The study of personality
The study of personality has, through history, been a recurring theme in most civilizations. Since the late 19th Century, the field has matured into what is now known as personality psychology. One dominant and unifying notion in personality theory is that certain motifs recur consistently in a person’s life and that they can be used to determine or guide behavior or thought. However, there are also differences in approaches to the theory. An example is a rift between the psychoanalytic and the humanistic perspectives. This paper will compare and contrast these two perspectives using peer-reviewed assumptions.
The psychoanalytic approach was championed by authors such as Sigmund Freud. One central theme in this approach is the pessimistic connotation with which human life is regarded. The unconscious is a notion in the psychoanalytic approach that supposes that there is a latent and dormant side to the human psyche which unwittingly controls more conscious decisions and behaviors (Tummala-Narra, 2016). Another predominant marker of the psychoanalytic theory is that of biological instincts. In this sense, according to Freud, there are two main instincts, those that push humans towards self-preservation and those that make humans aware of mortality and nudge people towards violence and aggression.
The humanistic approach was championed by authors such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow (Dryden, 2017). It compares to the psychoanalytic perspective in that it affirms that there are inherent traits in humans, and those picked up as a result of environmental interaction since childhood. However, the approach is more optimistic in that it focuses on how people can leverage knowing these traits to better their lives. As a result, concepts such as self-actualization and fulfilment dot the entire approach. Both concepts can, however, be said to be to a degree biased. For example, the psychoanalytic theory heavily diminishes the opinion and capability of women while the humanistic approach ignores the biological and evolutionary side to human nature in a bid to be more optimistic.
The two perspectives have a varied approach to human nature. Each observes how humans behave through different worldviews. The psychoanalytic theory observes people in a negative way that shows pessimism whereas the humanistic approach seems to observe the same phenomenon from a more optimistic lens. Phenomenology, the study of how we understand our interaction with the outside world, suggests that we are highly moulded by our immediate social environment. The humanistic approach and the psychoanalytic model of psychology differ in how they perceive our potentials of becoming better men or people in society. Freud’s psychoanalytic model understands human nature based on repression of sexual urges whereas the humanistic approach encompasses the totality of a person’s actions.
The psychoanalytic theory describes a person in terms of their Id, ego and superego. Freud suggests that people’s behavior are driven by sexual urges that come from the Id part of their psychology. Therefore, the psychoanalytic theory suggests that we work on a pleasure principle that ultimately makes up our personalities. However, unlike the psychoanalytic approach, the humanistic perspective focuses on the potential of the person to become a human being. The humanistic approach acknowledges that being a human being comes with its shortcomings that are not necessarily evil as described by the psychoanalytic perspective of the Id. Additionally, the humanistic approach views personality as the development of the human form infancy to self-actualization. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that we grow through a series of development in our psychosexuality from infancy to a sexually mature individual. The two models offer two different explanations about the psychology of humans.
Both the psychoanalytic theory and humanistic approach come from the clinical spectrum of observing the human psyche. Unlike approaches that are discussed in the textbook, these two theories have firm roots in psychotherapy. Using biological traits to explain personality traits comes from traditional psychometric models of understanding cognitive-behavioural mechanisms. Cognitive social learning theories differ from the psychoanalytic and humanistic models by focusing on different cognitive and behavioral aspects of psychology (Butt, 2004). Psychotherapists using either the psychoanalytic theory or the humanistic approach would attribute behavioral change to general personal change. Personality is described by behavioral mechanisms such as coping and defense mechanisms. The two perspectives explain behavior as the main determining factor of one’s personality.
Although they might be vaguely different, psychoanalysts and behaviorists use these two models hand in hand in psychology. Their differences come in handy when analyzing a person’s psychology. It would be a mistake to put these two personality theories against each other. This is because, on their own, they offer unique insights into human nature. Moreover, they also introduce bias in the process of delivering their content. It would be therefore more prudent to consider both theories and their shortcomings if one is to get close to understanding the human psyche.