Abstract
This paper explores Erich Fromm’s contribution to Deweyan democratic education by referring to his psychoanalytic interpretation of John Dewey’s pragmatic theory. First, it employs the work by Gert Biesta to secure a space between critical pedagogy and Deweyan democratic education, from which Fromm’s theory can be discussed. Furthermore, it argues that Biesta’s perspective offers a valuable theoretical ground to extend the emancipatory potential of Deweyan democratic education, while avoiding some pitfalls of critical pedagogy. Subsequently, the paper contrasts Marcuse’s and Fromm’s views on Dewey to show how Fromm’s understanding of Dewey was more effective than that of Marcuse for developing the potential of Dewey’s philosophy. Next, the paper clarifies key similarities and differences between Fromm’s psychoanalysis and Dewey’s pragmatism, as it is applicable specifically to emancipatory education. Finally, the paper argues that despite the differences between these two thinkers, Fromm’s theory further radicalizes Deweyan democratic education by adding new elements to the list of preconditions on the role of the emancipatory teacher.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As Kalyvas (2019) points out, the use of the term “democracy in crisis” must be examined in more detail. While this paper argues against overusing the term “crisis” and ignoring historical, political, and economic contexts, it further argues for exploring what Fromm’s understanding of the “crisis of democracy” could mean for contemporary education.
Although it is rare for scholars to examine the theoretical relationship between Fromm and Dewey in educational studies, one exception is Tony Monchinski’s work (2008). He demonstrated that Fromm’s idea of democracy sympathized with Dewey’s idea of democracy “as a way of life” while citing Fromm’s quotation from Dewey (pp. 201–205). This paper tries to further explore the suggestion advanced by Monchinski.
Although this flaw of Giroux’s critical pedagogy has been comprehensively criticized by the study of Ellsworth (1989, pp. 306–308), this study follows Biesta’s critique of critical pedagogy. This is because Biesta not only points out the serious problem of critical pedagogy but also sheds clear light on contemporary significance of the idea of democratic education of Dewey (Biesta 2005, 2016).
Although Knight Abowitz (2000) expanded theories of resistance in education by employing Dewey’s pragmatic understanding of communication while also seeking to overcome the limitations of critical theory, she did not focus on the theories of concrete figures of critical theory.
By articulating Marcuse and Fromm’s theoretical differences, this paper clarifies the distinctions between the two thinkers’ interpretations of Dewey. However, this paper does not deny that both their theories and Dewey’s theory are profoundly linked; Kennedy (2017, 2020) argued that Fromm’s character theory had democratic qualities, and that the theory is relevant to both Marcuse’s notion of the “new sensibility” and Dewey’s view of democracy.
Although Fromm’s theory has begun to be reevaluated in recent years, he has been still a somewhat “forgotten” theorist in critical theory (Durkin and Braune eds. 2020; McLaughlfin 1998, 1999, 2021). The educational implications from Fromm’s works have already been recognized in the fields of critical pedagogy and adult education (Brookfield 2002; Fleming 2012; Lake and Dagostino 2013; Moisio 2009) because Paulo Freire, a leading figure in critical pedagogy, was not only personally acquainted with Fromm (Friedman 2013, p. 289; Funk 2000, p. 138) but also frequently cited Fromm’s works in his well-known book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire 1985). However, in general, Fromm remains a forgotten theorist in the genealogy of critical pedagogy too. A description in The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education (2009) is symbolic of this indifference to Fromm’s arguments. It shows that critical pedagogy has drawn significantly from the insights of theorists such as Karl Marx, Dewey, Antonio Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School scholars such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, and Marcuse (Teitelbaum 2009, p.312). It is curious that Fromm’s name is omitted from the list above if we consider that he had such a close relationship with Freire, was one of the important early members of the Frankfurt School, and valued Dewey’s philosophy more than the other members. Moreover, Fromm derived much of his intellectual energy from Marx (Fromm 2009). However, the real problem here is not the elimination of Fromm from the list but rather the intellectual loss occasioned by this elimination by contemporary scholarship. Although Fromm’s theory has been discussed mainly in critical pedagogy and adult education, further research is needed to reveal its concealed possibility.
I believe that questioning the Frankfurt School’s interpretations of Freud’s psychoanalysis, especially focusing on the Fromm-Marcuse debate on Freud’s metapsychology (Fromm 1955, 1956, 1991; Marcuse 1955), is important to develop theory of critical pedagogy, which is greatly borrowing its insights from the critical theorists. However, in the case of my study, directly addressing this issue would be beyond the scope of this paper because in the paper I focus more on the educational importance of Fromm’s interest in Dewey’s theory rather than on Freud’s theory itself. That issue will be pursued in future work.
This possibility has already been pointed out by Särkelä (2021) based on a perspective of “a family drama” between American pragmatists and Frankfurt School critical theorists. Although Särkelä indicated that Fromm’s theory could contribute to developing Dewey’s criticism of psychoanalysis (pp. 146–147), he did not examine Fromm’s theory and his understanding of Dewey in detail.
