Comparison of Theorists From the point where Sigmund Fraud’s structuralizes of the human psyche rose and fell; the Neo-Freudian theoretical perspective grew and progressed. Explicitly, Fraud’s conceptual base of sexuality or instinctual determinants was limited. However, his followers took a more open and inclusive stance, all the while recognizing his contributions to psychology (Burger, 2010).
Therefore, in order to recount the contributions that were made by a few of these major Neo-Freudians this discourse will Juxtapose Fraud’s theoretical perspectives, major concepts, and approach to therapy to those of the following theorists: (a) Carl G. Jung, (b) Alfred Adler, (c) Karen Horned, and (d) Erik H. Erikson. Moreover, these analysts and theorists retained the basic Freudian psychology while expanding and remodeling specific areas of interest to reflect their personal experiences and findings. In this light, Carl G. Jung is undoubtedly the most avian- garden of all the Neo-Freudian defectors.
This was demonstrated in 1914 after leaving Fraud’s leadership and psychoanalytic group (Burger, 2010, p. 101). Jung departed the group in order to research his own ideas and approach to therapy. He eventually named his school of thought “analytic psychology’ (Burger, 2010, p. 101). On the one hand, Jung work reflects Freudian concepts, methods, and a similar therapeutic approach (Stein, 2010). But on the other hand, Jung work remains uniquely his own (Burger, 2010). For example, Jung took interest in Fraud’s instruction on the unconscious.
Thus, whereas Freud made sense of the human psyche in a tripartite personality construct consisting of the “conscious, preconscious, and unconscious” which he further theorized as the ego, and superego’; Jung theory was structured around the elective unconscious (Burger, 2010, p. 43-44). Further, Jung conceptual structures are heavily based on various aspects of Eastern mysticism and abstract mythological concepts (Carter, 2011). Interestingly, the collective unconscious as expressed by Jung consists of many “primordial images” or archetypes (Burger, 2010, p. 101).
Unlike Fraud’s unconscious material, which is repressed and originates from some arrested area of psychosocial development, Jung material (still difficult to access) is innate. Furthermore, this material and these symbolic images are characteristic in relationship to the individual’s personality. The purpose of Jung images (inherited symbolic which he referred to as the animus and anima are symbols of a man’s unconscious ideal feminine side and a woman’s unconscious ideal masculine side (Carter, 2011; Explicitly, these quintessential masculine/feminine stem, 2010; Burger, 2010). Mages are projected on a potential partner to lead an individual to their intended mate. In other words, by projecting the desired feminine image from within a man onto a specific matching woman, he is guided to her, which is Jung explanation for mate attraction. But, in spite of the Platonic milieu created by Jung ideas, he has made considerable contributions to psychology and among them are his personality divisions of Extrovert and Introverts (Burger, 2010).
More expressly, Extroverts are considered to be outgoing personalities, while Introverts are classified as introspective in nature. In addition (and in opposition to Freudian thought) Jung like many of the other Neo-Freudians posited that the human personality is malleable and continues to be developed throughout life. He also maintained that Fraud’s concept of libido was a broader term that should be applied to the meaning of life ores or energies, whereas Freud argued that libido referred to sexual desire or energy.
Further, some of Jung less popularized contributions include his principle of chemosynthesis which describes the process of conjoining different components of the unconscious such as material from dreams, imagination, and base actions with a personality (Carter, 2011; Stein, 2010). Jung applied the term constructive to this type of structure as opposed to Fraud’s applied meaning, which he termed as a reductive process (Carter, 2011; Burger, 2010). Jung teleological approach to analytical search and therapy set him apart not only from Freudian thought, but also from all other Neo-Freudian perspectives including Alfred Adler.
Coincidentally, Adler was the first analyst to depart from the Freudian school of psychology. Explicitly, the concept of interpersonal interactions (in direct opposition to Fraud’s instinctual determinants) was a major dividing point. Although, Idler’s approach to therapy retained Fraud’s analytical framework, there are many recognizable differences. More importantly, unlike the instinctual centered theories held by both Freud and Jung, Adler emphasized social interactions and environmental factors as the primary determinants in personality development (Utah & Utah, 1996; Burger, 2010).
Specifically, the major divisions in their (Freud and Adler) theoretical perspectives regarded motivation. Whereas Idler’s personality theory is based on a striving for superiority; Fraud’s theory emphasizes sexual motivation or his idea of libido. Notably, Adler placed great importance on his striving for superiority to the extent of concluding that all psychological issues could be resolved based on this concept. Per contra, Fraud’s pervasive sexual theme asserts that child development is grounded wrought sexual expression in various stages, which he identified as oral, anal, and phallic.
Thus, Adler rejected Fraud’s sexual emphasis particularly on the parent/child relationship and replaced it with a parent/child relationship based on inferiority; hence, the need for or striving for superiority (Utah & Utah, 1996; Burger, 2010). In addition, Adler also framed the concept of birth order. Birth order, demonstrates his emphasis on the impact of interpersonal relationships as seen within the family dynamic. For example, Adler asserts that each position assigned by development of the child.
In line with this thought, he also theorized that parental influence on child development made a huge negative impact when parent’s either over-pampered/protected their children or neglected them altogether. And although, Adler opposed Freud regarding his main concepts, Idler’s ideas were in sync with those of Karen Horned (Burger, 2010; Ingram, 2012). Precisely, Hornet’s theoretical perspective (somewhat like Idler’s premise) asserts that determinants of personality (in relation to psychoneurosis) are based on anxiety that stems from child-parent relationships.
