Erich Fromm and Universal Humane Experience: Application in the Aesthetic Domain for Art Educators R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. © 2012 Technical Paper No. 39 In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 2 Erich Fromm and Universal Humane Experience: Application in the Aesthetic Domain for Art Educators R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. Copyright 2012 All rights reserved . No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the pub- lisher/author. No permission is necessary in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, or other educational or research purposes. For information and permission address correspon- dence to: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 507 S. James St., Carbondale, IL 62901 Contact author: [email protected] First Edition 2012 Cover and layout by R. Michael Fisher ISOF Logo (original 1989) designed by RMF Printed in USA The In Search of Fearlessness Institute is dedicated to research and publishing on fear, fearlessness and emotions in general, as well as critical reviews of such works. Preference is given to works with an integral theoretical perspective. 2 3 Erich Fromm and Universal Humane Experience: Application in the Aesthetic Domain for Art Educators - R. Michael Fisher,1 Ph.D. ©2012 Technical Paper No. 39 Abstract: Recent re-reading of Erich Fromm's (1968) The Revolution of Hope, has proven to be compatible with an aesthetic model (A-ness/D-ness) that I have been researching on and developing in the past 30 years. Fromm's call for a radical humanistic agenda, if not revolu- tion, was appealing to my own call for a radical aesthetic and art education agenda on how we teach coloring and drawing and how that impacts our worldview, our value system and choices and how that impacts the sustainability and health of ourselves and the ecological relationships with the earth-solar system. Fromm suggests a set of universal qualities to the human experience which he specifically distinguishes as "humane" and from there he asks us to consider how those ought to be the main criteria and reference for designing and planning, of which curriculum and pedagogy ought to pay close attention. The bulk of this paper is fo- cused on a specific application of these reference criteria in an aesthetic model I created for demonstrating where people are at in terms of their value-biases aesthetically and implica- tions of those mostly unconscious biases. A specific illustration, with empirical data, offers art teachers specifically a way to understand, and teach, Fromm's "humane" agenda, in a world which is arguably more and more becoming mechanized, digitalized and inhumane. INTRODUCTION To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts. - H. D. Thoreau, Walden We have, indeed, an unbounded imagination and initiative for solving techni- cal problems, but a most restricted imagination when we deal with human prob- lems. -Erich Fromm 1 The author's work and projects can be seen in more detail at http://csiie.org and http://loveandfearsolutions.com and http://www.feareducation.com. 3 4 It has been three decades since I developed an aesthetic (arts-based) approach to assessing a notion of "Quality." This article will present the model (A-ness/D-ness) which demonstrates, arguably, a useful way to dis- tinguish qualities and ultimate universal Quality. As controversial as that may sound, and is, because who is to say "what is better quality than something else?", I proceed upon a lot of theories and philosophies, and empirical evidence as well as my own experience as an artist and amateur philosopher-educator. I am not intimidated by postmodern claims "there are no universals." In the most subtle realms of Nature, and the aesthetic experience, I think we can assess what things are universal and what are not. Indeed, I'll never say such and such is "absolutely universal" because that is not the point. Nature always throws in a deviation and the breaking of some universal law or principle, by an example, and so that claim of ab- solute seems arrogant and just not accurate. My point is to find general orientations of universality that are useful guides. This aesthetic model presented here is such a guide. I offer art educators (and others) a simpli- fied way of using the A-ness/D-ness quality assessment tool in classrooms and other settings, especially for younger people who are still developing their value systems and who remain relatively rather flexible to learn new value systems. We really need new value systems on this planet, of which the following will explain why. Long after discovering the A-ness/D-ness model (in the mid-1980s), and testing it, I have recently re-read Erich Fromm's (1968) The Revolution of Hope, which is his book in the late-stage of his illustrious career as a social psychoanalyst and humanist educator and philosopher. His descrip- tion of "hope" was very intriguing and not what I had read before in so many writers on hope from different