Erich Fromm Art of Loving Carrying Responding Respecting Knowing

Your complimentary manufactures

You've read 1 of your four gratis articles for this month.

Y'all can read 4 articles complimentary per month. To take complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Philosophy & Honey

Is Love An Art?

Kathleen O'Dwyer asks if we can learn how to beloved, with Erich Fromm and friends.

"For one human beingness to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the concluding test and proof, the work for which all other piece of work is merely preparation" Rainer Maria Rilke.

"Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers inside yourself that you have built confronting it" Jelaluddin Rumi

Love is a universal human miracle: we all need to love and to be loved. An acknowledgement of this need is beautifully portrayed past Raymond Carver in his poem 'Late Fragment', from Staying Alive: Real Poems for Unreal Times:

And did you lot get what
Y'all wanted from this life, however?
I did.
And what did you want?
To call myself honey, to feel myself
Beloved on the earth

However, love is too a uniquely personal feel which can never be fully articulated. From a philosophical viewpoint, the concept of love raises many questions: What does it mean to love? What is the relationship between love of cocky and love of others? Is love an instinctive emotion, or is information technology a decisive and rational commitment? In his acknowledged 1956 volume The Fine art of Loving, German language philosopher and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900-1980) examines these questions and others relating to love, and he puts frontward a strong argument that love is an art which must be developed and practiced with commitment and humility: it requires both cognition and effort. Fromm provides specific guidelines to help his readers develop the art of loving, and he asserts that "love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of man existence" (p.104, 1995 edition). This assertion carries a strong echo of the words of Sigmund Freud: "Our inborn instincts and the world effectually the states being what they are, I could not simply regard that love is no less essential for the survival of the human race than such things as technology" (from The Life Cycle Completed, Erik Erikson, 1998, p.20). Fromm puts forward a theory of love which is demanding, disturbing and challenging. He based it on the contradiction betwixt the prevalent idea that love is natural and spontaneous – and consequently non requiring application or practice – and the incontestable evidence of the failure of love in personal, social and international realms.

The homo need for honey is rooted in our awareness of our individual separateness and aloneness inside the natural and social worlds. This is one of the existential dichotomies which narrate the man status: "Man is solitary and he is related at the same time" (Fromm, Man for Himself, 1947). Many philosophers have addressed this paradoxical aspect of being human, and there has been a general consensus on the essential relationship between well-being, flourishing, even survival, and the experience of loving relationships and friendships. As the Irish poet Brendan Kennelly notes, "the self knows that self is not enough, / the deepest well becomes exhausted" (from Familiar Strangers). The possibility of dear exists within an acknowledgement of this insufficiency.

Co-ordinate to Fromm, aloneness creates an feel of "an unbearable prison" which may be a meaning source of anxiety, shame and unhappiness: "The deepest need in man, and so, is the demand to overcome his separateness, to exit the prison of his aloneness" (Art, p.viii). Therefore, the individual continually reaches out for connection and communication with others; he or she strives to accomplish the feel of love.

Thus one's existential aloneness and need for relationship and connection propels the desire for mutuality and intimacy on a variety of levels. Nevertheless, when this want is grounded in the conventionalities that i's fulfilment tin can be achieved through the devotion and support of another, the emphasis is placed on the feel of being loved rather than on loving, and the loving other is distorted and macerated in gild to facilitate this. This demand-based motivation is non Fromm's understanding of beloved, and it does non answer the problem of human separateness.

Fromm claims that love has been widely misunderstood. According to his estimation, love "is a relatively rare phenomenon and its identify is taken past a number of forms of pseudo-dearest" (Fine art, p.65). For instance, the desire to escape aloneness may exist expressed in a passive form of submission or dependence, wherein a person seeks an identity through some other. Here, the individual renounces their responsibility and sense of self, and attempts to live through the perceived greatness or strength of the other. This style of unhealthy relatedness may be experienced at a personal, social, national, even religious level. In all cases, the individual looks to another for the answers to the problems of living, and thus attempts to escape the challenges and demands of liberty and responsibility. In that location is often simultaneously the practice of domination and command on the part of the perceived more powerful partner. Even so the controlling partner is oftentimes every bit dependent on the submissive other for the fulfilment of their own want. Fromm interestingly points out that the two modes of living are oftentimes exercised by the aforementioned individual, submissive or dominating in relation to dissimilar people.

