Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and the Analytical Social Psychology of the Frankfurt School

Home , Wilhelm Reich

Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröffentli- chungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

Ferenc Erös

First published in: Michael Kessler und Rainer Funk (Eds.), Erich Fromm und die Frankfurter Schule, Tuebingen (Francke Verlag) 1992, S. 69-72. Numbers in [those brackets] indicate the next page in the book publication.

„The method and function of an analytical so- logical problems is very strange, indeed. On the cial psychology“, Fromm’s 1932 essay published one hand, he explains that „the phenomenon of in Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was really a class consciousness is not accessible to psycho- manifesto of the principles along with psychoanalysis, nor can problems which belong to so- analysis and historical materialism could be ciology – such as mass movements, politics, merged into one new discipline: analytical social strikes – be taken as objects of the psychoana- psychology. In the article Fromm argues that lytic method. And so it cannot replace a sociological doctrine, nor can a sociological doctrine if instinctual life and the unconscious were develop out of it.“ [Sex-Pol Essays 7]. On the the key to understanding human behavior, other hand, he adds immediately: then psychoanalysis was also entitled and competent about the motives underlying [psychoanalysis] can become an auxiliary social behavior. For ‘society’ too consists of science to sociology, in the form of a social living individuals who must be subject to psychology. For instance, it can explore the the same psychological laws that psycho- irrational motives which have led a certain analysis discovered in the individual“ [The type of leader to join the socialist or na- Frankfurt School Reader 481]. tional-socialist movement; or it can trace the effect of social ideologies on the psy- Asserting the competence of psychoanalysis in chological development of the individual“ the matters of society, Fromm rejoins Wilhelm [ibid.; my italics – F.E.]. Reich, who according to Fromm, „restricts psychoanalysis to the sphere of individual psychol- Similar argumentation can be found in Reich’s ogy and argues against its applicability to social 1934 pamphlet „The use of psychoanalysis in phenomena (politics, class consciousness etc.)“ historical research“. In this pamphlet – which [ibid.] The controversy goes back to Wilhelm was added later to the revised text of „Dialecti- Reich’s 1929 paper „Dialectical materialism and cal materialism and psychoanalysis“, Reich [070] psychoanalysis“, published in Russian and in declares that „we cannot say anything about the German in the Komintern theoretical Journal background causes of human behavior in the ex- Pod znamenem marksizma / Unter dem Banner tra-psychical sphere – about the economic laws des Marxismus. The 1929 article was also a which determine the social process and the laws manifesto: a manifesto of psychoanalysis com- of physiology which govern the instinctual ap- bined with dialectic materialism, while Fromm paratus – without immediately embracing meta- put füll emphasis on the other, namely histori- physics“ [SPE 67]. According to Reich, Fromm’s cal, component of Marxist theory. Reich’s view assertion that psychoanalysis has something „es- on the competence of psychoanalysis in socio- sential“ to say about the „background cause of

Eroes, F., 1992 Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and the Analytical Social Psychology of the Frankfurt School Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder. Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröffentli- chungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

