To understand the genesis, functions, and reasons for the collapse of various types of societies, Erich Fromm’s developed theory of social character can provide significant insights. It addresses questions such as: What behavioral motives, prevalent among the masses, support a given social system, and which ones undermine it? Unlike sociological theories that point to many unrelated economic, moral, and legal motives for behavior, Fromm suggests considering a specific type of social character as the connecting link between the individual and society. This social character encompasses various conscious and unconscious attitudes that are interrelated and typically emerge as a result of some socio-cultural shift.
Freud explained the character of personality through the features of its progression through the oral, anal, and genital stages of development. He understood the structure of character as a combination of “frozen” libidinal and aggressive drives, for which cultural goals serve as “rationalizations,” meaning they symbolize desires formed in childhood. Freud believed that the social environment is repressive, and therefore every normal person, deep down, is an enemy of culture.
Fromm, with his theory of social character, aims to eliminate the dichotomies of social versus instinctual, external versus internal, and selfishness versus altruism. According to Fromm, character acts as a substitute for animal instincts. It is social in origin but is “embedded” in the personality and exerts a compelling force on it. By following the drives of their character, people desire what society wants from them and hate what contradicts its ideology. They maintain their feelings of self-identity and rootedness and satisfy other existential needs in ways that are beneficial to society. This supports stability in interpersonal relationships and reliability in fulfilling obligations. Society is more interested in having its members want to do what they are supposed to do than in ensuring they are fully aware of what they are doing. Social character relies on an unconscious, irrational basis and serves as a kind of “drive belt” from society to the individual. It is a more effective and reliable means than moral duty or coercion.
Character traits manifest in a wide range of relationships. They are related to natural, social, and spiritual values. The objects of aspirations and means of satisfying desires can include material values, property, money, power, victory in competition, knowledge, work, immersion in myth, spiritual goods, and sensual pleasures. Character, in essence, is amoral; a person can derive satisfaction from both good and cruel deeds, from generosity and stinginess. As a tool of social control, character is largely independent of a person’s intellectual and moral development or educational level, providing quick, “unreflective” responses to certain types of situations. At the same time, Fromm believes that character can be “productive” or “unproductive,” healthy or neurotic—regardless of the type of society. A productive character fosters creativity, a sense of responsibility, and love. An unproductive character isolates individuals from others and leads to spiritual dead ends. Fromm considers social character a valuable asset for society, but relying solely on it, without the development of reason and conscience, indicates alienation and the unhealthiness of both society and the individual.
Table of Contents
How is social character formed?
Unconscious motives and complexes begin to form in early childhood. Their specifics depend on the upbringing system and the traumas experienced. The degree of care, especially maternal care, the regularity of feeding, assistance in acquiring basic social skills, monitoring of physiological needs, and the forms of punishment and reward all shape character traits.
In the early years, there is also a differentiation of personalities. For example, excessive care and overprotection hinder maturation and shape a passive, dependent type of personality. Insufficient or irregular care leads to various forms of “deprivation,” meaning a lack of emotional and intellectual stimuli for development.
But Fromm considers the main source of character traits to be the experience of living under a particular social system. Freedom of initiative, democracy, and the rule of law foster an active, self-confident, disciplined, and rationally thinking individual. A totalitarian state cultivates an authoritarian personality, which Fromm refers to as “sadomasochistic.” This type of personality is incapable of democratic, equal cooperation and functions effectively only within a system of dominance and submission. A society where success depends not only on talent and hard work but also on the ability to adapt stifles initiative and weakens internal discipline and responsibility. Of course, under any system, due to the diversity of inherent temperaments and microenvironmental conditions, various types of personalities are formed: “authoritarian,” “conformist,” and “receptively dependent.” However, characters that do not meet the system’s requirements either become destroyed or find themselves on the periphery of social life.
The social character is a product of various ideologies and religions, which embed worldview positions, life meanings, and beliefs. Ideology serves as a tool for the ruling elite to manage the masses and their sentiments.
Thus, a person’s behavior in its most common and predictable aspects is defined, according to Fromm, by social character. Social character occupies an intermediate position in the motivational structure of personality between the “outer” layer of social roles, which change with shifts in status, and the “inner” layer of existential values, such as faith, love, and hope, which are highly individualized and may not depend on either roles or character.
The unconscious foundation of social character allows for the synthesis of orientations of various and even opposing types. For instance, upbringing in the family and school largely relies on universal human values. However, as a person matures, under the pressure of society and ideology, they begin to orient themselves towards class, party, and national interests. This can lead to a readiness to kill in the name of love for people, to lie for a higher truth, and so on.
