Who first coined the term Necrophilia?（ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
The term Necrophilia was first coined by the Belgian physician Joseph Guislain in the early 19th century. Guislain, a pioneering psychiatrist, used the term in a medical context to describe a pathological attraction to corpses. However, the concept itself can be traced back much earlier in literature and mythology.
Later, in the 20th century, Erich Fromm expanded the meaning of necrophilia beyond its clinical and forensic definition. In The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973), Fromm described necrophilia as a psychological orientation toward death, destruction, and control - contrasting it with biophilia, the love of life and growth. He used this expanded concept to critique authoritarianism and modern industrial societies that promote dehumanization and mechanization.
So, while Guislain introduced the term in its clinical sense, Fromm gave it a broader philosophical and socio-political significance.
Did Lenin use the word necrophilia? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
No, Lenin did not use the word Necrophilia. However, he did express disdain for what he saw as an unhealthy veneration of the past, particularly in relation to Marxism and revolution. His critique of dogmatism and passive worship of old ideas could be seen as thematically related to what thinkers like Erich Fromm later described as necrophilia in a psychological and ideological sense.
For example, in What Is to Be Done? (1902), Lenin criticizes those who mechanically repeat Marx’s words without adapting them to contemporary struggles. He often attacked dead theories and mummified socialism, arguing that revolutionary thought must evolve dynamically rather than remain trapped in outdated formulas.
If you’re thinking in terms of Fromm’s concept of necrophilia - as a fixation on rigid, lifeless structures - one could metaphorically argue that Lenin opposed the necrophilia of Marxism in the sense that he rejected stale, ossified interpretations of revolutionary theory. But Lenin himself never used the word necrophilia.
Did Archille Mbembe use the word necrophilia? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
Yes, Achille Mbembe does use the term Necrophilia, particularly in relation to power, violence, and colonialism. His concept is closely related to his broader theories of necropolitics, which examine how sovereignty is exercised through the power to decide who lives and who dies.
In his book Necropolitics (2019) and earlier writings, Mbembe describes necrophilia as an obsession with death and destruction, especially in political regimes that sustain themselves through mass violence, war, and systematic oppression. His usage echoes Erich Fromm’s psychological concept of necrophilia, which refers to a death-driven, destructive orientation in individuals and societies.
For Mbembe, necrophilia is particularly relevant in colonial and postcolonial contexts, where violence is not just a means to an end but a fundamental mode of governance. He argues that colonialism, apartheid, and contemporary forms of racial capitalism display necrophilic tendencies, as they treat human lives as disposable and sustain themselves through the administration of death.
So yes, Mbembe explicitly uses Necrophilia, and he integrates it into his critical analysis of power, violence, and political domination.
Does Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man has anything to do with necrophilia? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
Yes, Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964) can be linked to necrophilia, particularly through Erich Fromm’s concept of necrophilia as a psychological and societal orientation toward death, destruction, and mechanization. While Marcuse himself does not use the word necrophilia, his analysis of advanced industrial society aligns with the necrophilic tendencies that Fromm later described in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973).
Connections Between One-Dimensional Man and Necrophilia
1. Technological Rationality and the Death of Critical Thought
Marcuse argues that advanced capitalism creates a One-dimensional society where people lose their ability for negative, dialectical, and utopian thinking.
This suppression of alternative possibilities leads to a stagnant, lifeless culture - a kind of intellectual necrophilia where past ideas are endlessly repeated, and imagination is extinguished.
2. Consumer Society as a Necrophilic System
According to Marcuse, capitalism reduces human beings to passive consumers, alienated workers, and instrumentalized objects in a system that values commodities more than life itself.
This aligns with Fromm’s idea of necrophilia as an attachment to rigid, lifeless things (e.g., bureaucracy, machinery, dead traditions, or even totalitarian ideologies).
3. Repressive Tolerance and the Absorption of Dissent
Marcuse argues that modern societies neutralize opposition by absorbing it into consumer culture (e.g., radical ideas become fashion trends rather than revolutionary forces).
This process mirrors the necrophilic tendency to preserve the form of things while hollowing out their life and meaning.
4. Automation, Bureaucracy, and the Mechanization of Life
Marcuse critiques the increasing domination of instrumental rationality, where people and nature are treated as mechanical objects rather than living beings.
This mechanization aligns with necrophilic power, which prioritizes control, order, and efficiency over organic growth and spontaneity.
Marcuse’s Alternative: Biophilia vs. Necrophilia
While Marcuse doesn’t explicitly frame his argument in terms of necrophilia versus biophilia, his solution - the Great Refusal, aesthetic imagination, and the liberation of Eros - aligns with Fromm’s concept of biophilia, or the love of life, creativity, and human flourishing. Marcuse sees art, poetry, and non-repressive technology as ways to resist the necrophilic tendencies of industrial capitalism.
Conclusion
Marcuse’s critique of a deadened, mechanized, and repressive society strongly parallels Fromm’s psychological concept of necrophilia and Mbembe’s necropolitics. While Marcuse does not use the term necrophilia, his entire critique of one-dimensionality can be seen as a warning against a society dominated by lifeless structures, dehumanization, and the suppression of genuine human freedom.
Can we say that the dire fate of falling into necrophilia is due to the loss of dialectical tension between biophilia and necrophilia? In other words, one-dimensional man are prone to be necrophiliac? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
Yes, we can say that the dire fate of falling into necrophilia results from the loss of dialectical tension between biophilia and necrophilia. In other words, one-dimensional man is prone to becoming necrophiliac precisely because the dialectical struggle between life-affirming and death-driven forces has collapsed.