Although Fromm tried to envisage ends by using the empirical analysis of the “total phenomenon–of man,” he did not presuppose an a priori and absolute concept of “human nature” (Fromm 1990, pp. 23–24; Morita 2020, p. 61). Rather, Fromm sought “tentative” ends, guided by the idea of “a tentative picture of human nature” (Fromm 2010b, pp. 104–105, Morita 2020, pp. 61–62).
Fromm did not equate Dewey’s pragmatism with positivism. Although Fromm reproved “relativism, which often presents itself by the name of empiricism or positivism” (Fromm 1994, pp. 247–248), he did not regard Dewey’s pragmatism as relativism; rather, as showed above, he believed that Dewey’s philosophical views were opposed to relativism.
The American philosopher, Cavell (1990) also expressed frustration that Dewey had missed “the depths of psychoanalytic perspective” (p. 13).
Funk (2009), who served as the last assistant to Fromm and is an executor of his literary estate, testifies that “Frommian philosophy has its roots in experiences which Fromm himself had in therapeutic relationships” (p. 61).
References
Biesta, Gert. 2005. What can critical pedagogy learn from postmodernism? Further reflections on the impossible future of critical pedagogy. In Critical theory and critical pedagogy today: Toward a new critical language in education, ed. Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, 143–159. Haifa: The Faculty of Education, University of Haifa.
Biesta, Gert. 2016. Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. New York: Routledge.
Biesta, Gert. 2017. The rediscovery of teaching. New York: Routledge.
Biesta, Gert. 2020. Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory 70 (1): 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411.
Brookfield, Stephen. 2002. Overcoming alienation as the practice of adult education: The contribution of Erich Fromm to a critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly 52 (2): 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713602052002002.
Cavell, Stanley. 1990. Conditions handsome and unhandsome: The constitution of Emersonian perfectionism. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
Dewey, John. 1980. Democracy and education. In The middle works of John Dewey, Vol. 9, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, John. 1983. Human nature and conduct. In The middle works of John Dewey, ed. Jo Ann Boydston, vol. 14, 63–188. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, John. 1984. The public and its problems. In The later works of John Dewey, ed. Jo Ann Boydston, vol. 2, 235–372. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, John. 1988a. The quest for certainty. In The later works of John Dewey, ed. Jo Ann Boydston, vol. 4, 63–188. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, John. 1988b. Freedom and culture. In The later works of John Dewey, ed. Jo Ann Boydston, vol. 13, 63–188. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Durkin, Kieran, and Joan Braune, eds. 2020. Erich Fromm’s critical theory: Hope, humanism, and the future. New York and London: Bloomsbury.
Ellsworth, Elizabeth. 1989. Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59 (3): 297–324.
Fleming, Ted. 2012. Fromm and Habermas: Allies for adult education and democracy. Studies in Philosophy and Education 31: 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9268-1.
Franck, Olof. 2020. Ethics education in democratic pluralist contexts. Educational Theory 70 (1): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12410.
Freire, Paulo. 1985. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Friedman, Lawrence. 2013. The lives of Erich Fromm: Love’s prophet. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fromm, Erich. 1955. The human implications of instinctivistic “radicalism”: A reply to Herbert Marcuse. Dissent 2 (4): 342–349.
Fromm, Erich. 1956. A counter-rebuttal. Dissent 3 (1): 81–83.
Fromm, Erich. 1980. Greatness and limitations of Freud’s thought. New York: Harper and Row.
Fromm, Erich. 1990. Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fromm, Erich. 1991. The crisis of psychoanalysis: Essays on Freud, Marx, and social psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fromm, Erich. 1992. The revision of psychoanalysis. Boulder: Westview Press.
Fromm, Erich. 1994. Escape from freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fromm, Erich. 2000. Dealing with the unconscious in psychotherapeutic practice: 3 lectures 1959. International Forum of Psychoanalysis 9 (3–4): 167–186.
Fromm, Erich. 2009. Beyond the chains of illusion: My encounter with Marx and Freud. New York: Continuum.
Fromm, Erich. 2010a. Beyond Freud: From individual to social psychoanalysis, ed. Rainer Funk. New York: American Mental Health Foundation.
Fromm, Erich. 2010b. The pathology of normalcy, ed. Rainer Funk. New York: American Mental Health Foundation.
Fromm, Erich. 2020. On the feeling of powerlessness, trans. Susan Kassouf. In Fromm Forum 24/2020: Erich Fromm’s early writings, 59–79. Tübingen: The Estate of Erich Fromm.
Funk, Rainer. 2000. Erich Fromm: His life and ideas, trans. Ian Portman and Manuela Kunkel. New York: Continuum.
Funk, Rainer. 2009. Direct meeting. In The clinical Erich Fromm: Personal accounts and papers on therapeutic technique, ed. Rainer Funk, 59–69. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Giroux, Henry. 1997. Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder: Westview Press.
