Love, from Erich Fromm’s perspective, is not a passive or automatic state but an art to be cultivated. In The Art of Loving, Fromm (1956) argues that love involves four interdependent elements: care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge. As he explains, “Care, responsibility, respect and knowledge are mutually interdependent. They are a syndrome of attitudes which are to be found in the mature person” (Fromm, 1956, p. 33). Similarly, he insists, “To respect a person is not possible without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge” (Fromm, 1956, p. 36).

Parallel to this, in Escape from Freedom (1941), Fromm explores how individuals react to the burden of freedom: the anxiety that comes with having one’s life in one’s own hands. He identifies three primary mechanisms of escape: authoritarianism, destructiveness, and automaton conformity. These are responses to the fear that freedom brings, fear of isolation, responsibility, and the challenge of being oneself without the anchoring of established roles (Fromm, 1941).

In what follows, I will examine how the narrator in Wilbert Salgado’s short story, Knots (“Nudos” in Spanish) fails to express his love directly, and that his way of behaving can be better understood through both frameworks proposed by Fromm: where the narrator, whose name is no known, falls short in fulfilling the elements of love, and how his behavior corresponds to escape mechanisms from freedom and commitment though he justifies his path in life as a result of his so-called object of love.

The Narrator’s Shortcomings under The Art of Loving

Fromm (1956) holds that to love productively, one must exercise the capacities of care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge. The narrator in Wilbert’s story demonstrates many classic failures in these dimensions:

Care:	Instead of actively attending to the emotional reality of the beloved, by expressing affection, by being open, the narrator hides behind gestures and indirect acts. The love “strangely” expressed by our male voice in the story does not manifest in caring acts that affirm the beloved in her living reality.
Responsibility:	In Fromm’s sense, responsibility is more than duty; it is a “voluntary act, which originates in my own response to the needs, expressed or unexpressed, of another human being” (Fromm, 1956, p. 41). The narrator in the story avoids the responsibility of confession, of facing the possibility of rejection. His success in life (“sports, art, etc.”) is presented as owing to her inspiration, but this does not substitute for being responsible toward her as a person who deserves honest communication and to know whether she is loved.
Respect:	Respect requires recognizing the other’s individuality, allowing her to be herself, to grow on her own terms. The narrator’s silence could be seen as a failure of respect: rather than seeing her as someone with her own desires and agency, he treats her as an object of longing, rather than a partner in mutuality, someone who can be approached and felt. Wilbert’s narrator is rather disrespectful to the person he attests to have loved.
Knowledge:	According to Fromm, “Respect is not possible without knowledge; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge” (1956, p. 36). The narrator’s understanding remains superficial enthusiasm, admiration, perhaps wishful fantasy and does not penetrate deeply into her inner life. The narrator in the story chooses to stay away from her and behave in a way he expects her beloved to decode the messages he is not able to openly express.

Because the narrator fails significantly in these four areas, Fromm would say his love remains unfulfilled, more a longing or ideal than a mature practice. And if we try to see how the situation through the girl’s lenses, she is not being cared, shown responsibility and respect, and understood in her need to know whether she is loved or not.

Freedom, Fear, and Escape: From Escape from Freedom

Fromm (1941) draws a distinction between negative freedom (“freedom from” older bonds and constraints) and positive freedom (“freedom to” realize one’s individuality, to act spontaneously and authentically). The narrator seems to experience something like negative freedom: the possibility to act, the ability to choose; yet he does not, or perhaps cannot, use that freedom in a way that brings authentic connection between both.

The result in terms of hidden emotions among the text lines is anxiety, isolation, and ultimately, avoidance. The narrator escapes the burden of love and confession by keeping everything internal, hoping that indirect acts suffice, preserving the illusion of possibility rather than risking the reality of rejection.

The Three Mechanisms of Escape and the Narrator

Applying Fromm’s (1941) three mechanisms of escape, we can see how the narrator’s behavior aligns:

1. Authoritarianism: In authoritarianism, the individual seeks to relieve the burden of freedom by submitting to another’s will or attempting to dominate others. The narrator does not explicitly submit to an external authority, but he submits to his own fear, letting it dominate his decisions. He surrenders his agency, choosing silence rather than speaking, making her beloved one to be uncertain of what he really feels for her.

