Erich Fromm's Disobedience As A Psychological And Moral Problem

From the start of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has consistently been whether a person can wage a battle using words rather than actions. The notion of civil disobedience would seem to be an inept weapon against political inequity; history, however, has persistently proven it to be the most dynamic weapon of the individual. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated this very defiance. Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government conveys the effectiveness of the individual conscience, renounces hypocrisy, and cultivates a sense of urgency where inaction creates a moral conflict. This path of responsibility paved by Thoreau gave our leaders of today the means they

Human beings possess several virtues that differentiate them from other creatures and can use them in ways that represent their perceptions of social order. Surprisingly, Oscar Wilde believes that disobedience is an original virtue of every human and that it is responsible for progress and development. While Wilde’s claim is not entirely accurate, it is largely valid as evidenced by the recent events across the world, including the US, that have led to positive outcomes in spite of being termed and perceived as acts of disobedience.

In "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem," Erich Fromm (1963) argues that society will self-destruct without achieving freedom through disobedience. Fromm begins with analogies of Hebrew and Greek mythology showing how disobedience to a god freed humans. Using this correlation, Fromm shows freedom as a condition for disobedience, and vice- versa. Therefore, Fromm proclaims that without disobedience the human race could destroy itself within a generation.

The Nuremburg Trials of 1945 were some of the most controversial military tribunals to be held in the 20th century. In the trials, Nazi war criminals were put on trial for the atrocities they committed against the Jewish population of Germany. When asked why they had committed such acts of horror, many of the Nazi soldiers attested by saying that they were under orders to do so. The trials questioned the motives behind instances of mass human torment which have led many scientists and psychologists to strive to understand the rationality behind human obedience. Two of these psychologists, Theodore Dalrymple and Erich Fromm explored the instances in which disobedience and obedience to authority should be applied. Fromm wrote his article

Fromm makes a very remarkable point when he states, “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel(not a revolutionary); he acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle (Fromm 685)”. This statement leaves little doubt that we cannot come up with an accurate definition or reason behind obedience to authority. Essentially there is no gray area between obedience and disobedience. At this point in the essay, Fromm is very close to convincing the reader that obedience is a psychological and physical problem through the various examples in history he has cited. Fromm continues to make his case that disobedience is detrimental to society by explaining the two types of conscience that develop within the human psyche when confronted with a important decision. The first type of conscience is authoritarian conscience which deals with the internal voice that aims to please an authority figure out of fear. The second type, humanistic conscience, can be explained as the voice in the back of your head that allows you to tell what is human and inhuman. The complexity of defining which conscience ultimately decides your actions can be explained by

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” Henry David Thoreau, a well known essayist, wrote: Walden. Thoreau supports Wilde’s claim of disobedience promoting social progress. He mentions that people who live in obedience are not living at all. Progress is defined as a forward or onward movement toward a destination. The only way society can progress is through evolution, as people grow from a simple neanderthal to complex modern humans like us. And in order to evolve, there must be a break in pattern: disobedience-failure or refusal to obey rules in authority. There is no development if everyone is a collective mind. Examples are seen in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 with the protagonist, Montag,

Civil disobedience is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in government policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”; theories on this topic have been debated for centuries. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) Henry David Thoreau was well known for his refusal to participate in the political systems or activities of his era, not only by refusing to pay his poll taxes for six consecutive years, but also by announcing that he did not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stresses the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. A person should not be obligated to devote his or her life to eliminating evils from the world, but is only obligated not to participate in such evils themselves. He argues that the government rarely proves itself useful and this derives from the power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate views. Justice is the quality of being just, impartial or fair. Thoreau doubted the effectiveness of reform within the government, and argued that voting and petitioning for change served useless. He felt that justice had different standards for each different group. Which raises the question, is justice fair for everyone? When a government is unjust, people should

Erich Fromm’s essay “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” suggests that humankind’s evolution has, and continues to rely on man’s capability to exercise disobedience. While discussing the positions of disobedience being considered a vice, and obedience being a virtue, Fromm reflects upon the history of Adam and Eve believing that “eating the forbidden fruit” was man’s first act of disobedience. This is the point that broke the bond between man and nature requiring man to be dependant upon his own powers, while rewarding him with his “complete” humanity, freedom,

Obedience is a trait that is taught in schools, cherished by parents, and respected by society. Disobedience, on the other hand, is frowned upon and generally discouraged in society. Many argue that this trait has adverse effects on society. Oscar Wilde, a prominent play writer during the 1890’s, argues that disobedience is a valuable trait that has changed the world. Although many do not see disobedience as a virtue, Wilde does. Wilde’s statement is valid because disobedience is a rare, yet remarkable characteristic that is essential in improving the world.

The author exemplifies the ways that disobedience helps the society and its contribution to furthering the human race but notes on the fact that blind obedience may eventually account for the end of civilization.

Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such

Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation. Thoreau 's infamous ideas on "Civil Disobedience," written in 1849, have been monumental in the fight for change. It has helped influence change anywhere from the 1940s fight against Danish resistance, to the 1950s and McCarthyism. Thoreau 's words have helped lead the way to freedom. It has made the people of the world think about how they are being governed and how they are being treated. Thoreau 's message of freedom in “Civil Disobedience”, transcend his own time to be so influential to those throughout history for three main reasons which are that he is read around the world, it had to do with helping yourself, and he connected it to real life.

In society, obedience to authority is ingrained in humanity from an early age, causing some individuals to blindly obey orders without contemplating the credibility of the source. In psychoanalyst Erich Fromm’s article “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” he explains that throughout human history obedience has been associated with virtue and disobedience with sin (Fromm 127). Fromm suggests that our conscience is an internalized voice of authority (126). Fromm claims individuals need to distinguish the difference between rational and irrational authority because obedience is effective when individuals want to obey, instead of fearing to disobey (127). Two other authors who examine obedience are Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee

Fromm believes that there are various types of obedience, one of them applying to authority and power. Fromm defines these types of obedience, stating “Obedience to a person, institution or power (heteronomous obedience) is submission; it implies the abdication of my autonomy and the acceptance of a foreign will or judgement in place of my own” (Fromm 228). Fromm claims that obedience to any authority, whether it is a person or institution, is called heteronomous obedience. He claims that heteronomous obedience is submission because a person follows orders and accepts the authority’s judgement in place of their own. The obedience is considered submission and not free will because the obedience suppresses one’s self for a higher power. Dalrymple also agrees with Fromm’s definition of heteronomous obedience and

person is not they will continue to obey because at least this way they feel as if they are a