by David H. Kessel
EVANS, RICHARD I. Dialogue with Erich Fromm, 2nd Ed. NY: Praeger Publishers, 1981.
This book is an interview with Fromm by a psychologist in the mid—60’s. Originally published in 1966, the author felt it was appropriate to issue a new edition following the death of Fromm in 1980. Given the paucity of autobiographical details about Fromm, this book is particular1y important for its look at the “man behind the book” (as Evans puts it). Fromm speaks freely about many of his long-standing concepts as well as presenting a reflexive view of himself and what others have said about him. Evans’ questions lead the reader through Fromm’s theory of social character, his methods, his historical background, and his philosophical orientations. Through this process, the reader gets a glimpse of the changes, if any, Fromm has made, as well as any new emphases Fromm cares to make.
Of particular interest (although merely a sampling) are Fromm’s comments about what has become to be known in sociology as the “ultimacy claims” of “paradigmatic battles” in observing social reality (i.e. Ritzer). Also important are his thoughts about “covert authoritarianism” which Fromm defines as the “manipulation of people through signals”---replacing “overt authoritarianism.”(p. 21) Also, similar to Berger, Fromm speaks of humans as “puppets” and “hiding” behind “masks”(as substitutes for an authentic sense of identity)(p. 29). Fromm also critiques the notion of “social mobility” for creating an “illusion of independence which is unrelated to the level of reality in which man increasingly becomes but a cog in a machine”(p. 29). He also specifically defends the psychoanalytic method as not being “any more prone to falsification than are other methods...," or that its “interests and aims make it less scientific”(p. 82). He refers to the social ethics in a given society as “the norms of that society”(p. 101).
These are just a few of the subjects of sociological interest and import in this book. While it was not Evans’ purpose to be overtly critical of Fromm’s ideas, the author does ask some tough questions. This allows Fromm to respond extemporaneously and aids the reader in judging Fromm for themselves.
FUNK, RAINER. Erich Fromm: The Courage To Be Human, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1982.
It was originally published in Germany in 1978, thus allowing for a postscript by Fromm himself. Funk has attempted to treat Fromm as a “whole” in this book. He begins with an explication of Fromm’s “socio-psychological insights” and his “philosophical-anthropological ideas.” He details Fromm’s social psychology and, of course, his theory of social character. He pays particular attention to Fromm’s work on Freud, including a critique of his concept of man. He then handles Fromm’s concepts of man, nature, and history, relating the latter as a continuation of Marx’s theory of history. Funk then explains Fromm’s humanism and the critique inherent in it. It is through this presentation of Fromm’s humanism that Funk bridges to a lengthy discussion of Fromm’s humanistic ethics and humanistic religion, including the sources of Fromm’s thoughts on religion/mysticism.
Funk continues with a section on “Having” and “Being” as characterological concepts and as religious concepts. He concludes with a portrayal of Fromm’s humanism as a challenge to Christian theology, an aspect of Fromm unrelated to this study. These “religious” sections will be utilized only insofar as they pertain to Fromm’s sociology of religion.
Funk’s book is an invaluable addition to the body of literature on Fromm. He attempts to present Fromm on and in his own terms. His short, but incisive, introduction on Fromm’s life and work reveals his understanding of Fromm as an active agent in conditions not all of his own choosing (as Marx would say). While striving to be critical of Fromm’s ideas, Funk acknowledges that the paucity of attention to (especially in “German-speaking countries”) led him “to offer this study as the first comprehensive presentation of his discoveries and ideas” (p. xiii). Funk also critically comments that the response to Fromm’s ideas in English-speaking countries is “more remarkable for its volume than for its quality”(p. xiii).
Funk clearly appreciates Fromm and his efforts. He said that (“to his credit”) “he risked a global view of man and his history at a time when the sciences were becoming even more specialized” (p. xiii). He attributes the limited discussion of Fromm’s thought in the same terms which Horowitz spoke of Mills; that is, “that a persuasive and appealing style necessarily indicates scientific inadequacy”(p. viii). Yet, he too is critical of Fromm for having contributed to the limited discussion, saying that “his own presentation frequently suffers from an imprecise and inconsistent use of concepts and too limited a systematic interest---both deficiencies in a scientific discussion” (p. xiv).
