fei75766_ch08_242-270.indd 268  02/06/20 12:02 PM
Part II    Psychodynamic Theories268
(Fromm, 1976, p. 137). Human beings, then, are the freaks of nature, the 
only species ever to have evolved this combination of minimal instinctive 
powers and maximal brain development. “Lacking the capacity to act by 
the command of instincts while possessing the capacity for self-awareness, 
reason, and imagination . . . the human species needed a frame of orienta -
tion and an object of devotion in order to survive” (p. 137).
Human survival, however, has been paid for by the price of basic anxi -
ety, loneliness, and powerlessness. In every age and culture, people have 
been faced with the same fundamental problem: how to escape from feelings 
of isolation and find unity with nature and with other people.
In general, Fromm was both pessimistic  and optimistic.  On one hand, he 
believed that most people do not accomplish a reunion with nature or other 
people and that few people achieve positive freedom. He also had a rather 
negative attitude toward modern capitalism, which he insisted was responsible 
for most people’s feeling isolated and alone while clinging desperately to the 
illusion of independence and freedom. On the other hand, Fromm was hope -
ful enough to believe that some people will achieve reunion and will there -
fore realize their human potential. He also believed that humans can achieve 
a sense of identity, positive freedom, and growing individuality within the 
confines of a capitalistic society. In Man for Himself  (1947), he wrote: “I have 
become increasingly impressed by . . . the strength of the strivings for happi -
ness and health, which are part of the natural equipment of [people]” (p. x).
On the dimension of free choice versus determinism,  Fromm took a 
middle position, insisting that this issue cannot be applied to the entire spe -
cies. Instead, he believed that individuals have degrees of inclinations toward 
freely chosen action, even though they are seldom aware of all the possible 
alternatives. Nevertheless, their ability to reason enables people to take an 
active part in their own fate.
On the dimension of causality versus teleology,  Fromm tended to 
slightly favor teleology. He believed that people constantly strive for a frame 
of orientation, a road map, by which to plan their lives into the future.
Fromm took a middle stance regarding conscious versus unconscious moti -
vation,  placing slightly more emphasis on conscious motivation and contending 
that one of the uniquely human traits is self-awareness.  Humans are the only 
animal that can reason, visualize the future, and consciously strive toward self-
erected goals. Fromm insisted, however, that self-awareness is a mixed blessing 
and that many people repress their basic character to avoid mounting anxiety.
On the issue of social influences  versus biological ones,  Fromm placed 
somewhat more importance on the impact of history, culture, and society than 
on biology. Although he insisted that human personalities are historically and 
culturally determined, he did not overlook biological factors, defining humans 
as the freaks of the universe.
Finally, whereas Fromm placed moderate emphasis on similarities 
among people,  he also allowed room for some individuality. He believed that 
although history and culture impinge heavily on personality, people can retain 
some degree of uniqueness. Humans are one species sharing many of the 
same human needs, but interpersonal experiences throughout people’s lives 
give them some measure of uniqueness.Final PDF to printer