Erich Fromm and Critical Theory 1 in Post-War Japanese Social Theory 2 3 Its Past, Present, and Future 4 5 Takeshi Deguchi 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Abstract: Erich Fromm has been one of the most influential social 13 theorists in Japanese social sciences, especially in sociology and social 14 psychology and the adoption of his theory reflects the socio-cultural 15 structure of post-war Japan and its historical changes. In this paper, 16 I will examine Fromm’s social theory in relation to Japan’s post-war 17 swift rehabilitation and rapid economic growth and discuss the re- 18 markable role that it played by the 1970s in critical analysis of Jap- 19 anese society. I will discuss Fromm’s popularity and influence in 20 Japan, examining its theoretical features from the view point of Crit- 21 ical Theory, since in Japan Fromm’s theory is considered to have its 22 roots not only in American sociology and social psychology but also 23 in German Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School). As a result of Ja- 24 pan’s economic success and status as an affluent consumption society, 25 however, postmodern relativism and cynicism prevailed in the world 26 of thought through 1980s and 1990s and consequently Fromm was 27 forgotten. This story of Fromm in Japan is not over, however, for we 28 will discuss how neo-liberal reforms are breaking the fetters of an out- 29 dated Japanese-style management regime and giving people the free- 30 dom for self-realization. This “pseudo positive freedom,” of course, 31 creates again the social pathologies of escapes from freedom Fromm 32 discussed in 1940s. Fromm’s normative anthropology of human free- 33 dom is thus recovering its popularity and has a great theoretical po- 34 tential for critiquing today’s neo-liberal reforms. 35 36

219 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 Introduction 2 3 This study examines the role that Erich Fromm’s social theory has played 4 in Japanese sociology since the end of the Second World War and discusses 5 its potential for criticizing contemporary neo-liberal capitalism. Nearly all 6 theories applied by the social sciences in Japan, including sociology, origi- 7 nated overseas. Japanese social scientists appropriated Western social theo- 8 ries and explored their own society with the help of these theoretical frame- 9 works. Erich Fromm’s social theory was adopted enthusiastically by “critical 10 sociologists” in Japan immediately after the end of the Second World War 11 in order to identify sociocultural elements that facilitate the emergence of 12 fascist dictatorships. By “critical sociologists”, I refer here to those who have 13 been strongly influenced by the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, 14 although they did not use the term “critical sociology” or “critical sociol- 15 ogists” to refer to themselves (Hidaka 1958; Miyajima 1980; Shoji 1977; 16 Tanaka 1972). Interestingly, Erich Fromm, though outside the mainstream 17 of the Frankfurt School, was for some time more influential in Japan than 18 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, the authors ofDialectic of Enlight- 19 enment (2002), which is considered the magnum opus of Critical Theory 20 (Deguchi 2013). 21 However, the situation changed drastically during Japanese capitalism’s 22 period of stable economic growth beginning in the early 1970s. Critical 23 sociologists in Japan have paid less attention to Fromm’s social theory since 24 then, believing that it has lost its potential for criticism due to structural 25 changes in the capitalist system. These sociologists have reached the conclu- 26 sion that Fromm’s theoretical resources have been completely exhausted. In 27 contrast, my intention here is to re-examine their opinion and demonstrate 28 the unexhausted theoretical richness of Fromm’s work. 29 To introduce my discussion, I would like to describe briefly the present 30 study’s methodological approach in two ways. First, the purpose here is 31 not restricted to theoretical or philological reconstruction of the influence 32 of Fromm’s theory on Japanese sociology; rather, I would like to focus on 33 the practical and sociological backdrop against which his theory gained wide 34 acceptance. Second, I will pay much attention to the concept of “reason” 35 in order to contrast Fromm with the critical theorists of the Frankfurt 36 School. So far, comparative research on the relationship between Fromm