Finally, this was a book which was overdue. While certainly not making Fromm’s sociology explicit, Funk does go a long way towards treating Fromm’s works as a whole. As mentioned above, the book’s bibliography is unmatched for comprehensiveness, although not totally complete.
NOTE: I have to take mild exception with Funk’s contention that his book is the “first comprehensive presentation of his discoveries and ideas.” Although certainly unlike any other on Fromm, Hausdorff’s book, to be discussed next, is also in this vein and it was written in 1972. The two authors use different styles, but the result is similar.
HAUSDORFF, DON. Erich Fromm. NY: Twayne Publishers, 1972.
Arguably the most important book written on Fromm. Hausdorff attempts to deal with the whole of Fromm’s ideas by means of a combination of chronological and thematic treatments. He organizes each chapter around a series of ideas, but also manages to review each book (or article) in roughly chronological order.
Hausdorff classifies his approach to Fromm as “one of critical sympathy and intellectual curiosity.” Yet, there is no lack of criticism of Fromm in this book. Hausdorff presents the views of many of Fromm’s critics, providing his own commentary in order to better understand the criticisms. Yet, he also presents the views of many supporters, guiding the reader to a clearer understanding of what is being said and why.
The most important aspect of this book is Hausdorff’s summaries of each of Fromm’s books and articles. These provide a valuable overview of his work---valuable to both those who are already familiar with Fromm as well as to the uninitiated. Hausdorff situates each piece in an historical flow, relating each to national and international events. He deals with the sources of Fromm’s ideas and clearly portrays his synthesizing abilities. Central to this presentation is Fromm’s synthesis of the ideas of Marx and Freud.
While Hausdorff does not explicitly deal with Fromm's Sociology, his explication of Fromm’s central concepts helps make it readily accessible. Also, his portrayal of Fromm’s life and his intellectual development helps situate Fromm as a thinker deserving of attention from many disciplines.
Finally, Hausdorff provides a limited bibliography of Fromm’s work. Most important here is his short, but helpful, annotated bibliography of secondary works.
LANDIS, BERNARD and TAUBER, EDWARD S., eds., In The Name of Life: Essays in Honor of Erich Fromm. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
An excellent compilation of articles by individuals working in areas of interest to Fromm or in areas spawned by his work.
SCHAAR, JOHN I. Escape From Authority. NY: Basic Books, 1961.
Written in 1961. this is the first full-length book on Fromm. Schaar is a political scientist grounded in both political and social theory (but not psychological or psychoanalytic efforts). Although properly respectful of Fromm and his efforts, Schaar is a harsh critic whose own temperament has been described as “unbearably snide.” Yet, as even one critical reviewer has observed, Schaar’s book “should be read by all whom are disposed to take Fromm seriously, lest they take him too seriously.”
Schaar’s basic premise is that Fromm is a “dazzler” and a “juggler” who bases his ideas on unscientific and contradictory principles (i.e. “incompatibles”). He begins his assessment with an analysis of the logic and methodology in Fromm’s thought. Given that Schaar evaluates Fromm on the basis of an uncritical acceptance of his own logic and methodology, he quite necessarily finds fault with Fromm’s (and proceeds on this basis throughout the book). He moves on to a presentation and critique of Fromm’s theory of character and his theories of alienation and “social pathology.” He continues with an assessment of Fromm’s utopianism (which Schaar decides upon earlier), calling it “unrealistic.” Finally, he arrives at his central problem with Fromm: his alleged desire to abandon all authority and to posit a normative system of ethics, which Schaar simply maintains, is “wrong.”