Dialectical Tension: Biophilia vs. Necrophilia
1. Erich Fromm’s Dialectic: Biophilia vs. Necrophilia
Fromm defines biophilia as a love of life, growth, and creativity, whereas necrophilia is an orientation toward control, rigidity, destruction, and death.
A healthy society maintains a dialectical struggle between these opposing forces, allowing for critical engagement, renewal, and transformation.
When this struggle is suppressed or eliminated, necrophilia becomes dominant, leading to social stagnation, authoritarianism, and mechanization.
2. Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man as a Necrophilic Subject
In One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse argues that advanced capitalism destroys negative thinking and utopian imagination, reducing people to passive consumers and workers.
This suppression of dialectical thought results in a static, closed system where alternatives to the status quo are no longer thinkable.
As a result, one-dimensional man becomes a necrophiliac subject, clinging to lifeless forms (commodities, bureaucracies, ideologies) instead of engaging in a dynamic, living relationship with reality.
3. The Loss of Dialectical Tension: The Death of Resistance
For Marcuse and Fromm, true freedom requires a constant struggle - a dialectic between liberation and repression, between creativity and control.
When this tension disappears (due to total integration into the system), individuals and societies become necrophilic:
They embrace dead traditions rather than living culture.
They prefer machines over organic life.
They seek order, security, and repetition instead of transformation.
In a one-dimensional society, people internalize their own domination, making external oppression almost unnecessary.
Necrophilia as the Fate of One-Dimensional Society
If a society no longer struggles between biophilia and necrophilia, it defaults to necrophilia because capitalism, bureaucracy, and technological rationality favor control, repetition, and mechanization over creativity and freedom.
This is why one-dimensional man is more prone to necrophilia - because the biophilic forces of resistance, imagination, and autonomy have been neutralized.
How to Restore the Dialectical Struggle
Negative Thinking & The Great Refusal (Marcuse): Rejecting dominant ideologies and reviving utopian imagination.
Reclaiming Eros & Aesthetic Sensibility (Marcuse & Fromm): Art, poetry, and non-repressive play as ways to reawaken life-affirming forces.
Political & Existential Revolt (Fromm & Mbembe): Resisting necropolitical structures that turn life into mere survival.
Conclusion
Yes, one-dimensional man is inherently prone to necrophilia because the dialectical struggle between biophilia and necrophilia has been lost. Without the ability to think critically, resist domination, and imagine alternatives, people become trapped in lifeless routines, mechanized existence, and oppressive structures - which is the essence of necrophilia as Fromm and Mbembe describe it. The challenge, then, is to restore the dialectic, keeping biophilia alive as a force of renewal and transformation.
Random killings have been rampant for quite some time, can we say that random killings are manifestations of necrophilia? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-16)
Yes, random killings can be understood as manifestations of necrophilia, particularly in the way Erich Fromm and Achille Mbembe conceptualize necrophilia - not just as a pathological fixation on death, but as a broader psychological and societal orientation toward destruction, control, and dehumanization.
Necrophilia as a Psychological and Societal Orientation
1. Erich Fromm: Necrophilia as Love of Death and Destruction
Fromm describes necrophilia as an anti-life attitude, where individuals or societies develop an obsession with domination, rigidity, and violence.
He argues that highly alienated societies, particularly those that suppress genuine human connection and creativity, cultivate necrophilic tendencies.
Individuals who feel powerless, disconnected, and emptied of meaning may turn to random acts of violence as expressions of power over life itself, fulfilling a necrophilic drive.
2. Achille Mbembe: Necropolitics and the Power to Kill Randomly
Mbembe expands on Michel Foucault’s biopolitics, arguing that modern states often exercise sovereignty through the administration of death rather than life (necropolitics).
In necropolitical regimes, certain populations are abandoned, disposable, or subjected to arbitrary violence.
Random killings, whether by individuals or systems of power, reflect a world where death has become normalized as an expression of power - a deeply necrophilic reality.
Why Random Killings Reflect Necrophilia in Contemporary Society
1. The Loss of Dialectical Tension Between Biophilia and Necrophilia
In a healthy society, the tension between creation and destruction, life and death, love and violence remains in dynamic balance.
When society suppresses creativity, connection, and meaning (biophilia), people may turn toward senseless violence (necrophilia) as a distorted way to assert existence.
2. Alienation and One-Dimensionality
Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man describes a world where people lose the ability for critical thought and radical alternatives.
If life feels meaningless, dominated by bureaucratic and technological rationality, some may experience an attraction to pure destruction - a symptom of necrophilia.
3. Hyper-Reality, Violence as Spectacle
In an age where media spectacularizes violence, some individuals act out random killings as performances, mirroring a culture where death itself has become entertainment.
This commodification of death aligns with necrophilia’s tendency to turn life into dead objects, and death into a fetishized event.
4. Dehumanization and the Desire for Control
Random killings often stem from a deep sense of alienation and resentment, where the perpetrator sees others as objects rather than living beings.
Necrophilia, in Fromm’s sense, is ultimately about control over life through destruction - killing becomes the ultimate assertion of dominance over a world that feels indifferent.
Conclusion: The Necrophilic Condition of Society
If biophilia represents creativity, love, and affirmation of life, then necrophilia represents destruction, control, and dehumanization. Random killings are extreme manifestations of this necrophilic tendency, emerging from alienation, loss of meaning, and a world that normalizes violence as a form of expression.
To counteract this necrophilic drift, societies must revitalize biophilia - restoring human connection, meaningful existence, and alternative possibilities for living. Otherwise, the loss of dialectical tension leaves necrophilia unchecked, manifesting not just in random killings, but in structural violence, war, and the slow death of imagination and empathy.