Judaism and the Origins of Erich Fromm's Humanistic Psychology by Noam Schimmel

Judaism and the Origins of Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology

The Religious Reverence of a Heretic

Noam Schimmel

Hebrew College

Volume 49 Number 1

January 2009 9-45

© 2009 Sage Publications

10.1177/0022167808319724

http://jhp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

This article explores the Jewish roots of Erich Fromm’s humanistic psychology:its ethical values,conception of human nature,and societal aspirations. It analyzes key concepts in Fromm’s humanistic psychology that have Jewish antecedents,including biophilia,the rejection of idolatry and group narcissism,moral universalism,and free will. It explicates Fromm’s major work addressing Judaism and humanistic psychology, You Shall Be as Gods:A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and its Tradition,along with other texts written by Fromm that address Judaism and interpret it with a secular,humanistic orientation. The article examines how Fromm situates the Bible,the Talmud,and various rabbinic texts in relation to the development of Jewish civilization,its liberal humanistic philosophy,and the universal relevance of these texts and the values that they transmit.

Keywords: Judaism; Fromm; prophets; social justice; universalism; idolatry

My interest and my love of the Jewish tradition has never died and nobody can talk to me for any length of time who will not hear a Talmudic or Hasidic story.... I am still strongly rooted in this tradition which I love in spite of

Author’s Note: The author wishes to thank Dr. Barry Mesch and the students of the Spring 2007 Graduate Research Seminar at Hebrew College for suggestions and support during the research and writing of this article. The author also wishes to thank Professor Steven Copeland,formerly of Hebrew College,who served as an adviser for his feedback and mentorship. His creativity,compassion,generosity,imagination,and humanistic and Jewish ethical commitments have been an ongoing source of inspiration. I am deeply grateful for his teaching and his friendship. His wisdom and kindness are wellsprings of strength and guidance in my life. Finally,this article and my encounter with humanistic psychology were made possible by Yochanan Ress,who introduced me to Erich Fromm and to psychology. For his friendship,openness,hospitality,tremendous warmth and humor,and humanistic and Jewish spirit which he actualizes in a most exceptional and compelling fusion,I am grateful. at PENNSYLVANIA

10Journal of Humanistic Psychology

the fact that I have separated myself from all its practice and even from any participation in Jewish religion or any other form of Jewish life.

From personal correspondence (quoted in Lundgren,1998,p. 119)

God becomes what he potentially is in monotheistic theology,the nameless One,an inexpressible stammer,referring to the unity underlying the phenomenal universe,the ground of all existence; God becomes truth,love,justice.

Fromm,1956

Erich Fromm found within the Jewish prophetic tradition deep wellsprings for his humanistic values and psychology. He was born in 1900 and was raised in a modern Orthodox home in Frankfurt,Germany,and lived a modern Orthodox lifestyle,conforming to the laws of the Sabbath and following a kosher diet into his twenties. He studied Tanach and Talmud extensively with his father and several rabbinic figures in the community as a child and a young adult,but did the bulk of his formal schooling at a secular German school. Fromm pursued a doctorate on the sociology of Diaspora Judaism,analyzing Reform Judaism,Hasidism,and Karaism at the University of Heidelberg,earning his doctorate in 1922 (Lundgren, 1998,pp. 82-92).

One of the Jewish teachers who had the profoundest impact on Fromm, named Salman Baruch Rabinkow,was an Orthodox Jew whose influence Fromm stated at several points in his life in letters to friends greatly informed the development of his humanistic psychology and Fromm’s personal identity. Fromm said in a letter to a friend that Rabinkow was “strictly a man of halacha but I never heard him speak about God or in any ‘theological’terms”(Lundgren,1998,p. 80). (Halacha is Jewish law,developed and explicated in the Talmud and various rabbinic texts and considered religiously binding by Orthodox and some Conservative Jews.) In a letter to Rabinkow’s widow,Fromm stated that although he no longer observed Jewish rituals,Judaism remained a part of him,and “that an essential part of his development was due to the influence of Rabinkow.”(Lundgren, 1998,p. 80) Fromm’s deep respect for an Orthodox Jew and for the traditional religion that he practiced,however unconventionally—in that Rabinkow rarely spoke of God—illuminates the rich and complex relationship that Fromm had with Judaism.

Although in his own life Fromm did not embrace halacha as setting normative standards for his behavior after his mid-20s,in his writings he embraced the broad moral teachings contained within Biblical,Talmudic,

and Maimonidean texts. Hasidic stories also attracted his interest,and in a number of his works he made positive reference to their moral foundations. (Fromm,1950,pp. 47-48; Fromm,1966,pp. 79-81) Fromm’s personal relationship with Judaism would in some ways mirror how he perceived Rabinkow’s:one that is unconcerned with theology but that is deeply committed to a particular ethically oriented way of living and being,literally,a humanistic halicha (way of walking or being).

At the age of 26,Fromm gave up religious ritual observance and Orthodox religious convictions and ceased to be a theist. (Lundgren,1998, p. 80) He would be an impassioned secularist for the rest of his life,but one unconcerned with trying to actively convince others to become secular. For Fromm it was sufficient that people,secular and religious alike,could come to share the same ethical values and act on them,irrespective of their faith (or lack thereof) and conception of divinity. Although he left the formal practice of Judaism and its communal and ritual obligations at a relatively young age,he remained throughout his life profoundly respectful of and learned in the Bible and the Talmud. He showed great interest in,and personal appreciation for and identification with Jewish teachings. Interspersed throughout Fromm’s many works on humanistic psychology are references to Biblical and Talmudic ideas and texts,and reflections on their ethical orientation,contemporary relevance,and relationship to Fromm’s humanistic project. Regarding the Bible’s influence on his thinking Fromm said,

I am not a theist. Yet,to me,it is an extraordinary book,expressing many norms and principles that have maintained their validity throughout thousands of years. It is a book which has proclaimed a vision for men that is still valid and awaiting realization.... It expresses the genius of a people struggling for life and freedom throughout many generations. (Fromm,1966,p. 14)

Most of Fromm’s writings do not address Judaism or the Bible in depth,but they present a number of consistently recurring themes which Fromm strongly linked in his writings on humanistic psychology to the values espoused in the Prophets,and,though to a lesser extent,in the Talmud and other rabbinical texts as well. These include:the sanctity of life; free will; the principles of justice and peace; respect for the natural world; moral universalism and egalitarianism; and a passionate commitment to just forms of governance that do not engage in violence as primary means of social control. For Fromm,each of these Jewish principles is a shared principle of his humanistic psychology. Fromm’s explication of these principles will be

examined later in this article. Fromm conceptualized them in relation to the pathologies of human nature that he defined and categorized as a series of interconnected psychosocial phenomena:narcissism and the amorality and immorality that it inspires; incestuous ties to land and people that manifest themselves in extreme nationalism,chauvinism,and violence against minorities; idolatry of the false values of power,materialistic consumption and hedonistic pleasure; and necrophilia,the pursuit of violence and killing and the glorification of power,especially targeting the poor,the vulnerable,and the stranger.

The aim of this article is not to attempt to assess the veracity of Fromm’s claims about the ethical character and content of the Bible and the “Jewish tradition”as being steeped in a liberal,egalitarian,and universalistic ethos.1 Rather,it aims to examine the relationship between Fromm’s ideas as a secular humanistic psychologist and many prominent ideas and moral values found in the Prophets and in the Jewish tradition that Fromm uses to ground his humanistic psychology. It will explore the way in which Fromm interprets Jewish texts to support the ethics and ethos of his humanistic psychology. Whether or not the Jewish tradition is as humanistically and universally oriented as Fromm claims is a subject that Fromm himself acknowledges cannot be answered easily or definitively,with no authoritative conclusion that all would necessarily find convincing.

In the introduction to You Shall Be as Gods:A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Traditions Fromm is careful to acknowledge that his work is not a work of Biblical scholarship,but one of literary,cultural, and religious interpretation. This correctly characterizes not only You Shall Be as Gods, but the majority of Fromm’s writings about Judaism,which have been described,quite appropriately by some scholars,as forms of modern midrash. (Jewish interpretation of or commentary on a Biblical text,often creative and imaginative in nature,and not necessarily based on fact.) The purpose of midrash is to expound on Biblical stories and ideas and illuminate ethical and spiritual principles through narrative. (Petuchowski,1956,p. 543) Fromm emphasizes his extensive Jewish educational background as having provided the groundwork for his ideas and interpretations,but recognizes that his writings represent a shift away from an Orthodox religious emphasis on theism.

Although I am not a specialist in the field of biblical scholarship,this book is the fruit of many years of reflection,as I have been studying the Old Testament and the Talmud since I was a child. Nevertheless,I would not have dared to publish these comments on Scripture were it not for the fact that I

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology13

received my fundamental orientation concerning the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish tradition from teachers who were great rabbinical scholars. All of them were representatives of the humanistic wing of the Jewish tradition,and strictly observing Jews. (Fromm,1966,pp. 12-13)

However radical Fromm is in his Biblical interpretations,he positions himself as a student of rabbinic scholars,all of whom led traditionally observant lives,and whose reverence for Jewish texts,religion,and teachings was profound. It is a reverence,that though different in its specific contours,Fromm shares.

