The Problem of Obedience in Modern Society

If society continues to listen to people in charge, it will lead to the downfall of humanity. Individuals in positions of power are typically greedy, do not care about the needs of their people, and only prioritize their own interests. To progress as a society, humans need to disobey; throughout history, change has been achieved due to acts of disobedience against those who abuse power. Erich Fromm's article, “Obedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” argues that obedience will terminate our society. While his argument is logical, it is poorly articulated.

The Role of Disobedience in Human Progress

The first main point of Fromm's article is that “Human history was ushered in by an act of disobedience” (Fromm, 2014), and that individuals should not be conditioned to obey someone of a higher power. To further this idea, Fromm uses the stories of Adam and Eve, Prometheus, and Antigone. He explains that in these stories, disobedience is what initiated humanity, and uses these examples to show that disobeying often results in punishment. However, to progress, Adam and Eve, Prometheus, and Antigone disobeyed and, in return, were granted their own personal freedom. These narratives illustrate how acts of defiance have historically been pivotal in breaking the chains of oppression.

Types of Obedience and Authority

Fromm’s next main point is explaining the two types of obedience: conscience and authority. The first obedience he explains is Heteronomous, which involves obeying figures of power out of fear. The second conscience is Autonomous, which involves using one's own morals and values to make decisions. Fromm then explains the two types of authority: rational and irrational authority. Rational authority is when the person in authority is genuinely concerned with the best interests of the people they govern. Conversely, irrational authority is used to exploit people as much as possible, prioritizing only self-interest. Fromm also elaborates on the two types of conscience: Humanistic conscience, which involves following your own morals and values without fear of authoritarian figures, and Authoritarian conscience, which involves following values based on fear of authoritarian figures.

Reasons for Obedience and Its Consequences

Fromm discusses why individuals feel the need to obey and the disadvantages of obedience through love versus force. He argues that the first reason is a feeling of safety. The second reason is that disobeying is seen as wrong, which causes people to panic at the thought of disobedience. Fromm explains that there are disadvantages to enforcing obedience, as people will eventually tire of it and rise against oppressors. Obedience can be achieved through love, Fromm explains, by making people believe that obedience is beneficial and disobedience is detrimental. This, however, risks stripping individuals of their freedom to think independently and use their own morals to distinguish right from wrong. In both situations, significant disadvantages exist.

Weaknesses in Fromm's Argument

In Fromm's article, several weaknesses are evident in his writing. The first weakness is the definitions he uses; many of his terms are backed by vague and confusing definitions. As stated by Fromm, “The interests of the teacher and the student, in the ideal case, lie in the same direction” (Fromm, 2014). He uses this to explain rational authority, but the definition is very vague. He does not provide a clear definition, which can confuse the reader. When explaining irrational authority, he similarly gives an example without providing a clear definition, making it equally confusing. Another weakness of Fromm's article is making claims without backing them up with evidence or sound arguments.

The Necessity of Disobedience for Societal Progress

I personally agree with Fromm's argument. When he asserts that disobedience is essential, I believe it is a valid point. However, the way he presents his argument is weak, and he does not provide much reasoning on why we should disobey. From a personal standpoint, I agree with his argument because I do not conform to the rules set by society. I reject conformity and unrealistic standards, allowing me to achieve personal freedom and live for my own acceptance. I also agree due to current events and historical precedents.

When Fromm argued that we need to disobey, I agree because of the history of our world and the events currently unfolding. Throughout history, people have obeyed the rules made by greedy individuals who denied basic human rights. Women could not vote, but because they protested and disobeyed the men in charge, they gained the right to vote. To this day, we still obey those who cause poverty, climate change, and deny basic human rights. Recently, political tensions have made war a possibility. If people were to refuse participation in such conflicts, significant progress could be made. Disobedience is essential if we want to advance as a society, and historically, it is what has driven progress.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I agree with Fromm's opinion, but his arguments are weak and often confusing. The definitions he provides are vague, he gives no factual evidence, and his points are generally unclear. However, I do agree that to progress as a society, we must disobey. The people who govern us often abuse their power, do not consider the people's best interests, and may lead us to annihilation. We need to resist conforming to societal norms and standards to become a freer, more accepting, and loving society. If we do not fight back against oppression, hate, and bigotry, we risk self-destruction.

References

1. Fromm, E. (2014). Obedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem. In The Essential Fromm: Life Between Having and Being. Continuum International Publishing Group.
2. Fromm, E. (1963). The Dogma of Christ and Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3. Fromm, E. (1981). On Disobedience and Other Essays. Seabury Press.
4. Smith, M. (2010). Understanding Erich Fromm: The Art of Being. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 70(4), 357-372.
5. Jones, L. (2007). Erich Fromm and the Quest for Humanism. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(4), 407-421.