Erich Fromm’s Impact 1 on Humanistic Psychology 2 3 Helmut Johach 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Abstract: Humanistic Psychology (HP) includes several psychologi- 13 cal movements such as Client-centered therapy, Gestalt therapy, and 14 Theme-centered Interaction. It is based on a “holistic” view of man em- 15 phasizing awareness of bodily expressions, creativity, a self-actualizing 16 tendency and spiritual needs. Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Fritz 17 Perls and others called it a “third branch” in psychology setting it 18 apart from orthodox Freudian theory and behaviorism. Erich Fromm 19 is often considered as a founder of Humanistic Psychology because 20 he was the first one who used the term “humanistic” to make a dis- 21 tinguishing mark from Freudian psychoanalysis. He wrote about a 22 “self-actualizing tendency” in human life and said that therapy should 23 be a “core-to-core-relationship” between two adult persons. Fromm 24 was very influential in HP through his “humanistic” ideas but he re- 25 mained a psychoanalytic therapist who tried to unveil the unconscious. 26 So we can say that he never was in the center of the humanist move- 27 ment, but he held a key position on its periphery. 28 29 30 Introduction 31 32 “Humanistic Psychology” is a generic term used to describe several psy- 33 chological movements such as Client-centered Therapy (Carl R. Rogers), 34 Gestalt Therapy (Fritz and Laura Perls), Existential Therapy (Rollo May), 35 and Theme-centered Interaction (Ruth C. Cohn). These movements agree 36 111 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Helmut Johach 1 in a view of man which emphasizes creativity, responsibility, self-actualiza- 2 tion and psychological health. In the 1960s and 1970s, Humanistic Psy- 3 chology was very influential in America and later on in Europe. Abraham 4 Maslow and James F. Bugenthal, two important members of the American 5 Association of Humanistic Psychology, called it a “third force in psychology” 6 distinct from both traditional psychoanalysis and behaviorism (cf. Johach 7 2009, pp. 23–26). 8 Erich Fromm is often considered a founder of humanistic psychology, 9 although he was never a member of the American Association of Humanistic 10 Psychology nor was he ever present at the meetings. In the decade between 11 1955 and 1965 he used the term “humanistic” to delineate the difference 12 between his own thinking and Freud’s orthodox version of psychoanal- 13 ysis. Twenty years earlier, in a paper on “Man’s impulse structure and its 14 relation to culture” (Fromm 1992e) he had made it very clear that he no 15 longer agreed with Freud’s biological libido theory and with his concept 16 of “Todestrieb”. Critical comments on Freud’s “naturalistic” and “pessimis- 17 tic” view of human beings were common to all humanistic psychologists. 18 Fromm was one of the first authors in the United States who brought these 19 views to the public. Nevertheless, he never gave up his fundamental psycho- 20 analytic orientation. 21 Karen Horney, Harry S. Sullivan and Erich Fromm were called 22 “Neo-Freudians” because of their revisionist interpretation of Freudian 23 theory. It was very important that Fromm widened the psychoanalytical 24 theory of character formation by historical, socio-economic and cultural 25 factors. Humanistic psychologists consider human organism to be a “ho- 26 listic” and an active center of biological, intellectual, emotional und social 27 activities which are fostered by the world around us. Freedom to choose 28 makes a difference to conditioned reflexes which are the basic explanation 29 of human behavior according to naturalistic scientists. Man should also be 30 free from social constraints. Fritz Perls and other “humanistic” psycholo- 31 gists transformed Fromm’s critical category of “alienation” into a more re- 32 bellious or even an anarchist practice. Instead of adapting to social rules 33 or roles, everybody should “do his own thing”. This misinterpretation of 34 Fromm’s idea, under the slogan of “self-actualization”, occasionally led to an 35 excessive individualism (cf. Johach 2012). 36 Fromm was not only a psychological theorist, but also a reformer of 112 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm’s Impact on Humanistic Psychology practical therapeutic treatment. Following Sándor Ferenczi’s variations in 1 psychoanalytic “techniques,” Fromm no longer made use of the couch but 2 preferred a “face-to-face-relation” with his patients and a more “active” 3 mode of therapy. He was convinced that the therapist should learn about 4 his own feelings as well as of the patient. There should be a “central relat- 5 edness” (cf. Fromm 1992g, p. 104) between two adult persons instead of 6 interpreting transference from the patient’s childhood. Fromm was not the 7 only one who criticized Freud’s rule of “abstinence” in therapeutic treat- 8 ment; most of his practical postulates were shared by humanistic psychol- 9 ogists. 