Response to Schaar’s work is mixed. As one reviewer pointed out, not surprisingly the “establishment community of psychoanalysis” finds much merit in his book. Of course, this same community is the one which Fromm critiques for “selling out” to adjustment-oriented living. Even those reviewers who are largely sympathetic to Schaar’s work have criticisms of his inadequate background and his attempt at a too-broadly-based critique. Those who dislike Schaar’s book, however, do not simply defend Fromm blindly. Their critique of Schaar is mainly based on Schaar’s inability or unwillingness to give Fromm his own terms; that he fails to understand Fromm. He approaches Fromm with his own “fixed categories of thought,” based on his assumptions, secure in the belief “that a certain kind of demonstratable reality is the total reality.” As Hausdorff has pointed out, “Rather than questioning Fromm’s ideas, Schaar usually dismisses them”(p. 137).
Schaar’s critique of Fromm is a positivistic one--labeling Fromm a moralist--certainly anything but a “scientist.” Of course, again, he does so with scant attention to long-standing critiques of his own notion of “science.” Schaar cannot understand why Fromm is so bent on trying to reconcile obvious contradictions. Given his own logic system, one in which one must choose between "apparent” either/or’s, Schaar even goes so far as to say Fromm lacks the “courage” to make “hard choices.”
There is much criticism of this book which goes beyond mere “quibbling.” Schaar’s presentation of Fromm’s ideas is good--as mere reiteration--but his critique lacks the willingness to grapple with them. Yet, throughout the book Schaar continues to “praise” Fromm. While some of this is certainly authentic admiration, undoubtedly it also reflects Schaar’s need “to pick him up off the floor and get him up for the next right cross” (Review in AJS). In short, Schaar has given a trenchant critique, but at a cost to his own scholarship.
Finally, it may seem ironic that Schaar’s book serves the purposes of this study in a particular way. By this is meant that Schaar clearly sees Fromm as sociological. He refers time and again to his sociology, not always, though, in positive terms. He twice links Fromm to C. Wright Mills and the “sociological imagination.” The first time he says Fromm has “a generous measure of the sociological imagination”(p. 168). The second reference is as follows: “...Escape From Freedom, which was based upon the concept of character formation which has been briefly set forth here, is one of the finest examples in modern social science of what C. Wright Mills calls “the sociological imagination”(pp. 93-94). So, despite his somewhat “loaded” assessment of Fromm, Schaar does have an appreciation for Fromm beyond traditional labels.
Schaar’s book is worth reading because, at least, he deals with a man who is worth the effort (Schaar’s own belief, too). It is also worth reading because Schaar covers topics important in intellectual discourse. Hausdorff put it well: “Indeed, reading his argumentative critics provides in itself a useful (if sometimes bewildering) introduction to the intellectual ferment of our age”(p. 4).
It may also be worthy to note that Schaar apparently did not follow up this 1961 book with any other attention to Fromm (who lived and wrote for another 19 years).
SHELL, KURT L. Erich Fromm’s Escape From Freedom: A Critical Commentary, NY: American H. D. M. Corporation, 1967.
A short but helpful book that gives a synopsis of Fromm’s first major book. Shell supplies analysis and commentary. He also is very critical of Fromm’s work, calling him a “moralist and utopian disguised as a scientist”(p. 39). He shares with Schaar the belief that Fromm is lacking in appreciation of the inherently tragic nature of the human condition. Unfortunately, he also shares Schaar’s unreflexive stance about his own assumptions. Yet, this book is still helpful in bringing out major issues and critical points in Fromm.
There are two other books written about Fromm which deserve mention even though they both have been written from a theological perspective. They are:
GLEN, J. STANLEY. Erich Fromm: A Protestant Critique.
Originally Glen’s Ph.D. dissertation in 1966. He takes Fromm to task about his “humanistic religion” and ethics.
HAMMOND, GUYTON B. Man in Estrangement. A Comparison of the Thought of Paul Tillich and Erich Fromm., 2nd Ed. Charlotte, N.C. : 1967.
