“If my sense of identity is based on what I have, on possession, if I can say ‘I am what I have,’ then the question arises ‘what am I if I lose what I have?’, stated Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, in a 1976 interview, upon the publication of his book “To Have or to Be”, a work that would popularize his work the most.
In addition to this celebrated book, some of Erich Fromm’s most significant works include “Escape from Freedom,” “Man for Himself,” “The Sane Society,” “The Art of Loving,” “Beyond the Chains of Illusion,” and “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.”
In the book “To Have or to Be,” Fromm argues that his years of research on individuals and groups indicate the fact that “possession and being are two fundamental modes of experience that determine the differences between individual characters and various types of social character.”
In the mode of having, we can recognize the characteristics of our contemporary lifestyle. We believe that acquiring things, social status, trendy attitudes and numerous superficial relationships provide security, while actually creating only an illusion that our worth is determined by what we have. The belief that what we possess defines who we are inevitably dissipates at some point in life. That’s when we come face to face with a wall, which we can either bang our heads against or turn towards the more humane side within us and around us, which Fromm described as the mode of being.
By possession or being, I do not mean separate attributes of the individual, illustrated by statements such as “I have a car” (…) or “I am happy.” I mean two fundamental ways of existence, two different orientations towards oneself and the world, two different types of character structure, a predominance that determines the entirety of one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions.
While individuals of the mode of possession attach themselves to what they have, individuals of being attach themselves to the fact that they are, that they are alive, and that something new will only arise if they have the courage to relax and respond. They actively engage in conversation, as they are not suffocated by the burden of possession. I enjoy what they have. Their liveliness is transient and often helps another person overcome their egocentrism. In this way, conversation ceases to be an exchange of goods (information, knowledge, status) and becomes a dialogue where it no longer matters who is right. Opponents begin to dance together and part ways full of joy, not a feeling of triumph or sorrow, which are equally sterile.
In order to fully understand the mode of having (…), it seems necessary to provide another definition, the definition of the function of existential having. The human way of existence requires that we have, maintain, take care of and use certain things in order to survive. This applies to our body, food, housing, clothing, and tools necessary to satisfy our needs. This form of having can be called existential because it is rooted in human existence. It is a rationally directed urge towards maintaining life – as opposed to characterological having (…), which is the instinct of passion to possess and retain what is not innate, but rather acquired. ly resulting from the influence of social conditions on the biologically determined human race.
Existential possession is not in conflict with existence, while characterological possession is. Even a “just” person or a “saint” must want to have – in an existential sense – while an average person wants to have in both an existential and character sense.
Since the society we live in is dedicated to acquiring property and making profits, we rarely encounter any affirmation of the existing way of existence, so most people see a way of existence based on possession as the most natural, even as the only acceptable way of life.
In a more general sense, the basic elements in the relationships between individuals in the mode of possession are competition, antagonism, and fear. In a relationship based on possession, the antagonistic element derives from the very nature of that relationship. If possession is the basis for my sense of identity, because “I am what I have”, the desire for possession must lead to the desire to have a lot, to have more, to have the most. In other words, greed is a natural response. focusing on property ownership has negative consequences.
In the mode of private ownership, from an emotional standpoint, it is not very important because it is not necessary to possess something in order to enjoy it or use it at all.
In the mode of communal existence, more than one person – in fact, millions of people – can participate in the enjoyment of an object, as there is no need or desire to possess it as a condition for enjoying it.
The assumptions of the mode of existence are independence, freedom, and the presence of a critical mind. Its fundamental characteristic is activity, but not in terms of external activity or business, but rather internal, productive use of our human powers. Being active means expressing our abilities, talents, and the wealth of human giftedness that every human being possesses, albeit to different degrees. It means renewing oneself, growing, expressing oneself, loving, overcoming the confinement of one’s own ego, being interested, and giving.
“Productive,” in terms of moda I need it here, it does not refer to the ability to create something new or original (…). And, it does not refer to the product of my activity, but to its quality. Painting or scientific study can be completely unproductive or sterile; on the other hand, the process that occurs in individuals who are deeply aware of themselves or who not only look at a tree but truly “see” it, who read a poem and experience the feelings that the poet expressed with words – that process can be very productive, even though nothing is “produced”.
The mode of being can only progress to the extent that we reduce the mode of having or non-being – stopping the search for security and identity, attachment to what we have and insistence on our ego and possessions.
We, human beings, have an inherent and deeply rooted desire for being: for expressing our abilities, for activity, for relationships with others, for avoiding the prison cell of selfishness. The truthfulness of this statement is supported by so many examples. Today, we could fill a whole book about them.
In my estimation, there are young people (as well as older ones) who are seriously trying to change the mode of existence from a mode of possession, and they are more than just a handful of individuals. I believe that a large number of groups and individuals are moving towards existence, representing a new trend in transcending the mode of possession that the majority adheres to, and that they have historical significance. This is not the first time in history that a minority marks the path that historical development will take. The existence of this minority offers hope for a general change from possession to existence.