attachmentparenting.ro/forum

Forumul romanesc de attachment parenting

Site Logo

Acum este Vin Dec 14, 2018 3:51 am

Ora este UTC+02:00 UTC+2




Scrie un subiect nou  Răspunde la subiect  [ 9 mesaje ] 
Autor Mesaj
 MesajScris: Dum Iun 29, 2008 8:28 am        Subiectul mesajului: Erich Fromm 
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/fromm.html
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/fromm.htm

To Have or To Be (1976) was Erich Fromm's last major work. In it he argues that two ways of existence were competing for 'the spirit of mankind' - having and being. The having mode looks to things and material possessions and is based on aggression and greed. The being mode is rooted in love and is concerned with shared experience and productive activity. The dominance of the having mode (as he argued in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness) was bringing the world to the edge of disaster (ecological, social and psychological). Erich Fromm argued that only a fundamental change in human character 'from a preponderance of the having mode to a preponderance of the being mode of existence can save us from a psychological and economic catastrophe' (1976: 165) and set out some ways forward.


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Dum Iun 29, 2008 9:03 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
To Have or to Be?
Erich Fromm

What is the Having Mode?

Our judgements are extremely biased because we live in a society that rests on private property, profit, and power as the pillars of its existence. To acquire, to own, and to make a profit are the sacred and inalienable rights of the individual in the industrial society.* What the sources of property are does not matter, nor does possession impose any obligations on the property owners. The principle is: " Where and how my property was acquired or what I do with it is nobody's business but my own; as long as I do not violate the law, my right is unrestricted and absolute."

This kind of property may be called private property (from Latin privare, "to deprive of"), because the person or persons who own it are its sole masters, with full power to deprive others of its use or enjoyment. While private ownership is supposed to be a natural and universal category, it is in fact an exception rather than the rule if we consider the whole of human history (including prehistory), and particularly the cultures outside Europe in which economy was not life's main concern. Aside from private property, there are: self-created property, which is exclusively the result of one's own work; restricted property, which is restricted by the obligation to help one's fellow being; functional, or personal, property, which consists either of tools for work or of objects for enjoyment; common property, which a group shares in the spirit of a common bond, such as the Israeli kibbutzim.

The norms by which society functions also mold the character of its members (social character). In an industrial society these are: the wish to acquire property, to keep it, and to increase it, i.e., to make a profit, and those who own property are admired and envied as superior human beings. But the vast majority of people own no property in a real sense of capital and capital goods, and the puzzling question arises: How can such people fulfill or even cope with their passion for acquiring and keeping property, or how can they feel like owners of property when they haven't any property to speak of?

Of course, the obvious answer is that even people who are property poor own something -- and they cherish their little possessions as much as the owners of capital cherish their property. And like the big property owners, the poor are obsessed by the wish to preserve what they do have and to increase it, even though by an infinitesimal amount (for instance by saving a penny here, two cents there).

Perhaps the greatest enjoyment is not so much in owning material things but in owning living beings. In a patriarchal society even the most miserable men in the poorest of classes can be an owner of property -- in his relationship to his wife, his children, his animals, over whom he can feel he is absolute master. At least for the man in a patriarchal society, having many children is the only way to own persons without needing to work to attain ownership, and without capital investment. Considering that the whole burden of childbearing is the woman's, it can hardly be denied that the production of children in a patriarchal society is a matter of crude exploitation of women. In turn, however, the mothers have their own form of ownership, that of the children when they are small. The circle is endless and vicious: the husband exploits the wife, she exploits the small children, and the adolescent males soon join the elder men in exploiting the women, and so on.

The male hegemony in a patriarchal order has lasted roughly six or seven millennia and still prevails in the poorest countries or among the poorest classes of society. It is, however, slowly diminishing in the more affluent countries or societies -- emancipation of women, children, and adolescents seems to take place when and to the degree that a society's standard of living rises. With the slow collapse of the old fashioned patriarchal type of ownership of persons, wherein will the average and the poorer citizens of the fully developed industrial societies now find fulfillment of their passion for acquiring, keeping, and increasing property? The answer lies in extending the area of ownership to include friends and lovers, health, travel, art objects, God, one's own ego. A brilliant picture of the bourgeois obsession with property is given by Max Stirner.* Persons are transformed into things; their relations to each other assume the character of ownership. "Individualism", which in its positive sense means liberation from social chains, means in the negative sense, "self ownership", the right -- and the duty -- to invest one's energy in the success of one's own person.