This is an excellent portrayal of Fromm’s thoughts. However, there is nothing new in this book or which cannot he found in others. Yet, it is especially revealing in relation to Fromm’s theological implications vis-a-vis an outstanding humanistic theologian who has great appreciation and respect for Fromm, even though he wishes Fromm would believe in a God.
BIRNBACH, MARTIN. Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961.
Birnbach clearly recognizes Fromm’s sociological perspectives and his attempt to synthesize sociology (Marxian) with Freudian psychology (psychoanalysis). He gives a middle-of-the-road treatment of Fromm, both sympathetic to and critical of his ideas. Hausdorff observed that Birnbach is “moderate and pragmatic in tone,” and tries to understand Fromm (and the other scholars he covers) on their own terms...“rather than to evaluate them against some arbitrary standard.” He calls Frornm’s critique of capitalist society “cogent” and believes (“tentatively”) that Fromm’s greatest contribution will prove to be “methodological.”
Yet, he criticizes Fromm for being a modern-day “natural-law” philosopher and for being utopian and interestingly, “too original.” He takes Fromm to task for lacking economic and political realism, insisting that Fromm “never gives serious consideration to the dynamics of the political process”(p. 154). In addition, he criticizes Fromm for exaggerating the value of love, but this “error,” he believes, is one of emphasis, not of direction.
On the whole, this treatment of Fromm is an excellent vehicle for raising certain questions about him, even though the “balanced” Birnbach may reach some conclusions which are questionable.
BROWNING, DON S. Generative Man. NY: A Delta Book by Dell Publishing, 1973.
This is another excellent portrayal of Fromm which contains both praise and criticism of his works. Browning has considerable respect for Fromm’s efforts and results. He critiques many of Fromm’s critics, observing that most of them “...are so poorly conceived that they merit little serious consideration themselves”(p. 105). He calls Fromm one of the most misunderstood authors of our day, whose variety of intellectual interests and methodological procedures has contributed to the “confusion which has marred most attempts to interpret his thought”(p. 106).
Browning grounds Fromm's analysis of modern society in nineteenth century European sociology, saying that his synthesis of Marxian sociology and Freudian psychoanalysis is “far more believable” than other attempts. He calls Fromm’s work on the social psychology of character “his most lasting academic con tribution.” He rejects the position that Fromm is a “utopian,” saying this position does not give enough consideration to Fromm’s balanced view about the limitations man faces within himself, as well as pertaining to the human situation.
Browning also clearly recognizes Fromm’s phenomenological and existential principles, one of very few authors to do so. He describes Fromm as giving a phenomenological description of the nature of “productive thinking,” love, and most importantly, work.
Browning is also quite critical of some of Fromm’s ideas, but this criticism is usually couched in terms of “degree” rather than absolute. He feels Fromm does not give enough attention to what Browning calls the “low” in man, that he is not sufficiently dialectical. Whether these and other points are valid criticisms is an open question, but the point here is that Browning makes them so as to reformulate Fromm’s ideas (on Fromm’s terms) rather than to reject them or to replace them with his own (i.e. like Schaar). He critiques Fromm (incorrectly, I believe) for failing to give proper attention to childhood development and everyday affairs or rituals. Browning believes Fromm committed errors of omission and development rather than being absolutely wrong.
On the whole, Browning has a firm understanding of Fromm. His trouble with him is based on the sense of incompleteness he finds in Fromm. His sense of the “undialectical progressivist” nature of Fromm is questionable, but it is, at least, based on Fromm’s ideas and not Browning’s.
O’BRIEN, KENNETH. “Death and Revolution: A Reappraisal of Identity Theory” in On Critical Theory, ed. by John O'Neill. NY: The Seabury Press, 1976.
The import of this essay is the author’s attention to Fromm’s relation to the Frankfurt School of critical theory...its sociological critique of modern capitalist society. O’Brien feels that Fromm’s contribution to the Frankfurt School “should be reappraised in a more positive light.” He proposes to do so by re-examining Fromm’s earlier theoretical writings in the period from 1929-1937, essays which Fromm refers to as his clearest statements on certain matters. O’Brien’s task is to counter the charge of Freudian “revisionism” and to more clearly situate Fromm’s synthesis of Freud and Marx in a context related to the primary issues of the Frankfurt School, especia1ly those issues which were central to Fromm’s “split” with that school’s major proponents.