The predominant types of character are shaped by the influence of stable environmental factors, resulting from the entire “psychohistory” of a people. Just as the character of an individual is determined by the traumatic experiences of childhood, the character of a nation bears the marks of historical tragedies and the layering of eras. The victories and defeats, anxieties and joys of our ancestors are imprinted in our souls, our way of thinking, our habits, and our feelings. While this same character can be a dynamic and stabilizing force within its own culture, it can also become a hindrance to development and a destructive factor in a foreign cultural environment.
Fromm draws attention to the following functional features of a social nature.
Firstly, it plays a regulatory role in the structure of the psyche. Attitudes and orientations regulate the satisfaction of natural needs. A person can live in poverty, in a state of semi-starvation, but not experience psychological discomfort if their dominant character traits are being satisfied. Acting in accordance with their character, a person feels alive and free, even when in a servile or dependent position. Character replaces instinct and transforms into passion. Gobsek did not need hearty food, the company of women, or fine clothing; he preferred to admire his treasures above all else.
Secondly, social institutions correspond to the hierarchy of societal values. The life energy of a social group or even an entire nation is “channeled,” meaning it is discharged through certain “channels.” Work, war, hunting, prayer, feasting, love, celebrations, party meetings, and underground terrorism can serve as such channels for specific character types, while also acting as formative factors. This creates a certain correspondence between the “discharge channels” and the set of social characters. It can be assumed that in every society, a roughly equal number of leaders, geniuses, prophets, ordinary performers, and adventurers are formed, sufficient to keep all the large and small wheels of the social mechanism in motion. If this mechanism undergoes a sharp restructuring—resulting in a change in the balance of channels—it turns out that some wheels have no one to turn them, while too many people crowd around others. To illustrate this idea, consider the following fact. In Russia after the 1917 revolution, the entire system of entrepreneurship and individual economic activity was blocked from above, as it was believed to give rise to capitalism. As a result, many “old” character types found no application, and their bearers were physically eliminated. The newly created structures of production, imposed from above and centrally, could not be filled voluntarily, leading to a need for slave labor. On the other hand, the released energy of unutilized personality types had to be discharged somewhere. Only a few spheres of activity remained open—politics, war, and administration. In these areas, a kind of overheating occurred. Mass rallies, demonstrations, “cleansings,” repressions, and preparations for war became channels for “dissipating” the excess energy.
As a result of seventy years of Soviet rule, a new mass personality type emerged—one that is easily managed from above but lacks the ability to take initiative. This type demanded only minimal guarantees of security, put little effort into work, and did not expect adequate rewards for their labor. Today, issues of redistributing the energy of society’s members and fostering new character types oriented towards achieving success in a market society are once again arising.
According to Fromm, for the masses, the satisfaction of social needs is an urgent necessity. If there are no outlets for this tension, it increases, leading to the likelihood of a social explosion.
Similar situations have occurred before. Fromm notes that during the era of primitive accumulation, success in economic activities was determined by qualities such as hard work, perseverance, responsibility, frugality, and foresight. People aimed to consume less and invest more. In the 20th century, powerful trusts and corporations emerged. Personal diligence and frugality ceased to be the main factors of success. Communicative skills and the ability to play a role within an organization gained much greater importance. As a result, the social character had to change. There was a strengthening of “consumer,” “market,” “conformist,” and power-oriented (“sadomasochistic”) tendencies. However, before a correspondence was achieved between the type of society and character types, Western democracies had to endure turbulent times of stagnation and decline. The suppression of the petty bourgeois entrepreneur type explains the formation of the authoritarian personality, particularly under the conditions of the Hitler regime. The ideology of fascism, its symbols, and political system served as a substitute for the lost values of small free entrepreneurship for the authoritarian personality.
In examining the role of social character in the genesis of fascism, Fromm analyzes the “sadomasochistic” authoritarian character of the petty owner, which combines desires for domination and submission. This character emerged partly under the influence of the economic relations of the era of primitive accumulation and partly as a result of the Protestant work ethic.