Our ego is the most important object of our property feeling, for it comprises many things: our body, our name, our social status, our possessions (including our knowledge), the image we have of ourselves and the image we want others to have of us. Our ego is a mixture of real qualities that we build around a core of reality. But the essential point is not so much what the ego's content is, but that the ego is felt as a thing we each possess, and that this "thing" is the basis of our sense of identity.

This discussion of property must take into account that an important form of property attachment that flourished in the nineteenth century has been diminishing in the decades since the end of the First World War and is little evident today. In the older period, everything one owned was cherished, taken care of, and used to the very limits of its utility. Buying was "keep-it" buying and a motto for the nineteenth century might well have been : "Old is beautiful!" Today, consumption is emphasized, not preservation, and buying has become "throw away" buying. Whether the object one buys is a car, a dress, a gadget, after using it for some time, one gets tired of it and is eager to dispose of the "old" and buy the latest model. Acquisition -- transitory having and using -- throwing away (or if possible, profitable exchange for a better model) -- new acquisition, constitutes the vicious circle of consumer-buying and today's motto could indeed be: "New is beautiful!"

Perhaps the most striking example of today's consumer-buying phenomenon is the private automobile. Our age deserves to be dubbed "the age of the automobile", for our whole economy has been built around automobile production, and our whole life is greatly determined by the rise and fall of the consumer market for cars.

To those who have one, their car seems like a vital necessity; to those who do not yet own one, especially people in the so-called socialist states, a car is a symbol of joy. Apparently, however, affection for one's car is not deep and abiding, but a love affair of somewhat short duration, for owners change their cars frequently; after two years, even after just one, an auto owner tires of the "old car" and starts shopping around for a "good deal" on a new vehicle. From shopping around to purchase, the whole transaction seems to be a game in which even trickery is sometimes a prime element, and the "good deal" is enjoyed as much as, if not more than, the ultimate prize: that brand-new model in the driveway.

Several factors must be taken into account in order to solve the puzzle of the seemingly flagrant contradiction between the owners' property relationship to their automobiles and their so-short-lived interest in them. First, there is the element of depersonalization in the owner's relationship to the car; the car is not a concrete object that its owner is fond of, but a status symbol, an extension of power -- an ego builder; having acquired a car, the owner has actually acquired a new piece of ego. A second factor is buying a new car every two years instead of, say, every six increases the buyer's thrill of acquisition; the act of making the new car one's own is a kind of defloration -- it enhances one's sense of control, and the more often it happens, the more thrilled one is. The third factor is that frequent car buying means frequent opportunities to "make a deal" -- to make a profit by the exchange -- a satisfaction deeply rooted in men and women today. The fourth factor is one of great importance: the need to experience new stimuli, because the old stimuli are flat and exhausted after but a short while. In an earlier discussion of stimuli (the Anatomy of Human Destructiveness), I differentiated between "activating" and "passivating" stimuli and suggested the following formulation: "The more "passivating" a stimuli is, the more frequently it must be changed in intensity and/or in kind; the more "activating" it is, the longer it retains its stimulating quality and less necessary is change in intensity and content." The fifth and most important factor lies in the change in social character that has occurred during the past century and a half, i.e., from the "hoarding" to the "marketing" character. While the change does not do away with the having orientation, it does modify it considerably.

The proprietary feeling also shows up in other relationships, for example toward doctors, dentists, lawyers, bosses, workers. People express it in speaking of "my doctor", "my dentist", "my workers", and so on. But aside from their property attitude toward other human beings, people experience an unending number of objects, even feelings, as property. Take health and illness, for example. People who discuss their health do so with a proprietary feeling, referring to their sicknesses, their operations, their treatments -- their diets, their medicines. They clearly consider that health and sickness are property; their property relationship to their bad health is analogous, say, to that of a stockholder whose shares are losing part of their original value in a badly falling market.

Ideas and beliefs can also become property, as can even habits. For instance, anyone who eats an identical breakfast at the same time each morning can be disturbed by even a slight change in that routine, because his habit has become a property whose loss endangers his security.