RYCKMAN, RICHARD M. Theories of Personality, NY: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1978.
A good general description of the basic concepts and principles Fromm developed. Also, it contains a brief biographical sketch. Ryckman gives emphasis to Fromm’s sociological frame work for personality and character development. He indicates that Fromm’s “multilevel approach” (his “historical method that emphasizes the role political, religious, economic, sociological, and anthropological factors play in molding personality” (p. 117) is what makes him unique. Ryckman locates Fromm’s analysis on both a macroscopic and microscopic level. He also provides brief critical comments. He says Fromm’s theories are “dotted with imprecise terms” and is “not very parsimonious.” He observes that Fromm seems “more clearly to be a social philosopher than a scientist;” but this does not detract from the heuristic value of his ideas...which have the “ability to stimulate the thinking of others.” Finally, he comments that the “applied value” of Fromm’s writings is difficult to assess, but that editorial comment in the media has been generally favorable and that his own experience with using Fromm in the classroom has been very positive. Again, a short but good generalized presentation of Fromm.
SCHULTZ, DUANE. Growth Psychology, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977.
This is another chapter in a book comparing the “personality models” of various psychologists and psychoanalysts. It is basically descriptive of Fromm’s theories; a sympathetic one, given Schultz’s brief personal comments. He describes Fromm’s approach to personality, grounding it in his studies in psych ology, philosophy, and sociology. He identifies the works of Marx, Weber, and Herbert Spencer as essential to Fromm’s ideas. Schultz emphasizes Fromm’s attention to the “self,” the “productive self,” which should not be equated with an egoistic individuality. He is impressed with Frornm’s ability to restate the “basic, age-old themes and prescriptions” of “psychological health;” saying this “old wire” is still rich in value and long lasting” (p. 56). Finally, Schultz recognizes (but does not label it as such) Fromm’s phenomenological analysis by observing that “more than any other theorist he has focused on our life history as individuals and as a species (emphasis added) and on the kind of society in which we live”(p. 54).
SYKES, GERALD. The Hidden Remnant, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1962.
Sykes’ chapter on Fromm, “The Americanization of Erich Fromm,” is a short statement about the importance of Fromm’s efforts to speak to an audience which really doesn’t want to hear about itself. While Sykes does criticize him for somewhat “selling out” to the climate of idealism in America, his most stringent critique is directed at the “highbrow” critics of Fromm and his “lowbrow” supporters. He firmly situates Fromm in the context in which there are many who feel “above” him and many who are all too willing to hear his message. Neither, says Sykes, really appreciate what Fromm has done, as being “one of those workaday artisans of public opinion who actually help to make democracy work”(p. 89). He praises Fromm as a man who has a distinct gift: “the gift of simplifying complex subjects so that they may be understood by considerable numbers of men”(p. 88). Sykes is especially appreciative of Fromm’s efforts to deal with Freud as a human being; mentioning in particular Fromm’s book, Sigmund Freud’s Mission. He also praises Fromm’s synthesis of Freud and Marx, commenting that “Fromm could straighten out both the Freudians and the Marxists, if they would only let him...” (p. 94)
“CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOANALYSIS,” Vol. 11, No. 4, Oct. 1975.
This entire issue was compiled “In Celebration of Erich Fromtn’s 75th Year,” and contains seven articles (one by Fromm himself), plus a section entitled “Reminiscences of Supervision With Erich Fromm,” and a review of Landis’ and Tauber’s book of a series of essays about Fromm. This issue gives a particularly good glimpse of the man and his clinical work in psychoanalysis. Of special note is Tauber’s article about Fromm’s biography, and the section portraying his student’s appreciation for what and how he taught them.
