2nd Year Undergraduate Essay
Freud’s psychodynamic theory fundamentally suggests that ‘Das Ich’– the self, is created through conflict and resolution in childhood, and is hugely influenced by the unconscious. Individual differences rise from parental attachment, trauma, and how the psychic apparatus develops. This is similar throughout all of psychodynamic theory but is particularly crucial in the development of the self, as it is critically to psychoanalysis.
Psychodynamic theory suggests that there are three parts of the self, known as the psychic apparatus; the ego, the id, and the superego (Freud,1923). Central to psychodynamic theory, the friction and interaction between these apparatuses shape the self and create individual differences in personality. Furthermore, Freud (1923) proposes that most parts of the self are subconscious and develop through early social experiences, mostly with parents and close family (mainly through attachment types and any traumatic experiences). The self is generally stable in Freudian understanding but is malleable as psychoanalytic therapy shows; because if personality was fixed, psychoanalytic therapy would be futile. Freudian therapy also emphasises individual differences in personality and behaviour, as Freud’s work revolved around individuals with atypical behaviour. Freud (1922) also argues that certain aspects of the self, for example the ‘erotic self’ (meaning erotic fetishes or behaviours) depends almost entirely on how fulfilled the id was in early development, and how the ego oversees this. Furthermore, psychodynamic theory also proposes that sexual preferences and desires are related to parental attachment and development (Freud, 2010). This links to the Oedipus Complex (Freud,2010), which is a key Freudian concept which proposes that motivation for behaviour comes from an inner sexual drive: in young boys it is the attraction to the mother. Likewise, in relation to the self, the Oedipus Complex proposes that young men will aspire to be like their father, in order to gain attention from their mother. By identifying closely with the father, personality begins to be shaped and individual differences formed. This is also reflected in the Electra complex (Jung,1915) which is similar but reflected in girls; their personality is proposed to be shaped by their friction with their mother for their father’s attention.
Maltby, Day, & Macaskill (2017) created a systematic critical framework in order to combat several issues with evaluating personality theories- most primarily that most personality theories are based around case studies, so evaluating them purely on their scientific backing is hard to do due to their individualistic nature. Freud’s work is no different, and so their framework will be applied here.
A huge factor in Maltby, Day, & Macaskill’s (2017) framework is testable concepts- which assesses how much a theory can be operationalised, in order to be scientifically studied and measured. Freud’s ideation on the self is at first glance, utterly untestable and therefore unscientific (Barlow & Durand, 2005) due to revolving around the unconscious (and thus, the immeasurable.) Even the ego, which Freud (1940) claims is mostly conscious, would be hard to define and measure as it is supposedly controlled and manipulated by the subconscious id. Thus, the psychic apparatus in particular has serious issues with scientific method and falsifiability (Barlow & Durand, 2005, p.21) as it seemingly cannot be operationalised without overlap with other psychic apparatus. Conversely, some researchers such as Bornstein (2005) have argued that this simply is not the case and have cited many studies that have managed to operationalise psychodynamic concepts as evidence (Loevinger, 1976 Westen, 1988). These Neo-Freudian researchers have for example, managed to create an ego measure (Loevinger, 1976), which opposes Barlow & Durand’s (2005) assertion that psychodynamic theory is wholly unscientific. On further examination however, even these papers (such as that from Westen, 1998) concede that much of Freud’s work is “obscure, muddleheaded, and ignorant of relevant empirical work” (Westen, 1988). Subsequently, even Freud’s supporters concede to some level that original psychodynamic theory, particularly on the self is unempirical. Perhaps therefore, a distinction between Neo-Freudian theory and original Freudian theory would make a huge difference to this evaluation- especially on Freud’s convoluted writings on the self.
