Eric Fromm, a psychologist and philosopher famous in the 70s, wrote about the difference between authoritarian and biophilic leaders.
His points are especially relevant, and illuminating, regarding current events today.
I want to explain his ideas, but first I invite you to use your imagination with me.
Imagine
Imagine that there is a flower garden and that the flowers in this garden can think, reason, imagine and speak together. In addition, imagine that these flowers can love and care for one another.
Now imagine that the flowers in this garden hold a meeting to decide on the kind of flower rule that should govern the flower garden and the kind of rules he would make.
What kinds of rules do you think they would devise and what kinds of rulers would they elect?
Pause for a moment to think of some rules.
Here are some of the kinds of rules I think they would make:
Make sure all the flowers have appropriate water, sunshine, and soil nutrients.
Remove weeds growing in the garden that threaten the flowers’ ability to grow.
Plant a variety of plants to attract pollinators who can help the garden grow strong and healthy.
That seems reasonable, right? After all, the flowers want to grow and flourish, and these are the kinds of things that help flowers grow and flourish.
So, a flower garden would make these kinds of rules and elect a ruler who legislates these kinds of rules.
Now imagine the kind of rules that this flower garden would NOT make.
And there are literally billions of these kinds of rules. But pause for a minute and imagine some rules that would make no sense for a flower garden to decide upon.
I did this imagination with my ethics class this fall while teaching Fromm, and here are some rules we came up with:
Flowers shouldn’t ride bicycles.
The roses should get most of the water.
Flowers shouldn’t eat each other.
These are just a few of the kinds of rules flowers would never make to rule their flower garden.
And it’s clear they wouldn’t make such ludicrous rules because these rules are, in no way, connected to the well-being of flowers or any actual needs they have.
So, a flower garden that can reason together wouldn’t make these rules.
And they wouldn’t elect rulers who made such arbitrary rules.
This little exercise puts us in an ideal situation to understand a distinction Fromm makes between humanistic and authoritarian leaders.
Humanistic Leaders
A humanistic leader is a lot like the kind of leader a flower garden would elect to rule them.
By the term, humanistic, Fromm means a ruler who rules with the good of human beings in mind.
In other places, Fromm uses the term biophilic, possessing a love of life and growth, to describe this kind of leader.
I love that word and concept of Fromm’s, so I am going to use the word biophilic in place of humanistic for the rest of this post.
A biophilic person and leader is someone who loves life and growth in human beings and does all they can to support.
A biophilic ruler makes rules that are in line with what human beings need to grow and fully express their humanity.
So, the source of authority with a biophilic leader, Fromm points out, is competence.[1]
Competence in this situation is his ability to rule effectively for the sake of human beings to help them grow and flourish.
After all, what else could be the legitimate purpose of a human ruler?
As a comparison point, the only legitimate purpose of a good ruler in a flower garden is promoting the growth and flourishing of a flower garden, individually and collectively.
Such a biophilic ruler in a flower garden understands that individual flowers make up the flower garden.
So, the more individual flowers flourish the more the overall garden flourishes.
Nevertheless, a biophilic flower garden ruler realizes that individual flowers can’t flourish unless the overall garden is healthy.
So, he is concerned with the overall health of the garden.
Similarly, humanistic rulers understand that societies cannot flourish unless the individuals in them flourish.
Nevertheless, biophilic flower rulers also recognize that individuals cannot flourish unless the conditions of society permit such flourishing.
Therefore, a biophilic ruler in a flower garden would care, at least, about these three things:
-
Independence (the individual flowers)
-
Community (all the flowers together)
-
Justice and fairness (the balance of independence and community)
Now let’s look at human communities.
Fromm suggests that the biophilic ruler understands that human beings have special capabilities like love, reason, and imagination.
These capabilities allow them to understand what helps them flourish individually (independence).
But these capabilities also enable humans to reason, discuss, and imagine together to understand how they can flourish collectively (community).
And since human beings can only know what benefits them collectively through discussion in which they exercise these powers together, a humanistic ruler, Fromm argues, encourages critique and openness.[2]
Such critique and discussion helps us all work for justice and fairness.
For example, critique and discussion help us understand when human communities emphasize individuality at the expense of community well-being.
And critique and discussion also helps us understand when such communities emphasize community well-being at the expense of proper independence.
So, a biophilic human ruler welcomes discussion and critique.
That’s because, a biophilic leader desires to nurture the positive human growth of individuals, communities, and society in general.
Thus he (or she) is open to suggestions about how he can better support these goals.