disciplines over the decades. I've never been a big fan of "hope" and have rather suggested we replace it with "fearlessness" (see Fisher, 2010). But most important was his descrip- tion of "hope" as some principle and quality that is inherent in the universe, and especially in living systems which he focuses on as the "Man system." He is after a universal theory of "Man system" by which he can suggest a "human nature" and more specifically a set of qualities of "human experi- ence" (i.e., the brighter and unique side of what makes us more than ani- mal). Although my own philosophical journey has been in and out of human- ist works and beliefs, I have recently found them less and less convincing as my postmodern (if not cyborgic) understanding and thinking has been critical of humanist assumptions. The re-reading of Fromm, whom I have always liked but not really studied, in the last month has taken me for a bit of a loop. I really thought about his idea of "humane experience" and its 4 5 universal quality that makes up human nature (i.e., our best-side as unique from the animal world). Hope and courage, and other virtues are discussed his book as the better parts of human nature, but he defined hope in an unique way that was evolutionary and equated it with the built-in aspect of humans (i.e., the Man system) of a design and expectation for "aliveness." I really like that, as it is not just human, nor humane, but evolutionary and I had come up with this same thesis in the mid-1980s when I was research- ing on "aliveness" and how the A-ness/D-ness model was very much a tool to demonstrate what "aliveness" is using an aesthetic (arts-based) medium or modality. Again, I'll leave that for you to read about and explore later in this paper. I'm introducing, ever so brief and inadequately, Fromm's agenda of universal humane experience, that is, humane qualities (principles) that are our highest qualities for growth and aliveness. I won't go into any detail here as how he describes them, as that would make this paper too long and take it to a different focus. I want this to be more a pointing to kind of introduction to Fromm, of which he points to the qualities of "aliveness" and "hope" (if you want to use that word) that are inherent in living things, hu- mans, and that ought to be developed consciously to their ultimate expres- sions (e.g., see D-ness). I will show the contrast (in A-ness) to "aliveness" as "deadness." Fromm is big on this notion as well, and it validates my own early research. He makes the distinction in a set of patterns of perception, values, thinking and worldviews that are "necrophilous" and "biophilous." Indeed, the first being death-loving, and the second life-loving, this is very important and the first I would argue is fear-based and the second is love- based. But I don't want to side-track down that discussion, and you can read more on that in my book (Fisher, 2010). Fromm lists and describes, with convincing arguments that there are qualities of human experience (i.e., biophilous) that ought to constitute all human management and planning, and I would add design (i.e., curriculum and pedagogy). He argues these qualities are the only sane criteria for all planning-- that is, following the wish/principle of Life itself-- as the pursuit, and expectation (hope) for "optimal aliveness" (Fromm, 1968, p. 101)-- which one could also put in that position the term today used often called "wellness" or "well-being." Yes, it is humanistic and holistic. It is sane think- ing. Where do we draw upon today for referents of ethical decision-making for a sane society, if we do not draw on our human nature, says Fromm. And indeed, problematic as it is, as philosophers and politicians may ar- gue, "human nature" is the only foundation we can trust we really know something about. What Fromm's great move is in this book is to distinguish human na- ture from humane experience. He admits, as any good psychoanalyst or observer would, that human nature is not all wonderful. It has a shadow 5 6 side, of which Fromm was ever so aware and it was the side he saw as moving toward the tendency of a necrophilous paradigm or existence--a self-destructivity (Freud's Thanatos principle). Fromm's book is on the dan- gers of an overly technique-mechanical world of technology values over human values. The humane experience he said is universal and our best side which we all know and can access but mostly we confuse it with ideas of human nature that are taught to us by all kinds of players (and socializa- tion itself). So, what are those universal qualities of the humane? I'll list them, but the point is for you as readers to take them and translate them, as I have only recently begun to do, into the A-ness/D-ness aesthetic model presented in the bulk of this paper. I think you'll see, rather nicely, how Fromm's human experience list is of the qualities of D-ness. Fromm's list of humane experiences and qualities (in no particular order): being, vulnerability, courage(ous), hope, faith, identity