2. Destructiveness: This involves the impulse to destroy others or oneself when one feels powerless. The narrator does not lash out, but there is a form of self-destruction: by refusing to act, he destroys the possibility of love, and of being loved by someone he clearly cared for. This subtle yet real self-sabotage extinguishes potential intimacy, allowing the opportunity to fade until he is later told by her beloved that she has married another man and borne his children and that she had stopped to wait for him long ago.

3. Automaton Conformity: This is perhaps the clearest mechanism in play in the story. Fromm (1941) defines this as the tendency to adapt one’s entire self to expected norms, losing individuality in the process. The narrator conforms in indirect ways: he does what is socially acceptable, performing in school activities, art, and athletics, letting achievement serve as proxy for self-expression. He avoids vulnerability, which would require stepping outside of conventional roles. His identity becomes wrapped up in external success rather than authentic self-revelation.

Of these three, automaton conformity seems to be the dominant escape mechanism, though elements of authoritarian submission (to fear) and self-destructiveness (through inaction) also appear in the story plot.

Integrating the Frameworks: Why the Love Fails

Taken together, The Art of Loving and Escape from Freedom explain why the Knots narrator’s love cannot succeed as mature love. Because he does not act from a position of positive freedom, courageous self-expression and openness, he never fulfills the elements of love that Fromm (1956) asserts are necessary:

• Without respect and knowledge of his beloved, his so-called care and responsibility for her “loved one” become blind.
• Without taking the risk of vulnerability by opening his heart, the freedom intrinsic to love is never claimed enslaving him to isolation and solitude.
• By escaping into conformity and submitting to his fear of opening himself, he avoids the very actions that would allow love to grow among the two of them.

Thus, the “love” between the two of them remains unconsummated, more about what could have been, or what might exist in fantasy, rather than what is real and tangible.

What Could Positive Freedom Look Like?

Fromm (1941, 1956) implies what the alternative would be:

• Embrace positive freedom: It is important to accept that with freedom comes risk, and that love requires making oneself vulnerable, one way or another.
• Practice the four elements of love: It is essential to cultivate knowledge of the other, respond willingly to the other person’s needs, care actively for his/her growth, and show respect by recognizing his/her individuality.
• Reject escape mechanisms: It is crucial to resist conformity for comfort, refuse to let fear dictate silence, and act from one’s authentic self.

If the narrator in Salgado’s story plot had acted from this position, spoken his feelings, disclosed himself, accepted rejection, if necessary, he might have forged an authentic connection, and love might have sparked out of his vulnerability. Fromm would say that this is the only way mature, productive love is possible; however, the narrator chose otherwise.

Conclusion

Fromm’s two frameworks, The Art of Loving and Escape from Freedom, offer a powerful lens for diagnosing what goes wrong in the narrator’s story. Failure is not in lacking desire, or aptitude for admiration, but in failing to practice love: in failing to act with knowledge, respect, care, and responsibility. At the same time, the narrator is evading the responsibility of freedom via escape mechanisms, especially automaton conformity, rather than embracing the discomfort inherent in authentic, mature love. Only by claiming that freedom, by stepping through fear, love can become what Fromm describes: an art, a practice, a power that unites while preserving integrity.

📚 References

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. Harper & Row.

Salgado, W. (2025). Nudos. [Unpublished short story].

In Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days, an ostensibly straightforward tale of global adventure unfolds as the enigmatic Englishman Phileas Fogg accepts a wager to circumnavigate the globe in just eighty days. At first glance, Jules Verne’s novel is a product of its time (the 19^th Century); the plot is an ode to technology, exploration, and British punctuality. However, by employing a dual theoretical lens, Erich Fromm's humanist psychology and Roland Barthes' semiotic critique, the characters emerge as vessels of deeper truths. Through these perspectives, we can interpret the novel not only as a travel story but as an exploration of love, identity, and the symbolic operations of narrative.

The Exterior and Interior Protagonists

Mr. Phileas Fogg, with his clockwork routine and emotionless disposition, initially appears as a flat protagonist. His actions drive the plot, but his personal transformation remains subtle. In contrast, his French valet, Jean Passepartout, provides the emotional arc of the novel. Verne introduces Fogg as a man who "never hurried and was always ready" (Verne, ch. 1), a figure ruled by reason. Passepartout, however, is the relatable counterpart: reactive, humorous, and often overwhelmed by the chaos of the journey.

