Adorno and Fromm: A debate on psychoanalytic clinical practice

Abstract

Numerous studies have emphasized the importance of psychoanalysis in Critical Theory. It is often asserted that authors within this tradition, seeking to understand the contradictory elements of capitalism, have approached psychoanalysis primarily from a theoretical perspective. This article highlights a significant exception to this prevailing trend: a profound and still relevant debate on transference, more precisely, the management of love, empathy, compassion, and coldness in clinical practice. Indeed, Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm were the actors of this discussion, and, as a result, they stand among the pioneers in analyzing psychoanalytic clinical practice and its social function. In 1935, Fromm published an article in which Freud is depicted as a revolutionary figure for introducing the concept of the unconscious. This revolution is, nevertheless, constrained by bourgeois values, which inevitably shaped the goals and societal role of the psychoanalytic technique. Adorno, however, defended Freud and attempted to comprehend the critical function of the analyst's coldness. This paper concludes by underscoring the enduring relevance of this discussion within Adorno's work while also pointing to the fact that the issue of empathy remains a topic of continual debate within the realms of critical theory and the broader field of psychoanalysis.

Key words:

• psychoanalytic clinical practice
• Erich Fromm
• Theodor Adorno
• transference

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisors, Prof. Raul Albino Pacheco Filho and Prof. Paulo Eduardo Arantes, for their valuable dialogue on various aspects. I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity I had to present an initial version of this work at the 6th International Erich Fromm Seminar for Docs and Postdocs, organized by the Erich Fromm Study Center and hosted by the International Psychoanalytic University Berlin. I extend my thanks to Rainer Funk, Thomas Kühn, Catherine Silver, Neil MacLaughlin, and Lynn Chancer for their comments and excellent discussion. I also want to thank Juliana Russar, Marian Dias, Gustavo Assano, and Francisco López Toledo Corrêa for their assistance with proofreading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This text summarizes some points from my undergraduate research in psychology and my Master’s degree in philosophy.

2 We repeatedly find this idea of the epistemological value of psychoanalysis in Adorno's Thesis “Der Begriff des Unbewußten in der transzendentalen Seelenlehre” (The concept of the unconscious in the transcendental theory of the soul). “That commonality [with transcendental philosophy] is simultaneously one of method. It initially defines psychoanalysis, whether it appears as therapy or not, as a principle of knowledge, a principle for understanding the facts of our consciousness.” (Adorno, 2003, vol. 1, p. 273).

3 However, they were not the first in the psychoanalytic movement to seek the mentioned union between Freud and Marx. There are not many, but a bit before them there were psychoanalysts explicitly leaning left with some connection to socialism, Communism, or even anarchism. The pioneering role in this regard should be acknowledged to Otto Gross. As we can see, for example, in his emphatic statement in “Towards overcoming the cultural crisis” (“Zur Überwindung der kulturellen Krise,” 1913): “The psychology of the unconscious is the philosophy of revolution.  …  It is called upon as a preliminary task of the revolution” (1913, p. 384). However, in the way he comprehended this “philosophy,” the sociological questioning of potential contradictions in clinical practice was also not the primary focus.

4 Kirchhof suggests that Adorno unequivocally rejects psychoanalytic therapy, stating, “His complete rejection of psychoanalytic therapy is at odds with his thinking” (2007, p. 72). Perhaps, however, it is possible that the apparent contradiction in Adorno's condemnation of the clinic may be eased when considering that his rejection might not be entirely absolute. As we delve into the discussion later on, it becomes evident that Adorno's criticisms are primarily targeted at the revisionists rather than clinical practice as a whole. Additionally, he even outlines certain aspects of what a critical clinic could entail.

5 According to Martin Jay: “In the following year, Horkheimer, who had been personally interested in analysis for some time, decided to undergo it himself, selecting as his psychiatrist Karl Landauer, who had been a student of Freud. After a year, the one problem that seriously bothered Horkheimer, an inability to lecture without a prepared text, was resolved and the analysis, which was really more an educational than a therapeutic exercise, ended” (Jay, 1996, pp. 87–88).