and integrity, aliveness, alertness, awakeness, interest, empathy, compassion, tender- ness, responsibility (response-ability), freedom, transcendence. Okay, now it is time to move on into the bulk of the focus of this paper. Enjoy. Mindfulness as an Art The Thoreau quote connects the quality of our experience with arts. Interestingly, the quote opens a recent book entitled The Mindful Teacher (MacDonald and Shirley, 2009). The authors present the case of the “crisis of values” in teaching, schools, families and society as a whole, especially in America. Without blaming teachers for the crisis, they label the immense data-driven problem in schools (e.g., the paradoxical No Child Left Behind quantitative indicators of “quality”) as “accountability becomes transformed into accountancy” (p. 2). This leads to “alienated teaching,” a good deal of burnout, and a very narrow view of quality achievement “endemic in Ameri- can schools”—as teachers feel compelled to comply with external forces that they know often don’t serve their specific students and contexts well. The alternative is “mindful teaching” (see MacDonald and Shirley, 2009). The art classroom is as good of place as any to be a source for affect- ing the quality of the day and mindful practices. MacDonald and Shirley’s research shows that “mindfulness” is currently having an “enormous popu- lar resonance in American society.” For example, Harvard psychologist, Ellen Langer, describes “mindful learning.” And Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, writes of “mindfulness training.” Both books have been bestsellers attracting attention from educational practitioners and a wide audience with their aim to bring more peace in one’s life. This article introduces a unique and practical aesthetic model for teaching and evaluating “quality” and “mindfulness” (Figure 1). It consists of a systematically designed drawing/coloring activity (invented by the 6 7 author) as a demonstration of four basic types of qualities that compose four ways of organizing and participating in reality. They also serve as elu- cidating metaphors when applied with related questions. I have used this device with hundreds of adults and students, offering a reflective activity, particularly on aesthetics but also under objectives related to drawing and shading. It can that can be incorporated into most art education lessons (grades 2-12). Teacher’s Pre-Activity How do we discern quality? Early in the 1980s, after reading a good deal of research on developmental theories, creativity, environmentalism, ecology, quality of life and values surveys, I was aware of future educa- tional challenges. I asked an artistic-aesthetic and creative question: If I were ‘god’—‘creator’—how many different (qualitatively distinct) ways could I draw and color a shape—let’s say a rectangular shape? I arrived four basic patterns for making a rectangular shape (Figure 1). Figure 1 Four Models and Visual Metaphors I drew and colored ‘A’ first, then ‘B’ emerged and so on. Although one may find in between minor variations on these four models of draw- ing/coloring, there are no significant variations. 7 8 Your task (20-30 minutes) is to copy these first in your mind, one by one. Start with A-ness and move to D-ness, as a mindful activity. Notice how you feel doing this and compare each one. Then draw them. You’ll need a sheet of white paper, dark-colored pencil, a straight-edge and a black felt pen. Quality Discernment: A Mindful Practice The experience of making these is profound in terms of the degree of difference between ‘A’ and ‘D.’ The set of four depicts a full-spectrum of ways of organizing, creating, and being creative—and each with a distinc- tive aesthetic quality. Take a moment to write down notes on your experi- ence, memories, and feelings connected with each type of draw- ing/coloring. These are visual metaphors which have proven in practice to be heu- ristically engaging for learning about four types/models of creativity. They also have value for discussions of aesthetic qualities in art and life for older children. As an art teacher, what is your answer to the question: Which is the normal way of drawing and coloring? (in the society you live in); using multiple choice answers (‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ or ‘D’). If you chose ‘A’ then you are one of approximately 98% of modern Western people, who be- lieve that ‘normal’ drawing and coloring is based upon a formative de- sign, and set of implicit and explicit rules, I call A-ness. What does this heuristic1 research result tell us about ‘normal’ creativity and ‘normal’ creation-making processes, and about quality (value) preferences? I have asked nearly 700 people, from all walks of life, this question us- ing the four models. Here are some other questions I have used. An- swer them spontaneously yourself and record your results. Later in this article you’ll be able to compare your results with others’ re- sponses. List of Ten Questions: (re: Four Visual Models/Metaphors in Figure 1) 1. Which is the normal way of drawing and coloring a rectangular shape? 