Such expressions of 'love' are synonymous with certain forms of romantic literature and music. 'Love' is cited as the motivation of both parties, based on the assertion that neither can live without the other. In either case, the individual is attempting to dispel the anxieties of aloneness and divergence through a symbiotic or co-dependent union which places the focus of creative and productive living on a beingness outside the self: "for if an individual can force somebody else to serve him, his own need to exist productive is increasingly paralyzed" (Man for Himself, p.64). Fromm describes such a union as 'fusion without integrity', and he considers it an immature form of love which is destined to disappointment and failure. Or in the words of W.H. Auden, "Cipher can be loved too much, / just all things can be loved / in the wrong way."

At the root of such immature expressions of dearest is a predominantly egotistic preoccupation with i's ain earth, one'south own values, and i'due south own needs. This precludes an openness to otherness and divergence, and it diminishes the possibility of relationship, and thus of love, through an sectional reference to one'south ain perspective. The person who experiences life through such a narcissistic orientation inevitably views others either as a source of threat and danger, or every bit a source of usefulness and manipulation. From this perspective, the other – person or world – is not experienced as they are, but rather through the distorting lens of ane'south own needs and desires.

True Love

In opposition to this naïve, selfish, bulldoze to escape separateness and aloneness, Fromm insists that "paradoxically, the ability to exist lonely is the status for the power to dear" (Fine art, p.88), and that the ability to experience real love is based on a commitment to the freedom and autonomy of both partners: "Mature love" he writes "is union nether the condition of preserving i's integrity, one's individuality… In dear the paradox occurs that ii beings become one and yet remain two" (Art, p.xvi). Thus the need for connection is answered through a relatedness which allows us to transcend our separateness without denying us our uniqueness. According to the German poet Rilke, this is the only solution to the dichotomy of separateness and connectedness. Rilke argues that "fifty-fifty between the closest human beings space distances proceed to exist, [just] a wonderful living adjacent can abound up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole and confronting a wide heaven" (Rilke on Love and Other Difficulties, p.34). Fromm says farther that one must reach out to the other with one'due south whole being: "Honey is possible only if 2 persons communicate with each other from the centre of their existence" (Fine art, p.80).

Co-ordinate to Fromm's interpretation, real love is motivated by the urge to give and to share rather than by a desire to fulfil one'southward own needs or to compensate for one'due south inadequacies. This is just possible if the private is committed to a 'productive orientation' towards life, since a productive character is more concerned with giving than with receiving: "For the productive graphic symbol, giving… is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I feel my forcefulness, my wealth, my ability. This feel of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more than joyous than receiving, not because information technology is a impecuniousness, only because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness" (Art, p.18). However, in order to give, an individual must experience a sense of self, from which to draw that which is given: "What does 1 person give some other? He gives of himself, of the nearly precious he has, he gives his life … he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his sense of humor, of his sadness" (Art, p.19).

For Fromm, mature dearest is an act of giving which recognizes the liberty and autonomy of the cocky and the other, and in this sense, information technology differs radically from the passive, involuntary phenomenon suggested by the phrase 'falling in beloved'. To Fromm at that place is a "confusion between the initial experience of 'falling' in beloved, and the permanent state of beingness in love, or as nosotros might amend say, 'standing' in love" (Fine art, p.iii). Indeed, Fromm claims that the intensity and excitement which accompanies moments of infatuation is oftentimes relative to the degree of loneliness and isolation which has been previously experienced. Equally such, information technology is commonly followed, sooner or afterwards, past colorlessness and disappointment. Many thinkers, from Freud to the contemporary philosopher J. David Velleman, also emphasise the blindness of romantic love. In contrast, mature love is an agile commitment to and concern for the well-being of that which we love. "Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, simply a moving, growing, working together" (Art, p.80).

Fromm'southward theory of love demands delivery, humility and courage, every bit well as persistence and hope in the face of inevitable conflicts and difficulties. But how is mature beloved to be developed and practised? How are the pitfalls of resentment, disappointment and indifference to be avoided, or, at to the lowest degree, constructively managed and overcome? Fromm declares that the fine art of loving is based on the exercise of iv essential elements: "intendance, responsibility, respect and noesis" (Art, p.21). These evoke a radically different response than that more commonly associated with romantic or sentimental love.

