Stephanie Rock
Professor Hoover
Eng 112 Web
15 February 2013
Final Draft: Critique Paper
To Do or Not to Do? : A Critique of "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem

Do we do it or do we not do is always the big question, is it not? In the article “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, Erich Fromm explains how society has always defined “obedience is a virtue and that disobedience is a vice” (p. 683). As a well known writer and thinker, Psychoanalyst, philosopher, historian and sociologist, Fromm believed that “human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be, terminated by an act of obedience” (p. 683). How many of us have done something without even thinking about it simply because we were told to do it? That is exactly where Fromm is going with this article. Are we doing something because we are told to or are we doing it because we are scared of what may happen if we don’t? But is that always the right answer? Although Fromm’s ideas were organized and the evidence he used to support his argument was effective, the counter argument is missing. Fromm is trying to get us to understand that by man being introduced to the world by disobedience, whether it be from Adam and Eve or Prometheus, we now have to answer to a authority figure, which in return having to obey to that authority figure will end the world. Fromm’s fear and worry is just that. If we get in the habit and routine of doing something simply because we are told to do it, what is going to stop that one person from pushing what Fromm calls the “Deadly Button” (p. 684), and ending the world as we know it? “The organization man has lost the capacity to disobey, he is not even aware of the fact that he obeys. At this point in history the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization” (Fromm 687). Fromm’s ideas were well organized, not only with the information he provided, but how he presented it. Although Fromm seemed very impatient, frantic or terrified even, throughout the whole article, he still managed to get his points across. The article flowed nicely and it was easy to read, not necessarily easy to understand, but surely that is due to the difference between when it was published and the contemporary audience reading it. Fromm started with one topic, gave the details he needed to in order to get that point across, then moved on to the next point and carried on with that pattern throughout the entire article. Fromm not jumping from one point to the next and then back to the first point made it easier to read and follow his points more clearly. The evidence that Fromm used to get his argument across was interesting. He had some really good points and then others that were confusing and contradicting. At one point he tells us that “obedience is a virtue and disobedience is a vice” (p. 683), then goes on to say later on in the article that he “does not mean to say that all disobedience is a virtue and all obedience a vice” (p. 684). Is it or is it not a virtue or vice? One really good point Fromm had was when mentioned that we are living in the Atomic age, emotionally we are living in the Stone Age and that our mathematics, astronomy, and the natural sciences are in the twentieth century (p. 684). In other wards technology has progressed rapidly, whereas the mindset of humans has stayed in further times. People are afraid of what may happen if they disobey, just like slaves and peasants did in earlier times. Another good piece of evidence is when Fromm was talking about the differences in being a slave or a coward, many people could probably relate to that inclination. Fromm included many good examples and scenarios in his article that made it easier to understand. Whether one is a Hebrew, a Greek, a mother or father he used examples to benefit any of them. One being a Hebrew could follow with the example Fromm gave of Adam and Eve. The only rule God had given them was to not eat from the tree of forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, and they did exactly that. If the person was Greek, then they could follow with the example Fromm gave of Prometheus, which had stolen fire from the gods for human use. By doing so it resulted in him being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by a eagle to turn around and have his liver grow back for it to happen all over again daily. Or whether it be a mother or father reading the article, relating the fact that the mother carries the fetus in her womb for nine months, giving birth and the umbilical cord being cut. With the examples Fromm gave, no matter what the nature, race or religion of the reader they could understand where Fromm was coming from, simply because, if they couldn’t follow the religious part of the article they could relate to the mother, father part of the article. Fromm made the article more personal and understanding by using the examples he used. Now although Fromm had some really good points, and examples and evidence of his argument, he did not have anything in the article about the small handful of man that doesn’t always follow the rules or obey what is being told of them to do. If everyone did exactly what they were told to do and not break any rules then there would be no need for jails, prisons, JDC or the strict laws the congress is constantly putting in play or trying to pass. We wouldn’t need children or adult protective services or any other agency that exerts control over our lives. So as Fromm had stated in his article apparently those that don’t follow the rules and obey the laws don’t mind being alone. Which comes back around to stating that we do things that we are told, simply because we don’t want to be left behind or alone, and anyone that does break the rules would be alone. Look at Fromm’s example of Prometheus, he did something forbidden and was chained to a rock and left for the birds. Even though Prometheus knew that by stealing the fire was against the rules, he also knew that it would help the humans, so therefore went through with it. I believe that Fromm’s main idea of the article was to make us think of what would we do in the situation if we were told to push that “deadly button”. Would we push it because we were told to do it, and we are scared of what may happen if we don’t? Or would we not push it simply because we know that it is inhuman and there would be millions of people and families that would no longer be around? I believe Fromm wrote a very effective article, and I am sure it would have been a lot easier to understand if I was actually reading it in the timeframe that he had wrote it in to make it clearer. This article was very effective and succeeded in what he was trying to get his audience to understand. In conclusion, Fromm’s article provided a very interesting outlook on obedience and disobedience. He does a wonderful job providing the many examples and the evidence, to get his point across in a fluent manner. Although well organized and somewhat dramatic at times, Fromm makes the readers think of disobedience and obedience differently. Would you be able to obey and push that button if you were told to? Something to think about, isn’t it?
Work Cited
Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 11th edition. Eds. Lawrence Behrens and Leonard Rosen. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2011. 683-687. Print.