220 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory and Horkheimer or Adorno has remained superficial in that it has been 1 limited solely to investigating differences in their interpretation of Sigmund 2 Freud’s psychoanalytic theory – especially its biological element, libido. In 3 contrast, I will review Fromm’s place in the intellectual history of Critical 4 Theory itself, encompassing theoretical developments from its first genera- 5 tion (Horkheimer and Adorno) through the second and third generations 6 (Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth) (Deguchi 2010; 2011). 7 Having completed this methodological preface, I will now move on to 8 my primary subject. First, I will elucidate the relationship between Fromm 9 and post-war Japanese critical sociologists. Next, I will examine the concept 10 of reason in Fromm and in the critical theorists in terms of how it addresses 11 our relationships to others and to our inner nature (psychological drive), 12 and I will demonstrate the uniqueness of Fromm’s perspective. Then, I will 13 put Fromm’s views aside briefly and take a look at the changes in Japanese 14 capitalism, in order to explain why Fromm has been unpopular among 15 Japanese critical sociologists since the early 1970s. Finally, I will return to 16 Fromm’s original theory, and with the help of Honneth’s critical analysis of 17 neo-liberalism, reappraise its theoretical potential in the age of neo-liberal 18 society. 19 20 21 Fromm and Post-War Critical Sociology in Japan 22 23 Dialectic of Freedom or Vestiges of Feudalism? 24 25 Escape from Freedom was introduced relatively early in Japan and enjoyed 26 wide readership among Japanese critical sociologists, providing guidance for 27 their analysis of Japanese society (The Japanese translation was published in 28 1950, while that of The Dialectic of Enlightenment was published in 1990). 29 The first point to be noted is that there are significant differences between 30 the results of sociological research on fascism conducted by Fromm and by 31 Japanese critical sociologists. Before turning to a closer examination of this 32 point, I would like to describe Fromm’s original theoretical proposition of 33 modern freedom in terms of a “dialectic of freedom”, a concept introduced 34 by Axel Honneth in characterizing Fromm’s Escape from Freedom as con- 35 trasted with Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (Hon- 36

221 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 neth 2006). The dialectic of freedom can be defined as a contradictory pro- 2 cess in which the freedom made possible by modernization is undermined 3 and destroyed by freedom itself. Fromm investigated the mechanisms of 4 the rise of National Socialism (as an instance of escape from freedom) in 5 terms of the dialectical contradiction of modernization itself. In his view, 6 modern freedom was a negative freedom, emancipating people from bonds 7 such as hierarchy of status, the traditional family system, guilds and village 8 communities; however, that same emancipatory power also evoked in peo- 9 ple’s minds a sense of isolation, angst and powerlessness as the cost of in- 10 dependence. As a result, people eventually chose to give up their freedom 11 and obey a new authoritarian dictator, or accepted traditional oppression 12 because it promised them protection and security. 13 In contrast to this process, Japanese critical sociologists investigated Jap- 14 anese fascism and found its causes in the traditional, pre-modern feudalism, 15 which continued in Japanese society and which they referred to as “vestiges 16 of feudalism”. In Fromm’s view, however, the phenomenon of escape from 17 freedom could never have occurred in such a “half-traditional” society as 18 pre-war Japanese society, where a variety of old and feudal ties remained 19 very strong and provided people with protection. Nevertheless, despite this 20 great difference in the explanation of fascism’s causes between Fromm and 21 Japanese critical sociologists, Fromm’s social theory was popular in Japan 22 from the 1950s through the 1960s. To explain this fact, we must turn to the 23 sociological context in which Fromm’s social theory enjoyed wider reader- 24 ship among Japanese intellectuals. 25 26 27 Escape from Freedom after the Second World War in Japan 28 29 First, we must note the time lag between the German society that Fromm 30 used as his primary object of research and the Japanese one to which his 31 theory was applied by critical sociologists. Let us return to Fromm’s analy- 32 sis in Escape from Freedom (Fromm 1941a). According to Fromm, Germans 33 enjoyed freedom just after the First World War ended, but it came as a result 34 of the collapse of an imperial regime and the subsequent turbulence in the 35 social order and traditional values that the former imperial authority had se- 36 cured. This political and sociological situation, combined with the economic