10 It is worth noting that, in later years, Fromm went beyond the traditional 11 frame of therapeutic treatment by proclaiming some way of “trans-thera- 12 peutic” psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis should not only help people get 13 free from neurosis in everyday-life but also show a way to become richer 14 as a human being and more self-congruent by self-analysis outside of the 15 therapeutic relationship. As Fromm suggested in Psychoanalysis and Zen 16 Buddhism (Fromm 1960a), self-analysis and Buddhist meditation aim to 17 could reach the same spiritual goals by different means. Many protagonists 18 of Humanist Psychology were also convinced that spiritual needs were in- 19 dispensable for human growth. 20 When he wrote the sections of To Have or to Be? (Fromm 1976a) which 21 were published only after his death, Fromm said that he had decided 22 against speaking of “humanistic” psychoanalysis because this attribute 23 was adopted by a group of psychologists with whom he did “not agree” 24 (Fromm 1989a, p. 64). Although there was some convergence, he could 25 not share all assertions and practices of Humanistic Psychology. One key 26 difference is the function ofunconscious thoughts, wishes and emotions 27 which Fromm tried to reveal, according with Freud and other psychoan- 28 alysts. In contrast to Fromm, some protagonists of HP declared that one 29 could neglect the unconscious if awareness was extended beyond daily 30 routine. In the following paper, I first will describe some biographical con- 31 nections between Fromm and other founders of Humanistic Psychology, 32 and then I will deal with what were the similarities and differences in their 33 theories and practices. 34 35 36 113 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Helmut Johach 1 Biographical Connections 2 3 Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) was a visionary psychologist and the main 4 protagonist of the Humanistic Psychology Movement. In 1962, he called 5 the American Association of Humanistic Psychology into being, assisted by 6 Carl C. Rogers, Rollo May, Charlotte Buehler, James Bugenthal and others. 7 He also was the editor of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology which has 8 been published to the present day. He famously suggested in Toward a Psy- 9 chology of Being (Maslow 1962), that psychologists and therapists should 10 give more attention to a “health-and-growth-psychology” than to a “defi- 11 ciency psychology” which has its focus on disturbances and faults imped- 12 ing the development of a “fully functioning” person. Maslow was primarily 13 a theorist and researcher, not a practical therapist. The most famous part 14 of his writings is the “hierarchy of needs” which he described in his book 15 on Motivation and Personality (Maslow 1954). It begins by fundamen- 16 tally “physiological” needs like eating, drinking, sleeping, then moves to 17 “higher” and “specifically human” needs like love, self-esteem and support 18 by others, and ends with the “self-actualization” of persons wishing to fully 19 realize their human capacities. 20 Maslow spoke of a “new humanistic world-view” represented by a 21 “Third-Force-Psychology” that should widely differ from behaviorism and 22 orthodox Freudianism. In his last publications, after having studied many 23 accounts of “peak experiences”, he announced the need for a “Fourth Psy- 24 chology” which should extend to spiritual needs. 25 Abraham Maslow was influenced by Erich Fromm and other neo-Freud- 26 ian therapists, but he was not analyzed. Between 1935 and 1940, he came 27 to know and study with Alfred Adler, who at that time lived in New York. 28 He had many conversations with Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and other 29 psychotherapists who promulgated a more “culturalist” interpretation of 30 psychoanalysis, and with the anthropologists at Columbia University, es- 31 pecially Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. At the same time, he became 32 acquainted with Kurt Goldstein and Max Wertheimer, which were two 33 representatives of Gestalt psychology. Like Fromm, they were Jews and left 34 Europe because of the persecution by the Nazi regime. Kurt Goldstein was 35 a psychiatrist and pioneer of a “holistic” brain research approach. In his 36 famous book The Organism. A Holistic Approach to Biology derived from 114 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm’s Impact on Humanistic Psychology Pathological Data in Man (Goldstein 1939), Goldstein spoke of a “self-ac- 1 tualizing tendency” in the human organism – an expression which was 2 taken over by Fromm, Maslow and Rogers.