Giroux, Henry. 2020. On critical pedagogy. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2019. Whose crisis? Which democracy? Notes on the current political conjuncture. Constellations 26 (3): 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12438.
Kennedy, David. 2017. Anarchism, schooling, and democratic sensibility. Studies in Philosophy and Education 36: 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9534-3.
Kennedy, David. 2020. Second nature, becoming child, and dialogical schooling. Studies in Philosophy and Education 39: 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09729-6.
Knight Abowitz, Kathleen. 2000. A pragmatist revisioning of resistance theory. American Educational Research Journal 37 (4): 877–907.
Knight Abowitz, Kathleen and Dan Mamlok. 2021. #NeverAgainMSD student activism: Lessons for agonist political education in an age of democratic crisis. Educational Theory 70 (6): 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12451.
Lake, Robert, and Vicki Dagostino. 2013. Converging self/other awareness: Erich Fromm and Paulo Freire on transcending the fear of freedom. In Paulo Freire’s intellectual roots: Toward historicity in praxis, eds. Robert Lake and Tricia Kress, 101–126. New York and London: Bloomsbury.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1955. Eros and civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. 2011a. Review of John Dewey’s Logic: The theory of inquiry. In Philosophy, psychoanalysis and emancipation: Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse, Vol. 5, eds. Douglas Kellner and Clayton Pierce, 80–87. New York: Routledge.
Marcuse, Herbert. 2011b. Critique of Dewey’s theory of valuation. In Philosophy, psychoanalysis and emancipation: Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse, Vol. 5, eds. Douglas Kellner and Clayton Pierce, 87–92. New York: Routledge.
Mårdh, Andreas, and Ásgeir Tryggvason. 2017. Democratic education in the mode of populism. Studies in Philosophy and Education 36: 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9564-5.
McLaughlin, Neil. 1998. How to become a forgotten intellectual: Intellectual movements and the rise and fall of Erich Fromm. Sociological Forum 13 (2): 215–246.
McLaughlin, Neil. 1999. Origin myths in the social sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the emergence of critical theory. Canadian Journal of Sociology 24 (1): 109–139.
McLaughlin, Neil. 2021. Erich Fromm and global public sociology. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Moisio, Olli-Pekka. 2009. What it means to be a stranger to oneself. Educational Philosophy and Theory 41 (5): 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00386.x.
Monchinski, Tony. 2008. Critical pedagogy and the everyday classroom. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8463-8. Accessed 2 February 2022.
Morita, Kazunao. 2020. Educational implications of E. Fromm’s view of “ends”: Reference to J. Dewey’s idea of the means-ends relationship. Kyoto University Research Studies in Education 66: 57–68. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/250367/1/eda66_057.pdf
Peters, Michael. 2005. Critical pedagogy and the futures of critical theory. In Critical theory and critical pedagogy today: Toward a new critical language in education, ed. Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, 35–48. Haifa: The Faculty of Education, University of Haifa.
Portin, Fredrik. 2020. The diplomatic teacher: The purpose of the teacher in Gert Biesta’s philosophy of education in dialogue with the political philosophy of Bruno Latour. Studies in Philosophy and Education 39: 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09712-1.
Rockefeller, Steven C. 1991. John Dewey: Religious faith and democratic humanism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Särkelä, Arvi. 2021. American pragmatism and Frankfurt School critical theory: A family drama. In Pragmatism and social philosophy: Exploring a stream of ideas from America to Europe, ed. Michael G. Festl, 145–162. New York: Routledge.
Steudeman, Michael J. 2019. Rethinking rhetorical education in times of demagoguery. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49 (3): 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2019.1610642.
Teitelbaum, Kenneth. 2009. Restoring collective memory: The pasts of critical education. In The Routledge international handbook of critical education, eds. Michael Apple, Wayne Au, and Luis Armando Gandin, 312–326. New York: Routledge.
Villacañas de Castro, Luis Sebastián. 2020. Deweyan democracy, neoliberalism, and action research. Studies in Philosophy and Education 39: 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09664-1.
Westbrook, Robert B. 1991. John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2020. The affective modes of right-wing populism: Trump pedagogy and lessons for democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 39: 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-019-09691-y.
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2021. Interrogating the affective politics of white victimhood and resentment in times of demagoguery: The risks for civics education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 40: 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09777-6.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Naoko Saito and Dr. Jeremy Rappleye for their invaluable comments. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Amy B. Shuffelton and two anonymous reviewers at Studies in Philosophy and Education for their support and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. Finally, I thank Julian Torelli and the Global Education Office, Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Japan, for providing support for editing and proofreading the manuscript.
Funding
Partial financial support was received from the Global Education Office, Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Japan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the contents of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morita, K. Radicalizing the Role of the Emancipatory Teacher in the Crisis of Democracy: Erich Fromm’s Psychoanalytic Approach to Deweyan Democratic Education. Stud Philos Educ 41, 467–483 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09830-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09830-y