We are Loving Wrong — The Art of Loving Series (1/6)
Many people have written various takes on what love is and how best to go about it. The Greeks have several words to describe the concept, the Romans had theirs, and so do we. But what does it mean to love? How do we know if we are loving correctly?
Sociologist Erich Fromm seems to think we’re doing this wrong. But before I get to his argument on this, let me write explain a little bit about him, to tell about the man behind mask, so to speak.
Who is Erich Fromm?
Erich Seligmann Fromm was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was born in 1900 as the only child to an Orthodox Jewish family.
In 1918, he began his higher education studies at the University of Frankfurt am Main, and from there, studied at different schools. In 1922, he received his PhD in sociology from the University of Heidelberg with a dissertation titled, On Jewish Law.
For a while, Fromm was very interested and involved in Zionism—a movement that espoused the establishment of, and support for a homeland for the Jewish people in the historical Land of Israel—but turned away from it, citing that it conflicted with his ideal of a universalist Messianism and Humanism. Consequently, in 1926, he turned away from Orthodox Judaism and oriented towards a more secular interpretation of the scriptures.
In the late 1920s, Fromm also trained to become a psychoanalyst. This was an early form of psychiatry, with the practice focusing on psychoanalysis, a set of theories and therapeutic techniques that deal in part with the unconscious mind, in an attempt to help treat mental disorders.
In 1927, Fromm began his own clinical practice and soon finished his training at the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in 1930.
With the rise of Nazi Germany and antisemitism in the 1930s, Fromm fled the European continent, coming to New York in 1934 and staying there until 1949. While there, he co-founded the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and Psychology. He also served as faculty at different colleges.
In 1949, Fromm moved to Mexico City and became a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Later, he concurrently taught psychology courses at Michigan State University, and continued to teach at various institutions until 1974.
In 1974, he moved back to Europe to Switzerland, where he lived and maintained his practice. He died in his home in 1980, five days before his 80th birthday.
Throughout his life, Fromm published a series of books, many of which outlined his argument on human nature and human character. In 1956, he published the international best seller, The Art of Loving, which helped to recapitulate and complement his theories on human nature written in other books.
Center to his worldview was his interpretation of the Talmud and Hasidism. Instead of religious interpretation, however, he took a more secular approach to them.
All in all, his works helped influence various discussions on human nature, government, the mind, and how we as humans operate with each other, even to this day.
So, now that I’ve given Fromm’s background, let’s answer the question: what does Fromm mean when he thinks that we love incorrectly?
Fromm and Love
In The Art of Loving (hereafter abbreviated as TAL), Fromm lists out six points about us and love:
- We are starved for love.
- We mainly see love as being loved rather than loving.
- We view love as simple.
- Our conception of love is narcissistic and transactional.
- We confuse the initial experience of falling in love with the permanent experience of being in love.
- True love is an art, requiring the mastery of theory and practice.
Let’s start at Point #1: we are starved for love. Here, Fromm argues love, through media, books, and whatnot, is always on our minds, and like a food of sorts, we’re starved for it. He writes that
[n]ot that people think love is not important. They are starved for it; they watch endless numbers of films about happy and unhappy love stories, they listen to hundreds of trashy songs about love—yet hardly anyone thinks that there is anything that needs to be learned about love. — TAL, pp. 1
He then uses this concept of love starvation to lead into Point #2: we mainly view love as being loved rather than loving.
What Fromm means with this point is that when we say something like “oh, I need love in my life” or “I wish I had someone to date,” what we’re really saying is that we want to be loved by someone, especially someone who can give us love. Fromm writes that
[m]ost people see the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, rather than that of loving, of one’s capacity to love. Hence the problem to them is how to be loved, how to be loveable [sic]. In pursuit of this aim they follow several paths. One, which is especially used by men, is to be successful, to be as powerful and rich as the social margin of one’s position permits. Another, used especially by women, is to make oneself attractive, by cultivating one’s body, dress, etc. Other ways of making oneself attractive, used by both men and women, are to develop pleasant manners, interesting conversation, to be helpful, modest, inoffensive. Many of the ways to make oneself loveable [sic] are the same as those used to make oneself successful, to ‘win friends and influence people.’ — TAL, pp. 1–2
From here, Fromm transitions to Point #3: we consider love to be simple. Here, he argues that in this simplistic view of love we have, we see love as an object to be attained, a “love object,” as he calls it.
He posits that in the societal concept of love, we think that love is easy and simple, and that finding the right person to love and/or be loved by is difficult. We view it as something we find ourselves in as soon as we find that person.
