[L]ove is by necessity a marginal phenomenon in present-day Western society. Not so much because many occupations would not permit of a loving attitude, but because the spirit of production-centered, commodity-greedy society is such that only a non-conformist can defend himself successfully against it. Those who are seriously concerned with love as the only rational answer to the problem of human existence must, then, arrive at the conclusion that important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon. The direction of such changes can, within the scope of this book, only be hinted at. Our society is run by a managerial bureaucracy, by professional politicians; people are motivated by mass suggestion, their aim is producing more and consuming more, as purposes in themselves. All activities are subordinated to economic goals, means have become ends; man is an automaton – well fed, well clad, but without any ultimate concern for that which is his peculiarly human quality and function. If man is to be able to love, he must be put in his supreme place. The economic machine must serve him, rather than he serve it. He must be enabled to share experience, to share work, rather than, at best, share in profits. Society must be organized in such a way that man’s social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it. If it is true, as I have tried to show, that love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence, then any society which excludes, relatively, the development of love, must in the long run perish of its own contradiction with the basic necessities of human nature. Indeed, to speak of love is not “preaching,” for the simple reason that it means to speak of the ultimate and real need in every human being. That this need has been obscured does not mean that it does not exist. To analyze the nature of love is to discover its general absence today and to criticize the social conditions which are responsible for this absence. To have faith in the possibility of love as a social and not only exceptional-individual phenomenon, is a rational faith based on the insight into the very nature of man.
- Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (Scholarly citation omitted.)
The above quote ends “The Practice of Love,” the last chapter of Fromm’s original book. Times have changed so much since then (especially since 1970, and even more since the end of the Soviet Union) that, in even in the most seemingly innocuous forms of labor, conditions – especially changes in technology – have made most of the practices the chapter recommends obsolete. (I recommend the book for those who have time, however.)
I previously wrote the following essay on how the country is dividing (as I have shown in the Culture Wars series,) and thought it would be appropriate here:
The US is dominated by:
- “Red” states who have their base expressing fervent “pro-life” ideals. Those who take this stance either 1) genuinely believe that those who support abortion rights want to “kill babies,” 2) want to control “their” women’s ability to reproduce (or to avoid reproduction,) or 3) are using the other two to push corporate “rights”; and
- “Blue” states who have their base expressing “pro-choice” ideals. Many are pressured to “choose” a party that is, in numerous ways, more destructive and more corporate (if more politely and covertly) than the Republicans just to maintain their rights on this issue. Meanwhile, Democrats keep other members of this party divided based on “identitarian” issues, – issues that constantly distract from the pressing troubles of the day.
We, in many ways, are in trouble as a country and as a species. Among them are: We are like pre-WWI Tsarist Russia and Great Britain – empires in decline, but not ready to acknowledge the fact. We are being fed WWI-like propaganda that may lead us to use nuclear arms. Meanwhile, we continue to pollute and to increase already dangerous temperatures worldwide. We have two choices: to change our “human nature” or to give up, saying: “It is what it is.” “Realists” have expressed the belief that we are more likely to make the latter choice.
I think the following proposal is a way to make the former choice, a proposal in which blue states (organized by region, such as the northeast and western coastal states) offer prenatal care and responsible adoption to those who don’t want the burden of children they can’t provide for. This option will avoid troops being sent to stop the “baby killing” of which neoliberal Republicans and their base accuse us. Much of the reason that people don’t choose adoption is fear that their children will be sent to couples who provide worse care than the birth parents would have given them. (There are various ways this fear could be eliminated, which I may discuss in later entries.)
There are several things to keep in mind in my proposal.
We often hear that children “are our future.” Seeing them as part of the “commons” will motivate families to raise these children responsibly. One of these responsibilities is to develop in all families the three attributes I discuss on this blog – emotional management, empathy, and critical thinking. I believe people genuinely motivated as above can develop appropriate tests (one such idea would be some kind of simulation in which people’s reactions can be monitored) for these qualities.
As to the organization of such families, we need to add parents as the number of children increases. In consequence, the three aforementioned qualities should be the only consideration in choosing the parents – the gender (Here, I disagree with Fromm – In addition to being somewhat patriarchal, he, like many of his time, believed homosexuality was a neurosis) – or race would be irrelevant, and parents are certainly free to pursue sexual relationships outside the family.
There is a long postscript in the fiftieth-anniversary edition of the text I’m reading, and I’ll have some final thoughts on the book after Apparition Day. For now, I think my readers would enjoy the clip below that the beginning quote brought to mind. In this song, the head of a mailroom tells a new employee how playing things “the company way” (i.e., safe) allowed him to keep his job for 25 years – and lose his soul.
Seeker247365v2 