On the other hand, Fromm notes, authoritarian rulers operate quite differently than humanistic rulers.
Authoritarian rulers are not competent in that they rarely understand or even care about the true needs of the people they rule.
So, they don’t in fact know how to support the life and growth of their subjects.
They don’t even really care about that.
Rather, authoritarian rulers rule for their own benefit.
They rule, for example, to build their ego; carry out pet projects that benefit them and their friends; or wield power to make themselves feel strong.
This is Mr. Lumpkins. You can read more about him here: Mr. Lumpkins Lets You in on a Secret.
Such naked abuse of power, however, would anger their subjects.
So, Fromm points out, authoritarian leaders must disguise their motivations to avoid revolts and direct challenges to their power.
Thus, authoritarian leaders promote an irrational ethic of force, emphasizing power and their superiority over others, ruling by fear.[3]
To perpetuate the legitimacy of their irrational rule by force, authoritarian leaders promote the idea that some people, like the leader and his supporters, are superior.[4]
Accordingly, the authoritarian narrative goes, the leader and his supporters (because of superior knowledge or skill) is the only one who can solve the current problems of society.
This authoritarian narrative encourages feelings of weakness and dependence in his subjects.[5]
This picture is inspired by the Soup Nazi from the sitcom Seinfeld. The Soup Nazi exercises total control over soup and the conditions under which people can get soup. That’s an apt analogy for the way in which authoritarian leaders try to exercise control over all aspects of life, such as the kinds of dreams and aspirations (imagination) people can have.
The more the authoritarian ruler encourages this irrational dependence on his powers, the more he can rule in his own interests.
And he can convince his subjects that he rules in their interest, no matter how irrational or cruel as they may seem.[6]
In other places, Fromm uses the word necrophilic (loving death) to describe these authoritarian tendencies.
A necrophilic leader does not openly proclaim that he loves death. In fact, he may not even realize that himself.
However, since he focuses on control and power and making everyone do his bidding, what he really hopes for are lifeless, spirit-less (dead) subjects he can easily control like puppets.
Now, Fromm was writing during the social upheaval accompanying World War II.
As such, he was concerned about authoritarian leaders on both the right and the left, like Hitler and Stalin.[7]
Both these rulers ruled with the idea that they had a magical solution to their country’s problems and were the only ones who could solve the problems.
In addition, both these rulers ruled by force, ruthlessly crushing any critique of their regime.
As such, they are clear examples of the kind of authoritarian leaders Fromm writes about.
But we still face the threat of authoritarian leaders in contemporary society.
Paul Tillich, a Christian theologian and contemporary of Fromm, helps explain why.
Tillich argues that in contemporary society, which its emphasis on individualism, we often feel helpful and anxious.[8]
That is because contemporary society often suffers from a hyper-emphasis on individualism threatens us with meaninglessness.[9]
We lose our sense of connection.
In response to meaninglessness and this lack of connection Tillich argues that people often retreat into various forms of collectivism such as fascism, communism, and democratic conformism.[10]
This quote is from Paul Tillich’s book The Courage to Be, which you can find at your local library or on Amazon.
We still see this happening today.
Fascism demands individual submission to the fatherland with its traditions, customs, and clearly defined traditional social roles (heritage and national greatness).
State communism demands individual submission to the communist state for the sake of “the common good”, as the communist state defines it.
Democratic conformism demands people submit to values as productivity, consumerism, and constant striving to prove one’s self on the market.
So, we can submit to authoritarianism state of fascism (authoritarianism in the name of tradition and patriotism).
Or we can submit to the authoritarianism of communism (authoritarianism for the supposed “common good”.)
And we can also submit to the subtle authoritarianism of democratic conformism (authoritarianism for the sake of capitalistic markets).
Whenever we submit to authoritarian rulers or ideologies, we lose.
That is because this submission inevitably destroys the conditions we need to thrive as human beings:
Independence
Community
Justice and fairness.
I refer to these three basic needs as Foundational Political Goals. (You can read more about Foundational Political Goals Here: Resilient Politics: What It Is: Why We Need It.)
But they are in line with Fromm’s notion of biophilic rulers and the goals they pursue because human beings thrive and grow in these conditions.
Fromm suggest that biophilic rulers promote the very qualities that support Foundational political goals and make us human: love, reason, and imagination.
Love helps us form a strong sense of both independence and community.
Reason and imagination help us pursue justice and fairness.
On the other hand, authoritarianism replaces love, reason, and imagination with obedience, conformity, and submission.