While Fogg is the external agent of the story plot’s motion, Passepartout is the internal witness, growing visibly throughout the narrative. Their dynamic mirrors Fromm’s dialectic between sterile conformity and authentic engagement with life. Both characters complement each other having the reader question who the real protagonist of the story is; both can be a good response to the doubt their interaction in the plot presents.

Frommian Love and Human Transformation

In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm posits that love is not a fleeting emotion but an art, one requiring maturity, discipline, and the overcoming of narcissism. Dr. Fromm writes, "Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love" (Fromm, 1956, p. 25). Early in Verne’s novel, Fogg embodies what Fromm would label as automaton conformity, a state in which man suppresses individuality to fit societal mechanisms. This is evident in Fogg's regulated lifestyle and emotional aloofness. Based on the idea of Victorian society, Phileas fits society and its mechanisms thoroughly.

However, as the journey unfolds, Fogg undergoes a subtle evolution catalyzed by two essential figures in the story’s plot: on the one hand we have Passepartout, and, on the other hand, there we have Aouda. Passepartout exhibits Frommian brotherly love through his loyalty, concern, and emotional responsiveness toward Phileas. Passepartout often chooses conscience over convenience, such as when he intervenes in Aouda's rescue from suttee in India, an act that disrupts Fogg’s schedule but aligns with moral duty and the way an English gentleman is meant to behave under the circumstances described in the novel.

Aouda, the rescued Parsi widow, becomes the emotional catalyst for Phileas Fogg. Her presence introduces vulnerability and mutual care. When Fogg learns that he has seemingly lost the wager, his first instinct is not despair but to ensure Aouda's well-being and her peace of mind. In her words, "You are more than brave; you are good" (Verne, ch. 35), affirming Fogg’s latent emotional depth that is only emerging through, at the beginning, his relationship with Aouda. His eventual proposal to Parsi widow suggests that Fogg has finally learned Fromm’s productive love, rooted in care, respect, and responsibility, rather than passion or possession.

Semiotic Structures and Barthesian Myth

While Fromm emphasizes inner transformation, Roland Barthes invites us to read the novel as a system of signs, revealing how characters function less as individuals and more as ideological symbols. In Mythologies, Barthes argues that myth is a type of speech: "Myth transforms history into nature" (Barthes, 1972, p. 129). In this sense, narratives like Jules Verne’s mask their ideological underpinnings by presenting them as neutral or universal individuals.

Phileas Fogg, in this light, is the mythic subject of imperial rationality: self-possessed, efficient, and in control of what happens in his life. He is not merely an Englishman; he is England or rather, what England imagines itself to be at that moment in history. His mastery of time and space, epitomized by his calm response to calamities and unexpected events, enacts the colonial fantasy of global domination through logic and machinery that the Brits projected at that moment in time.

Jean Passepartout, by contrast, is a semiotic disruptor. He constantly interferes with Fogg's plans, unintentionally introducing chaos and thereby injecting spontaneity into the text, something that can be described as the opposition of what Phileas is or represents. Barthes would likely interpret Passepartout as the reader's surrogate, puncturing the illusion of control and revealing the constructed nature of the narrative. Passepartout is the foil character that makes sense for the story in the plot’s narrative.

Aouda, in Barthes' framework, is a problematic figure. Though she provides emotional depth to the story, she also represents the Orientalist trope, the exotic woman rescued and civilized by the Western man. As Edward Said notes in Orientalism, the West often constructs the East as "a passive object of representation" rather than a subject with agency (Said, 1978, p. 108). Aouda’s symbolic function is less about autonomy and more about fulfilling narrative closure through romantic resolution.

Detective Fix, the comic and obnoxious antagonist, embodies the paranoia of the modern surveillance state that wants to know what individuals are up to. His relentless suspicion of Phileas Fogg, despite mounting evidence of his innocence, operates as what Barthes calls a hermeneutic code, a narrative delay that sustains tension while masking deeper ideological patterns.

Synthesis: Love and Ideology in Motion

By marrying Fromm's ethics of love with Barthes' structuralism, we gain a fuller understanding of Verne's novel. Fromm helps us see Fogg’s journey not just as physical but spiritual, a movement from detachment to connection. Barthes, on the other hand, exposes the ideological undercurrents of that same journey, revealing how cultural myths of Western supremacy, gender roles, and progress are embedded in the text.

