This is a critique of Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem by Eric Fromm, written in 1963. Fromm states in his article that disobedience is what originally

set the human race on the path to thinking on their own, but obedience to authority in the

end will be what kills us all. Overall his article has several compelling reasons to believe

his theory, but it is also not completely believable for several reasons. There are several

points that are debatable and his high use of emotion alone could cause one to question

his article on a whole. Fromm being a psychoanalyst, sociologist, historian, and

philosopher may have contributed to his using the pull of emotion so much.

In his article Fromm states that history began with an act of disobedience and that

history will possibly end with an act of obedience. Adam and Eve’s disobedience caused

humans to then rely on themselves, and that until this happened humans were not able to

fully develop the ability to reason or love. Similar to Adam and Eve, other cultures also

have their own stories of how history began with disobedience. Through disobedience

man has continued to evolve spiritually and intellectually, through this enlightening was

learned that not all disobedience is a virtue and not all obedience is vice.

Fromm defines autonomous obedience or humanistic conscience as obeying

yourself, and this is not submissive. Heteronomous obedience or authoritarian

conscience is obeying a power outside your own person such as another person or society

laws, and this type of obedience is submissive. Fromm goes on to define rational and

irrational authority. He defines rational authority as being when two or more parties have

the same idea or goal. He uses the example of a teacher to student, all work is to further

the student. Irrational authority is the exploitation of one person by another person, as in

slave and master.

Fromm also states that a person can only disobey if they have the courage to stand

alone, to be able to make errors, to sin and to be able to accept the consequences. If a

person is not they will continue to obey because at least this way they feel as if they are a

part of that power. Throughout history man has not been able to do this and as a result the

majority of people has been kept under the authority of the minority. It has been taught

that disobedience is wrong and obedience is right, thus the ability to keep the masses

under control. In order to break free from the masses it is necessary to disobey and then

know true freedom.

Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for many deaths, stated after being

captured that he was only following orders. Fromm then concludes that people have

become so ingrained in the process that they often no longer even realize that they are

obeying, thus making it nearly impossible to break the cycle.

First, there are several fallacies in Fromm’s article. Fromm states that Adam and

Eve were a part of the garden, not above it. That they had to disobey to break this bond

with nature, in order to free of it. That to be fully human man must learn to rely on his

own powers. Yet according to the NIV Bible the story of Adam and Eve goes quite

differently. It states that God made man, and that man was to rule over all the earth (NIV

Bible, Gen.1:26). Man’s time in the garden is what Fromm call pre-human. Yet Adam

and Eve were human, it does not seem accurate that this could be called pre-human

period. Maybe if Fromm used a different term in describing this time it could be

considered a little more accurate.

The second fallacy in Fromm’s article is he states that within five to ten years,

from 1963, it is possible and probable that humans will destroy the civilization and all life

on earth. This is a hasty generalization, in which he is also drawing on the emotion of

fear, in order to sway opinions. There are no facts to back up the thought that humans

may destroy the world, especially in a specified time frame.

Fromm used false analogies in his writing also. First is the comparison of the

caveman to the politician. We have developed scientifically enough to create weapons,

yet politicians still think the way the caveman did. These two ideas are completely too

far apart on the scale to even try to compare to each other.

The second use of false analogy is when Fromm compares Adolf Eichmann, who

was in charge of the Nazi concentration camps, to the typical person. Eichmann, who

ordered the deaths of millions of people, could not be compared on the same level as a

typical person on the street. He states that we would and that we do in the same situation.

Not only is this a false analogy, but he also makes a hasty generalization in stating that

people would do the same thing now since he does not have the facts to back up this

statement. This statement also used emotion, disgust to insinuate that everyone could be

just like Eichmann.

Fromm does use all the different appeals to argue his point. He plays greatly on

pathos or emotion. He begins by saying that “human history began with an act of

disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience”

(402). Whether a person scared, annoyed or just interested, Fromm has used emotion to

draw the reader in.

He uses pathos again by saying that anyone could have been just like Eichmann.

This could bring the emotion of fear, shock or even disbelief. At the end of the article,

Fromm states that we no longer have the ability to disobey and that in the end that ability

may be the only way to save the future. This was meant to scare the reader.

The second of the appeals Fromm uses is logos or logic. He does spend quite a

bit of space trying to clearly define certain terms. He makes no mistake in making sure

all the terms should be understood. Although he spends an entire page defining

authoritarian conscience humanistic conscience, heteronomous obedience, autonomous

obedience, and rational and irrational authority, he does not use any of the terms again

throughout the rest of his article.

The last appeal he uses is ethos or authors credibility. Since Fromm was a

psychoanalyst, sociologist, historian and philosopher, also a widely published author, and

studied the works of Freud and Marx, one would be lead to believe that he is a highly

credible source.

After reading Fromms article, I feel that in his misstatement regarding Adam and

Eve, many readers will be immediately wary of every other statement he made. With his

background training he seems to be a very credible author. Any strides he had previously

made by his use of logos, in defining several terms, may have been overshadowed by his

overuse of emotion. For the scientific community he probably did at least reach his

readers in trying to achieve his goal of swaying them toward his opinion that man must

disobey in order to move forward. But to the general reading audience his writing was to

technically inclined, too full of defining terms and analogies that are too far removed

from their life to mean anything to them.

In conclusion, even though he did clearly define terms and is a credible author,

there were too many other problems with his article to be completely accepted. Fromm

needed to state some actual evidence that his theory was possible, which he did not do. It

did not seem that he could achieve his goal in swaying people to agree that human history

began with disobedience and would end with obedience.