The era of early capitalism fostered qualities in people such as rationality, foresight, determination in achieving goals, precision, and self-discipline. This set of traits facilitated rapid wealth accumulation and social advancement. However, the resilience and prevalence of such character traits were explained not only by their economic efficiency but also by their close connection to Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The latter asserted the insignificance of man in the face of divine providence and the inability of individuals to influence their fate. The consequence of this doctrine was not passivity and inaction, but rather an obsessive, neurotic activity. The Calvinist resembled a neurotic, whose feelings of inferiority created a powerful drive for “overcompensation.” The Calvinist, believing in predestination and trained by a sense of personal insignificance and the prospect of eternal damnation, develops three important compensatory syndromes. The first is a desire for domination, exploiting the surrounding world—nature, people, resources, knowledge. The second is submission to those who are superior, wealthy, and in power. The third is a “flight into work.” In this context, a profession is viewed not as a means to achieve earthly goods but as a divine “calling,” a way to assert oneself in eternity. Work, at its core, is irrational. It seems to be imposed from the outside, lacking a final goal and never truly ending. The profits gained from professional labor are reinvested into production, which expands and demands even greater self-sacrifice from individuals.
Fromm notes that there has never been a period in history when human life energy was so fully translated into work as during the time of primitive accumulation. Protestantism was a religion of labor and self-restraint. During this time, capital became the equivalent of human value.
Many historians and sociologists believe that Protestantism was a necessary condition for the development of capitalism. Without the Reformation, capitalism would not have been established. The countries affected by it—England, Germany, and the Netherlands—quickly surpassed Catholic countries like Spain and Italy in economic development.
However, the Protestant character is only effective in conditions of free competition and a relatively stable economy. In an era of monopolies and economic difficulties, hard work and self-restraint do not guarantee prosperity. Traits such as courage, flexibility, adventurousness, and the ability to take risks become more important.
After the defeat in World War I, a sense of uncertainty about the future emerged among the masses in Germany. Inflation destroyed millions in wealth, accumulated over decades of hard work, in just a few hours. The work ethic lost its meaning. However, the character shaped by it could not be restructured in just a few years. The need for self-assertion through rational work, dominance, and submission remained. It was during this era that fascism emerged as a political movement and ideology. The latter spread precisely because it offered the mass movement symbols that compensated for lost values. The desire for dominance found expression in the sense of belonging to the Aryan race. The desire for submission manifested in the cult of the Führer and the idea of duty to the nation. The highest calling was declared to be the construction of the “Thousand-Year” Reich, the “New Order.” Thus, the Protestant authoritarian character, with the help of new symbols, transformed into a fascist-type authoritarianism.
Neither saving nor consumerist mindsets are necessary in traditional agriculture. Therefore, they are not common in countries in Asia and Africa. Here, it is believed that if a person has something to eat today, then working for tomorrow makes no sense. Precision and foresight are not essential in environments where labor is dictated by climatic conditions, where simple physical labor prevails, unmediated by technology.
The social character tends to reproduce itself out of inertia, even after losing its functionality. Masses of people slowly adapt to new conditions. The transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, from individual entrepreneurship to a centralized economy and back again, proves to be very painful, requiring time and a well-thought-out strategy.
Thirdly, the informational function of a social nature is important, which includes not only emotional and volitional elements but also cognitive ones. Volitional aspirations are based on faith and knowledge. For a feudal lord, faith in God was a guarantee of stability and the preservation of his privileges. He was willing to risk his life to protect his religion. In a capitalist society, the institution of private property serves as the foundation of social order. Therefore, most citizens are intolerant of criticism of private property and communist ideas. Character orientations guide the work of the intellect: some information is easily absorbed, while other information is suppressed, rejected, or distorted. Ideas that reinforce existing beliefs and habits are assimilated. A person tends to believe in what aligns with their hopes and stereotypes. When reality ceases to match their character’s predispositions, a person is generally not inclined to undergo internal restructuring. Instead, they often turn away from reality and become receptive to symbols and myths that can support their already illusory beliefs. Fascist myths or the myth of socialism were easily embraced by the masses despite reality precisely because they resonated with unconscious aspirations and hopes. It is clear that irrational ideologies particularly easily arise in the absence of rational thought, where free thinking is suppressed.
In society, clashes and “crossbreeding” of characters constantly occur. Some of them strengthen and grow, along with an increasing number of their bearers. Others weaken and degenerate, while their bearers sink to the “bottom” of society. There are also “crossbreeds” and “mutations” of personality types. As a result, stable characters that are economically and politically effective become established. Popular figures give rise to their counterparts, initiate new social movements, and integrate into new hierarchical structures.
