Fromm's 1976 work describes the difference between the 'having' and 'being' orientations toward the world. Those with the former inclination use nouns as descriptors (are in happy marriages) and memorize using logic or repetition. Those with the latter inclination use verbs as descriptors (are happily married) and create associations through active thinking or feeling.
The difference is subtle. Sometimes, it is trivial. But for Fromm, the inclination of modern society to encourage the 'having' mode is a root cause for a number of systemic ills. As he points out, glorifying excess invites greed. But greed and peace cannot coexist. And in a world without peace, resources will always be diverted from health, education, and welfare to better prepare nations for
Perhaps the biggest problem with a 'having' oriented view of the world is the subtle suggestion that people must prove their worth. This runs counter to basic tenets of a number of major religions- that people are valuable by virtue of their existing. Fromm uses this idea to support the universal basic income concept. In his view, to deny a fellow person the basic necessities for survival violates a most basic principle of human conduct.
One up: I found fascinating Fromm's speculation that people respond warmly to infants and small children because they do not fear them. Applied in reverse, a person without fear responds warmly to anyone.
One down: I agree with the overall idea of the book. To have or to be? Be, for me.
But how does a society shift its mentality? Surely, if everyone clapped their hands at the same time and agreed, once the echo faded, to start viewing the world through 'being'-tinted glasses, the world would be better positioned for long-term peace and prosperity.
On the other hand...exactly.
The concept, in general, is enticing. If everyone would simply 'be', the problems from 'having' would go away. But how would someone without enough for lunch react to these two hundred pages extolling the virtues of 'being'? To have lunch or be hungry? Lunch, for me.
It's not unusual to come across highly regarded 'solutions' that fail to directly address problems. The hope is that eventually the original problems go away by applying the indirectly related solution. It's reminiscent of the 'rising tide lifts all boats' strategy.
But rising tides cause flooding or erosion. Those are problems, too. Even one man swept off a dock is potentially a tragedy (and at minimum an unnecessary inconvenience).
But rising tides cause flooding or erosion. Those are problems, too. Even one man swept off a dock is potentially a tragedy (and at minimum an unnecessary inconvenience).
Maybe the real issue here comes from trying to split the world into a pair of opposing worldviews. To have or to be? There were times as I read when I got frustrated by the oversimplifications the premise of the book inevitably led to.
Reviewing the book, though, led me to a different angle. Is there a Special Rule I am unaware of that all insight must be applied? I sure hope not. Such a benchmark exemplifies the external focus of the 'having' mode to me. Why not simply 'be' with the insight?