Fromm’s analyses of the Bible often focus on its most liberal elements, although he typically acknowledges when he is building his humanistic ethics by selectively picking from the Bible,and emphasizing the moral arguments that are closest to his own humanistic philosophy. He notes that within the Bible there are different conceptions of God and of ethics that include both democratic and egalitarian elements and authoritarian and chauvinistic ones. However,he believes that the dominant message of the Bible and of the Prophets in particular is a liberal humanistic one. He states, “The spirit of the law,as it was developed by the rabbis through the centuries,was one of justice,brotherly love,respect for the individual,and the devotion of life to one’s human development”(Fromm,1966,p. 193). Humanistic psychology places a profound emphasis on the autonomy of the individual,and on the freedom and responsibility that stems from that autonomy and the potential for joy and creativity that follows from exercising it. Fromm finds within Judaism the same central motivating principle and a similar commitment to the pursuit of social and economic justice, freedom,and respect for the individual and for human diversity.

Fromm acknowledges that there has been a continuous tension between liberal and reactionary approaches to Judaism throughout the historical development of Judaism.

In the period following the completion of the Old Testament,the contradictions lie not in the evolution from archaic to civilized life; they lie more in the constant split between various opposing trends going through the whole history of Judaism from the destruction of the Temple to the destruction of centers of traditional Jewish culture by Hitler. This split is that between nationalism and universalism,conservatism and radicalism,fanaticism and tolerance. (Fromm,1966,pp. 10-11)

Aware of the fact that his analysis of the humanistic values of the Bible entails choosing to emphasize the liberal aspects of the Bible,Fromm explains that

his aim is not to prove the fundamental liberalism of the Bible,but to illustrate his personal understanding of the Bible’s moral currents and their relationship to Jewish ethics generally. He does not want to offer a biased reading of the Bible,and is transparent in his interpretive predilections.

Interpretation of an evolutionary process means showing the development of certain tendencies that have unfolded in the process of evolution. This interpretation makes it necessary to select those elements that constitute the main stream,or at least one main stream in the evolutionary process; this means weighing certain facts,selecting some as being more and others less representative.... It would require a work of much greater scope to offer proof that radical humanist thought is the one which marks the main stages of the evolution of the Jewish tradition. (Fromm,1966,p. 12)

For Fromm,it is sufficient to demonstrate the central,repeated,and impassioned universalistic teachings in the Bible to prove his point that the general tendency of the Jewish tradition is emancipatory.

Fromm’s claims that some of the ultimate goals of Judaism are the eventual transcendence of faith in a supernatural God,and exclusive faith in man’s reasoning and creative powers would be vigorously rejected,not incorrectly,by many Jews as heresy. However,Fromm’s explications of Biblical and Talmudic passages,although often original and unconventional,also frequently align themselves comfortably with mainstream Jewish commentaries and teachings. He is careful not to manipulate and distort for the sake of advancing his humanistic biblical interpretations which are well grounded in text,even as they posit principles and ideas that have not necessarily been well integrated into mainstream Jewish religious practice and Jewish cultural and religious self-perception.

Fromm’s presentation of the story of Jonah,in the Art of Loving,for example,in which he describes Jonah as a man “with a strong sense of order and law,but without love”(Fromm,1956,p. 98) does not represent a significant departure from classical accounts of the significance of the story. Fromm explains that Jonah’s harsh commitment to an abstract notion of justice and his anger at God for showing mercy to the people of Nineveh is the cause of God’s punishment of Jonah. He goes on to state that God’s response to Jonah,in which he berates Jonah for his merciless attitude toward the people of Nineveh illuminates an ethic of respect for creative production and for life itself which the Bible wishes to convey,and that is also a core value of his humanistic psychology. Commenting on God’s berating Jonah for the pity that he has on the gourd which protected Jonah from the heat but then wilted—but which Jonah had no part in creating and

which is a mere plant—he explains that Jonah refuses to understand why God would have pity on an entire human community that initially violated His will. Fromm states,“God’s answer to Jonah is to be understood symbolically. God explains to Jonah that the essence of love is to “labor”for something and to “make something grow,”that love and labor are inseparable.”God has pity on the people of Nineveh in part because he loves them; they are a product of his own creativity. Although this is not a traditional interpretation of the text,neither is it necessarily at odds with classical interpretations. Fromm links the significance of the Biblical story with an ethic for modern times by which we are to learn to emulate God’s behavior and to reject Jonah’s. He highlights Jonah’s lack of responsibility,his unwillingness to act like God,who responded to the changed behavior of the people of Nineveh,and showed love and care for them by acknowledging it and acting toward them with compassion,rather than insisting on a narrow application of justice.

Fromm’s conception of Judaism bears similarities to that of Reform Judaism,2 in its emphases on social and economic justice; the Prophets and their message of ethical concern for minorities and weak individuals and communities; its ambivalence toward Zionism;3 and its allegiance with liberal politics. (Which for Fromm,unlike Reform Judaism,included a powerful commitment to Marxism.) For Fromm,the aspects of Judaism that are nationalistic,ritualistic,and overly particularistic in orientation are adulterations of his conception of Judaism.

The Jewish Law was very undogmatic and so is Judaism. The Karaites were the first to create dogmas within Judaism,and Maimonides was the first to make a dogmatic system. But the Jewish people was not influenced by the dogmatic efforts of some of its teachers. (Lundgren,1998,p. 82)

Read narrowly,there are many problems with this claim. It is extraordinarily broad,and it is not supported with evidence. What exactly does Fromm mean when he says that halacha was very undogmatic? He might be referring to the halachic process,which incorporates pluralistic rabbinical viewpoints,and involves a great deal of discussion and debate in an atmosphere of relative openness as it develops Jewish Law. Surely,the results of the halachic process,the codification of halacha,could indeed be defined as being dogmatic in nature. Halachic rulings were never considered to be optional by the rabbis that established them; nor were they established democratically or in an egalitarian manner; and they aimed to influence all aspects of Jewish life,in a totalizing manner that brooked no extra-halachic

dissent. Furthermore,to argue that the Jewish people was “not influenced by the dogmatic efforts of some of its teachers”is to confuse Fromm’s ideal vision of Judaism with the less than perfect historical reality. Inevitably, many Jews were influenced by the dogmatism of some rabbis and remain influenced by this dogmatism today. It has always been a feature of Judaism and is,perhaps,an inevitable component of any organized religion,which seeks to maintain a shared commitment to a particular set of principles, behaviors,and communal norms.

However,reading Fromm further,one recognizes that in making these assertions he is in fact extremely sensitive to the context in which Judaism developed. He is not holding Biblical and Talmudic Judaism to the standards of today’s liberal democracies and modern human rights laws. Rather,he is noting that there were significant and uniquely liberal elements to the development of halacha, and to the very notion of it as a whole that render it, within the social,political,and religious context in which it developed,radically progressive. In this regard,Fromm makes three philosophical and ethical observations about halacha:its nonelitist character and its popular purposes; the principle of equality on which it is predicated; and the nonegoistic and non-power-hoarding character of the halacha. Fromm explains that halacha’s goal is not self-directed primarily toward its own preservation,but toward the achievement of a holistic way of life to be shared by all Jews,irrespective of their economic,social,or religious position.

The Jewish Law,which demands certain acts not beliefs,is meant for the whole community,not for a certain group or certain individuals. That the Law is equal for everyone is a sign of democracy. The Law wants to give people the chance to reach the goal,it is not a goal in itself. Therefore it is called halacha, a way. The law wants to change the surrounding world (Umwelt) first. This is shown by the Sabbath commandment. It does not say in what mood a Jew should celebrate the Sabbath,but it gives detailed prescriptions about what to do and not to do. (Lundgren,1998,pp. 82-83)

This observation about the Sabbath is particularly important,because it illustrates one of Fromm’s central principles of humanistic psychology,the centrality of man’s active involvement in and responsibility for finding and creating meaning and purpose in his life. The halacha is not dogmatic in the sense that it provides ample freedom for an adherent of Jewish law to experience certain Jewish rituals,such as the spiritual and sensual immersion experience of the Sabbath,in a manner that reflects his individuality. The halacha does,in fact,encourage Jews to celebrate the Sabbath in a mood of enjoyment (oneg),but the halacha is more concerned,as Fromm writes,

with creating a psycho-social-religious framework in which this enjoyment can be experienced,than in demanding pleasure as a form of surrender to God’s emotional dictates. The aims of halacha are holistic and experiential, they are concerned with creating the conditions that enable the actualization of certain emotional and religious states,not in focusing on statements of faith and narrow religious dogmas of belief that individuals must accept as a test of their faith and their membership in the Jewish community.

Fromm draws from Judaism not only with regard to ethics,but also in relation to a broader vision of what makes for a creatively and existentially satisfying life,which is a major concern of his humanistic psychology. He regards with great significance the fact that Judaism orients itself in a positive way both to human beings,and their capacity for goodness,and with regard to the purpose of life itself,which he argues Judaism affirms is one of the joys that follows from commitment to work,religion,and spirituality.

Freedom in Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology and the Jewish Tradition

Fromm’s book, You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and its Tradition, the only work of Fromm’s that comprehensively applies a humanistic interpretation to Jewish texts and that addresses Judaism in great detail,will form a core component of this explication of Fromm’s humanistic psychology and its similarities to Judaism. The values and principles of humanistic psychology were not born in a vacuum,nor were they primarily inspired by the Enlightenment. By fusing Judaism and humanistic psychology,Fromm brings both the spirit and the contents of Judaism and of the Prophets in particular into the intellectual mainstream of the 20th century—and the field of psychology.

Perhaps the single subject matter that most concerns Fromm is freedom and its moral implications:man’s capacity to choose between good and evil,peace and war,cruelty and violence,and kindness and compassion. A recurring theme of Fromm’s writing is the ambivalence that man feels in the face of freedom,and the dangerous and often violent actions that man takes to reduce his freedom,and consequently,reduce the feelings of psychological anxiety that freedom and independence can cause.4 Fromm explains that when the Israelites left Egypt with God’s assistance they were afraid of their newfound freedom and sought to shirk the responsibility that accompanies freedom.

