A Side Track: Freud and Adler, the commonality!



I threatened in one of my early postings to view the philosophic underpinnings of the psychology of Adler and in this posting I should like to posit a notion that has been rattling around in my old mind for a few years. I wish to look at what Freud and Adler have in common, but my understanding of Freud is weak so this may need considerable revision with the able assistance of those visiting the Forums.



The structure of personality:

Freud:

Freud proposes his drive psychology with three basic “parts” to the human personality. First there is the “Ego” ( German, “Ich” means “I” in English). It arises purely on a mechanistic basis. The infant brain has sensory input channels, which function early and increasingly attempt to make order out of the noise of the environment. The Ego is therefore a creation of the child’s brain running with little constraint almost as a free running oscillator in an electronic system where the oscillator is triggered by the environmental inputs in vision, sound, touch, smell and even taste. The brain inherently attempts to organize this flood of data and if I understand his postulate, this organizational effort produces the “Ego”.

The Super Ego:

If I am correct, the brain, in response to the parents or other societal inputs, also creates the superego. Superego in German is "Uber Ich" which in English means "above I" in transliteration. He proposes that the child learns to fear rejection or punishment by the caregiver and produces a set of guidelines which later produce a kind of “conscience”. Thus the Superego is produced at a “social interface” and therefore Freud does not totally ignore the community aspect of the child’s development. The superego seems to “ride herd” on the aspects of brain function that will bring about societal disapproval.

The “Id” (“Es” in German… means “it” or a “thing” in English”), lies under the Ego and almost seems to be a result of chaotic activity of the brain running in every which direction, wishing to fulfil its lusty desires and it is always threatened by that nasty “Superego” which tries to keep it in check. For Freud there is a very large component of “sexual drive” running in this arena, but not sexual in the sense it is commonly used. He seems to find the “libido” thing under every turn in the road.

Freud sees the person as a sequence of internal conflicts wherein one is always at war with these primal instincts.

Adler:

Adler does not excuse the brain as a free running system but imposes the demands of social interest. Adler demands that a person functions “In the stream of human evolution” but “sub specie eaternitatis”. Adler sees the person as a unity not a tripartite system with internally generated conflicts, but rather as a unity, but a unity that is most often in conflict with the common good.



Now what is the integrating thing going on with these two theorists? I would like to propose that both are trying to find justification for the notion that humans must behave morally. Freud finds these notions to be internalised most commonly from the parents. Adler proposes that these notions must be internalised from the community.

But why should there be any need for a system of morality? It can be argued that if we are merely high functioning primates, we are the most damaging and dangerous primates on the planet. If there is no overarching notion of morality, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should be eliminated from the planet. Only humans are able at the press of a red button, to destroy the earth. I feel rather strongly, that both of these minds are arguing to find a rational basis for right behaviour and this is where they really do converge.

Thus a very real philosophic underpinning of both psychologies is an attempt to propose a sufficient cause for human right behaviour. Freud agonized with the morass of human behaviour as he observed the horrors of the once proud German nation emerge in that terrible war. He was in dark despair about the human condition … perhaps unduly so. Adler maintained a relatively optimistic view of the human condition through the same time frame … perhaps simplistically so.

Well this is a very condensed discussion and for any readers trained in freud's psychology, I know I have not represented the theory at all well. I beg your indulgence. If I am utterly incorrect please post appropriate corrections.

__________________
George Neeson M.D.