MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366504750 · doi:10.46692/9781529214611.006

How Fromm Became a Forgotten Public Sociologist

2021· other· en· W4366504750 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalysisSociologyArt historyArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fromm was at the height of his fame and scholarly status in 1955 after the publication of The Sane Society but in 1955–1956, two publishing events occurred that led to his rapid decline in prestige. This broader reputational decline led to the eventual forgetting of his role as one of the disciplines’ great public sociologists. The Fromm– Marcuse debate in Dissent magazine in 1955–1956 and the publication of The Art of Loving in 1956 seriously damaged Fromm's intellectual reputation. The decline in his scholarly stature took decades but Fromm was no longer cited in professional sociology by the 1980s and early 1990s. This in turn made him unavailable as a resource and inspiration for the revival of ‘public sociology’ in the early years of the twenty-first century. This history is worth revisiting. In 1955, Frankfurt School-associated German philosopher Herbert Marcuse was in exile in the United States and was just about to publish Eros and Civilization : A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (1956a). Marcuse adapted the appendix of his book on what he viewed as the radical Freud and published it as an essay attacking Fromm and the neo-Freudians in the left-wing magazine, Dissent . Dissent was a journal with low circulation but high intellectual status and was central to the world of what intellectual historians call ‘The New York Intellectuals’ (Wald, 2017). The rebuttal and counter-rebuttal exchange between Fromm and Marcuse eventually became known as the Fromm– Marcuse debate among critical theorists and intellectual historians. Their dialogue played a major role in both creating Marcuse's reputation as an important radical intellectual during the 1960s era and in damaging Fromm's scholarly and intellectual standing, especially in the United States. The fact that Fromm published the best-selling book The Art of Loving just after the Fromm– Marcuse debate was a fateful coincidence. The Art of Loving was an analysis of the contradictions of love in market societies. It sold over 25 million copies worldwide and was translated into more than twenty-two languages. Fromm's enemies jumped on the book, using a distorted reading of it to unfairly define him as the Norman Vincent Peale of the left. Peale was a popular Protestant minister famous in the United States for his notion of the ‘power of positive thinking’.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.031
Scholarly communication0.0200.031
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContemporary Sociological Theory and PracticeFrench-language works237,207