They were afraid because they did not have the well-regulated and set existence under which they had lived in Egypt—even though it was the life of slaves—because they had no overseer and no king and no idols before whom they could bow down.... Their security in Egypt as slaves appeared to them far preferable to the insecurity of freedom. (Fromm,1966,p. 109)

Maintaining the drive for freedom and the courage to partake of freedom even when it is difficult,confusing,and demanding is a central element of Fromm’s humanistic psychology. Fromm finds the divine command to seek out freedom as a dominant motif in the Biblical description of the development of the Jewish people; from the radical and overwhelming freedom that Abraham experiences when God tells him to “Lech Lecha” to leave the land that he knows in pursuit of a new life in a new land where he will create a new people—to the wandering of the Jews in the desert on their way to Canaan,and the freedom—of ultimate importance to Fromm—which is made most clear in the Bible’s delineating of the Noachide laws and the Ten Commandments; ethical freedom.

For Fromm,ethical freedom is tied to a willingness to free oneself of what Fromm considers to be incestuous and narcissistic ties to one’s immediate tribe,the land that one lives in and is most familiar with,and those parochial aspects of one’s identity that can lead one to justify cruelty or indifference to those who are different,with whom one does not readily empathize nor feel moral obligation. The Bible,Fromm argues,insists on liberating the Israelites from such incestuous and narcissistic ties,and still today,humanity faces the same obligation to emancipate itself from these delusions.

The tribe,the nation,the race,the state,the social class,political parties,and many other forms of institutions and organizations have become home and family. Here are the roots of nationalism and racism,which in turn are symptoms of man’s inability to experience himself and others as free human beings.... The groupings to which man feels incestuously tied have become larger and the area of freedom has become greater,but the ties to those larger units which substitute for the clan and the soil are still powerful and strong. (Fromm,1950,p. 81)

Fromm notes that the Jewish holidays of Passover and Sukkot commemorate the relationship between leaving one’s settled life in a particular place and the concurrent pursuit of freedom and a new ethical or religious covenant. “The Sukkah ...is a temporary abode,by living (or at least eating) in the temporary abode the Jew makes himself again a wanderer Both the matzot and the sukkah symbolize the cutting of the umbilical cord to the

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology19

soil”(Fromm,1966,p. 72). Of all of the constricting factors on human freedom,the temptations of ideologies of discrimination based on narrow national,religious,or other identity markers most trouble Fromm,who believes that they are the primary source of aggression,conflict,and violence in human relations. For this reason,Fromm finds the Bible’s frequent repetition of the command to respect the stranger as one of the shared core principles of Judaism and his humanistic psychology.

The stranger is precisely the person who is not part of my clan,my family, my nation; he is not part of the group to which I am narcissistically attached. ... In the love for the stranger narcissistic love has vanished...it means loving another human being in his suchness and his difference from me,and not because he is like me. (Fromm,1964,p. 89)

When a person is able to love another in this way,embracing and accepting his difference,rather than recoiling from it in fear,disgust,or hatred—or desiring to forcibly change that person or marginalize and oppress him, then he has liberated himself from the worst forms of narcissism and “incestuous attachment.”

Fromm’s concept of “incest”is substantially more expansive than the traditional definition referring to sexual relations with family members,and encompasses any obsessive fixation on one’s primary tribal,national,or other such loyalties,and thus is intimately related to his conception of narcissism. Indeed,Fromm sees the command to dissolve incestuous ties as a unifying moral and spiritual imperative within the Bible,a prerequisite for the exercise of human freedom and the realization of Prophetic values.

The demand to sever the ties of blood and soil runs through the entire Old Testament. Abraham is told to leave his country and become a wanderer. Moses is brought up as a stranger in an unfamiliar environment away from his family and even from his own people. The condition for Israel’s mission as God’s chosen people lies in their leaving the bondage of Egypt and wandering the desert for forty years. After having settled down in their own country,they fall back into the incestuous worship of the soil,of idols,and of the state. The central issue of the teaching of the Prophets is the fight against this incestuous worship. They preach instead the basic values common to all mankind,those of truth,love,and justice. They attack the state and those secular powers which fail to realize these norms. The state must perish if man becomes tied in such a way that the welfare of the state,its power and its glory become the criteria of good and evil.... Only if one has outgrown incestuous ties can one judge one’s own group critically; only then can one judge at all. (Fromm,1950,p. 84)

Truth and justice then are dependent on breaking the narrow bonds of attachment that chain human beings to limited and limiting forms of identity that can only be sustained through illusions of human separateness and spurious beliefs in the legitimacy of maintaining inequality in the human family.

Fromm is deeply concerned with social and economic justice,and in particular,with the well-being of the most marginalized members of human communities—the poor,minorities,and any vulnerable population left out of the mainstream of social concern.5 Echoing the Prophets,Fromm reflects on human moral responsibilities to these individuals and communities in relation to the concept of free will. He insistently dismisses God’s power to direct or change humanity’s choices,and consequently implores human beings to make the right choices,because he does not believe that there is a divine force that will act as a correcting mechanism to human ignorance,greed,aggression,and folly. Fromm highlights the role of free will in his interpretation of God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart,in the story of the Exodus.

In the essential point,however,to make the people—or Pharaoh—ready for freedom,God does not interfere at all. Pharaoh remains as he is; hence he becomes worse—his heart “hardens”; the Hebrews do not change either. Again and again they try to escape from freedom,to return to Egyptian slavery and security. God does not change their heart,nor does he change Pharaoh’s heart. He lets man alone—lets him make history,lets him work out his own salvation.(Fromm,1963,p. 207)

The language of Fromm’s humanistic psychology—like that of the Prophets—is a language of imperatives and responsibilities. It is a language of demands made not through threat or use of power of an all knowing and all-powerful God. Rather,it is made through the voice—by turns thundering and gentle,confident and unsure—of the human conscience struggling to hear itself and free itself from the temptations of greed,coercive power, and aggression,of the perverse pleasures of submission and servility,and the consequent abnegation of the responsibility that stems from having a conscience and the capacities to reason,empathize,and to love.

Fromm values religion inasmuch as it promotes humanistic values that nurture freedom,creativity,and human development. Religion itself,as a dogmatic system of beliefs and practices sanctioned by particular authorities profoundly troubles Fromm. For Fromm,religions deserving of respect are not primarily concerned with their own perpetuation and with ritual practice,but with the realization of transcendent moral values which he believes to be ultimate values. Fromm makes an essential distinction

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology21

between authoritarian and humanistic religions that informs his interpretations of Jewish texts and the Jewish values that he emphasizes.

Authoritarian religions are characterized by the concept of a higher power outside man to which man should show obedience,reverence and worship; humanistic religions are centered on man and his possibility. Virtues in humanistic religions are strength and self-realization,in authoritarian religions powerlessness and subservience. The prevailing mood in humanistic religions is that of joy,in authoritarian religions that of sorrow and guilt. While humanistic religion is characterized by humility,authoritarian religion is characterized by self-humiliation. In authoritarian religion man humiliates himself by projecting everything good on God and feels evil himself,a total sinner. (Lundgren,1998,p. 1998)

According to these standards,Fromm argues,Judaism falls squarely in the humanistic camp of religions. Why this is so and how Fromm supports this claim will be explored later in this article,particularly in relation to the differences that Fromm outlines between Judaism and Christianity,and Christian and specifically Protestant concepts of predetermination,original sin,and salvation through faith in God,rather than through one’s behavior toward God and one’s fellow man.

The Principles of Universalism and Equality in Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology

In the preface to You Shall Be as Gods Fromm defines his humanistic philosophy that finds inspiration in the Bible and from which it draws some of its principle ideas.

The interpretation of the Bible given in this book is that of radical humanism. By radical humanism I refer to a global philosophy which emphasizes the oneness of the human race,the capacity of man to develop his own powers and to arrive at inner harmony and at the establishment of a peaceful world. Radical humanism considers the goal of man to be that of complete independence,and this implies penetrating through fictions and illusions to a full awareness of reality. It implies,furthermore,a skeptical attitude toward the use of force,precisely because during the history of man it has been,and still is,force—creating fear—which has made man ready to take fiction for reality,illusions for truth. It was force which made man incapable of independence and hence warped his reason and emotions. (Fromm,1966,p. 14)

Fromm considers the ethically unjustified use of force as a form of idolatry of power and betrayal of the ethical values espoused by the Prophets and attributed to God. He attributes its usage to its related psychosocial pathologies that often accompany the human desire to use coercion and violence to achieve particular desired ends. These include,as discussed earlier:nationalism and the discrimination that it can prompt,and fear of difference and the desire to coercively root out all sources of diversity within a given society. According to Fromm,the patterns of oppression and exploitation that were historically so common in Biblical times,informed in large part by authoritarian values and exclusivist attitudes toward control of land and natural resources were vigorously challenged by the Bible and revealed as being an active blasphemy toward divine values and intentions. “The Old Testament is a revolutionary book; its theme is the liberation of man from incestuous ties to blood and soil,from the submission to idols,from slavery,from powerful masters,to freedom for the individual,for the nation, and for all of mankind”(Fromm,1966,p. 7).6

For Fromm,the dictum of Hillel,the great rabbinic sage,that “the essence of the Torah is the command:Do not do unto others as you should not want them to do unto you—the rest is commentary. Go and study,”is a springboard for the ethics of humanistic psychology and its emphasis on freedom,autonomy,and the rights of all people to live under conditions of respect and equality.7 In The Art of Loving, Fromm traces the ethics of Kant’s Formula of Humanity,that people should be treated as ends in themselves and never as means for the ends of another person,and the Enlightenment values of freedom and equality to the Talmud,and the Biblical values that it builds on.