222 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory depression that Germany suffered due to the post-war reparations required 1 by victorious nations, made the nation a hotbed for National Socialism. 2 In Japan as well, freedom was given after the breakup of the imperial dic- 3 tatorship. In this sense, the historical situation concerning freedom and de- 4 mocracy in the Weimar Republic is comparable to Japanese society. How- 5 ever, only after the Second World War did Japan begin to enjoy freedom 6 and democracy. Therefore, the main proposition of escape from freedom 7 is more applicable to post-war Japan, after its fascist period – not to a time 8 period during which popular discomfort with freedom may have led to the 9 emergence of authoritarianism, as in Fromm’s theory. In addition, begin- 10 ning in the late 1940s, as the Republic of China was founded, the Cold 11 War intensified and the Korean War broke out, the Japanese government 12 followed gyaku-kosu (reverse course) and implemented reactionary poli- 13 cies. These political circumstances after the war made the truths ofEscape 14 from Freedom more relevant to Japan than they had been under imperial 15 fascism before and during the war. In this context, Fromm’s message on the 16 need to develop from negative freedom to positive freedom touched the 17 heartstrings of liberal and critical intellectuals. In fact, the research on the 18 Japanese social character conducted by Rokuro Hidaka, translator of Escape 19 from Freedom, aimed not only at elucidating the causes of imperial fascism 20 before and during the Second World War but also at foreseeing the possibil- 21 ities of a post-war anti-democratic dictatorship (Hidaka 1958)1. 22 23 24 Fromm and the Frankfurt School 25 26 Escape from Freedom and Dialectic of Enlightenment 27 28 As Axel Honneth demonstrates, Escape from Freedom shares a motif of di- 29 alectical self-erosion of modernity with Dialectic of Enlightenment. I will 30 31 1 His investigation is directed particularly towards possibilities that the democracy 32 transplanted in Japan from the West might die out. He explained the current people’s 33 social character categorised into five cases: the social character of plebeian, the 34 subordinated, citizen, the mass and revolutionary subject. Needless to say, the plebeian and subordinated subject, or pre-modern traditional subject, had been the main carrier 35 of imperial dictatorship. 36

223 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 explore this point further in terms of the difference in the concept of reason 2 between Fromm and the authors of Dialectic of Enlightenment and The 3 Communicative Theory of Action (Deguchi 2002). 4 The dialectic of enlightenment is a paradoxical process by which enlight- 5 ening reason, which controlled both the inner nature (our psychological 6 drive) and outer nature (the environment) and built up rational civilization, 7 also dialectically produces barbarism or violent domination. In this sense, 8 it might be said that dialectics of freedom and the dialectic of enlighten- 9 ment are referring to the same negative social phenomenon in which the 10 emancipation process erodes itself and evolves into violence in the modern 11 age. However, of the two, only Fromm’s theory could have a positive and 12 hopeful perspective on the future of reason and its emancipatory potential. 13 One reason for this is that Fromm avoids a “categorical mistake”, a term 14 used by Habermas in criticizing the theoretical impasse that Horkheimer 15 and Adorno reached. Specifically, Fromm distinguishes reason from “in- 16 telligence”, which he describes as equivalent to the instrumental and en- 17 lightening reason of Horkheimer and Adorno. Intelligence, or instrumental 18 reason, can be seen, in Fromm’s view, as a pathological and alienated form 19 of reason. On the contrary, reason in Fromm is not instrumental but serves 20 a communicative and emancipatory function. 21 Reason, according to Fromm, relates the independent self to others by 22 the capacity of comprehending or understanding, and consequently, en- 23 ables one to build inter-subjective relationships between the self and others 24 without losing one’s independence. If reason fails in realizing inter-subjec- 25 tive relationships, its ability turns into the instrumental and unproductive 26 power of domination or subordination between the subject and the object. 27 In other words, Fromm finds the emancipatory ability of reason at the in- 28 ter-subjective relational level just as Habermas does. In Fromm’s theory, 29 this philosophical consideration is built on a foundation of psychological 30 observations on sadism and masochism, which are two different types of 31 “alienated” attitudes of the self towards others that arise when one gives up 32 one’s independence and falls into symbiotic relationships. 33 Let us now attempt to extend the discussion into Fromm’s sociologi- 34 cal concepts of negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom is a state 35 in which people have emancipated themselves spontaneously and gained 36 independence from existing social bonds. This situation can be viewed

