human personality that is particularly insightful and thought-provoking. In
that spirit, the following brief presentation provides a starting point for futurereading and thought.
LIMITS AND LIABILITIES OF FREUDIAN THEORY
If you were to plow through the many volumes written by Sigmund Freud,you would most certainly find parts of his theory difficult to accept or in
need of some elaboration. Although later students of psychoanalysis dis-
agreed with many aspects of Freud ’s thinking, three of the theory ’sl i m i t sa n d
liabilities often played key roles in the development of the neo-Freudians ’
approaches.
First, many of these theorists rejected the idea that the adult personality
is formed almost in its entirety by experiences in the first 5 or 6 years of life.
Most neo-Freudians acknowledged that early childhood experiences have a
significant effect on personality development. But many argued that laterexperiences, particularly in adolescence and early adulthood, are also impor-
tant in shaping personality. One neo-Fr eudian theorist in particular, Erik
Erikson, maintained that important aspects of personality continue to de-velop into old age.
Second, many neo-Freudians challenged Freud ’s emphasis on instinctual
sources of personality. In particular, Freud failed to recognize how many so-
cial and cultural forces also shape who we are. For example, Freud attributed
many of the differences he saw between the personalities of men and women
to inherent biological differences between the sexes. Later theorists, most
notably Karen Horney, argued that the culture we grow up in plays a large
role in creating these differences. Of c ourse, Freud did not ignore social influ-
ences altogether. But he failed to give them enough attention to satisfy many
of his detractors.
Third, many theorists disliked the generally negative tone of Freudian
theory. Freud painted a pessimistic and in some ways degrading picture ofhuman nature —people largely controlled by instincts and unconscious forces.
Later theorists, both psychoanalytic and otherwise, presented a more positive
view of humankind and human personality. Many described the constructive
functions of the ego and emphasized the role of conscious rather than uncon-
scious determinants of behavior. Other theorists spoke of growth experiences
and the satisfaction people obtain from reaching their potential. These alter-native views can be uplifting to those who find the Freudian perspective just
a little depressing.
ALFRED ADLER
Alfred Adler was the first member of the psychoanalytic group to break
with Freud. The year was 1911, and it was clear to both men that their dif-
ferences were fundamental. Unfortunately, the professional dispute became“Deference for
Freud ’s gigantic
achievement should
show itself in build-
ing on the founda-tions he has laid. ”
Karen Horney96 CHAPTER 5 The Psychoanalyt ic Approach