Since the Middle Ages, Fromm reasoned, the conditions of human life have changed in all areas: new social conditions have brought not only freedom, but also individualism, the atomization of society, and such an unpleasant thing as responsibility for decisions, which, as it turned out, is attached to freedom.
All this gives rise to a feeling of fear and loneliness in a person, a feeling that he is now “on his own”. And this feeling is very unpleasant, and the person tries in every possible way to avoid it.
“Physiological needs are not the only necessary inherent, imperative part of human nature. There is another, equally irresistible one; it is not rooted in physiological processes, but is the very essence of human existence – the need to connect with the world around us, the need to avoid loneliness. Feeling completely alone leads to mental destruction, just as physical hunger leads to death.”
And here, voila, modern totalitarian parties enter the arena, offering a very convenient deal: to give up not very pleasant freedom in favor of a totalitarian regime and in return get a sense of community (national, party, state affiliation), collective responsibility instead of individual (I had an order, it was a party decision, etc.), national pride and other buns. That is, totalitarian leaders seem to say: “You are in safe hands, you have reliable party members with you; you don't have to think about anything, the party will decide everything for you.”
“When the connections that gave a person confidence are broken, when an individual confronts the world around him as something completely alien, when he needs to overcome an unbearable feeling of powerlessness and loneliness, two paths open up for him. One path leads him to “positive” freedom; it can spontaneously associate themselves with the world through love and work, through the true manifestation of his sensuous, intellectual and emotional abilities; thus, he can regain the unity of the people, with the world and with himself, renouncing independence and integrity of the self. The other way is the way back: a person's rejection of freedom in an attempt to overcome his loneliness, closing the gap that has arisen between his personality and the world around him.”�
But totalitarian regimes are not the only way. As you can see from the quote above, there is an alternative. We don't need a totalitarian leader to truly connect with other people. Instead of the illusion of connection that the infantile symbiotic relationship in the party gives us, we can choose a difficult but more correct path: to grow up, take responsibility, and learn to build relationships with other people as independent, free, adult people. This is what a free society should teach its citizens.