Abstract: . . .  his or her disposal, he or she can function relatively symptomless and without distress in daily life. He or she only suffers from a „pa- thology of normalcy.“ Neither he nor she must sense his or her existential de- pendence on the medication of „fabricated“ ability as long as everyone else lives the same way and does not feel „addicted“ to the medication. 7 Precisely this „pathology of normalcy“ is what makes a psychoanalytic view- point on the I-am-me orientation so unpopular among the general public; a psy- choanalytic perspective comprehends the I-am-me orientation as a nonproductive character orientation detrimental to mental health. And it is precisely this „pathol- ogy of normalcy“ which makes it increasingly difficult for an understanding of mental health based on the „practice“ or use of the productive inner powers to continue to be understood and to be socially plausible. In conclusion I would like to return to the question what productiveness means in light of the gradual dominance . . .
. . .  does not require the rejection of „fabricated“ or „made“ ability but its implementation for the preserva- tion and multiplication—and not the replacement—of human ability. Whoever fights against „made“ ability (and for that reason never watches television or uses a personal computer) is still concerned with „made“ ability, comparable to the 8 For a thorough discussion of this problem see R. Funk, „Was heißt 'productive Orientierung' bei Erich Fromm?“ in Fromm Forum (German edition), Tuebingen (privately published) 7(2003), pp.14- 27. 9 See R. Funk, Ich und Wir , pp. 221-225. Page 15 15 priest who condemns sex in movies in order to allow a preoccupation with sexual fantasies. The goal is thus to be able to deal with „made“ ability in such a way that the human being does not experience himself or herself as powerless when- ever it is unavailable. To achieve this goal a number of painful steps toward the strengthening of the productive orientation are imperative. To strengthen the productive . . .
. . .  the projection of his or her own powers onto the authority. To do the same with an I-am-me oriented person would be senseless, and would probably even lead to a reinforcement of this mindset. What productiveness means concretely depends on the type of nonproductiveness preponderant in a society. What, then, do productiveness and strengthening of the productive orienta- tion mean for the social character orientation that is I-am-me directed and becom- ing all the more dominant? My reflections on psychodynamics and on the psy- choanalysis of the I-am-me orientation suggest the following summary. The general goal is always to counter the I-am-me orientation assisted by „made“ ability with an experience of the ego assisted by human ability and to recognize and gradually reduce the dependency on „made“ ability. This does not require the rejection of „fabricated“ or „made“ ability but its implementation for the preserva- tion and multiplication—and not the replacement—of human ability. Whoever . . .
--3000,3,500,3239,53867