GREEN, ARNOLD W. “Sociological Analysis of Horney and Fromm,” American Journal of Sociology 51(1945/46) : 533-540.
This is one sociologist’s response to two “neo-Freudian psychoanalysts” and their attempts to be sociological. In particular, this is Green’s response to Fromm’s article in ASR(l944) about the “social origins of neurosis” and the “pathology of normalcy.” He is self-righteously indignant about Fromm’s “intrusion” into sociology, finding him to lack sociologica1 relevance and adequacy. He is especially critical of Fromm (and Horney) for attempting to explain neurosis in cultural terms. Green is very upset with Fromm for questioning the “sociologica1 status quo,” that is, what Green calls the “objective cultural demands which the individual must meet...” (p. 538). Instead, Green promotes adjustment to one’s structural conditions as an “objective necessity.” To do otherwise, as he critiques Fromm for doing, is to uproot people by intensifying their anxiety. The irony in Green’s critique is that he quite succinctly describes Fromm’s ideas, while exhibiting his own bias toward the “is” as that which “ought” to be. In short, while Green has a somewhat accurate understanding of Fromm, he uses it quite unself-consciously and thus, reveals his basic misunderstanding of Fromm's sociological perspectives. In other words, Green wants non-sociologists (as identified by the academic labeling process) to stay out of his boundaried discipline, and to stop questioning his own particular notion of sociology. This is an excellent example of the kind of social science of which Fromm was explicitly critical.
HERBERG, WILL. “Freud, Religion, and Social Reality.” Commentary: 227—284.
In essence, this article is Herbrrg’s critique of both Freud’s and Fromm’s view of man, the human condition, and their perspectives on religion. He critiques them against his own religious stance as a philosopher and sociologist of religion. Calling Fromm an “idealist,” he observes that Fromm’s man is essentially untouched by the dreadful disorder of human sinfulness...”(p. 283). He implicitly recognizes Fromm’s sociological framework by criticizing Fromm for identifying “the human situation with the social.” Although Herberg obviously has respect for Fromm, he uses phrases like “a simpleminded utopianism” to portray Fromm’s ideas. He is extremely critical of Fromm’s alleged misunderstanding of the inner relation of the self and society, portraying Fromm as a naive social determinist and relativist, who permits man to exculpate himself as a blameless victim. Implied in these critiques is a critique of Fromm’s view of religion, something that Herberg can not quite agree with given his own unstated (but thoroughly exhibited) assumptions concerning a supernatural being.
KARIEL, HENRY S. “The Normative Pattern of Erich Fromm’s Escape From Freedom.” in The Journal of Politics, Vol. 19 (1957): 640—654.
Kariel, a political scientist, takes Fromm to task for postulating a priori normative “human needs” as a basis for a critique of modern capitalistic society. He says that Fromm cannot “prove” these matters, that he must merely postulate them. Kariel is very critical of Fromm’s political idea1s, saying that the image of man in Fromm’s works precludes the very sense of liberal democracy Kariel is defending. He believes that Fromm’s ideas would bring about a “closed society” in which experts (scientific ones) would usurp that which, according to Kariel, is better left in the hands of politicians.
In an interesting twist (given his critique of Fromm’s alleged normativism), he also criticizes Fromm for being too scientific---going so far as to call Fromm’s work an “empirical, positivist social psychology,” especially interesting given that the bulk of criticisms of Fromm is for being precisely the opposite.
Overall, Kariel’s article is a confused and confusing attempt to portray Fromm. There is little sense of Kariel’s own self-consciousness about his defense of bourgeois liberal democracy.
MACCOBY, MICHAEL, “Social Character vs. The Productive Ideal: The Contribution and Contradiction in Fromm’s View of Man.” Praxis International (1981): 70—83.
Maccoby, a supporter and colleague of Fromm, has written this short article to call into question Fromm’s ideal of the productive individual. His main thesis is that this ideal contradicts Fromm’s grounded and historical analysis of social character. He is also critical of Fromm’s continued use of Freudian-like names for his character orientations; although he does point out that he and Fromm (in Social Character in a Mexican Village) did attempt to reformulate and develop new orientations.