Equality had meant,in a religious context,that we are all God’s children and that we all share in the same human-divine substance,that we are all one. It meant also that the very differences between individuals must be respected, that while it is true that we are all one,it is also true that each of us is a unique entity,is a cosmos by itself. Such conviction of the uniqueness of the individual is expressed for instance in the Talmudic statement:“Whosoever saves a single life is as if he had saved the whole world; whosoever destroys a single life is as if he destroyed the whole world.”(Fromm,1956,p. 14)

The Art of Loving,like most of Fromm’s books,is written for a broad audience of people of all faiths and no faith,and has minimal Jewish content. That Fromm makes reference to the Talmud in a passage about Kantian ethics and the Enlightenment,and the human rights that follow from Kant’s writings and those of Enlightenment thinkers demonstrates the

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology23

centrality of Jewish sources in his own ethical thinking and in his understanding of the development of ethical norms in the West. Expanding on the theme of universalism in the Bible,Fromm points out that the covenant between Noah and God is emblematic of Judaism’s concern with human life universally.

It is important to note that the first covenant (in the final editing of the Bible) is one between God and mankind,not between God and the Hebrew tribe. The history of the Hebrews is conceived as only a part of the history of man; the principle of “reverence for life”precedes all specific promises to one particular tribe or nation. (Fromm,1966,p. 25)

This initial covenant between God and humanity is of great significance to Fromm because it establishes the parameters of action for both humans and God,and obligates both God and humanity to act in accordance with the ethical principle of the sanctity of human life. Through this covenant,humanity is empowered to challenge God,to remind him of his commitments to humankind. The relationship between God and humanity,which,as described in the story of Adam and Eve entails powerlessness and servility on the part of humanity is radically redefined:Humanity becomes a partner with God,a creature who shares divine ethics and a keeper of a divine covenant.

God is transformed.... He is bound,as man is bound,to the conditions of the constitution. God has lost his freedom to be arbitrary,and man has gained the freedom of being able to challenge God in the name of God’s own promises,of the principles laid down in the covenant. There is only one stipulation,but it is fundamental:God obliges himself to absolute respect for all life,the life of man and all other living creatures. The right of all living creatures to live is established as the first law,which not even God can change. (Fromm,1966,p. 25)

Fromm was an impassioned antinationalist,rejecting the concept of the nation-state,and he rejected it as vigorously with regard to Zionism as he did with regard to other national liberation movements. (Perhaps even more so with regard to Zionism,as he regarded Zionism as a betrayal of the moral universalism he argued was a central principle of Judaism.)8 It is not surprising then that Fromm should celebrate the principles of equality and universality within the Jewish tradition,and in particular,the fact that God’s first and perhaps most fundamental covenant is made with Noah on behalf of all humanity,and not on behalf of one particular national religious group who become the Jewish people.

In You Shall Be as Gods and in The Dogma of Christ,Fromm quotes from Biblical passages that elucidate the powerful and unrestrained universalistic orientation of the Prophets. “Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel?,says the Lord. Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?” (Fromm,1963,p. 212). From Isaiah,Fromm quotes the description of the Messianic era which Isaiah describes as being a time of coexistence,sharing,and equality,and not one of Jewish chosenness or superiority.

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria,and the Assyrian will come into Egypt,and the Egyptian into Assyria,and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria,a blessing in the midst of the earth,whom the Lord of hosts has blessed,saying,“Blessed be Egypt my people,and Assyria the work of my hands,and Israel,my heritage.”(Fromm,1963,p. 212)

Fromm argues on several occasions in You Shall Be as Gods that the moral universalism of Judaism stems in large part from the historical experience that the Israelites and later the Jews had of being a vulnerable and persecuted minority,often wandering,helpless and homeless. Through this experience they and their prophets were sensitized to the plight of the weak and most vulnerable populations,to those at the margins of society and outside of the immediate sphere of social concern.

The Prophets applied the lessons learned from the experience of the Israelites being a weak and defenseless people—literal strangers—able to survive only at the whims of other peoples’attitudes toward them. Empathy became a fundamental basis for Jewish ethics. The Bible emphasizes repeatedly and forcefully to treat the stranger that dwells amongst the Israelites with kindness and respect,as the Israelites were once strangers themselves. That the universalistic teachings of Judaism survived and thrived,Fromm argues,is of great significance because they were tested by the Jewish people’s historically negative experiences with other peoples. Fromm recognizes,however,that many of the parochial and authoritarian aspects of the Jewish tradition stem from the Jewish experience of persecution as well,which also fostered insularity,rooted in large part in fear of other peoples who could be potentially threatening. However,he believes that the overall effect of this marginalization was not to make the Jews an embittered,anxiety stricken,parochial,and power-obsessed nation seeking to protect itself from others,but a nation rightly skeptical of the tantalizing but ultimately deadly Siren song of coercive and violent expressions of

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology25

power and chauvinism. Fromm once remarked in an interview toward the end of his life on the historical experience of being a stranger in relation to the development of Jewish Biblical ethics,

I feel glad to have this experience as the Old Testament once said:“Love the stranger because you know the soul of the stranger for you have been a stranger in Egypt.”One can really understand the stranger only if one has been thoroughly a stranger and being a stranger means one is at home in the whole world. (Lundgren,1998,p. 77)

Illustrating the moral universalism within Judaism in You Shall Be as Gods, Fromm also quotes the Talmudic tale from Sanhedrin,39b that at the moment when the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea as a result of God’s actions to save the Israelites “the ministering angels wished to utter the song [of praise] before the Holy One Blessed Be He,but he rebuked them saying:My handiwork [the Egyptians] is drowning in the sea,and you would utter song before me?”(Fromm,1966,p. 85). For Fromm,passages such as these demonstrate that Talmudic commentary,however focused on God’s unique covenant with the Jewish people is aware of and promotes a larger ethical framework that values all human life and all of God’s creation,and warns against discriminatory attitudes toward non-Jews.

The Prophets are a primary source of universalistic ethics that Fromm refers to in You Shall Be as Gods and in other works of his that make mention of Judaism. They have significance for Fromm not only because they espouse moral ideals that,in their universalism and emphasis on ethics rather than ritual resemble his humanistic psychology and that are not preoccupied with theological dogmas,but also because according to Fromm the existence of The Prophets reflects one of the key principles of Judaism:that humans are fundamentally free and must exercise choice throughout their lives. The prophets warn of the negative consequences of poor choices,such as submission to idols,but the gravitas of their language stems from their conviction that the Israelites have full responsibility for their own choices.

Most of the great prophets from Amos onward are equally little concerned with theological speculation. They speak of God’s actions,of his commands to man,of his rewards and punishments,but they do not indulge in or encourage any kind of speculation about God,just as they do not favor any ritual.

(Fromm,1966,p. 38)

The Prophets argue that man’s condition can be improved; he is not intrinsically evil or sinful. His redemption cannot result primarily through his

faith,but through his actions,and his commitment to act in accordance with the principles and laws of the Israelites and later of Judaism. According to Fromm,God’s role is to provide an ethical framework for action through his teachings and through his messengers,the Prophets,but he does not force humans to act in one way or another.

God’s role in history,according to Old Testament thought,is restricted to sending messengers,the prophets,who show man a new spiritual goal,show man the alternatives between which he has to choose; and protest against all acts and attitudes through which man loses himself and the path to salvation. However, man is free to act; it is up to him to decide. He is confronted with the choice between blessing and curse,life and death. It is God’s hope that he will choose life,but God does not save man by an act of grace. (Fromm,1963,p. 205)

In On Disobedience

Fromm describes the Prophets as individuals of high integrity who became prophets not out of a desire to gain power but out of a sincere interest in improving the community in which they were members.

They lived what they preached. They did not seek power,but avoided it. Not even the power of being a prophet. They were not impressed by might,and they spoke the truth even if this led them to imprisonment,ostracism or death. They were not men who set themselves apart and waited to see what would happen. They responded to their fellow men because they felt responsible. What happened to others happened to them. Humanity was not outside, but within them. Precisely because they saw the truth they felt the responsibility to tell it; they did not threaten,but they showed the alternatives with which man was confronted. (Fromm,1981,p. 42)

For Fromm the Prophets are archetypes of moral excellence,mediators between divine values and ideals,and the practical realities of human existence. Moreover,they are necessary sources of wisdom and inspiration for a people who have transformed themselves from a nation led by a small priestly hierarchy,during the time of the Temples,to one that God describes as becoming a “nation of priests.”

For Fromm,the giving of the Ten Commandments and the accompanying statement,“And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”(Exodus 19:6) is of great importance in the ethical evolution of the Israelites. In the process of this divine revelation,God affirms that each Israelite,individually,must assume responsibility for his own behavior and collectively must ensure that communal religious and ethical standards as set forth in the Ten Commandments are enforced. This placing of freedom

and responsibility on the Israelites and democratic sharing of the power and obligations of priestliness coincides with Fromm’s emphases in his humanistic psychology on the interdependence of equality,freedom,individual moral responsibility,and collective social obligation.

The Parable of Adam and Eve and the Birth of Human Freedom

For Fromm,the autonomy of man to make moral and personal choices necessitates the use of one’s reasoning skills,and one’s capacity for empathy and compassion. He relates the human capacity to reason to the story of Adam and Eve,arguing that their rebellion against God was in fact a prerequisite for their freedom. He states that their rebellion was a reasoned one,whose significance rests in its liberating them from the constrictions of following the dictates of God,without developing their own reasoning capacities. Without this rebellion,Fromm argues,humankind would not be able to make moral distinctions,nor would it have achieved a meaningful understanding of the differences between the various aspects of God’s creation,which include humanity itself and the natural world. For Fromm, understanding these differences is essential for humanity to achieve a way of being and acting in the world that is meaningful and reflects its autonomy,and its responsibility to protect the natural world in which it lives and on which it is dependent for sustenance.