The picture of the universality of the having mode of existence may strike many readers as too negative and one-sided; and indeed it is. I wanted to portray the socially prevalent attitude first in order to give as clear a picture as possible. But there is another element that can give this picture a degree of balance, and that is a growing attitude among the young generation that is quite different from the majority. Among these young people we find patterns of consumption that are not hidden forms of acquisition and having, but expressions of genuine joy in doing what one likes to do without expecting anything "lasting" in return. These young people travel long distances often with hardships, to hear music they like, to see a place they want to see, to meet people they want to meet. Whether their aims are as valuable as they think they are is not the question here; even if they are without sufficient seriousness, preparation, or concentration, these young people dare to be, and they are not interested in what they get in return or what they can keep. They also seem much more sincere than the older generation, although often philosophically and politically naive. They do not polish their egos all the time in order to be a desirable "object" on the market. They do not protect their image by constantly lying, with or without knowing it; they do not expend their energy in repressing the truth, as the majority does. And frequently, they impress their elders by their honesty -- for their elders secretly admire people who can see or tell the truth. Among them are politically and religiously oriented groups of all shadings, but also many without particular ideology or doctrine who may say of themselves that they are just "searching". While they may not have found themselves, or a goal that gives guidance to the practice of life, they are searching to be themselves instead of having and consuming.

This positive element in the picture needs to be qualified, however. Many of these same young people (and their number has been markedly decreasing since the late sixties) had not progressed from freedom from to freedom to; they simply rebelled without attempting to find a goal toward which to move, except that of freedom from restrictions and dependence. Like that of their bourgeois parents, their motto was "New is beautiful!" and they developed an almost phobic disinterest in all tradition, including the thoughts that the greatest minds have produced. In a kind of naive narcissism they believed that they could discover by themselves all that is worth discovering. Basically, their ideal was to become small children again, and such authors as Marcuse produced the convenient ideology that return to childhood -- not development to maturity -- is the ultimate goal of socialism and revolution. They were happy as long as they were young enough for this euphoria to last; but many of them have passed this period with severe disappointment, without having acquired well-founded convictions, without a centre within themselves. They often end up as disappointed, apathetic persons -- or as unhappy fanatics of destruction.

Not all who had started with great hopes ended up with disappointment, however, but it is unfortunately impossible to know what their number is. To my knowledge, no valid statistical data or sound estimates are available, and even if they were available, it is almost impossible to be sure how to qualify the individuals. Today millions of people in America and Europe try to find contact with tradition and with teachers who can show them the way. But in large part the doctrines and teachers are either fraudulent, or vitiated by the spirit of public relations ballyhoo, or mixed up with the financial and prestige interests of the respective gurus. Some people may genuinely benefit from such methods in spite of the sham; others will apply them without any serious intention of inner change. But only a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the new believers could show how many belong to each group.

My personal estimate is that the young people (and some older ones) who are seriously concerned with changing from the having to the being mode number more than a few dispersed individuals. I believe that quite a large number of groups and individuals are moving in the direction of being, that they represent a new trend transcending the having orientation of the majority, and that they are of historical significance. It will not be the first time in history that a minority indicates the course that historical development will take. The existence of this minority gives hope for the general change in attitude from having to being. This hope is all the more real since some of the factors that made it possible for these new attitudes to emerge are historical changes that can hardly be reversed: The breakdown of patriarchal supremacy over women and of parents' domination of the young. While the political revolution of the twentieth century, the Russian revolution, has failed (it is too early to judge the final outcome of the Chinese revolution), the victorious revolutions of our century, even though they are only in their first stages, are the women's, the children's, and the sexual revolutions. Their principles have already been accepted by the consciousness of a great many individuals, and every day the old ideologies become more ridiculous.

preluat de pe Empathic Parenting


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Dum Iun 29, 2008 9:09 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/frommnotes.html
http://www.oidatherapy.org/articles/part_07b.htm


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Dum Iun 29, 2008 9:23 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
iar in italiana
http://www.riflessioni.it/testi/arte_vivere.htm
http://www.erich-fromm.de/data/pdf/1977e-it.pdf
http://digilander.libero.it/filosofiapolitica/wef5.htm
http://www.emotivia.it/avere_o_essere.htm

Se un bambino ha dovuto Desiderare troppo spesso per ottenere, da adulto e per tutta la vita apparterrà alla distonia dell'Avere.