The theory of social character explains the role of the “human factor” in social processes well, predicts mass behavior, and reveals the intermediary links between economy and ideology, base and superstructure. At the same time, it is clear that some types of social character support despotism or anarchy and contribute to the spiritual degradation of the individual. Others provide a boost to creative and revitalizing movements.
Collective unconscious
For Freud, the main object of study was the individual unconscious. He believed that what was common in the unconscious of many people was an archaic legacy from our ape-like ancestors, subsequently repressed by the demands of civilization. However, when he began to interpret religion, art, morality, and science—these invaluable cultural achievements—Freud realized that, while being phenomena of developed consciousness, they were also rooted in the unconscious.
The development of the collective unconscious was continued by Jung. Fromm also widely uses this concept. He shows that the mechanisms of the unconscious identified by Freud determine the functioning not only of individual psychology but also of mass consciousness. According to Fromm, these three phenomena—the collective unconscious, ideology, and mass consciousness—are closely intertwined and, in many ways, even identical. They operate under the same mechanisms of projection, identification, rationalization, compensation, and reaction formation. Ideology, in this context, stands in opposition to reason and conscience. What should be repressed in individual consciousness as illogical and immoral instead triumphs in collective consciousness, being openly affirmed and trampling on reason. Desires for murder and violence are repressed from civilized consciousness. Yet political parties and states call upon their members and citizens to kill, suppress, and deceive class and national enemies. Ideology reproduces an archaic type of consciousness. It creates an “image of the enemy,” asserts that class and national interests are above universal human interests, preaches hatred, and mocks those who call for mercy and love.
Jung began to view consciousness and the unconscious as equal and complementary spheres. Following this line of thought, Fromm notes that not only can the unconscious be asocial and immoral, but consciousness can also be “unhappy,” “enslaved,” “sick,” and “illusory.” Consciousness can conceal the truth and ignore justice just as effectively as the unconscious. At the same time, Fromm emphasizes the cultural value of the collective, especially the ancestral unconscious, which is free from political and moral censorship and embodies the experiences of many generations, as well as the richness of language, logic, and imagination. Through the unconscious, a person is rooted in nature, the cosmos, and history. According to Fromm, the unconscious represents the plant, animal, society, and culture within a person, encompassing their past and future. It serves as a source of both creative and destructive drives. Like consciousness, the unconscious includes both rational and irrational components.
The collective unconscious, according to Fromm, holds an even higher status than public consciousness. The unconscious represents the whole person, minus the part that corresponds to society. It is precisely because consciousness is social that it does not reflect social being. No society could exist if all its citizens had a clear understanding of how it is structured and functions. The concealment of the truth about society is much more the task of its institutions than the discovery of truth. The “map of reality” embedded in the consciousness of most people is, in Fromm’s view, a “cesspool of illusions,” a “mixture of lies, passions, prejudices, and pitiful fragments of truth.” The consciousness of an individual reflects only a very narrow sector of reality. A person becomes accustomed to thinking and feeling in ways that are more advantageous and safer. They compromise their conscience not only in actions but even more so in thoughts. True knowledge of social reality, injustice, and the suffering of others is repressed, as it would weigh heavily on the conscience. Society seeks to hide its essence from its citizens, erecting numerous barriers to truthful information. Developing an accurate understanding of society is an extremely difficult task. The desire for safety and psychological comfort diverts attention from harsh and bitter truths. Understanding many social mechanisms is accessible only to those who are directly involved in them or to sociologist specialists. Often, ordinary citizens cannot even imagine, in their worst nightmares, what is happening just a block away from their own homes. Due to differences in understanding and the focus of thought among various social strata, a vague and contradictory picture of social life emerges in public consciousness. At the same time, ideological censorship and the security apparatus stifle public discussions, without which it is impossible to develop common ideas necessary for understanding society.
Freud viewed unconscious defense mechanisms as individually psychological. For Fromm, they are more rooted in the collective consciousness. According to Fromm, the integrity of the collective consciousness and the stability of ideological complexes are explained not by personally significant values, but by the connections that arise from the interactions of social groups and institutions, as well as the intersections and clashes of different information flows. “Throughout history,” Fromm writes, “the table has always been set for a few, and the vast majority received nothing but the leftovers. If the majority were fully aware of the fact that they have been deceived, outrage could arise that would threaten the existing order. Therefore, thoughts about the real structure of society had to be suppressed.”