As Terry Eagleton notes, "Literature does not exist in some aesthetic realm divorced from ideology. It is itself a form of ideology" (Eagleton, 2008, p. 19). Around the World in 80 Days is therefore both a narrative of emotional awakening and a map of 19th-century semiotic ideologies. Phileas Fogg becomes a man capable of love, but he remains a signifier of empire. Passepartout grows as a human but also functions as a comic safety valve for the story's tensions. Aouda catalyzes moral growth but also reflects cultural reduction.

In the end, Verne’s novel, like the journey it depicts, oscillates between freedom and control, between authentic love and cultural myth. The question is not simply whether Fogg wins his wager, but whether he becomes more fully human. And through the eyes of Fromm and Barthes, we see that perhaps he does but only just.

References

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York: Harper & Row.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Verne, J. (1873). Around the World in 80 Days (translated by George Makepeace Towle). Public domain translation available via Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/103

10 Possible Topics for Literary Criticism Enthusiasts

1	Passepartout as the true protagonist: emotional arc versus mechanical precision.
2	Time, clocks, and punctuality: Verne’s obsession with mechanized life.
3	Aouda and Orientalism: rescuing or silencing the “other”?
4		Inspector Fix as the embodiment of the surveillance state.
5		Colonial geographies: what does it mean to “travel the world” in the 19th century?
6		The wager as existential metaphor: is Fogg betting against life itself?
7		Technology and transportation: progress or illusion of control?
8		Humor and chaos: Passepartout as Barthesian punctum in a structured narrative.
9		Fromm’s art of loving: Fogg’s transformation into a man capable of intimacy.
10		Adventure fiction as ideology: Eagleton and Said on Verne’s narrative of empire.

Literary Reflective Journaling on Jules Verne’s novel, August 2025: My Notes

Phileas Fogg: The Exterior Protagonist	Function: Fogg is the novel's driving force. He makes the wager and sets the journey in motion. Personality: Stoic, precise, emotionally restrained — almost machine-like. Role in Narrative: He is the external protagonist whose actions dictate the plot's structure (locations, pacing, deadlines). Transformation: Subtle. His rigid logic begins to soften through the journey, especially after meeting Aouda.
Jean Passepartout: The Interior Protagonist	Function: Passepartout is the reader’s surrogate — curious, emotional, reactive, and constantly evolving. Personality: Loyal, impulsive, comic, human. He reflects the chaos that Fogg’s structure tries to suppress. Role in Narrative: While Fogg moves the plot forward, Passepartout generates conflict, humor, and character development. Transformation: He undergoes more visible growth. He learns from Fogg’s composure but also helps Fogg rediscover humanity.
Interplay Between Fogg and Passepartout	Their relationship mirrors order vs. spontaneity, reason vs. instinct, British stoicism vs. French vitality. Passepartout often complicates Fogg’s schedule — yet his errors and intuition often lead to eventual success (e.g., rescuing Aouda). The bond between them evolves from formality to deep friendship, with Passepartout becoming emotionally invested in Fogg’s success.
Aouda: The Catalyst	Role: Adds an emotional dimension to Fogg’s life. Her presence brings out his compassion. She is symbolic of the human consequences of Fogg’s rational decisions. Her growing closeness to Fogg causes both men (Fogg and Passepartout) to reevaluate their priorities.
Detective Fix: The Antagonistic Foil	His misunderstanding of Fogg as a bank robber introduces suspense. He reflects the limits of logic without context, a contrast to Passepartout’s intuitive understanding of Fogg’s character. While he opposes Fogg’s goal, he ironically aids in achieving it.
So, Who’s the Central Character?	Technically, Phileas Fogg is the protagonist — he makes the bet, the story revolves around his deadline, and he experiences personal change by the end. However, Passepartout is arguably the central narrative consciousness: He’s more emotionally accessible to the reader. We see Fogg’s transformation partly through his eyes. He provides the tension, the comic relief, and many of the moral stakes.
In Literary Terms	Fogg = flat character with slow but meaningful growth (a classic Verne archetype of reason and progress). Passepartout = round character who actively changes, feels, fears, and learns — more relatable and dynamic.
Conclusion Both are central, but in different ways: Role Phileas Fogg Passepartout Drives the Plot ✅ ⚪ Provides Perspective ⚪ ✅ Changes the Most Emotionally ⚪ ✅ Controls the Stakes ✅ ⚪ Emotional Anchor ⚪ ✅

 

Final Juxtaposition: Fromm vs. Barthes

Final Juxtaposition - Fromm vs. Barthes by Jonathan Acuña