Erich Fromm- Conforming for Power

• Born March 23, 1900      

• Died March 18, 1980

• Cause of death: Heart-attack

""Few parents have the courage and independence to care more for their children’s happiness than for their success." - Erich Fromm

Erich Fromm was a German Psychoanalist who came from a very religious orthodox Jewish family, but later called himself an atheistic mystic. Fromm didn't have a very happy childhood because he was affected by his mother's depression and his father was temperamental. 

Fromm's Theories:

Fromm believed that humans are "the freaks of the universe" because of our power to foresight, reason and use our imagination. He believed that our self-awareness contributes to feelings of loneliness, homelessness, and isolation and to escape these feelings, people strive to become one with other human beings and nature.


Fromm stated that freedom causes our burden and there are 3 escape mechanisms to decrease that burden:

1. Destructiveness
2. Authoritarianism
3. Conforminty

Conformity is the most common mechanism to help  overcome anxiety of freedom.

The idea of conforming for power seems strange since if we are followers we become one with society and lose power among the masses. This means that there is only a collective identity because no one will break away from dogmas and create new ideas which will deviate from the leader. It does, however, seem logical that conforming to authority may decrease stress because inaction requires less effort. With this logic, people will be forced to conform with what they do not want to do. This occurs when children follow their parent's dreams instead of their own, when people choose to clothing they dislike, support a team because everyone else does, etc. They are only following that path of least resistance in order to keep others happy, while exposing themselves to a life of undesired choices. 

Fromm refers to blind acceptance as "anonymous authoritarianism." One difference between the two is that anonymous authoritarianism has no identifiable individual, like ' the president who has no identifiable singular authority'. Fromm claimed that under this authority, "nobody makes a demand, neither a person nor an idea nor a moral law." Since there is no single authority that is identifiable, nobody can rebel.

Authoritarianism voids us of individualism, and we then fuse with the collective society. We then believe that our life is in the hands the more powerful. There are two authoritarian personalities: One that wants to control, and one that wants to be controlled. The authoritarians who want to be controlled is comparable to those who follow religion. Much of the way they behave and their moral compass is guided by their religious figure. They follow rules because it is easier to do, and it takes away choices which decreases the burden of freedom. The one who want to control become the leaders who develop totalitarianism  above the ones who choose to follow.

Destructiveness, according to Fromm, results from isolation, powerlessness and alienation. As opposed to conformity, destructiveness is a mechanism used as an escape route to get away from  other people. 

Fromm's  3 personality disorders:





These three proposed major personality disorders  deviate from societal norms, meaning that there is not necessarily a pursue of  power. Necrophilia, interestingly seem to be a result of too little freedom, and is in fact a result of restricted choice and too little power. Mentioned in a previous post about Erikson's psychosocial stages in relation to the changing self is a 16 year old boy whose mother restricted his choice when she forced him into incestuos acts against his will from the age of 7. The boy finally felt powerful and in control when he strangled her and sodomized the body. Necrophilia seem to be one outcome of destructiveness. When a person has died, the necrophile takes full control while not having to deal with the person's demands. They gain power, is in control, and though alienated from the living, not alienated from the dead because they are in company of the body

A malignant narcissist is a lover of himself. These people are usually born into normal families, so their narcissism may be a result of trying to seek total control as a result of having had too little freedom. They are sadist,  aggressive, and has antisocial personality disorder. They will befriend their victims,  take advantage of them and are able to treat others  however they feel while lacking a conscience in order to prove their superiority.  They need people to love them in order for them to feel as if they have  total control. The below video explains in detail:

Incestuous symbiosis is having an extreme independence on the 'mother' or mother surrogate. 'Mother'  need not even be a human being. This personality disorder seems to be a result of possessing the enjoyment of control. It is yet another mechanism of escaping from too much freedom. Fromm stated:


"By incestuous symbiosis is meant the tendency to stay tied to the mother and to her equivalents — blood, family, tribe — to fly from the unbearable weight of responsibility, of freedom, of awareness, and to be protected and loved in a state of certainty dependence that the individual pays for with the ceasing of his own human development."


According to Kurt Danziger's "The Historical Formation of Selves," individuals learn how important the opinion of others are to their welfare and "seek to influence that opinion by appropriate conduct." He claimed that it "implies a process of social learning in which the self features as an object of social control." According to John Locke, parents are not to reward their children  for specific behaviors, but "supply them with signs of esteem for their 'carriage' or style of good conduct." Locke thought is was the person and not their actions  that form the appropriate object of social control, and self monitoring is 
also necessary for a political theory that considered society as "an aggregate of individuals."

In the pursuit of power, it is important that we do hear the opinion of others, as we need to conform to what is seen as beneficial to everyone: their good opinion.  

Danziger, K. (1997). The historical formation of selves. Self and identity: Fundamental issues, 137-159.