Before Adam’s fall,that is,before man had reason and self-awareness,he lived in complete harmony with nature.... They were separate,but they were not aware of it. The first act of disobedience,which is also the beginning of human freedom,“opens his eyes,”man knows how to judge good and evil,he has become aware of himself and of his fellow man.... His first sin,disobedience,is the first act of freedom; it is the beginning of history. It is in history that man develops,evolves,and emerges. He develops his reason and his capacity to love. He creates himself in the historical process that began with his first act of freedom,which was the freedom to disobey,to say “No.”(Fromm,1963,pp. 203-205)

The significance of this story for Fromm is that it creates a basis for a more equitable relationship between humanity and God. God’s power is limited in that humanity can actually choose to rebel against him,and thus the element of authoritarianism that influences certain depictions of God within the first chapters of the Bible is moderated by humanity’s rebellion against

God. Fromm notes that later in the Bible,in situations such as Abraham’s argument with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,that Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s commandment and thus their arrival at understanding good and evil forms the basis of human freedom and Jewish ethics,which allows for confrontation and debate with God,indeed,ultimately requires it. As with many Biblical stories,the story of Adam and Eve contains both authoritarian and emancipatory elements. Fromm acknowledges this by challenging the conventional interpretation of the story,as a critique of Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s commandments. Because of this act of disobedience,Fromm argues that humanity discovers the significance of its own existence. Humans are able to become moral actors; they can imitate the ways of God by choosing to follow the ethical and religious principles that God has proposed,rather than following them as automatons who fear an all-powerful God,but have no real love or respect for him,nor faith in him,because their respect for God is merely the function of intimidation and an expression of subservience,in sharp contrast to the covenantal relationship that defines the relationship of the Israelites and God later in the Bible.

Although man has “sinned”in the act of disobedience,his sinning becomes justified in the historical process. He does not suffer from a corruption of his substance,but his very sin is the beginning of a dialectical process that ends with his self-creation and self-salvation. (Fromm,1963,pp. 207-208)

The violation of God’s injunction not to eat from the fruit of the Garden of Eden is,paradoxically,Fromm insists,the necessary step in developing a relationship between humanity and God that is intimate and mutual,motivated by human love of and care for the divine rather than fear of God and submission to him.

Fromm analyzes the story of Adam and Eve with a focus not on humanity’s betrayal of God,but on Adam’s betrayal of Eve,and the lack of unity between the two of them. Their alienation from each other,is indicative of the alienation toward which humanity so characteristically descends,but which Fromm believes can be transcended and surmounted through the application of humanistic values. Fromm argues that the shame that Adam and Eve experienced had nothing to do with nudity. Rather,it was a function of their realizing that each is an individual,but that because there was no real love between them they were isolated from one another. Rather than showing care for Eve,Adam blames her for the sin of disobedience (Lundgren,1998,pp. 126-127). The significance of the Biblical story of

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology29

Adam and Eve then represents more than the rebellion of humankind against God,and the affirmation of human freedom and moral responsibility in the process. It is significant in its critique of humankind,not so much for betraying God,as much as for betraying itself through the lack of love and respect that Adam and Eve show each other.

The Messianic Era:A Convergence Between Biblical and Humanistic Visions

Fromm similarly interprets Biblical passages about the coming of the Messiah in a manner that is human centered and focuses not on God,but on interpersonal ethical obligations. He interprets the utopian visions associated with the Messiah as referring not to the arrival of a powerful individual granted through the grace of God to redeem the Jewish people,but an idealized symbol for a period of time and characteristic of society and humanity that will actualize the prophetic vision of humanism,universalism,peace,and justice. Fromm’s interpretation of the ideal of the Messiah appears to be radical,but it has precedent in the Jewish tradition. Fromm echoes Maimonides’s (1967) commentary on the concept of the Messiah and the Messianic era. Maimonides writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah,Sanhedrin 10.1 that the Messianic era will not be ushered in through the supernatural exertions of God or a divine Messianic figure,but through the freedom of Jews and their commitment to live in accordance with the principles of Judaism.

Nothing will change in the Messianic age,however,except that Jews will regain their independence. Rich and poor,strong and weak,will still exist...war shall not exist,and nation shall no longer lift up sword against nation.... The Messianic age will be highlighted by a community of the righteous and dominated by goodness and wisdom. It will be ruled by the Messiah,a righteous and honest king,outstanding in wisdom,and close to God. Do not think that the ways of the world or the laws of nature will change,this is not true.... The prophet Isaiah predicted “The wolf shall live with the sheep,the leopard shall lie down with the kid.”This,however,is merely allegory,meaning that the Jews will live safely,even with the formerly wicked nations. All nations will return to the true religion and will no longer steal or oppress.... Our sages and prophets did not long for the Messianic age in order that they might rule the world and dominate the gentiles,the only thing they wanted was to be free for Jews to involve themselves with the Torah and its wisdom. (Maimonides,1967,10:1)

Fromm’s humanistic interpretation of the Messianic era closely mirrors Maimonides in that the era is not ushered in by a supernatural force,in Fromm’s analysis of Biblical depictions of the Messianic era,but by rational human commitment to particular ethical principles; war will cease to occur; wisdom and ethical decency will define public and religious life; exploitation and oppression will cease; and Jews will not seek to rule over other nations or force Judaism on them,on the contrary,they will exist alongside them,practicing their own religion,while sharing the universal ethical values common to all nations in the Messianic era. Freed from the bondage of irrational passions man will become ever more ethical in character,more generous and tolerant of his fellow man,and less materialistic. The distinctions between nations and peoples and religions will become less relevant,and will be recognized as being superficial,and in no way affecting man’s moral obligations to his fellow man.

Although Fromm quotes Maimonides selectively in his works,focusing on the most radical and rationalist aspects of Maimonides’s thoughts,he does not ignore the conservative aspects of Maimonides’s teachings which contrast so sharply with his own and which have little in common with Maimonides’s nonsupernatural conceptualization of the Messiah and the Messianic era. He acknowledges the dogmatic aspects of Maimonides’s teachings but stresses that they were never codified within Judaism. Reflecting on the status of Maimonides’s Thirteen Principles of Faith Fromm writes,

What happened to these articles? Were they accepted as a dogma or as a belief on which salvation depended? Nothing of the kind. They were never “accepted”or dogmatized—in fact,the most that has been made of them is that in the traditional service of the Ashkenazi Jews they are sung in a poetic version at the end of the evening service of holidays and Sabbaths,and among some Ashkenazi at the conclusion of morning prayers. (Fromm,1966,p. 40)

Although Fromm does not dwell on the possible reasons for the widely divergent teachings of Maimonides,he clearly believes that it is in works such as the Guide for the Perplexed that Maimonides’s most original,radical,and significant contributions to Jewish and religious thought generally were made,and these dovetail with his humanistic project.

[Maimonides] developed his negative theology which declares it to be inadmissible to use positive attributes to describe God’s essence (like existence, life,power,unity,wisdom,will and so on) although it is permissible to employ attributes of actions with regard to God. (Fromm,1966,p. 33)

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology31

For Fromm,Maimonides’s negative theology is an extremely significant theological construct,as it complements his own reading of the Bible and its evocations of God. Fromm repeatedly stresses that Judaism instructs Jews to imitate attributes of actions of God. Maimonides’s negative theology liberates traditional Judaism from the conservative associations of “God”as a supernatural being with defined characteristics. This paves the way for Fromm’s radical heresy,the deconstruction of “God”and the transmutation of God into an ethical practice and compilation of ethical attributes and ideals.

The negative theology of Maimonides leads,in its ultimate consequence— though not one contemplated by Maimonides—to the end of theology. How can there be a “science of God”when there is nothing one can say or think about God?... “Knowing God”in the prophetic sense is the same as loving God or confirming God’s existence; it is not speculation about God or his existence; it is not theology. (Fromm,1966,pp. 37-40)

Even if one chooses to reject Fromm’s proposal that the logical conclusion of Maimonides’s thinking is the end of the traditional concept of God,one still finds in Maimonides’s thinking a revision of the concept of divinity that lends itself to the kind of ethical monotheism toward which Fromm’s humanistic project leads. Judaism,Fromm argues,is less concerned with the nature of God than with how God acts in the world,and the lessons that humans can learn from those actions,which make manifest certain divine attributes that have their human counterparts in ethical attributes.

God is means God acts: with love,compassion,justice,he rewards and punishes. But there are no speculations about the essence and nature of God. That God is, is the only theological dogma—if it could be called that—to be found in the Old Testament,and not what or who God is. (Fromm,1966,p. 38)

According to Fromm,the ethical orientation of the Bible and its emphasis on transmitting the values of certain divine ethical attributes of God’s behavior that humans can and should replicate is evident already in the Bible from the point of the story of God’s covenant with Noah,as discussed earlier. Regarding the covenant between Noah–humanity and God,Fromm says,

The development goes further than transforming God from the figure of a despotic tribal chief into a loving father,into a father who himself is bound by the principles which he has postulated; it goes in the direction of transforming God from the figure of a father into a symbol of his principles,those of justice,truth,and love. God is truth,God is justice. (Fromm,1956,p. 52)

Fromm argues that Judaism’s primary concern is with the full integration of God’s attributes as manifested by his actions in the world which can be interpreted and imitated by human beings through their ethical and reasoning capacities and ability to act ethically and confront injustice. What or who God is,he argues,is not a major concern of Judaism.

