Neil McLaughlin

How to Become a Forgotten Intellectual: Intellectual Movements and the Rise and Fall of Erich Fromm

The ideas and reputational history of German psychoanalyst and sociologist Erich Fromm are examined as a case study in the sociology of knowledge that explores how intellectual boundaries are constructed within and between disciplines in the modem academy, psychoanalytic institutes, and the journal and book reading publics and among the intellectual elite. The “rise and fall” of Erich Fromm is narrated using the foil of Michèle Laments analysis of how Derrida became a dominant philosopher and influence on literary criticism. The example of how Fromm became a forgotten intellectual is used to examine various models of how reputations are constructed. My analysis highlights the importance of the sectlike culture of psychoanalysis and Marxism as well as the boundary-maintaining processes of academic disciplines, schools of thought, and intellectual traditions, and suggests a research agenda on orthodoxies and revisionism within intellectual movements more generally.

Optimal marginality : Innovation and orthodoxy in Fromm's revision of psychoanalysis

The sociological study of intellectual innovation has long been polarized between romantic notions of the creative marginal intellectual and competing accounts stressing the benefits of national, organizational and network centrality in the production of knowledge. I offer the concept of “optimal marginality” as an attempt to move beyond this longstanding but increasingly stale debate. The relationship between a certain type of marginality and intellectual creativity is discussed in the context of a case study on innovation within psychoanalysis. German psychoanalyst Erich Fromms contributions to the modern revision of Freudian theory is highlighted to illustrate the conditions under which marginality is likely to lead to innovations within theoretical systems and intellectual organizations. What types of marginality lead to innovation? Under what conditions does marginality lead to insight, and when does it lead to marginal ideas? Four ideal types are outlined and a research agenda is called for that operationalizes and tests these theoretical ideas in the context of comparative sociological analysis of intellectual creativity.

Escapes from Freedom: Political Extremism, Conspiracy Theories, and the Sociology of Emotions

Although sociology and psychoanalysis have a troubled history and relationship, Erich Fromm’s theory of social character is a good entry point for reconciling and reviving dialogue between the two traditions. Ironically Fromm—who can be characterized as a “forgotten intellectual”—had a conflicted relationship with empirical sociology, the Freudian tradition and the Frankfurt School within which his theory of character was forged (McLaughlin, 1998). To many sociologists, he was perceived as a second-rate thinker within two discredited traditions, Marxism and psychoanalysis. And Fromm was also discredited among some psychoanalytic theorists, particularly those holding to mid-twentieth century “drive” orthodoxies as well as language-oriented Lacanians who thought his work undermined core Freudian insights into the unconscious and human emotions.

Revision from the Margins: Fromm's Contributions to Psychoanalysis

Fromms important contributions to the modern development of psychoanalytic thought are often ignored and frequently misunderstood. An early proponent of revisions of psychoanalytic theory and therapy similar to recent trends in object relations, self-psychology and interpersonal psychoanalysis, Fromm was a visionary for a Freudian theory built upon orthodoxies of the past but going beyond them. It is argued here that Fromms unique role in helping create a new version of psychoanalysis for the 21st century was as sociological as it was intellectual. Fromms contributions were intimately linked to his institutional positioning close to the center but on the relative margins of the discipline. This paper will outline how sociological dynamics shaped Fromms revision of psychoanalysis. We will conclude by discussing how Fromm was able to have a more dramatic influence than other Freudian revisionists who were less favourably positioned.

The International Circulation of Attacks and the Reputational Consequences of Local Context: George Soros’s Difficult Reputation in Russia, Post-Soviet Lithuania and the United States

This article examines philanthropist George Soros’s reputation in the United States, Russia and post-Soviet Lithuania from the 1990s to 2005–6. A billionaire currency speculator and left-wing philanthropist, Soros has a ‘difficult reputation’. Attacks from American right-wingers and post-Soviet authoritarians circulated internationally, but his reputation was not constituted globally as extreme globalization theorists might predict. We draw on Bourdieu’s analysis of the international circulation of ideas and emphasis on local context. Reputational entrepreneurs in the United States, Russia and Lithuania certainly made extensive use of internationally circulating attacks in the age of the internet. Nonetheless, Soros’s reputation served domestic political needs and was interpreted within a local cultural context, suggesting the value of a ‘sceptical’ perspective on globalization debates on how reputational attacks travel and are received.

Collaborative Circles and Their Discontents. Revisiting Conflict and Creativity in Frankfurt School Critical Theory

This paper combines historical and biographical work on the Frankfurt School of critical theorists with a sociological approach to intellectual creativity outlined in Michael Farrell’s provocative book Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work. Revisiting earlier research on the often unheralded role the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm played in the early years of the critical theory tradition, the paper reviews the theory of collaborative circles outlined by Farrell, applies this social science explanation of conflict and creativity to the Frankfurt School network of Horkheimer, Fromm, Adorno, Marcuse, Lowenthal etc. and suggests a new way of thinking about the history of this innovative and controversial group of social theorists and researchers. The paper concludes by suggesting revisions to the Farrell model of collaborative circles and compares and contrasts the strengths of the theory to the “scientific intellectual movements” approach outlined by Frickel and Gross.