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Dum Iun 29, 2008 10:02 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
http://www.attachmentparenting.ro/forum ... .php?t=218


Încercând o aprofundare a celor două teorii educaţionale observăm că sunt în poziţii opuse, că suntem în faţă a două modele pedagogice diferite, dar şi în faţa a două perspective diferite ale vieţii, a relaţiilor cu alţii, a raporturilor cu societatea. O cheie pentru a înţelege aceste două viziuni de viaţă opuse o dă un alt psiholog, filosof , Erich Fromm. Într-una din cărţile sale cele mai conoscute descrie cum pot să fie opuse cele două modalităţi existenţiale ale omului: a fi şi a avea (the being mode, the having mode). În modul de " a fi" individul este concentrat asupra lui însuşi, asupra a ceea ce este, ceea ce-l defineşte în procesul dinamic de interacţiune cu mediul înconjurător, asupra a ceea ce-l determină să se maturizeze, să se formeze că persoană conştientă de ea însăşi. În modul de " a avea" , individul se valorizează în funcţie de ceea ce posedă. În mod direct se verifică fenomenul deteriorării psihicului individului, al transformării a unor părţi din Sine în obiecte. Astfel nu mai suntem trişti, bolnavi, îndrăgostiţi, ci avem o supărare, o depresie, o boală, o iubire. Aceste sentimente sunt identificate ca obiecte şi proiectate în afară Eului. Prin intermediul posesiunii tuturor acestor depresii, iubiri, bogăţii putem să controlăm acele părţi ale Eului care ne inoportunează. Pierderea tuturor aceste obiecte poate să-l facă vulnerabil pe individul care este în modalitate de "a avea", poate să ducă la însuşi pierderea sensului identităţii, căci "cu cât sunt în posesia a mai puţin cu atât mai puţin exist", Obiectele prin însuşi natura lor se pot distruge, fura, pierde, ceea ce duce la un stadiu constant de vulnerabilitate. Pentru a face faţă marii temeri de a pierde se încearcă în permanenţă să se exercite un control asupra acestora ( că este vorbă de obiecte, persoane sau procese) prin intermediul obstaculării, a regulilor, schemelor rigide, diverselor definiţii etc. O persoană cu cât este mai mult în modalitatea "a avea" riscă să-şi coboare standardele nivelului de trăi date de o societate de consum atunci când este constrânsă să rămână acasă pentru a seconda, a-şi împlini rolul de mediator al copilului cu mediul exterior.Cu cât cineva este într-o mai mare măsură în modalitate de "a fi" cu atât va percepe mai puţin, va verifică sentimente de frustrare interioară într-o mai mică măsură, suferinţă legată de lipsă obiectelor în momentul în care va alege să secondeze copilul pe tot parcursul maturizării acestuia.
În bază acestei chei de înţelegere putem să redefinim modelul genitorial detaşat legat modalităţii " a avea" şi modelul attachment-ului legat modalităţii " a fi" într-un mod mult mai precis putând să definim primul model - modelul controlului, iar al doilea model - modelul empatic.


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Vin Noi 14, 2008 1:11 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 4:45 pm
Mesaje: 1169
Yahoo Messenger: neacsu_ac
Localitate: Cluj Napoca
Articolul de mai sus se cere tradus?
Ca daca da, ma bag. Numa' da-mi ok-ul, gazzella.

_________________
Claudia,
mamica pentru
Imagine
si
Imagine


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Vin Noi 14, 2008 11:55 am        Subiectul mesajului:  
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
ca de obicei, tre' incercat sa obtinem acordurile :)

_________________
Imagine

Imagine

Imagine


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Dum Dec 27, 2009 1:19 pm        Subiectul mesajului: Re: Erich Fromm 
Neconectat
moderatoare
Avatar utilizator

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 11:25 am
Mesaje: 8182
Localitate: Montreal, Canada
http://www.homolaicus.com/teorici/fromm/index.htm


Sus
   
 
 MesajScris: Lun Dec 28, 2009 2:22 pm        Subiectul mesajului: Re: Erich Fromm 
Neconectat

Membru din: Vin Ian 18, 2008 4:45 pm
Mesaje: 1169
Yahoo Messenger: neacsu_ac
Localitate: Cluj Napoca
Recunostinta cui vrea sa traduca....


Sus
   
 
Afişează mesajele din ultimele:  Sortează după  
Scrie un subiect nou  Răspunde la subiect  [ 9 mesaje ] 

Ora este UTC+02:00 UTC+2


Cine este conectat

Utilizatori ce ce navighează pe acest forum: Niciun utilizator înregistrat și 0 vizitatori


Nu puteţi scrie subiecte noi în acest forum
Nu puteţi răspunde subiectelor din acest forum
Nu puteţi modifica mesajele dumneavoastră în acest forum
Nu puteţi şterge mesajele dumneavoastră în acest forum

Căutare după:
Mergi la:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Translation/Traducere: phpBB România