To Have or To Be? | Erich Fromm
An Absurd Passion for the Impossible in Times of Despair
Towards the end of this year I finished reading 'To Have or to Be' by Erich Fromm. The title of the book
hints at two radically different
modes of existence that Fromm elucidates in the first part of the book. The "Having Mode" is a way of
existing that is centered on the desire to acquire, possess, and control, leading to a life focused on
things. In contrast to this is the "Being Mode", which is a way of living centered on inner activity,
authentic experience, connection, love and growth, rather than on the acquisition and possession of things.
Fromm shows that this distinction has been pointed out in the past by thinkers such as the Buddha, Jesus,
Meister Eckhart, Spinoza, Marx and Albert Schweitzer for example.
In the second part of the book Fromm offers a very accurate analysis of the individual in modern society. The "Having Mode" is clearly dominant as it serves the interest of the powerful owners of corporations under capitalism best: "Modern consumers may identify themselves by the formula: I am = what I have and what I consume". This consumption cannot satisfy the individual in a meaningful way, and it even creates insecurity and anxiety: If I am defined by what I have, what happens if I lose what I have?
Something else is even more problematic: in late-stage capitalism, most individuals have undergone a process of self-commodification. They view themselves as products to be sold on the "personality market" and they almost show a certain lack of identity in order to be adaptable and thus desirable according to the needs of the market. If anything, this has gotten worse since Fromm wrote this book. Byung-Chul Han has written more recently about why this is still so problematic: "The neoliberal regime conceals its compulsive structure behind the seeming freedom of the single individual, who no longer understands him- or herself as a subjugated subject (“subject to”), but as a project in the process of realizing itself ..."
Basically we are self-veiling, to use a term from James P. Carse - we are hiding our unfreedom from ourselves, living in an illusory freedom of being able to become who we (supposedly) want to become.
This all sounds very pessimistic, but Fromm actually ends the book on a quite optimistic note by offering a hopeful vision for the future, while still acknowledging the difficulties which might hinder this vision from being actualized. He calls for a radical transformation of not only individual consciousness towards the "Being Mode" of existence, but also of societal structures. This is important, as the "Being Mode" is already at least partially present in all human beings. If the society we lived in was different and would value individuals as beings and not as consumers, this potential could be further developed in everyone. The most important change in society should be a move away from capitalism towards an organization in which the economy is subordinated to human development and not the other way round as we still have it now. Furthermore, he argues for some kind of universal basic income, the end of sexism, the prohibition of brainwashing through advertising and new forms of participatory democracy.
From a current standpoint we can sadly see that Fromm's vision is maybe even more utopian today than it was almost 50 years ago. He rightly assessed that there is going to be a growing awareness of crisis and an increasing dissatisfaction with existing societal systems, but instead of this fostering the growth of a humanitarian way of structuring society grounded in love, solidarity and reason, capitalism is still going strong. It can be argued that it is stronger than ever with algorithms and artificial intelligence deciding in a personalized manner what ads and content everyone is shown, while managing to numb many to their dissatisfaction by providing an endless dopamine feed at a fingertip. This way, psychological well-being and our ability to focus are being severely impacted. Politically it's also not looking too well: far-right political movements are on the rise almost everywhere in the west. Instead of recognizing neoliberal politics as the root of many of our problems, these movements are able to convince more and more people that certain groups of people are to be blamed - usually immigrants. Fromm is right to ask: "Considering the power of the corporations, the apathy and powerlessness of the large mass of the population, the inadequacy of political leaders in almost all countries, the threat of nuclear war, the ecological dangers... is there a reasonable chance for salvation?"
From a purely rational way of seeing things, the answer is almost certainly "No!". Does that mean we should give up? To answer using Fromm's words: "If a sick person has even the barest chance for survival, no responsible physician will say, 'Let's give up the effort,' or will use only palliatives. On the contrary, everything conceivable is done to save the sick person's life. Certainly, a sick society cannot expect anything less."
Can we still have hope in such a situation? Not really - but we might still be hopeful.
And thus my faith remains this: an absurd passion for the impossible.
In the second part of the book Fromm offers a very accurate analysis of the individual in modern society. The "Having Mode" is clearly dominant as it serves the interest of the powerful owners of corporations under capitalism best: "Modern consumers may identify themselves by the formula: I am = what I have and what I consume". This consumption cannot satisfy the individual in a meaningful way, and it even creates insecurity and anxiety: If I am defined by what I have, what happens if I lose what I have?
Something else is even more problematic: in late-stage capitalism, most individuals have undergone a process of self-commodification. They view themselves as products to be sold on the "personality market" and they almost show a certain lack of identity in order to be adaptable and thus desirable according to the needs of the market. If anything, this has gotten worse since Fromm wrote this book. Byung-Chul Han has written more recently about why this is still so problematic: "The neoliberal regime conceals its compulsive structure behind the seeming freedom of the single individual, who no longer understands him- or herself as a subjugated subject (“subject to”), but as a project in the process of realizing itself ..."
Basically we are self-veiling, to use a term from James P. Carse - we are hiding our unfreedom from ourselves, living in an illusory freedom of being able to become who we (supposedly) want to become.
This all sounds very pessimistic, but Fromm actually ends the book on a quite optimistic note by offering a hopeful vision for the future, while still acknowledging the difficulties which might hinder this vision from being actualized. He calls for a radical transformation of not only individual consciousness towards the "Being Mode" of existence, but also of societal structures. This is important, as the "Being Mode" is already at least partially present in all human beings. If the society we lived in was different and would value individuals as beings and not as consumers, this potential could be further developed in everyone. The most important change in society should be a move away from capitalism towards an organization in which the economy is subordinated to human development and not the other way round as we still have it now. Furthermore, he argues for some kind of universal basic income, the end of sexism, the prohibition of brainwashing through advertising and new forms of participatory democracy.
From a current standpoint we can sadly see that Fromm's vision is maybe even more utopian today than it was almost 50 years ago. He rightly assessed that there is going to be a growing awareness of crisis and an increasing dissatisfaction with existing societal systems, but instead of this fostering the growth of a humanitarian way of structuring society grounded in love, solidarity and reason, capitalism is still going strong. It can be argued that it is stronger than ever with algorithms and artificial intelligence deciding in a personalized manner what ads and content everyone is shown, while managing to numb many to their dissatisfaction by providing an endless dopamine feed at a fingertip. This way, psychological well-being and our ability to focus are being severely impacted. Politically it's also not looking too well: far-right political movements are on the rise almost everywhere in the west. Instead of recognizing neoliberal politics as the root of many of our problems, these movements are able to convince more and more people that certain groups of people are to be blamed - usually immigrants. Fromm is right to ask: "Considering the power of the corporations, the apathy and powerlessness of the large mass of the population, the inadequacy of political leaders in almost all countries, the threat of nuclear war, the ecological dangers... is there a reasonable chance for salvation?"
From a purely rational way of seeing things, the answer is almost certainly "No!". Does that mean we should give up? To answer using Fromm's words: "If a sick person has even the barest chance for survival, no responsible physician will say, 'Let's give up the effort,' or will use only palliatives. On the contrary, everything conceivable is done to save the sick person's life. Certainly, a sick society cannot expect anything less."
Can we still have hope in such a situation? Not really - but we might still be hopeful.
And thus my faith remains this: an absurd passion for the impossible.