social behavior“, opens the way to the abuses of both claim that psychoanalysis can and must psychology in the spirit of official psychoanalytic understand the nature of ideology as mediator sociology, „which Fromm himself would con- between human drives and the economic Situa- demn“ [ibid. 66.]. Nevertheless, Reich delineates tion. Reich and Fromm assert equally that „the the proper place of psychoanalytic social psy- family is the essential medium through which chology in explaining irrational phenomena, for the economic Situation exerts its formative influ- example in the case when „the sociological- ence on the individual’s psyche“ [FSR 486]. economic Situation is such that it should really They both agreed in condemning the „psy- produce a strike, yet no strike occurs“ [ibid. 72]. chologization“ of economic and social factors Reich is naively sincere about the motives (most notably, Hendrik de Man, the influential of this negative definition of the competence of Belgian socialist who wrote on the „psychology psychoanalysis in social issues. „If I interpret“ – of socialism“ was an arch-enemy for both Reich he writes - and Fromm). Finally, they both are interested in the revolutionary will as rebellion against „false consciousness“, that is, to find an explana- the father [...], I subscribe to the ideology tion to the acts of people which are against their of bourgeois reaction; but if I make a con- rational interest. The attempt to find this expla- crete investigation of how far the revolu- nation leads both of them to characterological tionary will corresponds to a real Situation, constructions – to the basic characterological di- to what extent the lack of such a will is irra- chotomy between neurotic and genital, authori- tional, the point at which the revolutionary tarian and revolutionary character. [071] will really does correspond to an uncon- The main difference between Reich and scious rebellion against the father, etc., then Fromm in this early period was mainly that of I have carried the bourgeois ‘precondi- political backgrounds and affiliations. They had tionless’ science ad absurdum, have done to appeal to different tribunals: Reich had to de- authentic scientific work of my own and fend psychoanalysis in front of „dialectical mate- have thereby done a Service to the work- rialism“, that is, Stalinist ideology, while Fromm ing-class movement and not political reac- appealed, first of all, to the psychoanalytic tion [...] [ibid., 64-65]. Community and wanted to prove that there is „nothing wrong“ with Marxism which does not As we know, Reich’s „service“ was not too contradict to psychoanalysis. On the other hand, much honored in his time. Nevertheless, it is Fromm’s connection with the Frankfurt School quite clear that his main intention with „Dialec- had a liberating effect in the sense that he was tical materialism and psychoanalysis“ was to le- free from direct party obligations and he could gitimize psychoanalysis as something perfectly rely freely to historical materialism which was consistent with the official doctrine of the eo ipso suspect in the eyes of the representatives Comintern and Soviet Marxism, to prove its of the „official Marxism“. Fromm was strongly „innocence“. However, his „negative“ argument committed to the endeavour of the Frankfurt – psychoanalysis is competent only in explaining School thinkers to reconstruct Marxism and to irrational social phenomena – was scandalous give a philosophical solution to the problem of enough to make him by his Marxist colleagues a subjectivity as outlined by György Lukács in his show-case for all the „bourgeois deviations“ of History and Class Consciousness. Analytic social psychoanalysis. Curiously enough, his accuses di- psychology, as outlined by Fromm, was also rected against Fromm (metaphysics etc.) are part of this reconstruction. In the same years as used almost literally against Reich himself by his Fromm published his essay on social psychology, Russian critics (Sapir, Stoljarov etc.). What is in 1932, Max Horkheimer published a study un- even more interesting is that, if we look at the der the title „History and Psychology“. Hork- texts, there is hardly any essential difference be- heimer wrote: tween Fromm’s and Reich’s positions. They both That man preserve economic relations start out from Freud’s libido theory; they both which they have outgrown in force and want to study how unconscious strivings are need, instead of replacing them through a molded by socio-economic conditions. They higher and more rational form of organiza-

tion, is possible only because the actions of subsequently lef t the original f ield of the a numerically significant social stratum are Freudo-Marxist discourse and landed, as it is not determined by cognition but by an in- well known, on the „orgon theory“. His later stinctual motive force that falsifies con- natural philosophy and prophetic messianism sciousness. In no way do mere ideological was, however, despite the radically different maneuvres form the root of historically im- language, contingent with his original notion of portant moment [...] on the contrary, the „dialectal materialism“. Namely, this naturalism psychic structure of these groups, that is the was already contained in his 1929 essay which character of their members, is constantly stressed that psychoanalysis, in its quality of an renewed in connection with their role in „auxiliary science“, is a natural science, which, the economic process [quoted by Russel by definition, can not contradict to dialectical Jacoby: Social Amnesia 86]. materialism. Fromm’s „escapes from dogmatism“ proved Thus, Fromm’s endeavour to develop an ana- to be more successful and more fruitful. He lytical social psychology was part and parcel of could elaborate different „mechanisms of es- a larger, interdisciplinary, academically respected cape“. The first, and perhaps most important project, while Reich only carried on his lonely, way out from the dogmatism of the original almost quixotic struggle against the Soviet Marx- Freudo-Marxist formulation was the empirical ist, as well as against the psychoanalytic, „offi- investigation itself. In the notion of the Frank- cialdom“. Nevertheless, as I argued before, they furt School thinkers, empirical research is a cor- have much common in their approach, their rective of mere speculation, even if blind data or starting points and basic assumptions are very their purely quantitative or classificatory presen- similar even if Fromm’s presentation is, of tation are not sufficient in themselves; they need course, more sophisticated. They are also com- qualitative Interpretation and critical self- mon in their „dogmatism“. It would be difficult reflection to the method itself. The great socio- to deny, that, in final analysis, they both imag- logical enterprise of the Frankfurt School which ined the combination of Marxism and psycho- was led and organized by Fromm, the survey on analysis in a rather mechanical way: no one of the character structure of the German workers them went beyond the basic tenets of orthodox and employees on the eve of the Third Reich psychoanalysis and orthodox Marxism, they do was thoroughly analysed and criticized by many not question the validity of the Freudian instinct authors. I would like to stress here only that the or libido theory as well as they accept without results of the empirical investigation give us an any doubt the (vulgar) Marxist explanation of unprecedented insight into the ideological struc- the relationship between „base“ and „super- ture of the German lower middle class, even if structure“. Thus, the whole debate between the vast technical and methodological problems Reich and Fromm on the competence of psy- obscured this mirror in many ways. It should choanalysis in explaining social phenomena re- also be noted that the fact that the results did minds us the passionate religious dispute on not fully support or even falsified the original „homousion“ or „homoiusion“. Did they, then, theoretical formulations proved to be in itself arrive to a dead end? I would rather say that it very important and instrumental in the further was only a beginning which implanted the seeds development of analytic social psychology as of further developments, problems, questions, well as in many fields of modern sociology and and later controversies. In the later years Reich social psychology in general (attitudes, public and Fromm went much beyond their original opinion, research on mass communication and Standpoints and in very different directions. The propaganda etc.). way out from their respective positions in 1929 The other way out from dogmatism was and [072] 1932 can be described as attempts to the reinterpretation of psychoanalytic theory it- „escape from dogmatism“. For Reich, this escape self. In the thirties, Fromm subsequently aban- was marked by a total alienation from his earlier doned orthodox psychoanalysis. His critique of sympathies with and links to the Communist as Freud, was not, however, an external critique: it well as to the psychoanalytic movements. Reich was an immanent critique through the reception