Freud saw the source of repression in the unconscious fear of castration. Fromm considers the threat of isolation, which looms over any dissenting thinker, to be such a source. People do not simply submit to power and authority; they also think in ways that society demands. Only those who can endure social ostracism are able to think freely. Freud pointed to emotional sources of repression, while Fromm emphasizes their normative and institutional nature. Among the mechanisms of censorship that define the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious, Fromm identifies three: language, logic, and social taboos.
When discussing language, Fromm refers to the network of concepts and categories that serve to understand, evaluate, and systematize life experiences—both real perceptions and products of the imagination. Linguistic conceptual structures are deeply rooted in the unconscious and reflect millennia of practice. However, since language socialization occurs within the family, at school, and through mass media, it is entirely possible to saturate everyday language with words that construct today’s official model of society while eliminating words that do not fit into it. This situation is depicted in George Orwell’s novel “1984.” The number of words is minimized, and all words denoting phenomena that are not recognized or approved by the ruling party are removed from dictionaries. Furthermore, many words are deliberately given the opposite meaning: the “Ministry of Defense” is called the “Ministry of Peace,” and the “Ministry of Police” is referred to as the “Ministry of Love.” In the Soviet ideological language, it was common to speak of the “production” of things and knowledge; that trade, the dispensing of medicines, and the reception of citizens were all “produced.” One could simply say “we trade,” “we dispense,” “we receive,” but categorizing these diverse actions under the vague concept of “production” allowed for depersonalization, presenting them as something mechanically occurring, thus removing responsibility from specific individuals. The ideological language is also characterized by replacing neutral concepts with evaluative ones. A businessman becomes a “dealer,” a worker is a “simple laborer,” and a millionaire is an “shark of capitalism.” To enhance the emotional resonance of words and to ideologize everyday life, military terms are used: “literary front,” “struggle for peace,” “ideological diversion.” Thus, language allows for the control of thought.
The second mechanism of censorship, closely related to the first, is logic. The rules of logic, like the rules of language, are universal and human. However, they can be easily circumvented through sophisms—seemingly convincing but fundamentally false conclusions. Sophisms permeate any ideology. Moreover, there can be multiple logics—such as binary and ternary. Formal logic is binary, while dialectical logic is ternary. Taken in the abstract, they are incompatible, but in real linguistic communication, each is appropriate and even necessary. In the past, these logics coexisted peacefully. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the democratization of culture and the intrusion of semi-educated individuals into politics, propagandistic tasks increasingly began to be solved by substituting one logic for another through sophistry. In official Marxist ideology, any contradiction in statements could be explained and justified if labeled as “dialectics.” The state withers away through its strengthening, the morality of the proletariat is universal morality, peaceful coexistence is a form of class struggle, and so on—all of this is true because it is dialectical, or rather, because it is convenient for ideologists. The abuse of dialectics also occurred in psychoanalysis. Here, the term “ambivalence” of feelings and relationships was often used. For example, everyone loves and hates their father. Gradually infiltrating everyday thinking, “dialectics” and “ambivalence” give rise to the mental attitude that Orwell called “doublethink.” Doublethink leads to intellectual impotence, making people insensitive to absurdity and the most brazen deception. It generally discourages thinking, as it turns out that nothing can be proven through reason and logic, since the truth of a statement depends not on logic, but on who said it, where, and under what circumstances. The use of dialectics requires a high level of intellectual culture, and in its absence, it leads to the erasure of distinctions between truth and falsehood, good and evil.
The third element of censorship is social taboos, that is, the prohibitions imposed on certain ideas, feelings, and expressions. Taboos are characteristic of primitive cultures, where touching sacred objects or uttering sacred names is forbidden. Sociologists talk about the tabooing of feelings—such as compassion and love—in youth gangs or in the military, where brutality serves as the standard of acceptable behavior. In ideologized societies, entire areas of knowledge and public life are tabooed. Crime statistics, environmental data, staffing and funding of agencies, the size of the party apparatus, and many important events and documents are classified. According to Fromm, our ancestors were more aware of reality than we are. We reject knowledge that complicates and burdens our lives.
Although many of Fromm’s ideas are not original, he is distinguished by his remarkable flexibility of thought, keen historical intuition, and the ability to discuss complex issues in an engaging and accessible manner, drawing on his extensive knowledge. Unlike Freud and Jung, Fromm did not insist that he was solely a psychologist. He seamlessly integrated psychoanalysis with ethics, anthropology, and sociology. Fromm is remarkably contemporary. Encounters with him always stimulate thought and provide a boost of optimism.
Source of the abstract: psychowwed.narod.ru