In criticizing Fromm’s productive character, Maccoby seems to forget that, for Fromm, a society’s social character is historically-specific and in that sense, is a description of alienation. He criticizes Fromm’s “mystical/religious” conception of productive man as “disembodied, without clinical or historical grounding”(p. 77). Yet, on the whole, Maccoby’s article is intended to be a corrective rather than a rejection of Fromm’s theory.
TAUBER, EDWARD S. “Erich Fromm: Clinician and Social Philosopher,” Contemporary Psychoanalysis Vol. 15, No. 2(1979): 201-213.
This is a short synopsis of some of Fromm’s major conceptual formulizations by a fellow psychoanalyst. He presents Fromm as a practicing clinician who transcends boundaries in his social philosophy, which responds to the totality of the persons before him. Tauber portrays quite well Fromm’s view of man as an agent acting in conditions, an agent who “must transform his life experience to bring himself into life...”(p. 201).
HEFFNER, RICHARD. “An Interview with Erich Fromm.” McCalls 92 (Oct. 1965): 132-33, 213ff.
This is a very direct interview with Fromm about a wide variety of topics, including his theoretical formulations as well as his reaction to events and ideas current at the time. It adds to the literature on Fromm, in particular, in the area of childhood development (a criticism by numerous authors concerning Fromm). Also, he discusses the current status of female liberation and does so with particular reference to male roles.
If there is one type of resource to Fromm in the secondary literature which is plentiful, it would be reviews of his books. Reviews abound and are done by reviewers from a wide variety of interests and appear in a full range of publications. However, the purpose of this section is to present only those from a sociological framework, or at least from a social science perspective. The only definite exception is the series of reviews which appeared in “Psychiatry” in 1942. Yet, even these are “social” reviews, given the social science nature of the reviewers. But on the whole, I have selected those reviews which appeared in clearly identifiable sociological sources. I will make a brief comment about each review, listing them by author.
AMIS, WILLIAM D. Review of The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in “Contemporary Sociology,” Vol. 3, No. 6 (Nov. 1974) : 513—515.
A sociologist sympathetic to Fromm criticizes him for not being sociological enough; but praises him for keeping “alive questions about the nature of human nature that are vital to an adequate social psychology”(p. 515). Amis especially appreciates Fromm’s critique of behaviorists.
FOSTER, GEORGE M. Review of Social Character in a Mexican Village in the American Journal of Sociology 77(1971): 336.
This reviewer believes this to be an innovative study, but which has shortcomings for sociologists and anthropologists (i.e. the lack of detailed structural analysis of the community).
GREGOR, A. JAMES. Review of Marx’s Concert of Man in Studies on the Left, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1962) : 85-92.
This is a very critical review of Fromm’s essay on Marx. Gregor is especially critical of what he calls Fromm’s over-emphasis on the early writings of Marx; believing himself, that there are “two Marxs”---without, it should be added, much perceived continuity between them. The reviewer’s position (circa 1962) has subsequently been called into question by other developments in Marxian scholarship (i.e. McLellan’s work on The Grundrisse, and before that, Nicholas’ article, “The Unknown Marx “).
HOUTART, Fr. Review of The Dogma of Christ and Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture in Social Compass 14 (1967): 82.
The reviewer presents a rather snide, negative review without much analysis. He substitutes for analysis just one statement: “One can only regret the fact that such a superficial application of ideas does not serve the course of science, particularly those of psychology and psychoanalysis, which can be applied to religious phenomena.” This church-related reviewer then only mentions (and not by name) the other very important essays in this book.
KNIGHT, FRANK H. Review of Escape From Freedom in the American Journal of Sociology 48 (l942/43) : 299.
This is a short but very positive review of this book which the reviewer says “shows real penetration and knowledge of history and culture history.” He also comments that Fromm’s treatment of freedom reflects the “ability to get below the surface to realities.” He is also impressed with Fromm’s reinterpretation of strict Freudian psychoanalytic methods.