Autonomy,Agency,and Liberation From God

For Fromm,the Jewish people’s relationship with God is metaphorical; it is not to be understood literally. Because Fromm is not a theist,he interprets Biblical passages that refer to God as depicting a combination of ethical and spiritual ideals and societal aspirations that the Israelites developed with time,and called “God.”Ultimately Fromm hopes the Jewish people will transcend the need to perceive of “God”and worship him by emulating “God’s”values,but without feeling and acting subservient to an authority beyond that of their own individual and collective conscience. Fromm writes,“The idea of the covenant constitutes,indeed,one of the most decisive steps in the religious development of Judaism,a step which prepares the way to the concept of complete freedom of man,even freedom from God”(Fromm,1966,p. 25). “God”is a human projection,Fromm claims, one which ultimately humans need to take ownership of,and acknowledge as being an expression of their own values and aspirations. As a projection, it is a psychologically volatile construct which is prone to abuse by elite groups,by chauvinists,and those who worship power and material objects rather than life and moral principles of mutual care and respect amongst all peoples. The volatile and potentially dangerous nature of the concept of God is a major concern of Fromm’s,particularly in relation to the Biblical concept of idolatry and prohibition of creating and worshipping idols,a subject that will be explored later in this article.

Much in the way that Maimonides describes the practice of animal sacrifices by the Israelites as a historically conditioned expression of worship in his Guide for the Perplexed, Fromm posits that the very concept of God itself,traditionally conceived as an all-powerful being,is itself a function of the natural evolution of humanity’s ethical and spiritual development. It is humanity’s initial way of ascribing meaning to life from which humanity will eventually be liberated because it is limiting and distorts the true nature of reality.

I believe that the concept of God was a historically conditioned expression of an inner experience.... I believe that the concept “God”was conditioned by the presence of a socio-political structure in which tribal chiefs have

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology33

supreme power “God”is one of many different poetic expressions of the highest value in humanism,not a reality in itself. (Fromm,1966,p. 18)

Fromm sees the seeds of this transcendence already contained within Biblical narrative,in the passages where Moses,Abraham,and other Biblical figures argue with God,demanding that he act differently,show greater compassion,and keep the promises that he has made the Israelites for in these stories he is not an infallible authority demanding nothing other than submission,but a fallible partner whom people can challenge.

Fromm notes passages in which various religious leaders accuse God of betraying his own principles,of being unjust,rash,or too demanding. Moses does not reply to God’s request that he lead the Jewish people with a hearty,servile,enthusiastic “Yes!”On the contrary,his response is tentative and tepid,and he tries to avoid taking on the task with which God has charged him. Fromm notes that Moses accuses God of the worst moral transgressions,questioning God’s moral integrity and his honesty. “O Lord, why hast though done evil to this people? Why didst thou ever send me? For since I came to Pharaoh in thy name,he has done evil to this people, and thou hast not delivered thy people at all”(Fromm,1966,p. 98). The rebelliousness of these passages,moreover a rebelliousness that the Bible does not condemn,but on the contrary,portrays with sympathy,indicates, Fromm argues,the fundamentally humanistic,antiauthoritarian orientation of the Bible. Commenting on Abraham’s entreaties to God not to kill innocent people alongside the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah,Fromm writes,

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”[Abraham speaking to God].

This sentence marks the fundamental change in the concept of God as the result of the covenant.... Abraham challenges God to comply with the principles of justice.... With Abraham’s challenge a new element has entered the biblical and later Jewish tradition. Precisely because God is bound by norms of justice and love,man is no longer his slave. Man can challenge God—as God can challenge man—because above both are principles and norms. (Fromm,1966,pp. 27-28)

The Bible,Fromm argues,is a blueprint for the development of a humanistic conscience which has full confidence in its own moral reasoning capacities, not one which submits to a higher authority in a servile manner because that authority has power,or claims to possess a monopoly on wisdom.

Fromm goes on to show how the Talmud further expands on this principle both in its structure and in content. Structurally,he explains that the cacophony of voices and religious perspectives in the Talmud,which are

rendered with respect and each given a place on the Talmudic page demonstrate the pluralism embedded within the Jewish tradition and the moral emphasis on the capacity and requirement for human beings to reason morally and religiously,and not merely to parrot God and traditional and historically accepted notions of religious law and ethics. The Talmud offers a range of religious perspectives on any given topic and it is transparent in its embrace of multiplicity and in the process by which halacha develops by codifying the majority ruling of rabbinic authorities engaged in Talmudic discourse,while simultaneously giving voice to minority opinions. The content of the Talmud,Fromm notes,abounds in stories that demonstrate man’s fundamental freedom from God.

Fromm illustrates this point by recounting a well-known Talmudic story about the ritual purity of a particular oven owned by a man named Achnai. In the Talmudic Tractate of Baba Metzia,a story is told of Rabbi Eliezer ruling that a particular oven is pure,whereas the majority of Rabbis present discussing the matter rule that it is impure. Rabbi Eliezer proceeds to passionately defend his judgment,bringing forth various proofs and even stating that if he is correct various supernatural things will take place relating to the tree,water,and walls present in the vicinity of the Beit Midrash where the discussion is taking place,to affirm the truth of his stance. The carob tree is uprooted 100 cubits,the water flows backwards,and the walls of the Beit Midrash begin to lean—all physical demonstrations that seemingly confirm Rabbi Eliezer’s convictions. But the rabbis insist that the majority opinion determines the halachic ruling. Finally,a voice from the heavens,a Bat Kol states that the halacha always follows Rabbi Eliezer,and asks why the rabbis are not respecting his halachic ruling. To this Rabbi Yehoshua responds,“The Torah is not in the Heavens”and the Gemara states that Elijah the Prophet told Rav Nassan that when Rabbi Yehoshua ignored Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling,God laughed and said “My children were victorious over me”(Fromm,1966,pp. 77-78). This is the essence of Fromm’s humanistic ethics,that “God is not in the heavens”—but here on earth and that religious and ethical rulings must emerge from reason and debate undertaken by human beings,and not from any claims—however seemingly compelling from external sources—even God himself.

Biophilia and Pikuah Nefesh and Necrophilia as a Form of Idolatry

One of the pillars of Fromm’s humanistic psychology is the principle of the sanctity of human life,what in Judaism is known as the value of pikuah nefesh

Fromm emphasizes that Judaism places the protection and preservation of human life at the heart of its moral and religious concerns. Fromm creates the parallel term of “biophilia”in humanistic psychology to describe the love of and moral commitment to the preservation of life. Fromm also expands on this concept to comment on the positive orientation of Judaism,in which the value of life is intimately bound up with the value of joy,communal celebration and cohesion,and creativity. This general positive orientation to the task of living Fromm also incorporates into his concept of biophilia.

Biophilic ethics have their own principle of good and evil. Good is all that serves life; evil is all that serves death. Good is reverence for life,all that enhances life, growth,unfolding. Evil is all that stifles life,narrows it down,cuts it into pieces. Joy is virtuous and sadness is sinful. Thus it is from the standpoint of biophilic ethics that the Bible mentions as the central sin of the Hebrews. “Because thou didst not serve thy Lord with joy and gladness of the heart in the abundance of all things.”The conscience of the biophilous person is not one of forcing oneself to refrain from evil and to do good.... The biophilous conscience is motivated by attraction to life and joy; the moral effort consists in strengthening the life-loving side in oneself. For this reason the biophile does not dwell in remorse and guilt which are,after all,only aspects of self-loathing and sadness. He turns quickly to life and attempts to do good. (Fromm,1964,p. 57)

As a corollary,Fromm develops the concept of necrophilia,and adapts its definition to expand beyond the traditionally limited one to describe the orientation of those who are literally attracted to dead bodies. For Fromm, necrophilia is a form of psychopathology in which death,violence,destruction,and the power needed to achieve them become worshipped at the expense of life and the moral values that seek to preserve it. Fromm defines necrophilia as:“The passionate attraction to all that is dead,decayed, putrid,sickly; it is the passion to transform that which is alive into something unalive; to destroy for the sake of destruction”(Fromm,1992,p. 332). (An example of a wholly necrophiliac culture that Fromm offers is that of the Nazis.) Fromm cites a verse from Deuteronomy 30:19,“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,that I have set before you life and death,the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”to support his theory of the biophilic orientation of the Bible (Fromm,1966,p. 162). Fromm also interprets the biblical story of King Solomon,in which two women claim to be the mothers of the same baby,and one agrees to physically split the child in half with the other,as a story about the moral perversity of the necrophiliac orientation. The “necrophilious person”is more willing to kill or to be killed than to

achieve justice through life-affirming means. Solomon recognizes this and awards the baby to the genuine mother who would prefer to have the baby live and given to the woman who is lying and falsely claiming that the baby is her own,and who would be comfortable with just half of its body,even though it would be killed if they physically split the baby into two parts (Fromm,1964,p. 41).

Fromm considers idol worship,as it is depicted in the Bible,as a form of necrophilia. He warns that even the very notion of worshipping one God could become a kind of idolatry,if this leads to patterns of behavior that sow division,violence,and destructiveness amongst human beings. The hierarchies of power in which an elite religious and social,economic,or political class use the imagery of God and the normative power of religion to promote themselves and their own interests,rather than divine values results in a desecration of both humanistic values and the divine.9

The idol is a thing,and it is not alive. God,on the contrary,is a living God. “But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God”(Jeremiah 10:10); or “My soul thirsts for God,for the living God”(Psalms 42:2). Man,trying to be like God,is an open system,approximating himself to God; man,submitting to idols,is a closed system,becoming a thing himself. The idol is lifeless; God is living. The contradiction between idolatry and the recognition of God is, in the last analysis,that between the love of death and the love of life. (Fromm,1966,p. 44)

In support of humanistic ethics,Fromm interprets the Biblical and prophetic critique of idolatry as being based on the Bible’s understanding of idolatry as the result of selfishness,aggression,narcissism,and a lack of humility and universal moral commitment. He says,

In idolatry,one partial faculty of man is absolutized and made into an idol. Man then worships himself in an alienated form. The idol in which he submerges becomes the object of his narcissistic passion. The idea of God,on the contrary,is the negation of narcissism because only God—not man—is omniscient and omnipotent. (Fromm,1964,p. 89)

Thus,for Fromm,idol worship,even when not consciously obsessed with death,forms part of the necrophiliac orientation.

