Alfred Adler's Contribution to Psychotherapy
Alfred Adler’s contribution to psychoanalysis is
predominately phenomenological and goal oriented. Adler is essentially inspired
by a social approach to psychology and therefore highlights the individual’s
value system that underpins their beliefs and perceptions, in this way it is
very close to Constructivism.
Adler like the
Constructivists whom he influenced believed that an individual’s behaviour is
largely associated to their upbringing and education, Adler wrote (Ansbacher
& Ansbacher 1964:182/183) “I am convinced that a person’s behaviour springs
from his opinion. We should not be surprised at this, because our senses do not
receive actual facts, but merely a subjective image of them, a reflection of
the external world. In considering the structure of a personality, the chief
difficulty is that its unity, its particular style of life and goal, is not
built on objective reality but on the subjective view the individual takes of
the facts of life. Each person organizes himself according to his personal view
of things, and some views are sound, some less sound”.
Adler coined the term
“family constellation” in order to explore the impact of birth order, family
values, role models and gender on the child as they grow up. Adler’s approach
suggests that an individual learns attitudes and behavior within the family
context it is the family that provides the child with a microcosm of society.
According to Adler the birth order also has an impact on the individual
behavior as an adult. Adler suggests also looking at other aspects of the
child’s family life including how the child is treated, how the parents
interact with the siblings, how siblings treat each other and a child’s
abilities or disabilities. Other factors that Adler felt where important
included parental role models, the family’s socio-cultural background and
parenting styles which proved to be of particular interest to Constructivists.
Both Adler and the Constructivists were influenced by Marxist theory.
Adler suggested that
the child’s vulnerability leads to a sense of inferiority and if this is
subsequently internalized in adulthood Adler believes that this may lead to a
superiority complex. As an adult there is a need to compensate for this
perceived inferiority, if this is exaggerated it evolves into a “superiority
complex”. Adler was influenced by Nietzsche and this fits in with Nietzsche’s
“Will to power” the need for the individual to assert themselves over others.
However unlike Nietzsche, Adler believes that this is not always a conscious
process and maintains “[…] a general goal of man […]. This goal of complete
superiority, with its strange appearance at times, does not come from the world
of reality. Inherently we must place it under “fictions” and “imaginations.” (Adler1973:32).
The final goal of this process according to Adler is a “better adaptation”.
The “fictions” and
“imaginations” are central to Adlerian theory, according to Adler the ultimate
truth will always be beyond the individual, and because of this individuals
formulate partial truths or constructs to make sense of their lives, reality
for Adler is subjective and the individual acts in the present whilst looking
at the future. Adler developed the theory of “finalism”, a teleological
process, in that the fiction is projected into the future, yet despite this it
influences the individual’s present, Adler’s influence on Viktor Frankl is
quite apparent. Frankl a student of Adler had developed Logotherapy an
essentially existential approach to a future orientated psychotherapy whereby
the individual establishes meanings that are to be fulfilled in the future.
Adler suggests we are unable to understand the individual without understanding
that person’s fictional finalism. These ideals are of an existential nature in
that they, the concept of fictional finalism according to Adler is a guiding
principle as such people arrange their lives in order to justify and enable
their fictional, final goal. Individuals who are healthy change their final
fictions according to their circumstances, neurotic individuals however cling
to the same fictional ideal. Adler writes (1925:2/3) “The essential point to be
grasped psychologically and the one which interests us exclusively and
practically and psychologically more than all others, is the path followed. Let
me observe that if I know the goal of a person I know in a general way what
will happen. […] We must remember that the person under observation would not
know what to do with himself were he not oriented toward some goal. If we look
at the matter more closely, we shall find the following law holding in the
development of all psychic happenings: we cannot think, feel, will, or act
without the perception of some goal”.
Adler’s
teleological approach allowed him unburden himself of Freudian determinism and
the cause and effect dyad preferred by the canonical psycho analytical approach
cultivated by Freud, in so doing Adler empowered the individual, making the
individual responsible for their own fate and their own choices and not the
victims of quasi biological deterministic drives preferred by Freud. It is at
this point that Adler shows himself as being phenomenological in approach primarily
influenced by philosophers Vaihinger and Husserl the phenomenological approach
is also shared by the existentialist, person centered and Gestalt approaches.