On this, Fromm uses the example of a Victorian Age couple and the transition of love through the ages. He notes how there would often be a marriage broker between the two people and once the marriage contract was signed, love was expected to develop (hopefully) over time.
Nowadays, love is a personal experience that one finds themselves in, and if things go right, will end in marriage. Fromm writes that
[i]n the United States, while considerations of a conventional nature are not entirely absent, to a vast extent people are in search of romantic love, of the personal experience of love which then should lead to marriage. This new concept of freedom in love must have greatly enhanced the importance of the object as against the importance of the function. — TAL, pp. 2–3
Fromm proceeds to make Point #4: our conception of love is narcissistic and transactional. Since our (American) society is consumerist, one that is based in buying and selling, we also view love as if we’re going shopping.
We say that we want this kind of man or this kind of woman, and in this, as Fromm argues, we’re reducing a potential partner to an object that has a specific use. And once we’re done with an item, like a car, we throw it away and look for a new and better one that meets a new set of qualities we’re looking for.
In the same way, we view our partners or potential mates as items on a shelf with qualities that look appealing to us. But when enough time has passed and you get the Buyer’s Itch or flaws and blemishes start to appear, you break up and essentially trade one partner for another.
This is where that narcissism comes into play. When we do this…love-transaction, if you will… we’re asking, “what can you do for me,” or “what do you bring to the table,” essentially making love only about you.
And it’s in this transactional narcissistic love that Fromm posits Point #5: we confuse the initial experience of falling in love with the permanent experience of being in love. Essentially, we confuse the sudden intimacy, sexual attraction, and newness of the other person with how much they love each other.
Stemming from this transactional love, because these two people saw the other as this love-object that checked all their boxes, they experience a form of the “New Buyer’s High,” more commonly known in this context as the “honeymoon phase.” Fromm writes on this, stating that
if two people who have been strangers, as all of us are, suddenly let the wall between them break down, and feel close, feel one, this moment of oneness is one of the most exhilarating, most exciting experiences in life. It is all the more wonderful and miraculous for persons who have been shut off, isolated, without love. This miracle of sudden intimacy is often facilitated if it is combined with, or initiated by, sexual attraction and consummation. However, this type of love is by its very nature not lasting. The two persons become well acquainted, their intimacy loses more and more its miraculous character, until their antagonism, their disappointments, their mutual boredom kill whatever is left of the initial excitement. Yet, in the beginning, they do not know all this: in fact, they take the intensity of the infatuation, this being ‘crazy about each other,’ for proof of the intensity of their love, while it may only prove the degree of their preceding loneliness. — TAL, pg. 4
So Fromm argues that our current way and view of love and loving is false, selfish, temporary, transactional, and narcissistic. But then what does he say about true love? This is where Point #6 comes in: true love is an art, requiring the mastery of theory and practice. Fromm writes that
[t]he first step is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering. — TAL, pg. 5.
True love is something that must be practiced in two forms. The first is learning the theory of love and what love is. Here, Fromm notes that love is selfless, long-lasting, difficult, and transcends the transactional nature of society. Instead of being “what can you do for me,” it becomes, “what can I do for you?”
Once we master and understand this love theory, we then have to practice and master the second form: putting the theory of love into practice. It’s here that Fromm believes many people go wrong. He argues that
maybe, here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important that love: success, prestige, money, power—almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to the art of loving. — TAL, pp. 5–6
Fromm then gives four elements that need to be mastered in order to become a “master” of the art of love: (1) care; (2) responsibility; (3) respect; and (4) knowledge. It’s these four that we’ll be covering in this series.
Love, according to Fromm, isn’t easy. It’s difficult, dirty, and contains myriads of emotions along the way. It’s not a destination that someone goes toward, but rather a journey, a process that’s designed to better each other and often requires the evolution of the self.
Because of its difficulty when put into practice, some may not master it. I personally think, similar to the concept of the Stoic sage, one will never truly master the art of love. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a goal worth striving for. Like Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote, however, “the impediment to action advances action; what is in the way must become the way.”
If we want to reach this state of being in love, we have to commit ourselves to this journey, overcome the obstacles that present themselves, and master the art of love.
If you are interested in reading The Art of Love, click the link below and gain access to the free PDF.
Thank you for reading! If you would like to support my writing, click here to subscribe to and follow my blog.
If you’d like to learn about a philosophy that can help you live a more meaningful life, consider reading articles on my publication, On the Stoa.
If you think this was informative and/or helpful, please share with your family, friends, or followers!