MINOGUE, KENNETH. Review essay of The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in Encounter, Vol. XLIII, No. 1 (July 1974): 32-38.
This is a detailed review of many of Fromm’s ideas, but is not, on the whole, a positive reaction to him. The reviewer seems to reduce all problems with Fromm to an issue of “morals,” including the use of psychoanalytic techniques themselves.
PENALOSA, FERNANDO. Review of Social Character in a Mexican Village in Sociology and Social Research 56(1972): 260—61.
The reviewer is rather neutral about this book, ending his review with the rather terse and unclear opinion that this book is “likely to be of more interest to those concerned with Fromm’s conceptual framework than to those concerned with the social and economic problems of cotemporary village life in Mexico.”
REVIEW of The Sane Society (by H. P.) in Dissent Vol. 3 (1956): 84-89.
This is a balanced and objective review of a book which has had no lack of biased treatments. The author is plainly impressed by Fromm's attempts, if not all of his solutions. His greatest achievement is seen to be Fromm’s “brilliant mirroring of one science in the other...” (psychology in sociology and vice-versa). Yet, the reviewer critiques Fromm by saying “his sociological frame of reference seems less clearly defined than his psychologica1 terms”(p. 87). He also says Fromm needs to make a sharper distinction between alienation of different kinds---that this might have avoided some confusion of capitalism with popular culture. He finishes by saying Fromm is thought provoking and “never dogmatic.”
RIESMAN, DAVID. Review of The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in The New Republic 169 (Dec. 3, 1973): 24-26.
Riesman finds this book to he more important in terms of its details than in its genera1ities. He has great respect for Fromm, calling himself a “disciple.” Yet, he doesn’t shy away from critique of Fromm as “a social clinician.” Overall, Riesman feels that Fromm’s discussion of aggression is important.
SWANSON, GUY B. Review of The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in the American Journal of Sociology 80, No. 5 : 1243-45.
This reviewer likes this book very much, notwithstanding that he criticizes Fromm for paying too little attention to the findings of certain sociologists. He says one might disagree with some of Fromm’s answers, but that he has “clarified the kinds of questions that need to be asked and has laid before us observations of destructiveness that future analyses cannot properly ignore” (p. 1245).
SUNY THEORETICAL COMMUNITY. Review of Escape From Freedom in Teaching Sociology Vol. 7, No. 1(Oct. 1979) : 89-98.
This is a group project of faculty and students in a seminar on critical theory. They critique Fromm for “diluting Freud in the name of humanism,” which they say, distances him from critical theory. This is not a well-done review.
SYNOPTIC SERIES OF REVIEWS of Escape From Freedom in Psychiatry No. 1 (Feb. 1942) : 109-134.
This is a series of eight reviews by the following: Thomas H. Gill, Ruth Benedict, Anton T. Boisen, Lewis B. Hill, Patrick Mullahey, M. F. Ashley Montague, Louis Wirth, and Ernest E. Hadley. On the whole, these reviews are very appreciative of Fromm’s book. He comes in for greatest criticism from Boisen, a minister, and Wirth, a sociologist. However, both are still supportive. Especially good are the reviews by Benedict and Montague.
TITARENKO, A. I. Review of Beyond the Chains of Illusion in Science and Society Vol. 29, No. 3 (Summer 1965): 3l9-329.
This reviewer is a Russian who lives in Moscow. He gives a ringing critique of Fromm as a bourgeois humanist whose work is full of serious distortions of Marxist doctrine. Titarenko seriously questions whether Marx and Freud can be synthesized, saying Fromm is “in the chains of illusion” for attempting to do so. In short, he says that Fromm’s book, while strong in “accusatory force,” actually “distorts the really revolutionary-critical significance of Marx’s conception of alienation”(p. 328). Overall, a very interesting review from a perspective rarely heard in American society. It is instructive to compare this review with the one by Gregor.