224 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory as an objective prerequisite for actively exercising one’s ability of reason. 1 However, people can enjoy positive freedom only when they develop 2 reason fully and consequently attain individual independence and in- 3 ter-subjective relatedness to others. This fact sheds light on the issue that I 4 raised previously, namely why Fromm’s social theory was popular in Japan 5 despite the great difference in the causes identified for fascism between 6 Fromm and Japanese critical sociologists, and why Fromm, though out- 7 side the mainstream of the school, was more influential than Horkheimer 8 and Adorno. It appears that Fromm’s dialectical thought of freedom en- 9 abled Japanese sociologists and intellectuals to think of Japanese society 10 in the late 1940s as not only being in a critical state of emergency but also 11 as being at the key moment when Japanese society satisfied at last the ob- 12 jective prerequisites for reason realizing itself. Negative freedom is a threat 13 to freedom itself, but dialectically, it also promises hope at the point of 14 hopelessness. 15 16 17 Communicative Reason or Natural Reason 18 19 I will now shift my focus away from Horkheimer and Adorno to Habermas. 20 After Fromm’s prominence faded in Japan, Habermas’s writings, especially 21 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1992) and The Theory of 22 Communicative Action (1984), attracted a growing interest among critical 23 sociologists. Fromm and Habermas’s writings have two things that Dia- 24 lectic of Enlightenment (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002) lacks: a relatively 25 positive evaluation of the potential of reason and a perspective on recon- 26 structing a democratic society on the basis of reason. Escape from Freedom 27 goes beyond performing a psychological analysis of National Socialism to 28 propose a psychological prerequisite for the rebirth of democracy, namely 29 the simultaneous attainment of individual independence and inter-subjec- 30 tive relatedness to others. Habermas’s two writings, in contrast, examine 31 the formation of social evolution towards the modern civil society and for- 32 mulate a historical and sociological prerequisite for democracy. Despite 33 these differences both Fromm and Habermas conduct critical and thor- 34 ough investigations of mass society and attempt to identify the normative 35 potential of reason. 36

225 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 We cannot simply compare Habermas and Fromm as a whole, as Haber- 2 mas’s communicative theory covers a wide variety of disciplines including 3 philosophy, sociology, linguistics and psychology. Therefore, I will here 4 focus solely on the difference in their concepts of reason: communicative 5 reason in Habermas and “natural reason” in Fromm. Habermas assumes 6 that reason demonstrates its ability exclusively in the “ideal speech situa- 7 tion”, in which those involved aim at mutual understanding and agreement 8 through verbal communication without compulsion. In this theoretical 9 framework, one’s inner nature or psychological drive is dissipated in the 10 verbal communication process, and consequently, repressed inner psychol- 11 ogy is treated only as a theme of “distorted communication”. As a result, in 12 Habermas’ communicative theory, the motivational power of latent inner 13 emotions matters little. 14 In contrast, Fromm adopts the Spinozist monistic concept of reason 15 and nature, which is different from the Kantian dualistic concept typically 16 seen in Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas. On the basis of the dyna- 17 mism of potency and power, Fromm makes clear the close relationship of 18 reason, emotions and inter-subjective relatedness to others. In Fromm’s 19 view, emotional experiences and the productive or unproductive use of 20 reason are inseparably related to each other and motivate people to build 21 relations with others. People who have a potency of actively using reason 22 can simultaneously attain an independent and inter-subjective relatedness 23 to others, but those who cannot productively use their ability of reason 24 and fail in relating themselves to others suffer emotional experiences such 25 as isolation and angst, and ultimately have a feeling of decrease in power, 26 i.e. “powerlessness”. They then have a psychological desire to compensate 27 for this negative feeling of powerlessness by building dominating or subor- 28 dinating relationships with others, that is, through sadistic or masochistic 29 relationships. 30 We can conclude this discussion as follows. First, Horkheimer and 31 Adorno pay attention to the dialectical bonding of reason and the inner 32 nature or psychological drive, but do not consider the inter-subjective 33 and emancipatory aspect of reason. Second, in contrast, Habermas de- 34 velops the communicative concept of reason and finds an emancipating 35 potential in the inter-subjectivity of verbal communication, but in his 36 theory, emotion or inner nature takes a backseat because his reason is in-

