To Have or To Be?
Do you want to Have someone, or do you want to Be someone?
Erich Fromm's work, "To Have or To Be?" has 115 citations, from Aquinas, Thomas; Summa Theologica to Yerkes, R.M. and Yerkes, A.V.; The Great Apes.
I mention that as a point in it's favor as an example of Fromm's extensive research, meaning, in addition to his many other published works, and his work as an editor and in university, bluntly, that he know what he's talking about.
It seems odd that humans generally fall into two archetypes, those whose main interests are "Having" and "Being".1
Our society is devoted to acquiring property and making a profit. The Google model of advertising by embedded code blocks, and the Amazon model of purchase by referral, along with the proliferation of "one click install" software such as Wordpress destroyed all hopes of a "good" Internet based on a free exchange of ideas - becoming the "bad" Internet of useless slop existing solely of "click bait".2
Our society is equally devoted to giving people who have acquire property and money a great deal of influence and the power that comes with that.
After the "bad" Internet came into being our society is devoted to people whose influence and power comes from the number of followers the person has.
Our generation - those all living to day - has been witness to this change by way of The Media's sole attention on these "Havers" while ignoring everyone else - with some exceptions those who do something horrific or die in a horrific way (though sometimes for not very long, usually based on the quantity of casualties).
Among the ignored are those interested in "Being" - the artists, the poets, the gardeners, the thinkers; the honest and the kind and the helpers of the world. Why? There's no money in it.3
This is not a screed against property ownership I must point out because much of the talk of these two modes of experience, as Fromm put it, includes references to Marx and Capitalism. But Marx (nor Communism) was against having personal property, having your own shop, tools or home for example.
A "Having" type person has cravings for possessions both physical and mental; watches, cars, boats and girlfriends, wives, followers - to name but a few of each kind.4
A "Being" type person has interests in doing and thinking; making, crafting, vacations and reading, writing, learning.
In craving possessions (including possession of the room or the conversation) the well being of other's does not really matter, even as we can see with our very own eyes, even their spouses and children. Sharing is not going to happen among the "Havers" (unless their is something to be gained from it).
In wanting to do things the well being of everyone is important. Sharing is important, not only of material stuff but of experiences. Going to dinner, the movies, discussing one's favorite novel, are the realm of "Being".
We know who these people are. It is obvious. We all see those men (mostly, not exclusively) craving power, the spotlight, the conversation, the government position, the having a say of what is in your local library.
The failure of The Media is their infatuation of those greedy, selfish, mean people. Because there's money in it.
(Except when artist, writing, philosopher dies; and then they are praised; and then they are forgotten.)
It's as simple as that folks.
My karma tells me
You've been screwed again
If you let them do it to you
You've got yourself to blame
It's you who feels the pain
It's you that takes the shame
"Havers" and "Beers" does not appear well in the text.
I have written about this before. Cf. Cory Doctorow.
With the few exceptions of those who somehow got the attention of The Media because their works happened to "go viral".
The archetype is pretty much male.