Care for the other implies a concern for their welfare characterised by our willingness to respond to their physical, emotional and psychological needs. This involves a commitment of time, effort and labour, which ways responsibility. Withal, this commitment to care is tempered with a humility and openness which refrains from any attempt to mould the other to an image or platonic; information technology does not say 'I know what is best for you', but rather respects the autonomy and individuality of the other: "I desire the loved person to grow and unfold for his ain sake, and in his own ways, and not for the purpose of serving me. If I love the other person, I feel one with him or her, just with him as he is, non as I need him to be equally an object for my apply" (Fine art, p.22). Respect thus implies the absence of exploitation: information technology allows the other to be, to modify and to develop 'in his ain ways'. This requires a commitment to know the other as a separate being, and not only as a reflection of my own ego. Co-ordinate to Velleman, this loving willingness and power to see the other as they really are is foregrounded in our willingness to risk self-exposure: "Love disarms our emotional defences; it makes united states of america vulnerable to the other… in suspending our emotional defences, love exposes our sympathy to the needs of the other" (Self to Self: Selected Essays, 2006, p.95).

Love Variations

Of course, there are many kinds of love: sexual, parental and brotherly honey are only some manifestations of the phenomenon, and are motivated by different desires, needs and hopes. But Fromm asserts that the feel of mature dearest has in all cases a similar foundation and orientation: if a mature mental attitude to love is beingness expert, the other will not be an object to serve my purpose. The converse is also the instance: Fromm refers to the diverse forms of subtle exploitation and manipulation which may be discerned behind the mere appearance or assertion of love. For instance, sexual encounters may be primarily motivated by the desire for physical excitement, pleasure and release, or by the urge for domination or submission. In either example, the intimacy experienced is momentary and limited, and the relationship is not characterized by the core elements of care, responsibility, respect and knowledge, but by using the other equally a means to an end. Parental honey is assumed to be marked by the exercise of unconditional care, concern and devotion, and this is ofttimes the case. However, since Freud, nosotros cannot ignore the idea that some parents are sometimes motivated past factors not conducive to the healthy growth of the child. For instance, whatsoever the reasons, when parental beloved is offered or withdrawn on conditional terms – obedience, compliance, success, popularity, pleasantness, etc – the kid senses that he/she is not loved for his/her self, but simply on the condition of beingness deserving. Psychoanalytic theory explores the lasting touch on of such experiences for the resulting adult as the desire for unconditional dear remains an unsatisfied peckish.

Fromm offers a very interesting assay of two possible approaches within the parental office. Using the images of 'milk' and 'honey', Fromm differentiates between a care-focussed love, and one which is imbued with vitality: "Milk is the symbol of the first attribute of love, that of care and affirmation. Beloved symbolises the sweet of life, the dear for it, and the happiness in being alive" (Art, p.39). The ability to give honey-love is dependent on one'southward sense of happiness and joyful appointment; hence, information technology is rarely achieved. The ensuing effect on the kid is profound: "Both attitudes have a deep event on the child'due south whole personality; ane tin can distinguish, indeed, among children – and adults – those who got merely 'milk', and those who got 'milk and honey'." (Art, p.39). Maybe this suggests a 5th element for Fromm'southward list of the basic aspects of mature honey. Care, responsibility, respect and knowledge are praiseworthy qualities in the loving person, an expression of a mature and 18-carat business organisation for the other; however, is there non a desire for something other than generosity and concern in the experience of love? Is at that place non a desire for 'love' – for a sense of the lover having joy in the beloved, enjoyment in their very existence? Mayhap this is a necessary addition to Fromm'due south already demanding view of honey.

The concept of self-dear is as well a perennial subject of statement from philosophical, psychological and religious perspectives. Analysis ranges over the apparent dichotomy between our obligations to ourselves and to others, as well as interpretations of selfishness, narcissism and self-centeredness. In many cases, the result rests on the varying interpretations of the phrase. The negative connotations of 'self-love' normally emanate from associations with an sectional and obsessive focus on oneself and i'due south world, and a condone for anything outside this self-contained creation. In dissimilarity, the thought of a healthy cocky-love posits no contradiction between love of self and love of others; rather, the former is seen as an essential starting indicate for the latter. This is Fromm's view: "Love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of dear towards themselves volition be found in all those who are capable of loving others. Love, in principle, is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and ane's ain self are concerned" (Art, p.46). So self-dearest and beloved of others are non mutually exclusive, but co-existent. Fromm strengthens this argument by pointing to the distortions which ensue when the conditions of cocky-love or self-acceptance are not met; the parent who sacrifices everything for their children, the spouse who 'does not want anything for himself', the person who 'lives only for the other'. Fromm discerns such expressions of 'unselfishness' as often being façades masking an intense self-centredness and a chronic hostility to life which paralyses 1'southward ability to love self or others.