6 In a letter dated November 7, 1936, Adorno suggests hebephrenia as a possible diagnosis and tries to give his friend hope: “Even if Stefan’s case involves more than a neurosis, that is no cause for despair Psychotic illnesses of this kind frequently arise in people of his age – that is precisely what gave the illness its name – before disappearing completely later on and I am assuming that you will have Stefan looked at by a therapist in the first place, and not a psychiatrist” (Adorno & Benjamin, 2003, p. 158). Adorno even recommends consulting “of course Freud himself, no matter how little one might expect results from a conversation with him, it would be well worthwhile to see the old man in his old age who destroyed his father’s image” (p. 159). Another contact would be Karl Landauer, a physician close to Horkheimer. He adds that Gretel, his wife, would have further knowledge of physicians in Vienna. Benjamin, in a subsequent letter, December 2, 1936 (Adorno & Benjamin, 2003, p. 165), reports the worsening of his son’s condition and difficulties in finding the physician of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, Siegfried Bernfeld.

7 The renowned work by Helmut Dahmer, Libido und Gesellschaft (1973), examines the therapeutic dimensions within the analytic process, notably in the chapter “Gesellschaft Genesis und Wirkung der Psychoanalyse.” Although Dahmer briefly quotes and discusses Fromm’s article, which will be scrutinized here later, he does not present Adorno’s interpretation as a critique of Fromm. In the chapter “Subjekt, Patient, Ausßenwelt,” Reimut Reiche (2004) discusses clinical aspects and the nuances of the contemporary discourse on intersubjectivity and subject but does not delve into the Adorno–Fromm debate. Kirchhof (2007) synthesizes Adorno’s arguments on psychoanalysis in his article, accentuating the clinical dimension while abstaining from an in-depth exploration of the debate with Fromm. Recently, Bock (2018) published a detailed work on Adorno’s reception of psychoanalysis. When addressing Fromm’s article, he abstains from a comprehensive exploration of the clinical discourse, opting instead to contextualize the arguments within the broader theses of the revisionists. This article aims to deepen the clinical dimension and expound upon the debate between Adorno and Fromm.

8 In a previous article (Carvalho, 2022), I discussed the use of psychoanalysis in this book by Adorno, and the aesthetic aspects were analyzed there.

9 By using “indifference” I opt for a more literal translation for “Indifferenz” (“Ich meine also, man darf die Indifferenz, die man sich durch die Niederhaltung der Gegenübertragung erworben hat, nicht verleugnen.”; Freud, 1914, p. 314). In Standard Edition we find: “In my opinion, therefore, we ought not to give up the neutrality towards the patient, which we have acquired through keeping the counter-transference in check.” (Freud, 1915, p. 163). Although the scope of this paper does not allow for an exhaustive examination of the disparity between indifference and neutrality, emphasizing this difference is important. It is one of the passages on which Fromm bases his interpretation that Freud expresses contempt for his patients. SE's choice for “neutrality” is not incorrect, as it reflects the prevailing understanding of Freud advocating for psychoanalysts to remain neutral to avoid unnecessary interference. However, it is distant from the idea of indifference, which can convey the sense of disdain towards the patient highlighted by Fromm.

10 “The justification for requiring this emotional coldness in the analyst is that it creates the most advantageous conditions for both parties” (Freud, 1912, p. 163).

11 “I cannot advise my colleagues too urgently to model themselves during psycho-analytic treatment on the surgeon, who puts aside all his feelings, even his human sympathy, and concentrates his mental forces on the single aim of performing the operation as skilfully as possible” (Freud, 1912, p. 115).

12 See “The Significance of the Theory of Mother Right for Today” (Fromm, 1970, p. 96) and “The Theory of Mother Right and its Relevance for Social Psychology, ” (Fromm, 1970, p. 102)

13 See Fromm’s last paragraph of “The Significance of the Theory of Mother Right for Today”: “Today the fight against patriarchal authority seems to be destroying the patriarchal principle, suggesting a return to a matriarchal principle in a regressive and non-dialectic way. A viable and progressive solution lies only in a new synthesis of the opposites, one in which the opposition between mercy and justice is replaced by a union of the two on a higher level” (Fromm, 1970, p. 100).

14 In Minima Moralia, Adorno writes: “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly” (2005, p. 39) – “Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen” (Adorno, 2003, Vol. 4, p. 43).