In essence, she also asserted that interpersonal relationships as well as other environmental factors should be considered as a determinant in personality development. However, this was merely one point in Hornet’s list of differences, which culminated in her decision to separate from the Freudian perspective. Moreover, the most significant difference of opinion between Horned and Freud concern issues women face (Territories, 2006; Burger, 2010). For example, Hornets female psychology points to a need for self-confidence and an overemphasis on the male-female roles in interpersonal relationships; specifically eve.
Contrarily, Fraud’s view of female psychotherapy is addressed in his concept of penis envy, which he considers to be a causal agent regarding feelings of inferiority in females. Therefore Horned absolved the differences between them by opening her own “American Institute for Psychoanalysis” and further developing her ideas on “feminine psychology’ (Burger, 2010, p. 111). But in spite of the disagreements, Hornet’s theoretical system retained quite a few of the Freudian ideas such as repression, projection, and resistance (Render, 2008; Burger, 2010). In particular,
Horned continued to use the conception of unconsciousness as a motivating influence on behavior. She also revised Fraud’s oedipal complex by asserting that the parent/ child relationship was centered on the child’s basic need for a secure, safe, and loving environment. Conversely, Horned asserted that child anxiety is the leading determinant in neurotic behavior and not Fraud’s posit of sexual tension or hostility. More specifically, Hornet’s conceptual structure emphasizes the individual’s need to create a false self-image or idealized-self (Territories, 2006; Burger, 2010).
Albeit, this false-self is unavoidably contrasted to the real-self, producing self- hatred and irrational needs that are insatiable. Additionally, neurotic needs are the prominent feature of her theory and Horned defines these needs within three different orientations that she labels “moving toward people, moving against people, and moving away from people” (Burger, 2010, p. 113). Thus, introspectively; these orientations explain various expressions of neurosis in terms of reality verses delusion in the neurotic attempt at self-actualization.
In essence, each aspect of the irrational re-orientation illustrates a level of discontent (Render, 2008; Ingram, 2012; Burger, 2010). Further, these areas of discontent are basically defined in the light of their impact on each individual. For example, one person may find that anxiety is relieved through the strategy of dependent behavior or “moving toward people”, whereas another may seek solace in the safety of solitude or by “moving away from people” (Burger, 2010, p. 113). And a third method of aggressive, controlling, or contemptuous behavior may 2010, p. 13). Thus, in these theoretical constructs Hornet’s assumption of inner inflicts are understood in the light of relational and socially conditioned experiences rather than innate determinants as posited by Freud. In addition, Horned expanded on the Freudian concept of defense mechanisms by including the idea of self-idealization. Moreover, Hornet’s entire theoretical view is a re-construct of Fraud’s major conceptions and rework of his therapeutic approach of psychoanalysis, which been adapted to her humanistic concept of self-realization (Burger, 2010, p. 106).
Similarly, Erik H. Erikson discovered another perspective that grew out of Fraud’s Asia psychological organizational strategies. And like Horned, he proved that expansionism was at the heart of Neo-Freudianism. In his view, it is a person’s identity that is associated with the underlying issues. More importantly, Erosion’s perspective is objective to some degree and has placed a positive spin on Fraud’s generally negative view of development. In essence, Erikson has created a more positive face validity regarding his theories, which project many testable hypotheses.
In comparison, the Freudian concepts are solely based on untellable subjective abstract material (Burger, 2010). Additionally, Erosion’s theoretical perspective postulates a psychosocial approach to therapy associated with the various stages of life (from birth to death). In essence, he proposed that there are eight stages of development that span over a person’s lifetime. Moreover, these ages (stages) in one’s life are met with introspective and interpersonal type conflicts or “crises” that persuade an individual’s maturation if successfully navigated; hence, Erosion’s term “identity crisis” (Burger, 2010, p. 06). Explicitly, these periods of life represent an individual’s personality development room the perspective of self-conception and social identity. Thus, Erosion’s concepts form what has been called ego psychology, personal psychology, and psychosocial psychology. In other words, the ego (unlike Fraud’s ego) is viewed by Erikson as having autonomous abilities and is associated with both inner and outer or behavioral conflicts. This type of perspective veers from the Freudian doctrine for several reasons.
Foremost, it centers on social and environmental influences. Secondly, it presents a positive view of human psychological development. And thirdly, it offers a more testable theory (Burger, 2010). In comparison of each of the four analysts Nouns, Adler, Horned, and Erikson) to the Freudian psychological structure many similarities and differences emerge. However, the most significant contribution is that these additional perspectives (to Fraud’s) have allowed the organism of psychoanalytical psychology to maintain life and usefulness.
Moreover, it is not so much the differences and similarities between these theoretical perspectives, major concepts, and approaches to therapy that are important. It is the fact that they were constructed in such a fashion that each became a supplement for the other. Therefore, it is fair to say that Freud set the foundation and designed the basic framework; however, it was the Neo-Freudian contributions that have fortified the work by broadening its scope. In conclusion, Freud constructed a visible model of the human psyche, which allowed others to study, analyze, and discover new theoretical perspectives.
For possibilities beyond instinct. Adler; directed attention to the effects of social/ environmental factors on development. Horned expanded concepts regarding women, neurophysiology, and self-actualization. And Erikson presented psychology tit a better understanding of identity. Additionally, he also made every age in life important. Moreover, it has been from these discoveries that psychoanalytical approaches to therapy have evolved into a multi-perspective discipline shedding light on a world of multifarious issues.