Moreover, it could also be argued that this particular critique is based on the notion that being scientific and empirical is the ultimate goal of all research. For some researchers (such as those who subscribe to more Humanistic psychology), research that revolves around individualistic case studies is not seen as a negative, but rather a positive. Thus, this criticism only really applies when you subscribe to views that hold empiricism in high regard. Therefore, how well the theory explains typical behaviour could be seen to be of greater importance.
Moreover, Maltby, Day, & Macaskill’s (2017) critical framework does also regard explanatory power and comprehensiveness to be of critical importance. Specifically, to what degree the id, ego, and superego explain typically seen behaviour surrounding personality and the self. On a simple level, Freud’s early work, particularly on the stages of psychosexual development do explain typically seen behaviour in children- such as a child’s obsession with putting toys in their mouth. Although psychodynamic behaviour fundamentally revolves around atypical behaviour, as Freudian theory is founded on therapy sessions (Freud,1989) with atypical individuals; there has been a significant effort to use the theory to explain behaviour in children and adults, and both atypical and neurotypical individuals (Freud, 1989). On the contrary, Boudry (2008) argues that the psychodynamic approach is less of a rational explanation, and more like a “conspiracy theory” (Boudry, 2008). For example, the psychodynamic approach provides evidence such as slips of the tongue and dreams to confirm the presence of the unconscious self. But, when evidence presents itself which refutes the existence of the unconscious and the psychic apparatus, it is seen instead as evidence of cunning skills of deception that the unconscious uses. Thus, meaning that the theory struggles with falsifiability yet again. This combination means that at the core of psychoanalysis Freud can “mould any observation into an interpretation consistent with [his] theory” (Boudry, 2008) and thus, could be seen to lack explanatory power overall. Furthermore, original psychodynamic theory is less comprehensive in a modern context- both because Freud’s writings do not translate well in a modern context, and also that the application of certain ideas are limited in modern social norms: such as, the Oedipus complex doesn’t work well outside of heteronormativity. Nonetheless, given that Neo-Freudian researchers have managed to create more empirical measures (Loevinger,1976) and have accepted some aspects of Freudian theory to be obsolete (Westen,1998); then yet again, a distinction between archaic Freudian theory and more modern psychodynamic theory leads to a much stronger consensus that psychodynamic theory does have explanatory power in a modern context (Westen,1998).
Maltby, Day, & Macaskill (2017) also highlight heuristic value (meaning how much a theory can create a large amount of interest, but also have good scientific backing) to be of critical importance in the evaluation of personality theories. Some would argue that psychodynamic beliefs surrounding the self, lack in heuristic value as despite creating an enormous amount of interest, fundamentally Freud lacks scientific substance (Barlow & Durand, 2005) and therefore have less value. However, interestingly almost all researchers have reached a consensus that Freud’s work has sparked a huge amount of psychological research and has had a great influence on the field of psychology. Furthermore, despite issues of scientific substance with original psychodynamic theory (Barlow & Durand, 2005), Neo-Freudian research has been given more scientific credit (Loevinger, 1976; Westen, 1998). Also, it is hard to ignore that entire theories have been started in riposte to Freud (such as much of Skinners initial work), which despite being fundamentally opposed to Freud, were sparked in retaliation. In addition, most of Freud’s concepts have been incorporated into more modern ideas (Bornstein, 2005)- for example the ego has been cited as an influence in several modern cognitive concepts, such as in Baddeley’s (1992) central executive, and repression in Beck’s (1976) cognitive avoidance. No matter if psychodynamic theory was unscientific, Freud’s work directly led onto Behaviourist theory and countless other psychological ideas, even if they fundamentally disagreed with psychodynamic theory. Freud is also still cited frequently in literature today, and unconscious cognitive processes are taken as a given by researchers today (Westen,1998). Psychoanalytic therapy may not be practiced in its purest form, but talking therapies are still widely used by clinicians. Simply, psychodynamic theory undoubtedly has a huge amount of heuristic value- both in psychology overall and theories about the self specifically.