The Adlerian approach is concerned
with the individuals “creative self” a process by which the individual is able
to work upon their background and environment and establish themselves in
society, this approach is diametrically the opposite of Freud’s determinism and
can also be found in Gestalt psychotherapy. Adler, unshackled from the Freudian
deterministic drives, perceives the individual as an essentially social
creature who wishes to live harmoniously with his fellow man. According to
Adler we all have an innate “social interest”, however it is not always
cultivated or realized. Adler’s theory of social interest was to influence
approaches as diverse Erich Fromm, Viktor Frankl and William Glasser. Adler
suggests that if an individual consummates their innate social interest they
will be emotionally successful individuals. Adler suggests individuals face
three major obstacles during their life- times that require a well -developed
social interest, these include occupational tasks, where the individual
contributes to society, societal tasks, which includes working together with
other people to benefit mankind and love and marriage which requires emotional
commitment and cohabitation as a family unit. Social interest is essentially a
process by which the individual is able to integrate into society. Adler’s
influence therefore is clearly evident in the work of William Glasser, despite
the latter being predominately cognitive-behavioural in approach. It is also
visible in the neo Adlerian Erich Fromm who developed his own theories which he
defined as assimilation and socialization.
Adler’s definition of “social
interest” has its roots in Marxist social theory which appealed to Adler’s
egalitarian approach. Adler’s theory of social interest is intrinsically
connected to an individual’s style of life in that an individual’s identity
evolves from their choice of life style. An individual’s life style in turn
influences how the individual solves life’s problems and what aspirations they
wish to achieve. A healthy style of life allows the individual to be an
integrated member of society whereas a poor choice of life style usually
inspired by an internalized inherent inferiority complex or by a superiority
complex is according to Adler doomed to fail. This aspect of Adler’s theory was
later developed by William Glasser and can also be seen in the work of Carl Rogers.
Adler suggested four types of
individual according to the way they associate to social interest. These
included the dominant type, who wishes to dominate others, the leaning type who
expects everything from others, the avoiding type, those who fear failure and
therefore do not act and finally the socially useful type a well- integrated,
who is able to live in harmony with others, contributes to society and lives a
productive life. Karen Horney a neo Adlerian developed this theory further by
suggesting ten neurotic needs that can be manifested in the individual. By
1945, Karen Horney was able to identify ten neurotic needs in three categories
in her book Our Inner Conflicts.
Horney proposed a series of strategies used by neurotics to cope with other people
“Horney saw these three neurotic “solutions” to basic anxiety and hostility as
ideal types. As concepts, each one forms a pure configuration of motives,
feelings, and behaviours uncontaminated by the others. The dependent and
domineering types, for example, are diametric opposites, and the detached type
opposes them both. As extremes they represent analytical concepts, not actual
people, who display greater variety, complexity, and intermeshing of
characteristics than the types suggest. But the analytic purity of the types
permits greater theoretical insight and development” (Westkott: 1986:81).
Horney like Adler also believed that the root of tension was sociocultural and
not sexual as it had been for Freud. (Myers, 2007). Karen Horney in turn
influenced Erich Fromm who also developed a similar theory which he developed
in several works including Man for Himself and later To Have or to Be? The
personality types developed by Adler and his followers prove especially
interesting when viewed within the Adlerian holistic dynamic.
The term Individual Psychology
(Adler, 1932) is often misinterpreted. Adler’s theory highlights the holistic
nature of the individual. As such Adler employed the term “individual” to
highlight the integrity of the individual when others like Freud, were
promoting the fragmented and conflictual nature of the individual in the form
of id, ego and superego. Adler postulated a holistic theory that proposed the
individual as a product of their family unit and cultural up-bringing that
influences the goal that an individual works towards (Ferguson, 2000a). With
Adler we begin to notice a move from the intrapsychic (within the psyche) to
the interpsychic (interpersonal) relations.