The Fromm–Marcuse Debate and the Future of Critical Theory

The Fromm–Marcuse debate in Dissent magazine published in 1955–56 was a defining moment in the intellectual careers of both theorists, and has helped define the reception of Freud for Frankfurt School scholars for over 50 years now. The literature on this debate about psychoanalytic theory and radical politics gave rise to numerous polemics between pro-Fromm and pro-Marcuse partisans, much of it now outdated as critical theorists have come to understand that they have more in common with each other than with mainstream social sciences. This chapter reviews the history of this theoretical debate on the status of Freudian theory in critical theory, and offers a synthetic reappraisal of the insights both theorists offer for a contemporary analysis of character and authoritarianism in light of contemporary debates within psychoanalysis and recent developments in Frankfurt School scholarship on the ideas and careers of both Fromm and Marcuse. The chapter discusses what a critical theory of authoritarianism offers social philosophy and social sciences in the contemporary context of capitalist crisis, cultural chaos, violence and impending environmental disaster.

Book Review Symposium: Michael Burawoy (ed.), Precarious Engagements: Combat in the Realm of Public Sociology

Some of these high quality essays suggest new ways of doing public sociology, as in Colombian sociologist Rodríguez-Garavito’s call for an ‘amphibious sociology’ that uses hybrid forms of writing and multimedia technology. Indian scholar Sundar’s ‘schizophrenic sociology’ insightfully engages with the struggles of marginalized indigenous people. Other essays tell the authors’ personal stories and describe their projects, as with Hanafi’s discussion of the various Arab and Palestinian political projects in the context of the continuing Israeli occupation. And there is a team written essay on the efforts of Chinese sociologists and their allies to intervene in the labour struggles of workers exploited by Foxconn’s Apple production. We also read about participatory action research in Spain working with Roma, the path from communist to sociologist to politician travelled by Walden Bello from the Philippines and the brave Russian feminist sociological activism of Tempkina and Zdravomyslova. But we need to talk more about both the politics and the intellectual contributions of public sociology. The politics of Burawoy’s public sociology has been a contentious question, of course, with claims emerging, especially in the United States, that sociology needs to be ‘saved’ from the Marxist agenda of public sociology that would undermine the scientific integrity of the discipline. Where indeed is the space for conservative public sociologists like Robert Nisbet from the United States, or France’s Raymond Aron or other sociologists who do not agree with Burawoy’s neo-Marxist politics? We need not try to save sociology from the left, however, but simply should commit to creating more diversity of thought within the field. Burawoy did not succeed here on this criterion. The only essay that exhibits a politics that is not explicitly left is France’s Michel Wieviorka’s centre– left reflections on how to intervene in the media while remaining scholarly. Burawoy does not frame the issues so that sociologists can participate in the public sociology project in ways that do not take sides in political struggles throughout the world in the same ways that he does. Sundar’s essay on her involvement in indigenous struggles in the Indian state of Chhattisgarth is admirable but she takes sides in ways that other reasonable sociologists might not want to. The issue is even more complex 580526 SOC0010.1177/0038038515580526SociologyBook Review Symposium research-article2015

Fromm, Erich (1900–80)

This article presents an analytic history of the legacy of Erich Fromm, the German psychoanalyst, social psychologist, critical thinker, best-selling author, and an early member of the Frankfurt School. Fromms intellectual insights flowed from aspects of his life and optimal marginality in relationship to various intellectual social movements and his complex relationship with the Frankfurt School. But Fromm also became a ‘forgotten intellectual’ for some of the same biographical and sociological reasons. Ideas and scholarly influence can rise again as well as decline, so with his contemporary relevance in mind, we will discuss some of the underappreciated contributions Fromm made to the study of authoritarianism, race, and ethnicity as well as his influence on theories of gender and the practice of public sociology. There is new interest in Fromms work, suggesting that he might find again a place in the history and contemporary scholarship in social psychology, sociology, critical theory, and psychoanalysis.

Towards a Sociology of Ideas: A Response to the Comments

It is a both a pleasure and intellectually productive to respond to and dialogue with these three thoughtful comments on my “Collaborative circles and their discontents” essay on conflict and creativity in the early Frankfurt School. There are a number of points that I must concede and commit to address in the next version of my work on collaborative circles and on the critical theorists. I will begin by discussing a couple of these “on the mark” points while thanking the respondents for their care and intellectual engagement. I will then say a few brief things about the vitally important question raised in Michael Farrell’s comments about the importance of the larger fields in which collaborative circles operate while clarifying and expanding on specifics regarding the case of Fromm, particularly with his relationship to Marxism, psychoanalysis, and the 1960s. Finally, I will conclude with a few short remarks on some of the key issues this exchange highlights for future research in the sociology of ideas and creativity. Matteo Bortolini is certainly right that the story I have attempted to narrate and theorize here requires more engagement with diverse historical material, and this surely must include more work in archives. Moreover, Bortolini’s invoking of the examples of Eric Voegelin, Hannah Arendt, and Leo Strauss highlights for us the unquestionable value of seeing the story of Fromm and the Frankfurt School as part of a larger story of European refugees in America. And Michael Farrell’s deep and hard won empirical knowledge of the dynamics of dozens of circles allows him to remind us that there are numerous cases (he cites Cezanne the painter, Alan