The prophets of monotheism did not denounce heathen religions as idolatrous primarily because they worshiped several gods instead of one. The essential difference between monotheism and polytheism is not one of the

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology37

number of gods,but lies in the fact of self-alienation. Man spends his energy, his artistic capacities on building an idol,and then he worships this idol, which is nothing but the result of his own human effort. His life forces have flown into a “thing,”and this thing,having become an idol,is not experienced as a result of his own productive effort,but as something apart from himself,over and against him,which he worships and to which he submits. (Fromm,1990b,p. 121)

Fromm further expounds on this notion that the essence of Judaism is an active stance against idolatry in his discussions of how God tells Moses to describe the divine to the Israelites. Fromm stresses this point in a number of his works.

Idol worshippers cannot understand a nameless God,so God says to Moses how to describe him:“I am becoming is my name.”The most adequate translation of the sentence would be:tell them that “my name is nameless.”The prohibition to make any image of God,to pronounce his name in vain,eventually to pronounce his name at all,aims at the same goal,that of freeing man from the idea that God is a father,that he is a person. (Fromm,1956,p. 68)

The problem of idolatry remains for Fromm the essence of humanity’s most fundamental moral and existential challenge. It is as grave a problem today as it was in Biblical times:To reject the endless parade of idols that tempt humanity—from the idols of power and greed,to the idols of self-indulgent hedonism outside of an ethical framework that takes into account social obligations.

The Old Testament,and particularly the Prophets,is as much concerned with the negative,the fight against idolatry,as they are with the positive,the recognition of God. Are we still concerned with the problem of idolatry?...We forget that the essence of idolatry is not the worship of this or that particular idol but is a specifically human attitude. This attitude may be described as the deification of things,of partial aspects of the world and man’s submission to such things.... It is not only pictures in stone and wood that are idols. Words can become idols,and machines can become idols; leaders,the state, power,and political groups may also serve. Science and the opinion of one’s neighbors can become idols,and God has become an idol for many Today [idolatry] is not Baal and Astarte but the deification of the state and of power in authoritarian countries and the deification of the machine and of success in our own culture. (Fromm,1950,p. 117)

Because humans are used to conceiving of idols as very particular,historically bound objects,they become blind to the myriad forms of idolatry

which plague them today. They expect to be able to protect themselves against the temptations of idolatry simply by professing commitment to one God,and by refusing to pray to physical objects that represent deities. However,this highly limited conception of idolatry allows us to evade the more dangerous,widespread,and insidious forms of idolatry which are common today. In fact,Fromm argues,the ways in which most religions have come to conceive of God and to mandate particular kinds of faith and behaviors—particularly servile ones to religious authorities—illustrate humanity’s natural tendency toward shifting from worshipping the divine and instead,worshipping our own false religious authorities whose mandate is unrelated to the genuine values and aspirations of religion and of God.

Today were Abraham to confront idolatry he would not have the easy option that he did in the well-known Midrash that describes him physically destroying the idols in his father’s idol shop. The idols of greed and lust and power are tenacious and duplicitous. They disguise themselves from our awareness and our consciences,and we feign ignorance and righteousness, pleading that we have long banished idolatry. According to Fromm,the denigration of both divine and humanistic anti-idolatrous principles and ideals has never been as multifarious,dangerous,and prevalent as in the modern era.

The Relationship Between God and the Ethics of Judaism

Fromm tends to deemphasize the fact that the value of human life within Judaism is inextricably bound with the idea that human beings are made in the image of God,and have an active relationship with God. Nevertheless, it is significant that he shares the Jewish commitment to the principle of the preservation of life as the paramount commitment of his humanistic psychology,and the source of its values. Fromm comments in You Shall Be as Gods on the significance of God being named in the Bible,“Eheyeh Asher Aheyeh,”“I am that I am,”or “I will be as I will be,”names which illustrate the dynamic nature of God,and the impossibility of situating God within one particular place and form of representation.10 Such a fluid conception of divinity and religion,that is responsive to changing social,cultural,and ethical sensibilities cannot be idolatrous according to Fromm,because in refusing to be static it ensures that the human beings that practice it are ultimately responsible for its evolution,not ancestors or a historically ossified remembrance of one particular encounter with God or a physical manifestation of God in the natural world.

Fromm’s ambivalence about the concept of God,certainly of “God” defined in a traditionally theistic sense as an all-powerful creator and a force that can act at will in the world significantly informs his interpretations of Judaism. Fromm’s strategy is not to challenge faith in God per se—though as a committed secularist he inevitably does this,at least incidentally,in his works—nor does he offer new definitions of God. Instead, he isolates the ethical and spiritual teachings that accompany faith in God within Judaism but that are conceptually coherent and viable independent of any particular faith in God.

In Christianity,Fromm argues,the emphasis on original sin and the need of all humans to find salvation through faith in Jesus and the belief that he died to redeem them of their sins indicates an opposing view of human nature which unlike Judaism is negative,rather than positive in orientation and renders man dependent on God and servile to him. According to Fromm,Judaism acknowledges and celebrates human freedom,and offers a substantially more positive understanding of human nature and human potential than Christianity,and consequently,a moral tradition that emphasizes the importance of right moral action,rather than primary or exclusive faith in God needed to achieve grace and exculpation of sins (Fromm,1966, pp. 122-123,140,159,166-169).

The distinctions that Fromm makes between Christian and Jewish conceptions of divinity and of God’s powers feature prominently in his formulation of the ethics of humanistic psychology. As noted earlier,Fromm also celebrates the Jewish emphasis on serving God with joy. He contrasts this with some forms of Protestantism that advocate a relationship with God based on a sense of human frailty,incompetence,and intrinsic evil,sometimes to the point of self-loathing. According to Fromm,this can lead to a socially destructive form of paralysis,in which humanity devolves itself of freedom and responsibility and projects all of its potential and all that is positive in human nature onto God,thus disempowering itself,doing violence to human character,and inadvertently creating an idol to worship,in place of the divine.

Fromm explains that monotheistic religions have

regressed into idolatry. Man projects his power of love and of reason unto God; he does not feel them anymore as his own powers,and then he prays to God to give him back some of what he,man,has projected unto God.

(Fromm,1990b,p. 170)

However,in the Jewish tradition,although humans can become estranged from God by sinning,they do not need God to be “saved.”By choosing to

act ethically,individuals can save themselves. They are not dependent on God for salvation. Fromm’s conception of “estrangement”it should be noted differs significantly from the Christian notion of “original sin.”For Fromm, (as in Judaism’s conception of human nature) humanity tends toward greed, jealousy,violence,and other destructive forms of behavior. Fromm cites the Bible’s discussion of Cain’s sins to illustrate this point. God,in speaking to Cain stresses that sin is not inevitable,but a tendency,a temptation which Cain must strive to overcome. “If you do what is right,will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right,sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you,but you must master it.”(Breishit,4:6-7,JPS Bible) But these tendencies are not permanent qualities of humankind that cannot be transcended. Echoing traditional Judaism,Fromm insists that humans cannot turn to God to change their ways with regard to sins committed between man and man,rather,they must embark on a process of growth and change similar to the Jewish concept of teshuvah. (Repentance.) Here he echoes Maimonides,who emphasizes [and Jewish law concurs] that although God can forgive individuals for most sins committed toward God, God cannot forgive them of sins committed toward other individuals,such as public humiliation,physical assault,and other forms of aggression.

Repentance on the Day of Atonement atones only for those sins that are between man and the Most High,for example,eating forbidden food.... But sins which are between man and his fellow men,such as injuring,or cursing or robbing him...are never pardoned until he makes restitution and appeases his fellow. (Maimonides,1967,2:9)

For Fromm,this is a remarkable and unique admission of the limitations of God’s powers,in that God cannot (or chooses not to) forgive sins committed toward one’s fellow man. The primacy of ethics that informs this principle supports Fromm’s notion that Judaism is not primarily concerned with matters of faith regarding what an individual believes about God,but matters of social and ethical decency and interpersonal obligation. Judaism considers these to be inextricably bound up with the will and ethical values of the divine but which cannot be mediated nor bypassed with entreaties toward Him. Once again,Fromm shows that in Judaism,as in his humanistic psychology,Torah is not in the heavens,but here,bound up in our capacity to reason and act morally; in our daily interactions with our fellow human beings and our obligations to treat them justly.

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology41

Conclusion

Erich Fromm’s humanistic psychology draws its most fundamental values and concerns from the Jewish tradition and from Jewish texts. Its emphasis on the sanctity of life,its rejection of all types of idolatry broadly conceived,and its reflection of the values of the Prophets and commitment to social justice,particularly their universalistic vision of human brotherhood,mutual tolerance,and the diverse and equally respectable pathways toward worshipping the divine and living religious lives all parallel central currents within the Jewish tradition. The active use of reason,respect for diversity of opinions when creating laws and social norms,and the conviction that man must not submit himself to archaic ethical notions but must practice a religion that is evolving in response to changing human conceptions of religious and ethical values all closely mirror the principles that inform the development and character of the Talmud and of halacha.