226 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory ter-subjective, dualistic and separated from inner nature itself. Finally, in 1 contrast, Fromm links the inner emotional nature with the motivational 2 power of reason as partners in building inter-subjective relationships 3 with others. 4 5 6 Fromm in Japanese Rapid Capitalist Modernization 7 8 Rapid Economic Growth and the Theory of Alienation 9 10 Let us leave our theoretical considerations for a moment and go back to the 11 description of the sociological context in which Fromm was accepted in 12 Japan. After the political crisis of military dictatorship in the early 1950s, Ja- 13 pan’s swift rehabilitation and economic growth from the late 1950s through 14 the 1960s demonstrated the usefulness of Fromm’s well-known concept of 15 alienation. During this period, Japan experienced an unprecedentedly rapid 16 economic recovery, to the extent that, by 1968, its GNP ranked second in 17 the world. This rapid capitalist modernization frees people from the tradi- 18 tional bonds of intermediate communities, atomizing people from co-ex- 19 istence into individual separate existence, and at the same time, changes 20 human beings into depersonalized parts organized into a huge mechanical 21 system. Those who fall victim to alienation experience themselves as parts 22 of an abstract system and have a psychological sense of isolation and power- 23 lessness, losing inter-subjective relationships with other people. 24 Extending this perspective from the psychological level to the micro-so- 25 cietal level in its foreign economic policy, the Japanese government and 26 its bureaucracy took the initiative in social and economic development 27 and protected companies in “the convoy system” against economic threats 28 coming from overseas; simultaneously, in its domestic economic policy, 29 the same technocratic state bureaucracy improved and expanded the 30 social capital and infrastructure needed for the development of a capitalist 31 system and eliminated excessive competition inside Japan. This coalition 32 of technocratic state bureaucracy and a capitalist system made possible Ja- 33 pan’s remarkable economic growth. It is possible to describe this situation 34 with Habermas’ concept of “colonization of the life world by bureaucratic 35 and capitalist systems”. In other words, Fromm’s concept of alienation was 36

227 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 referring to the subjective and emotional side of this objective capitalist 2 reality. 3 4 5 Fromm’s Decline in Affluent, Postmodern Society 6 7 Japan progressed into a period of stable growth of capitalism, in contrast to 8 the Western capitalist countries’ experience of a long economic recession. 9 The 1973 oil crisis, triggered by the Yom Kippur War between Israel and 10 Arab countries in the Middle East, however, struck a blow against Japan’s 11 economy and ended the post-war pattern of rapid growth. Through the 12 1970s and 1980s, in an affluent consumption-based society, the so-called 13 Nihon teki keiei (Japanese-style management) or Kaisha shakai (compa- 14 ny-oriented society) was established, drawing the majority of workers into 15 a company system that guaranteed them secure lifetime employment, along 16 with stable seniority, salary and advancement policies and substantial in- 17 tra-company welfare. It is true that this Japanese-company-oriented society 18 was established by the state technocratic bureaucratic and capitalist system, 19 and that in this sense, Japan can be seen as a “totally administrated soci- 20 ety” in terms of Critical Theory. Yet most workers enjoyed having their af- 21 fluent and secure lives protected by the Japanese style of management and 22 employment practices. Also, within the Japanese company system, people 23 enjoyed “self-realization” through good teamwork. One typical example is 24 the Japanese-style quality control circle, in which workers, particularly in 25 the manufacturing industry, discuss quality control in the workplace and 26 propose improvements, thereby becoming participants in bottom-up man- 27 agement. This method was a key to the strength of the Japanese manufac- 28 turing industry. 29 Generally speaking, critical discourses lost their popular support due to 30 the notable successes of Japanese-style management and company-oriented 31 systems in building an affluent and secure society. This situation continued 32 until the end of the bubble economy in the early 1990s. During this period, 33 in place of critical sociology, postmodernism arose with its heavy dose 34 of relativism and cynicism. Against this backdrop, Fromm and his social 35 theory based on his normative concept of freedom fell into oblivion even 36 among sociologists.