2. Which is the best? 3. Which is the most beautiful? 4. Which is the most ugly? 5. Which is the most natural, living, alive? 6. Which is the most dead and machine-like? 7. Which is the most difficult to do? 8. Which is most like your personality? 9. Which is most like your parents (teachers) personalities? 10. Which is the most creative and artistic? 8 9 Before proceeding to the lesson applications of this exercise for your students, a brief historical and theoretical context is offered to enrich the meaningfulness and purpose of this activity. Historical Overview: Art Education Philosophy and Quality The intention of this activity is to point out current dominating and ha- bitual types of organization and aesthetic preferences in the art classroom and bring forth a critical awareness of a counter-diversity of perspectives and approaches essential to discerning quality in art and art-making. As early as 1969 the Education Commission of the States coordinated a massive study of subject areas for standard assessment. In the area of Art they set five broad educational objectives of which number five was “make and justify judgments about aesthetic merit and quality of works of art” (Efland, 1990, p. 250). For some in art education this assessment was part of the content of art history and art criticism; yet it is more than that, and arguably it also involves the ability to assess quality in the students’ own art and art making as well. Many art educators in schools today, especially in the current conser- vative environment of America, may not understand the subtleties of aes- thetic development and its aim to improve quality discernment2 and thus, are not attracted to teach it. They may be turned-off such an emphasis be- cause of the controversial nature of assessing aesthetics and quality, the latter often being accused of “elitism”3—or, they simply don’t have time for it and have no idea how to assess quality by expected quantitative (objec- tive) means. For these pressured contemporary art educators the empha- sis on universal objective content-standards and strict accountability (e.g., No Schools Left Behind act) may have exhausted their initial enthusiasm for teaching and assessing aesthetic aspects in art education. Alienated teaching, is the inevitable outcome. With such potential teacher resistance in mind and challenging class- room conditions, I have designed an easy to use template for lessons in quality.4 Art teachers and students are invited into qualitative inquiry as an approach to curriculum and pedagogy. Efland (1990), writing on the history of educational movements and their influence on streams of art education, labels “qualitative inquiry” as a constant rival movement of “accountability”; the latter, he argued has dominated education in America in the 20th cen- tury (p. 248) and beyond. This article and activity falls into a particular per- spective (stream) of art education philosophy, that is, an integral perspec- tive (a la Efland).5 The larger intention is to provide integral and appropriate means of matching assessment6 with “educational intentions” (see Davis, 2010). 9 10 Analyzing A-ness/D-ness The two approaches on the left (‘A’ and ‘B’) are Mechanical, the two on the right (‘C’ and ‘D’) are Organic (Fisher, 1986). The qualities they ex- ude and the processes that went into making them are A-ness, B-ness, C- ness and D-ness. Ideally, I show these to the students and have them copy them on paper in their own hand drawings/colorings. The learning by doing is basic to the heuristic teaching style and method (Beng, 2006; Broudy, 1972; Manzo and Manzo, 1994). Follow-up discussions with students, of diverse ages, around this experience are always pedagogically rich. One conclusion is that, we become as we enact the process of creation through the four different approaches. Students talk about feeling like a “machine” and “dead” when they make A-ness. They feel “free” and “alive” when they make D-ness, and so on. Each visual model is a metaphor for a set of or- ganizing values and aesthetic preferences, and each is an imaginary pat- tern that guides us to promote and become those values—that is, a par- ticular worldview, paradigm, and perspective. Student Activity (Part 1): Basic “Drawing” Lesson for Quality Discernment Give your students (grades 2-12, or adults) a drawing/coloring as- signment on the first day of your art class. Draw an apple; the common symbol of education or schooling. “Why draw one, when I can download it from my “Clip Art” on my computer?,” a quick-pragmatic student might say or think to themselves (Figure 2). Figure 2 Clip Art: Apple/School Symbol “No, cheating, no digital,” you might say. Draw by hand, an apple on a sheet of white paper using three colored pencils, red, brown and green. Draw from memory. Do the best job you can. You have five minutes and don’t peek at others work. No copying. 10