Erich Fromm on: The essence of man
Is
there such a thing as “the essence of man”? The eighteenth century was rather
optimistic about the essence of man. The general picture in that century was
that man is reasonable, good, and easily directed or influenced in the
direction of the good. Some people like Reinhold Niebuhr
and others assure us that it is almost sinful to have such a naïve belief, and
belief in the goodness of man. But I don’t believe we need such exhortations:
The period we have lived through and are living through gives us sufficient
proof of the irrationality and even insanity of man that we don’t really need
to be reminded how evil man can be. The question is, and I think the essential
question for the science of man to discover is: What is the essence of man?
What is that can be objectively be described as human?
I want to stress that the essence of man is not a substance, that it isn’t that
man is good or man is bad, but that there is an essence that remains she same
throughout history. The essence of man is a constellation or, as Heideberger called it, a configuration – a basic
configuration. And as I see it, this configuration is precisely one of an
existential dichotomy or, to use somewhat less technical language, it is
precisely one of a contradiction between man as an animal who is within nature
and between man as the only thing in nature that has
awareness of itself. Hence, man can be aware of his separateness and losteness and weakness. Hence, man has to find new ways of
union with nature and with his fellow man. Man was born, historically and
individually, and, when he become aware of this separateness from the world, he
would become insane unless he found a method to overcome his separateness and
find union. This is, I am sure, the strongest passion in man, to avoid and
overcome the full experience of separateness and to find new union.
The history of religion,
and the history of man in general (and of individuals, too) show, that there
are two ways of overcoming separateness and of achieving union. The one you will find in all primitive
religions, and it is a way to return to nature, to make man again into a
pre-human animal, as it were, and to eliminate that in man which
is specifically human: his reason, his awareness. This elimination is done in
all sorts of ways; by drugs, by
orgies, or simply by identification with
animals, by putting oneself in the state of the animal – especially in the
state of, say, a bear, a lion, or a wolf. In other words, it is an attempt to
overcome the sense of separateness by ceasing to be human and by regressing, if
you please, to the natural state in which man is part of nature and in which he
might become an animal. But, as the bible expressed it symbolically, once Adam
and Eve had left the
Mankind’s other solution
to overcome separateness and gaining union seems to have been found in the
period between 1500 B.C in China, India, Egypt, Palestine, and Greece: Man
found oneness not by regressing but by developing his specifically human powers
of reason and of love to such an extent that the world became his home; by
becoming fully human he lived in a new harmony with himself, with his fellow
men, and even with nature. This was the idea of prophetic messianism.
It was also the idea of late medieval religious thought. And it was the idea of
eighteenth century humanism. In fact, it is still the essence of religious
thought and spiritual thought of the Western tradition: Man’s task is to
develop his humanity, and in the development of his humanity he will find a new
harmony and hence the only way in which he can solve the problem of his being
born. Being born, we are all asked the question and we have to give an answer –
not one with our mind and our brain, but, every moment, one with our whole
person. There are only really two answers. One answer is to regress and one
answer is to develop our humanity. And there are many people – and I suppose
these days most people – who try to avoid the answer and who fill the time with
all the many things that we call entertainment or diversion or leisure time or
whatever it may be. But I believe we find ultimately that this solution is no
solution, that the people who choose it are bored and depressed, except that
they are not aware of it.
Take me back to the
previous page