Fromm's merits that honey of self and of others is intricately linked, is based on his argument that love for one human being implies a dear for all – when I love someone, I love the humanity of that person, therefore, I dear the humanity of all persons, including myself: "Love is non primarily a relationship to a specific person: it is an mental attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the globe as a whole, non towards ane 'object' of love" (Fine art, p.36). Therefore this theory of dearest is opposed to exclusivity or partiality. In this sense, Fromm concurs with the concept of universal love. He argues that "if I truly love 1 person, I love all persons" (p.36).

This thought is rejected by Freud, who points to diverse historical manifestations of its incongruence, for example, "After St Paul had made universal brotherly dear the foundation of his Christian community, the farthermost intolerance of Christianity towards those left outside it was an inevitable consequence," he writes in Civilisation and Its Discontents on p.51. Freud's argument rests on the premise that one cannot beloved anybody one meets. He as well stresses the physical and practical nature of love over universal theories. Friedrich Nietzsche states the case for that in his typically aphoristic style: "At that place is not enough love and kindness in the world to allow u.s. to give any of information technology away to imaginary beings" (Human, All Too Human). Interestingly, Freud'due south argument confronting the possibility of universal beloved echoes Fromm's thoughts on intendance and responsibleness; simply Freud maintains that we cannot exercise these values on a universal scale, and would not choose to do so.

In his analysis of the concept of neighbourly love, contemporary philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek poses the question 'who is the neighbour?', and concludes that the injunction to 'love thy neighbour' and correlative preaching about universal love, equality and tolerance, are ultimately strategies to avert encountering the neighbour in all their vulnerability, frailty, obscenity and fallibility: "information technology is piece of cake to love the idealized figure of a poor, helpless neighbor, the starving African or Indian, for example; in other words, information technology is easy to dearest one's neighbour as long as he stays far enough from us, as long equally there is a proper distance separating u.s.a.. The problem arises at the moment when he comes too near u.s.a., when we start to feel his suffocating proximity – at this moment when the neighbour exposes himself to u.s. also much, love can of a sudden turn into hatred" (Enjoy Your Symptom! Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out, p.8). Thus the popularity of humanitarian causes lies in their inherent paradox, whereby i tin can 'beloved' from a distance without getting involved. Žižek offers a pertinent claiming: "'Love thy neighbour!' means 'Honey the Muslims!' OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL!" (etext).

Velleman argues that human beings are selective in love because information technology is non constitutionally possible to know and so to love everybody: "1 reason why we love some people rather than others is that we can see into only some of our observable swain creatures" (Self to Self, p.107). Our pick of honey objects is inevitably limited past our ain limitations, merely this is not to deny the potential value of others as worthy of love: "We know that those whom we exercise non happen to love may be simply as eligible for dearest as our own children, spouses, and friends" (ibid, p.108). Maybe the resolution of this apparent paradox resides in the humble acknowledgement that every person is worthy of love, but that our ability to beloved is limited to those whom we choose to know and cherish on a personal level. As Velleman says, "knowing the other is essential to love, and this, in part, points to 'the partiality of love': Personal love is… a response to someone with whom nosotros are acquainted. We may admire or envy people of whom we have only heard or read, but we can only love the people nosotros know" (Self to Self, p.10).

Love Begins and Ends

Fromm'due south treatise on the art of loving is provocative and insightful. It exposes the myriad problems associated with the experience of loving and of being loved. It confidently asserts that love is essential to homo flourishing and survival, while also highlighting the demands and responsibilities associated with its exercise. Is Fromm's understanding of love idealistic and unrealistic? I leave the final words to Carl Sandburg:

At that place is a place where dearest begins and a place where love ends.
There is a touch on of two hands that foils all dictionaries.
At that place is a look of eyes violent every bit a large Bethlehem open hearth furnace or a little green-burn acetylene torch.
There are unmarried careless bywords portentous every bit a large bend in the Mississippi River.
Easily, eyes, bywords – out of these love makes battlegrounds and workshops.
At that place is a pair of shoes honey wears and the coming is a mystery.
In that location is a warning love sends and the cost of it is never written till long afterward.
In that location are explanations of dearest in all languages and not one found wiser than this:
In that location is a place where love begins and a place where love ends – and love asks nothing.

('Explanations of Beloved')

© Dr Kathleen O'Dwyer 2011

Kathleen O'Dwyer's book The Possibility of Beloved: An Interdisciplinary Analysis (2009) is published by Cambridge Scholars Press. Information technology's a philosophical investigation into the complex experience of love.

novotnyagaine.blogspot.com

Source: https://philosophynow.org/issues/85/Is_Love_An_Art

Share this post