Reich & the Frankfurt School

[Neil McLaughlin]

Fromm had many faults as a thinker, and there is much that is useful in
Wiggerhaus, but Fromm certainly did not maintain that
individual psychology could be smoothly transferred to social
 theory. How could anyone maintain such a silly position. What exactly
would it mean to take this position. One can quote things Fromm wrote that
were questionable, or silly, but this is just a simplistic critique,
without specifics.  And Fromm as Mr. Anti-Dialectics?  Well, that is
just a silly clich, rooted in the origin myths of the Frankfurt School.
For a discussion of the conflict between Adorno and Fromm, and the origin
myths that shape what critical theorists today think they know about
Fromm, see
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/mclaughlin.html
My piece above is purposefully polemical, and I have since re-thought some
of
what I had written and how it is framed.   The truth will lie
somewhere
between (or beyond!) this account, and the original Frankfurt School
"line" on Fromm
versus Adorno.  But my account in "origin myths in the social science:
Fromm, and the Emergence of Critical theory" will certainly move us beyond
simplistic cliches about Fromm...

Neil McLaughlin








Neil G. McLaughlin     			KTH-620
Associate Professor			McMaster University
Department of Sociology			Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail: nmclaugh@mcmaster.ca		L8S 4M4
Phone (905) 525-9140 Ext. 23611		Canada

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, James Rovira wrote:

> That's a good question -- the quotation seems exactly backwards.  I
> remember Martin Jay describing a falling out between Fromm and H and A
> in _The Dialectical Imagination_, but I don't remember the details
> offhand.  It could be that a "smooth" transition between individual
> psychology and social theory would undermine any possible dialectical
> relationship between the two.  A tension needs to be maintained, rather
> than seeing one collapsed into the other.
>
> Jim
>
> Ralph Dumain wrote:
>
> > Wiggershaus has only a few references on Wilhelm Reich, mostly in
> > connection with Fromm, who incorporated the concept of character
> > structure into his social psychology.  There is one curious reference
> > to Adorno, though (p. 159).  Adorno was working on some project (some
> > time between 1933 and 1935, it seems): Wiggerstrauss says Adorno
> > "would begin with Reich, because Reich, unlike Fromm, maintained that
> > individual psychology could not be smoothly transferred to social
> > theory."  What's this all about?
> >
> >
>
>