15 Adorno states: “Groddeck’s magnanimity and Ferenczi’s empathetic tenderness are placed in contrast to Freud’s coldness and aloofness” (2014, p. 335). In the translation into German that appears in Gesammelte Schriften, there is a more specific formulation: “Man hat einmal … kontrastiert” (Adorno, 2003, Vol. 8, p. 37); however, it is not yet specified who made this contrast. In research I have conducted at the Adorno Archive, the formulation in the English original of the lecture explicitly includes Fromm’s name: “Fromm has contrasted the spontaneity magnanimity and the tenderness sympathetic of Ferenczi to Freud’s coldness and detachment” (Ts 24875). There are several other moments where Fromm’s name was replaced by the alias “revisionist,” and there is an entire paragraph taken from the text in which Fromm’s article was directly quoted. “I shall mainly refer to (Karen) Horney’s ‘New Ways in Psychoanalysis,’ which is so far the most comprehensive presentation of the revisionist doctrine, to some of Fromm’s articles, particularly ‘Psychoanalytic Therapy and its Social Basis’ which appeared 1935 in our Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung and also to Horney’s ‘Self-Analysis’ and Fromm’s ‘Escape from Freedom’.” (Ts 24852). This being so, there is no doubt about the interlocutor. It would be possible, however, to speculate why Adorno removes the direct reference to Fromm, leaving the emphasis to Karen Horney, who had a close relationship with Fromm. Once he had recently left the IfS, perhaps Adorno wanted to avoid a more named discussion.

16 In “Revisionist Psychoanalysis” (Adorno, 2003, Vol. 8, p. 38), Adorno quotes the concept of “pathological dependence,” which appears in Karen Horney’s work.

17 Under present-day conditions the feeling that is most dangerous to a psycho-analyst is the therapeutic ambition to achieve by this novel and much disputed method something that will produce a convincing effect upon other people (Freud, 1912, p. 381).

18 According to Wiggershaus, the following is a summary of Adorno’s opinion on Fromm’s article, recorded only privately in this letter to Horkheimer: “The article is sentimental and wrong to begin with, being a mixture of social democracy and anarchism, and above all shows a severe lack of the concept of dialectics. He takes the easy way out with the concept of authority, without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin. And what do the anti-popes opposed to Freud say? No, precisely when Freud is criticized from the left, as he is by us, things like the silly argument about a ‘lack of kindness’ cannot be permitted. This is exactly the trick used by bourgeois individualists against Marx. I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line that the journal takes, and I would be grateful if you would pass on my objections to Fromm in whatever form seems appropriate to you. I only need to type them out” (1995, p. 266).

19 We find this quotation in “The Kierkegaardian doctrine of love” (“Kierkegaards Lehre von der Liebe”). It is noteworthy even that Adorno quotes Horkheimer’s aphorism “Humanity” in Twilight [Dämmerung], which discusses the obligation of doctors to combat and alleviate the suffering of patients. He criticizes medical doctors for not universalizing this moral obligation for patients who cannot pay. In the face of this, the compassionate gesture in this care of an “enlightened physician” (Adorno, 2003, Vol. 2, p. 233) who relieves the suffering of a dying person without expecting any retribution is presented as a “current image of true humanity.” Adorno endorses this characterization. He seems to have it in mind when he criticizes Fromm as someone who would be distant from this type of love that does not expect anything in return.

20 “die des antipsychologischen Strawinsky aber die Frage des beschädigten Subjekts aufwirft” (Adorno, 2003, Vol. 12, p. 10).

21 I have done this in other texts: my dissertation for psychology degree – Psychoanalytic Clinic and Society: A Study based on Adorno and Lacan (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo , 2011); and that for my Master’s degree – Psychoanalysis and Social Critique in Adorno (University of São Paulo, 2016). Here, however, I have concentrated only on the topic of love in transference because it is the central point of the discussion about the clinic.

Additional information

Funding

I need to note that during my master's research I received funding from CNPq.

Notes on contributors

Bruno Carvalho

Bruno Carvalho is a trained psychoanalyst and psychologist. He completed his psychology degree at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP) and obtained his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in philosophy from the University of São Paulo (USP). Currently, he is a PhD candidate in philosophy at USP, with a scholarship (FAPESP). In the field of psychology, he has conducted research on psychological tests (TAT and CAT) and clinical psychology (Sartre, Adorno, Fromm, Freud, and Lacan). In the field of philosophy, his focus has been on contemporary French and German philosophy, with emphasis on Sartre, Lacan, Hegel, Marx, and Adorno. Recently, he translated into Portuguese the collective volume of texts by Freud et al. titled Psychoanalysis of War Neuroses (1919).