Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem by Eric Fromm - Article Example

Your name Teacher’s name Course name Date Critique of Eric Fromm’s Article ‘Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem’ Eric Fromm lived between 1900 and 1990. He was an historian and a psychologist. He studies Freud and Marx. In his own writing, he tried to explain the conflict that often exists between ideological conflicts and personal conflicts. This essay is not an exception. Fromm is trying to not only inform the reader of when disobedience is a positive force and when it is not necessary; he is also attempting to persuade the reader to work toward a developmental state where he/she is not afraid to think for himself/herself and act upon that thinking even if it means being disobedient. It is this student’s belief that Erick Fromm was correct in saying that we must be independent thinkers and at times use this thinking to set ourselves free of that which is not positive either for ourselves or our society. Fromm claims the human history began when Adam and Eve disobeyed in the Garden of Eden. The Greek myth of Prometheus tells a similar story about when Prometheus steals fire from the gods which led to the evolution of man. He claims that in these disobedient acts Adam and Eve and Prometheus were set free to think act and obtain for themselves. They were no longer tied to nature; they were free to think in their own best interest and protection. In both cases, the participants were punished for their actions but in neither case did they repent or ask for forgiveness for their actions. The point is that acting out autonomous thinking has consequences and one must be prepared to deal with them. This writer thinks that is not only true but it is those consequences that are likely to make things better. Fromm believes humankind is still emotionally in the Stone Age because even though we have become competent in math and science bringing in the possibility of things like nuclear weapons, mankind lags far behind in their interests in politics and society. This writer agrees. The same political issues have been batted around since Fromm was writing and we are still in the same place. Clearly we are not moving forward politically or this article would be out of date. Therefore Fromm believes, man could end his/her very existence because we continue to obey old passions of hear, hate and greed. This is really very similar to what we are hearing in political speeches. We are arguing about money and how to spend it and who to take it from. He states that people in the free world talk a lot about freedom but we continue to demand obedience both explicitly and by subtle methods of persuasion. He says, if a person can only obey and not disobey he is then a slave. It is assumed by these same politicians that if elected the people will blindly follow even if they do not do what they say they will do. Obedience to a person, institution or power is heteronomous obedience and obedience to our own reasoning is autonomous obedience. Fromm is advocating for autonomous obedience, even if it means being heteronomously disobedience, for our own survival. That does work. Was it not just this disobedience on a large scale that ended the Viet Nam war? Part of the key there was to get enough people to be disobedient. Nixon won the election because he said he would do just what the rioters wanted and he did. This essay suggests we should look at obedience in terms of the student-teacher relationship verses the slave-master relationship. The student-teacher relationship both has primarily the student’s welfare at heart. The slave-master relationship has the Master’s interest at hear at the expense of the slave. If we are obedient as a slave is to his master, without thinking and allowing self exploitation then we are not autonomous, that is following our inner thinking and bad things will happen. The question asked is why we as human beings continue to be so obedient. To be disobedient one must have the courage to be alone and to make mistakes. Beyond courage one must be at a developmental stage that is conducive to disobedience. Only when one is a fully developed individual, independent of parents, with the capacity to think and feel for himself, can this individual say no to power. A good test of being autonomous is understanding that one must want to obey not fear disobeying. It that is the reason for doing something, or not doing something then one is autonomous and able to say no to power. Fromm believed that another reason man finds it so difficult to be disobedient is because obedience has been paired with virtue by society and our culture while disobedience has been paired with sin. The reason this is true, he says, is because the minority has historically ruled the majority. If a few people want to enjoy the good things in life, they then must have the majority to serve them to get these good things for themselves. Therefore, to get the majority to serve them then have to exaggerate the concept of obedience and punishment for disobedience. Certainly this is historically correct and most children learn not to disobey very quickly. Therefore as they gain more knowledge it feels like they are doing something wrong to think for themselves. Fromm says the fight against authority and the state was often the basis for the development of an independent and daring person. He sites example from the nineteenth century when the pope and, princes wanted to uphold overt and explicit authority. The middle class, the workers and the philosophers tried to uproot it. The fight against authority became inseparable from the intellectual mood which characterized the philosopher’s of the enlightened age. This was the critical mood. The critical mood was faith in reason and at the same time of doubt everything which is said or thought. The principle ples sapere aude and de omnibus est dubadum – “Dare to be wise and all one must doubt” were characteristic of an attitude which allow one to say “no” (paragraph 16) . Fromm believed that man has lost the ability to disobey and we are even aware of our obedience. He believes that in this time in history, (here he was referring to the atomic age) it is the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization. His paper ends up warning us that it is our critical thinking and out questioning of things including power, the status quo and our willingness to disobey that can save us from destruction. This appears to this student to be a well formed argument. He uses examples from history with which everyone is familiar to show how disobedience works. He explains why we are so resistant to being disobedient in a believable way and he points out politically how dangerous it is to follow out of sheer obedience. Most importantly he points out the necessary ingredients as to how we can be an autonomous thinker. At this point, the reader understands what Fromm is talking about why it is important to think about and how to change themselves to avoid disaster. Those elements seem to make this a good argument. This student agrees with Fromm even thought we are living in a different time. This student agreeds that we must be free thinkers and practice disobedience because we still hear about atomic weapons and we have politicians making huge decisions such as going to war that can affect our future. We have politician constantly inflating the new big fear, terrorism. That is not so different from the fear of Cuba and atomic missiles in Fromm’s time. It is especially disturbing to this student that we do not have appeared to have progressed in our political, sociological and cultural thinking since Fromm wrote this warning 50 years ago. Certainly this essay is significant for the present as we seem to be in a similar place politically. The factual information he uses such as stories about Adam and Eve and Prometheus and the fact that a nuclear war can happen and would likely destroy the planet. I did not notice definition of terms other than his idea of disobedience obedience and independent thinking. Certainly he gave a good explanation of what he thought they were. It is a subjective explanation but it makes sense to this writer because he is advocating for different behavior than we are seeing politically. Since we are basically in the same place as we were when he wrote this it is this writer’s thinking that we need a change. Certainly this writer has a logical argument as this writer thinks it makes sense to think for ourselves. Is that not the whole purpose of higher education to teach us critical thinking? That is exactly what Fromm is advocating. Fromm pointed out the lessons of the past; he explained what we need to do to save ourselves yet this student does not see that we have progressed. Perhaps the philosophers of the present need to publish this again. It is this writers belief that we all must think independently and if what we are doing is not working (and it seems it is not since we have the same dangers facing us today) then make a change. Read More