Finally, Maltby, Day, & Macaskill (2017) propose that applied value is of key importance to personality theories because if a theory is not practical and applicable on a daily basis then ultimately it has no weight as a theory overall. Original psychoanalytical theory undeniably had good applied value, as even Maltby, Day, & Macaskill (2017) point out, Freud’s work improved the treatment of psychological patients who had previously been ostracised from mainstream society during the Victorian era and shortly after. Even though this doesn’t revolve around the psychic apparatus, the theory as a whole has been significant in applied psychology. Obviously, some psychodynamic theories have been left in the 1920s (Westen,1998) by clinicians as their usefulness is limited with modern issues and debates, particularly ideas surrounding hysteria. However, modern psychoanalytic theory is widely used, particularly certain concepts such as defence mechanisms (Bornstein, 2005; Maltby, Day, & Macaskill, 2017) and talking therapy (Westen,1998). The effectiveness of these therapies is equivocal however, and is an area of debate (Svartberg and Stiles, 1999; Prochaska and DiClemente, 1984); with some researchers such as Noonan (1971) suggesting that for patients with anxious personalities and phobias, psychoanalytic therapy will make them brood on their anxieties and only amplify them, rather than helping them to overcome their problems and alter their personality to cope with such stress. Also, psychoanalytic therapy has limited application with other aspects of individual differences- for example, some patients with depression (Shapiro & Emde, 1991) have reported limited benefit from psychoanalytic theory as the therapy itself requires a lot of effort and motivation, which they struggle with. Perhaps therefore, psychoanalytic theory surrounding individual differences in mental health has different levels of applied value depending on the individual.
In summary, the key principles in psychoanalytical psychology revolve around Freud’s work and so have major issues in the present day, mainly because they don’t make sense in a modern context (Westen,1998). Maltby, Day, & Macaskill’s (2017) framework highlighted a range of issues with empiricism with psychodynamic theory, but also praised the heuristic and applied value of the unconscious self. The Oedipus and Electra complexes doesn’t work so well when single parents are commonplace, and heteronormativity is not as strong. But contemporary psychodynamic theory however, does apply to a modern context, and has managed to shake off the less attractive concepts that Freud proposed. Therefore, no matter how unempirical or untestable original psychodynamic theory was, Freud generated so much psychological research, and influenced so much psychological practice around the self and individual differences that the theory is a keystone of personality psychology.
Bibliography
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science (255), 556–559.
Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (2005). Abnormal psychology: An integrative approach (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Bornstein, R. (2005). Reconnecting psychoanalysis to mainstream psychology: challenges and opportunities. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22 (3), 323-340. doi: 0.1037/0736-9735.22.3.323.
Boudry, M. (2008). What Social Constructivism Ought to Tell Us About Psychoanalysis (And What This Would Reveal About Itself) (Postgraduate Dissertation). Ghent University, Ghent University.
Freud, A. (1989). Normality and Pathology in Childhood: Assessments of Development. London: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the ID. Vienna: W. W. Norton & Company.
Freud, S. (1940). An Outline of Psycho-Analysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 21. 27-84.
Freud, S. (2010). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. (C., Hubback, Trans.). London: Bartleby.com. (Original work published 1922).
Jung, C. G. (1915). The theory of psychoanalysis. The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease. New York: New York. p. 69.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prochaska, J., & C. DiClemente (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, Ill., Dow Jones-Irwin.
Shapiro, T., & Emde, R. N. (1991). Introduction: Some Empirical Approaches To Psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 39, 1-3.
Svartberg, M., & Stiles, T. C. (1991). Comparative effects of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 59(5), 704.
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence. (4th Edition). Harlow: Pearson. Chapter 1.
Noonan, J. R. (1971). An obsessive-compulsive reaction treated by induced anxiety. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 25(2), 293.
Westen, D. (1998). The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud Toward a Psychodynamically Informed Psychological Science. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3) 333-371.