228 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory

Fromm in the Future 1 2 Globalization and Neo-Liberal Reform in Japan 3 4 After the collapse of the bubble economy, neo-liberal reforms ensued in 5 Japan, about fifteen years delayed relative to their implementation by West- 6 ern capitalist countries. In 2001, principles of competition and privatization 7 were proposed in the fields such as medical services, nursing care, welfare 8 and education. In addition, with globalization affecting Japanese compa- 9 nies, opportunities for regular employment have been decreasing, while the 10 number of non-regular positions has been rapidly increasing, and non-reg- 11 ular workers are vulnerable to layoffs. In this changing context, marked by 12 great economic pressure from global markets, various neo-liberal reforms 13 have aimed to restructure the aspects of Japanese-style management and 14 employment practices that impede free competition. In conjunction with 15 the spread of neo-liberal ideology, discourses concerning self-realization 16 and personal responsibility are permeating not only the ruling class but 17 also the general populace. Through internalizing belief in self-realization 18 and personal responsibility, people have begun to experience themselves 19 as entrepreneurs marketing themselves. Here we could comment on the 20 relevance of Fromm’s concept of “marketing orientation” or “personality 21 market” in his Man for Himself (Fromm 1947a). However, I would like to 22 turn to the theoretical connection between Fromm and the critical the- 23 orists, especially Axel Honneth (Honneth 2004; Honneth & Hartmann 24 2006). 25 Honneth, part of the third generation of Critical Theory, argues that the 26 self-realization that emancipated individuals from traditional bonds experi- 27 ence is changing into dialectically institutionalized expectancy, which func- 28 tions as an ideology for reproducing the economic system itself. Within 29 the loop of self-realization and institutionalized expectancy, people expe- 30 rience increasing inner emptiness. As a result, compelling self-realization, 31 referred to as “organized self-realization” in Honneth’s discussion, destroys 32 emotional relatedness or social solidarity, and consequently, the prevalence 33 of crime, deviant behavior, mental illness and harmful addictions, including 34 dysfunctional behaviors in intimate relationships such as domestic violence 35 or child abuse, will greatly increase. We can refer to this neo-liberal ide- 36

229 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 ology of organized self-realization as “pseudo-positive freedom”, because 2 people can enjoy truly positive freedom only when they develop reason 3 fully and consequently attain individual independence and inter-subjective 4 relatedness to others. Neo-liberal ideology is a seemingly positive freedom, 5 but in reality, it functions as a negative freedom and destroys intersubjective 6 relatedness or social solidarity among people. 7 8 9 Criticizing Organized Self-Realization as Pseudo-Positive Freedom 10 11 In order to reappraise Fromm, we must go back to the proposition of escape 12 from freedom. Both economic regression (due to the global price compe- 13 tition) and neo-liberal reforms (whose purpose is to restructure the secure 14 employment system) have destroyed the social safeguards maintained in the 15 post-war era. As a result, new social pathologies, such as intimate partner 16 violence and motiveless murders of apparently random victims that were 17 previously seldom if ever observed in Japanese society have attracted great 18 interest. Fromm divided the mechanisms of escaping from freedom into 19 three patterns: authoritarianism (sadism and masochism), destructive- 20 ness and automaton conformity. The first two patterns are applicable to 21 the social pathologies that have become more common in contemporary 22 Japanese society. In the process of individualization and expanding gender 23 equality, domestic violence has become an increasingly serious issue. As 24 psychological diagnosis says, the perpetrator and the victim of violence are 25 in many instances co-dependent. This violent addiction can be explained 26 by Fromm’s inquiry into the symbiotic relationship between sadistic and 27 masochistic personalities. As for motiveless murders, it is often said that 28 these criminals have lost any recognizable relationship with others and are 29 isolated from every social bond, with the result that their last hope is for 30 the death of those around them as well as themselves. This interpretation is 31 consistent with Fromm’s theory of destructiveness in that the perpetrators 32 want to destroy not only the victims but also themselves. 33 The growth of such social pathologies in everyday life and the present 34 political climate are causes for despair about the future of peace and de- 35 mocracy in Japan. My pessimism is reinforced whenever I hear the Japa- 36 nese Prime Minister, associated with the conservative right-wing, claim