and Integration of some new developments of express basic differences in the individuals’ rela- psychoanalysis, most notably, Fromm’s appreci- tion to the world. aton of Sándor Ferenczi’s teaching on love and The question emerges: why social charac- mutual understanding as well as of Ferenczi’s terology acquired such a privileged role in the „active technique“ which challenged the „neu- whole Reichian and Frankfurtian analytical so- trality“ of the orthodox psychoanalyst. (See e.g. cial psychological enterprise? The answer would Fromm’s article „Die gesellschaftliche Beding- require detailed examination which I can not do theit der psychoanalytischen Therapie, Zeitschrift now. I would like to call attention only to one für Sozialforschung, 1935.) Fromm’s turn toward aspect: to what I call the totalitarian experience. the problem of relatedness in the thirties opened That is, the basic principles of Reich’s and the way toward cultural and interpersonal psy- Fromm’s analytical social psychology were for- choanalysis (Horney, Sullivan etc.), as well as mulated directly against Fascism, and, perhaps toward a radical reconstruction of the Freudo- latently, against Stalinism. It is one of the most Marxist position in Escape from Freedom. „The important socio-psychological characteristics of book“, he writes, totalitarian movements and regimes, that they is based on the assumption that they key require, use, exploit and manipulate extreme problem of psychology is that of the specific characters in as they have a Special appeal to kind of relatedness of the individual to- psychologically imbalanced, rigid and power- wards the world and not that of the satis- oriented individuals. Therefore, totalitarian poli- faction or frustration of this or that instinc- tics are close related to and build on the „au- tual need per se; furthermore, on the as- thoritarian personality“. Established and organi- sumption that the relationship between cally rooted democracies can effectively prevent man and society is a static one. [073] [...] the predominance of extreme character types, Man’s nature, his passions, and anxieties are even if numerically there can be the same a cultural product; as a matter of fact, man amount of authoritarian „high scores“ in a de- himself is the most important creation and mocracy as in Fascist or in a Communist dicta- achievement of the continuous human ef- torship. For the political psychology of a de- fort, the record of which we call history mocracy, the original concept of social character [Escape from Freedom 26-27]. proved to be falsifable, and exactly this failure of the original characterological dichotomy gave The historical materialism of the 1932 article rise, after the second world war, new paradigms remained only on a declarative level, history for analytical social psychology (such as, e.g. was only a slogan; in Escape from Freedom Alexander Mitscherlich’s concept of „uanability Fromm could really integrate history. This inte- to mourn“, Erik H. Erikson’s identity model, or gration or reintegration was made possible by even Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communica- taking over the Marxian concept of human na- tive action). ture and alienation, elaborated in the Economic- The dissolution of the communist dicta- philosophical manuscripts from 1844. torships in Eastern and Central Europe raises The first complete theoretical realization of new questions for analytical social psychology. Fromm’s „escape from dogmatism“ was, then The classical hypotheses of Reich, Fromm, Escape from Freedom. In the subsequent elabo- Horkheimer, Adorno should be tested both em- ration, refinements, and application of this new pirically and theoretically in a new kind of real- Freudo-Marxist analytical social psychology, ity which is marked not by transition from de- Fromm went far beyond and distanced from the mocracy to dictatorship (as in 1932, when Frankfurt School position (see e.g. the Marcuse- Fromm first formulated his thoughts on the tasks Fromm debate). Nevertheless, Fromm remained and methods of analytical social psychology), faithful at least in one respect to the original but, on the contrary, by transition from dicta- Frankfurtian analytical social psychology as well torship to democracy. Who will formulate the as to Wilhelm Reich’s theories: namely, in his tasks and methods of a new analytical social emphasis on social characterology, on different psychology? [074] character types or character orientations which

Eroes, F., 1992 Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and the Analytical Social Psychology of the Frankfurt School