Fromm is also a radical and a heretic. But his heresy,however it challenges Orthodoxies within Judaism,comes closer to actualizing the principles of Judaism than many of the more conventionally accepted streams of Judaism that exist today. One can find great wisdom in Fromm’s writing without surrendering faith in the divine,and one can share his universalistic moral commitments even as one champions the importance of an enduring coexistence between Jewish particularism and universalism,and the recognition that the latter can only exist in a sustainable and psychosocially viable manner if it draws on the wellsprings of the former,rather than denying it as Fromm sometimes implies would be ideal.

Fromm formally denies one of the most basic principles of Judaism:the unity and oneness of God as an all-powerful being whom humans are obligated to worship. However,the actual content of Fromm’s humanistic psychology is also grounded in Jewish values,and its achievement would be a realization of the Prophetic vision of Judaism and of many of the ethical principles on which halacha is based. For Fromm the Seven Noachide Laws and the Ten Commandments are ethically binding,11 regardless of whether one believes them to be the formulation of a secular ethical system arrived at through human reasoning and projected onto a Godhead,or the literal will of a divine being. In Psychoanalysis and Religion Fromm states,

There need be no quarrel with those who retain the symbol God.... The real conflict is not between belief in God and “atheism”but between a humanistic,religious attitude and an attitude which is equivalent to idolatry regardless of how this attitude is expressed—or disguised—in conscious thought. (Fromm,1950,p. 115)

42Journal of Humanistic Psychology

Ultimately for Fromm,what matters is that one acts in accordance with universally binding moral principles. Fromm argues that the Noachide laws,which apply to all people alike,are predicated not on faith in God primarily,but on universal moral principles. God establishes these principles, but one can respect these principles,and thus respect God’s will,regardless of one’s personal faith or lack thereof. In this,Fromm is not alone. The prophet Micah similarly acknowledges the intrinsic multiplicity of pathways toward achieving union with God,serving him,and acting on the principles that he has set forth for all peoples. Fromm quotes Micah, describing the Messianic era,

“For all the peoples walk each in the name of its God”(Micah 4:5). Religious fanaticism,the source of so much strife and destruction,will have disappeared. When peace and freedom from fear have been established,it will matter little which thought concepts mankind uses to give expression to its supreme goals and values. (Fromm,1950,pp. 118-119)

In a world in which the values and visions of the Prophets and of Fromm’s humanism were actualized,I am confident that the divine would hasten to forgive those who do not formally believe in him,or who,in trying to apprehend him as the nameless and timeless one,have great difficulty conceptualizing and maintaining faith in such an abstract idea.

Fromm makes a passionate plea for the creation of a bridge of understanding and shared commitment between religious and secular,with the conviction that humanistic values are the domain of all peoples,regardless of their religiosity and beliefs or doubts about God,and can form the basis of a cooperative effort to improve human well-being. All of Fromm’s writings on Judaism and humanistic psychology are grounded in this notion that there is a universal moral code toward which all human beings can aspire. It is Fromm’s core conviction,and it is a Jewish core conviction as well.

Fromm concludes Psychoanalysis and Religion with the following plea:

Is it not time to cease to argue about God and instead to unite in the unmasking of contemporary forms of idolatry?... Whether we are religionists or not,whether we believe in the necessity for a new religion or in a religion of no religion or in the continuation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition,inasmuch as we are concerned with the essence and not with the shell,with the experience and not with the word,with man and not with the church,we can unite in firm negation of idolatry and find perhaps more common faith in this negation than in any affirmative statements about God. Certainly we shall find more of humility and of brotherly love. (Fromm,1950,p. 119)

At a time when the world is awash in a range of poisonous idols—from chauvinistic nationalism and racism—to religious fundamentalism that sanctions violence—and market fundamentalism and concurrent destructive environmental exploitation—it is more important than ever that Fromm’s call to smash the idols that retard human freedom and human development and that perpetuate violence,injustice,inequality,and bigotry be heard and responded to with confidence and vigor. The flight from reality perpetuated by today’s idols cannot be sustained without putting humanity and the welfare of earth itself at risk. Erich Fromm’s humanistic psychology,and its wellsprings in the Jewish tradition offers a return to the concept of ethical and social responsibility,of covenant between humankind, and between humankind and the divine,wherever one locates it and however one conceives of it.

Notes

1. Fromm sometimes uses the phrases “Jewish tradition,”“Judaism,”or other such allencompassing phrases to refer to a wide range of Jewish texts,principles,and streams of thought that reflect the diversity and development of Jewish civilization from the Biblical era through the rabbinic and medieval eras and including the Bible,Talmud,Kabbalistic texts, Halachic rulings,Hasidic teachings,Midrash,and rabbinical commentary by sages such as Maimonides.

2. Svente Lundgren (1998,pp. 85-87) notes in Fight Against Idols that Fromm was actually antagonistic toward Reform Judaism as a movement for various reasons. These reasons include the lack of commitment of Reform Jews to Jewish Law,their adaptation of certain aspects of Christianity to Judaism,inconsistencies in the manner in which Reform Judaism accepted and rejected aspects of Judaism,and the relative wealth and middle-class or upperclass background and aspirations of many Reform Jews.

3. Historically,the Reform movement evinced ambivalence toward Zionism because it perceived Zionism as a regression to Jewish particularism,and in contradiction to the universalistic values of Reform Judaism. Some Reform Jews were likely also concerned that Zionism would be perceived by the Christian communities in which Jews settled (primarily in the United States) as a challenge to the obligations and patriotic affections of Jews to their country of citizenship and would therefore undermine Jewish claims of allegiance to their respective countries. In later years,and since the establishment of the state of Israel,the Reform movement has fully embraced Zionism.

4. The subject of man’s anxiety in the face of freedom and his tendency to deliberately absolve himself of freedom and submit to authorities is developed in the following works of Fromm: Escape from Freedom (1994), The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1992),and Man for Himself (1990a).

5. The most common Biblical reference to these populations is “the stranger,the orphan, and the widow,”those who are defenseless in society and without the means to sustain themselves economically.

6. Although Fromm comments and draws on stories and ethical values in the Torah,he finds the more radical and universalistic orientation of the prophets to more directly reflect his

44Journal of Humanistic Psychology

humanistic values and in particular to challenge the use of violence and elements of authoritarianism that can be found in many stories in the Torah such as the ethnic cleansing of Canaan.

7. Fromm refers to Hillel in a number of his works; this reference is from You Shall Be as Gods (1966). Fromm also begins Escape from Freedom (1994) with Hillel’s dictum,“If I am not for myself,who will be for me? And if I am only for myself,who am I? And if not now,when?”In Man for Himself (1990a),Fromm also paraphrases Hillel’s statement not to do unto others what is hateful to you. In discussing Hillel,Fromm states that Hillel represents the more liberal–humanistic wing of Judaism,whereas Shammai represents the more conservative–authoritarian one. Nevertheless,it is important to note that the kind of relatively moderate conservatism that Fromm aligns with Shammai here is a far cry from the extreme authoritarianism and radical conservatism that troubles Fromm most.

8. Fromm did not,however,offer any practical alternatives to Zionism as a means to guarantee the welfare and freedom of Jews. He failed to acknowledge that the moral universalism that is found within Judaism and his humanistic psychology offer no protection from the existential threats posed by anti-Semitism.

9. He also explicitly states that God can become an idol in On Disobedience (Fromm, 1981,p. 106).

10. Fromm addresses the subject of God’s name and its significance in two other works— The Heart of Man (1964) and Psychoanalysis and Religion (1950)—in addition to You Shall Be as Gods (1966). In each of his commentaries,he focuses on the significance of namelessness to the Jewish concept of the divine.

11. Fromm,although certainly not expecting individuals to observe the Sabbath in accordance with Orthodox custom,celebrates the nonmaterialistic “being”values of the Sabbath. Fromm states that the Sabbath offers a special,sanctified time that places one’s fellow man, family,and community at the center of one’s energies,rather than the pursuit of money,power, shopping and material consumption,and control over other living things and both creative and destructive activities. It offers rest and freedom in the deepest senses of both words.

References

Fromm,E. (1950). Psychoanalysis and religion. New Haven,CT:Yale University Press.

Fromm,E. (1956). The art of loving:An enquiry into the nature of love. New York:Harpers.

Fromm,E. (1963). The dogma of Christ. New York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Fromm,E. (1964). The heart of man:Its genius for good and evil. New York:Harper and Row.

Fromm,E. (1966). You shall be as gods:A radical interpretation of the Old Testament and its tradition. New York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Fromm,E. (1981). On disobedience and other essays. New York:Seabury.

Fromm,E. (1990a). Man for himself:An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. New York:Holt.

Fromm,E. (1990b). The sane society. New York:Owl Books.

Fromm,E. (1992). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York:Holt.

Fromm,E. (1994). Escape from freedom. New York:Owl Books.

JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. The Hebrew Bible. (2003). Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society.

Lundgren,S. (1998). Fight against idols:Erich Fromm on religion,Judaism,and the Bible. Frankfurt,Germany:Europaishcher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Schimmel / Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychology45

Maimonides,M. (1967). Mishneh Torah:Laws of repentance. New York:Hebrew Publishing. Petuchowski,J. (1956). Erich Fromm’s midrash on love:The sacred and the secular forms.

Commentary, 22(6),543-549.

Noam Schimmel is a graduate student at Hebrew College,where he is completing an MA in Jewish Studies. He earned a BA in English and political science from Yale University and an MSc in philosophy,policy,and social value from the London School of Economics,where he is currently pursuing a PhD in media and communications. He publishes on a range of human rights related topics and has an article forthcoming in Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies He has previously published in the International Journal on Minority and Group Rights,the International Journal of Children’s Rights,and Ethics and Education