230 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Erich Fromm and Critical Theory in Post-War Japanese Social Theory loudly that we must break away from the post-war regime, namely the 1 regime under Japan’s “no-war” Constitution. However, on the other hand, 2 I am encouraged to note that, this year, The Art of Loving (Fromm 1956a) 3 was discussed in a series of four lectures on a nationwide educational TV 4 program, and that many Japanese are still being moved by Fromm’s words. 5 There was space for Fromm’s insights and focus on freedom in Japan in the 6 1950s, and a need to return to his theories today in a nation facing political 7 and cultural crisis. 8 9 10 References 11 12 Deguchi, T. (2002). Erich Fromm: Kibo naki jidai no kibo [Erich Fromm: Hope in the Hopeless 13 Age]. Tokyo (Shin’yo Sha). Deguchi, T. (2010). Axel Honneth no shoninron to hihanriron no sasshin). [The Recognition 14 Theory of Axel Honneth and the Renewal of Critical Theory]. Gendai shakaigaku riron 15 kenkyu [The Journal of Studies in Contemporary Sociological Theory] 4, pp. 16–28. 16 Deguchi, T. (2011). Hihanriron no tenkai to seisinbunseki no sassin [The Development ofCritical Theory and Renewal of Psychoanalysis]. Shakaigaku hyoron [Japanese 17 Sociological Review] 61(4), pp. 422–438. 18 Deguchi, T. (2013). Critical Theory and its development in post-war Japanese sociology. 19 Pursuing true democracy in rapid capitalist modernization. In: A. Elliott et. al. (Ed.). 20 Japanese Social Theory. From Individualization to Globalization in Japan Today. Abingdon (Routledge). 21 Fromm, E. (1941a). Escape from Freedom. New York (Farrar and Rinehart). 22 Fromm, E. (1947a). Man for Himself. New York (Rinehart and Company). 23 Fromm, E. (1955a). The Sane Society. New York (Rinehart and Winston Inc.). Fromm, E. (1956a). The Art of Loving. An Inquiry into the Nature of Love. New York (Harper 24 and Row). 25 Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. New York (Beacon Press). 26 Habermas, J. (1992). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge (Polity 27 Press). Hidaka, R. (1958). Ideorogi Shakaishinri Shakaitekiseikaku. [Ideology, Social Psychology and 28 Social Character]. In: R. Hidaka (1960). Gendai Ideorogi [Contemporary Ideology]. 29 Tokyo (Keiso Shobo), pp. 3–20. 30 Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Cambridge (Polity). Honneth, A. (2004). Organized self-realization. Some Paradoxes of Individualization. Euro- 31 pean Journal of Social Theory. 7 (4), pp. 463–478. 32 Honneth, A. (2006). “Die Frucht vor der Freiheit” [Escape from Freedom]. In: A. Honneth and 33 Institute for Social Research (Ed.). Schluesseltexte der Kritischen Theorie [Key Texts of 34 Critical Theory]. Frankfurt. Honneth, A. and Hartmann, M. (2006). Paradoxes of Capitalism. Constellations 13–1, 35 pp. 41–58. 36

231 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015. Takeshi Deguchi

1 Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. (2002). The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford (Stanford 2 University Press). Miyajima, T. (1980). Gendai shakaiishiki ron [Contemporary Theory of Social Consciousness]. 3 Tokyo (Nihonhyoron Sha). 4 Shoji, K. (1977). Gendaka to Gendaishakai no riron [Modernization and the Theory of 5 Modern Society]. Tokyo (University of Tokyo Press). 6 Tanaka, Y. (1972). Shiseikatushugi hihan [Critique against Privatization]. In: Y. Tanaka (1974). Shiseikatushugi hihan [Critique against Privatization]. Tokyo (Chikuma Shobo), 7 pp. 35–89. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

232 in: R. Funk and N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a Human Science. The Relevance of Erich Fromm for Today, Giessen (Psychosozial-Verlag) 2015.