By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — Erich Fromm has always been my favorite psychologist of the 20th century. In his seminal study, Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Fromm proposed the concepts of biophilia and necrophilia to describe contrasting orientations toward life. These concepts extend beyond their literal biological meanings and delve into the underlying values and drives within a society.
His insights on necrophilia represent a malignant form of aggression that is psychologically attracted to death, decay, and destruction. It manifests in a lack of empathy, a fascination with control, and a desire to dominate or destroy life.
In contrast to necrophilia, we have societies that believe in a biophilic civilization. These societies prioritize growth, creativity, love, and care. They value human potential and strive to create conditions that allow individuals to flourish. Biophilia believes that we must strive for harmony with Nature: Respect for the natural world is central. Biophilic societies aim to live in balance with the environment and promote sustainable practices. In societies that value biophilia, empathy, compassion, and cooperation are emphasized. Social structures and laws are designed to foster a sense of well-being for all members of the community.
But necrophilic civilizations are obsessed with death: These societies are characterized by a fascination with destruction, domination, and control. There’s an underlying sense of alienation and a lack of connection to life. Fromm’s distinction between biophilia vs. necrophilia describes the difference between Israel and the Islamists of Gaza and Iran.
How might this apply to the problem of the college students’ animus toward Israel? Columbia University and other Ivy League activists call for divestment from Israel, often without considering the nation’s significant contributions to global well-being. Israeli technologies revolutionize industries and offer humanitarian solutions in areas like water scarcity, health, and infrastructure development.
Israel’s pioneering work in drip irrigation has transformed agricultural practices by ensuring water and nutrients are delivered directly to plant roots, drastically reducing waste and enhancing crop yields. This technology is particularly vital in arid regions, improving food security and water conservation. Israeli innovations also extend to agricultural techniques that include drought-resistant crops, sophisticated pest control technologies, and advanced methods for storing and transporting agricultural produce.
Israel is at the forefront of medical innovation with institutions developing life-saving technologies and treatments. Innovations such as the PillCam, a minimally invasive device that travels through the digestive tract, provide safer alternatives to traditional procedures. Israeli research has also led to significant advancements in cancer treatment and therapies for blood diseases, impacting patient care globally.
Technologies developed by companies like Watergen, which extracts water from air humidity, offer vital resources to communities suffering from water scarcity. Moreover, Israel’s expertise in desalination technology turns seawater into a viable drinking and irrigation resource, presenting a sustainable solution to water scarcity issues in many African countries.
In the realm of sustainable energy, Israeli initiatives like the Ashalim Solar Power Station push the boundaries of solar efficiency. These projects not only support energy independence but also promote environmental sustainability by reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Israeli technologies, from the life-saving Iron Dome defense system to cybersecurity innovations, play a significant role in protecting civilians and safeguarding infrastructure worldwide. They contribute to global well-being by enhancing the efficiency of everyday technologies in areas like automotive, battery, and cybersecurity.
In Africa, Israeli advancements directly address challenges like food security, water scarcity, renewable energy, and healthcare. Beyond immediate benefits, Israel fosters long-term sustainability through capacity-building efforts, technology transfer, and training programs that empower African scientists and entrepreneurs.
The debate around divestment from Israel often overlooks this extensive positive impact. Focusing solely on political issues risks undermining efforts that improve lives worldwide. A broader perspective, which includes Israel’s technological contributions, is crucial for informed decision-making. Israel’s focus on innovation, addressing fundamental human needs, and collaborating with other nations reflects a “culture of life” that promotes a better future for all.
While Israel’s focus on technology is complex, including significant military development, the broad spectrum of its innovations reveals a strong commitment to life-affirming solutions and global well-being.
On the flip side, the characterizations of Islamist movements as necrophilic due to their emphasis on martyrdom and the afterlife present a stark contrast. This view aligns with Fromm’s description of necrophilia not in the literal sense of a fascination with death, but as a metaphor for ideologies and actions that implicitly devalue the sanctity and potential of life on earth.
When we apply Fromm’s concepts, we must not lose sight of Israel’s technological and humanitarian contributions could be used to argue against divestment, presenting these innovations as manifestations of a biophilic society that is fundamentally aligned with enhancing global well-being. This perspective not only counters the negative portrayal of Israel in the divestment debates but also invites a broader consideration of how contributions to human welfare might be weighed against political and ideological disagreements.
In essence, Fromm’s theories provide a useful framework for evaluating the impacts of societal values on global interactions and problem-solving approaches. They encourage a deeper inquiry into whether actions are driven by a reverence for life and growth, or by other motivations that might lead to destruction or stagnation.
*
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for your questions regarding the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
In response to your first question, the only thing holding back Palestinians from realizing their best political potential are the religious fanatics who govern them.
In response to your last question, any society that glorifies martyrdom or fascism can be described as a society that promotes necrophilic values.
The situation in Gaza could have been different if governed by moderate Muslim values, allowing for potential prosperity similar to Singapore’s, despite both being of comparable size. Instead, Hamas has prioritized militarization over development, reflecting their adherence to Islamist principles. Islamists advocate for Islamic law (Sharia) as the supreme law, often opposing Western influences and advocating for societal governance based on Islamic principles. This can extend to seeking political unity under Islam and enforcing Sharia law strictly, influencing both public and private aspects of life.
Prominent figures in the development of 20th-century Islamism include Sayyid Rashid Rida, Hassan al-Banna, and Ruhollah Khomeini, who have shaped the movement’s pursuit of reestablishing Islam’s prominence in all societal aspects. Some Islamists aim for a revived caliphate transcending national borders, though sectarian divisions, such as those between Sunni and Shia Muslims, complicate these aspirations.
While some Muslim countries or regions pursue these Islamist ideals vigorously, like Iran and Hamas, others like Jordan, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia show tendencies towards accommodating secular values, indicating a diversity of governance models within the Muslim world.
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
Rabbi, thank you. Your analysis makes exacting sense.
Question though, will not the Pro-Palestinians argue Palestinians have been denied the opportunity to develop as Israel has because of the “Occupation” ?
You wrote – “Fromm’s distinction between biophilia vs. necrophilia describes the difference between Israel and the Islamists of Gaza and Iran.”
Should your limiting definition be expanded to any society or culture that glorifies martyrdom?
Thanks.