This are is an
original student paper that has not been edited.
There may be
occasional errors, so check the resource pages to be sure of proper formatting,
APA style, etc.)
PS 321-01
Dr. Johnson
Even
in our pre-school years, my siblings and I had always been fiercely
competitive. We constantly compare test scores, grade point averages, athletic
achievement, and the amount of extra-curriculars we have been involved in over
the years. As my older brother and sister have graduated, it has become harder
to directly contrast our successes, and while blatant competition within the
three of us has relaxed in the past few years, our
attitudes toward life have remained competitive.
Alfred
Adler, in the early stages of his theory, would attribute my actions and
competitiveness in terms of organ inferiority, although he would be
hard-pressed to find a faulty organ, as I was completely healthy, and even a
normal height as a child. So, the human race is not nearly as “blessed” with
deficiencies as he had originally proposed (Adler, 1930). Nevertheless, he
theorized that people were motivated to achieve in spite of their physical deficiencies,
a process he called compensation. This need to achieve and overcome is a result
of masculine protest, a part of our aggression drive. It is easy to understand
why he would think of psychological functions, such as personality development,
in terms of physiological processes. Like Freud and Jung, he had also begun his
education in medical school, training to become an ophthamologist before
changing his focus to psychiatry. Nevertheless, this background in biology was
consistently active in his theories.
The
difference between Adler and his counterparts is that his theories adapted to
incorporate a higher level of active human agency and a greater influence of an
individual’s environment, culture, and family life on personality (Monte &
Sollod, 2003a). Adler eventually gave more credit to the function of the ego
than did Freud, hypothesizing that rather than organ inferiorities being based
on an objective truth of a situation, an individual’s subjective perception of
their inferiority determined the manifestation of their symptoms (Adler, 1930).
My developmental situation makes more sense in light of this creative view of
the ego. It was not that I was less intelligent or successful than the general
population, but I saw myself as so in the context of my siblings’
achievements.
This
is not to say that I was comparing myself to them when I was 4, but rather that
I saw their capacities as a norm, and was afraid that I could not live up to
the standard. This element of perception early in our youth is important to
understanding Adler’s theory, considering that our organ inferiorities are
firmly set in place by age 5 (Adler, 1933). Our family therefore, is very
important in the formation of our style of life—the consistent patterns of
reaction to and interaction with the world around us and the people in it
(Adler, 1946).
This style
of life is defined by our attempts to reach what Adler referred to as our
fictional final goal (Adler, 1946). Fictional finalism refers to the
unconscious and unrealistic goals we set for ourselves in order to conquer all
our inferiorities and overcome all difficulty in our lives (Adler, 1930). Fictional final goals are most comparable to
Horney’s idea of the idealized self, a glorified and unattainable version of
what we would like ourselves to be (Horney, as cited in Monte & Sollod,
2003b). In this case, my fictional final goal would be the embodiment all the
strengths of my older brother and sister—very hard to do, considering how
different of people they are and the huge divergence of their talents.
These ideas
of style of life and fictional final goals are closely tied into our
inclination toward masculine protest and strivings for perfection. These
strivings are innate human tendencies to conquer, achieve superiority, and
ensure personal success (Adler, 1930). Rather than needing to feel superior to
others around us, Adler described striving for superiority as the drive to gain
superiority to our prior state, a natural drive to make ourselves better
people.
Once again,
Adler disembarks from Freud’s idea that people are inherently evil, and that
all our actions are based on repressed, and usually violent or hateful, selfish
motives. He has a much more optimistic outlook on human nature, concluding that
we all wish to better ourselves and that neuroticism seems to stem from the
misguided attempt at improving ourselves to the detriment of society, i.e.
narcissism (Adler, 1930). Of all the theorists in the psychoanalytic tradition,
Adler seems to deal the most equally with the development of neurotic and
normal personalities.
Another
difference between the development of normal and neurotic personalities other
than concern for society, is finding an appropriate technique for overcoming
organ inferiorities. Neurotic individuals utilize techniques that show no
concern for other people, and seem to have little useful output. Conversely,
normal personalities find a proper technique for overcoming their organ
inferiority and attaining their fictional final goals—the deficiencies people
are born with could actually turn out to be the inspiration of their greatest
traits (Adler, 1933). Rather than making a name for myself among my
over-achieving siblings by rebelling and causing disciplinary problems for my
parents (what Adler called the ruling-dominant type, with the primary goal of
revenge), I chose to follow their example. Fulfilling the hopes my family had
for me in a way that was not harmful to others, and usually helpful, I
established my normal personality as a socially-useful type (Adler, as cited in
Monte & Sollod, 2003a). My style of life was to be competitive, but this
competition did not hurt others, and was usually nothing but beneficial to
myself. To keep with Adler’s concept of people not needing
to be superior to others, but rather to themselves, I was just as happy to keep
up with my siblings’ achievements as I was to surpass them.
This
concept of “following in the footsteps” of my older siblings is suggested by
Adler’s theory of birth-order effects. As the youngest of three, my two older
siblings served the function of pacesetters. They were my targets, the
individuals I should strive to catch up to and hopefully pass in achievement
(Adler, as cited in Monte & Sollod, 2003a). Although youngest children
could have the seeming advantage of an individual to set the pace for them,
they could easily be discouraged by failure, or hopelessness at the possibility
of even coming near the scope of their achievements. The oldest of the three of
us is five years older than myself, possibly creating
a daunting challenge, not to mention how talented both my older bother and
sister were. One example of a standard set by my brother is that of his
admittance into HAPP (high academic potential program)—a set of classes set up
to foster intellectually gifted students.
One of my
earliest memories is actually taking a standardized test the winter of my
kindergarten year to determine whether or not I was capable enough to be
inducted into the small class of 20 children. My parents never really stressed
the importance of the test, as my sister was not in HAPP and they both saw the
disadvantages of such an exclusive program at such a young age. I, however, was
fiercely determined to earn a qualifying score, somehow proving that I was
“just as good” as my older brother (yet another example of my competitiveness,
already developed by age five). Despite my resolve, my scores were not high
enough, and I had to wait another eight years to prove my worth. My family had
a strong influence on my reaction, and my parents treated my sister and me no
differently than my older brother, still encouraging me and providing the
incentive of attention and honor on achievement in the class I was in. Their
actions were encouragement to still pursue my brother’s achievements (Adler,
1933).
This
seemingly irrelevant recollection, Adler would argue, is anything but. What we
remember sheds light onto what we thought was important, and made the greatest
impression on our young, developing minds and personalities (Adler, 1933).
Whether or not these memories are true is inconsequential. As I explained
before with the role of the creative ego, subjective perceptions are just as
important in understanding one’s personality than the objective truth, if not
more (Adler, as cited in Monte & Sollod, 2003a).
Adler seems
to explain my personality trait of competitiveness more thoroughly in his later
versions of his theories. His early, more stringent concept of organ
inferiority would not seem to apply in my case, considering I was born and
lived my first eight years of life without any sign of a single organ
inferiority, or physical weakness. Humans, thanks to the intervention of
technology, are no longer universally “blessed” with faulty organs (Adler,
1930). In his later theorizing, however, Adler seems to leave room for the
influence of perceived organ inferiorities, in this case, my brain and its
intellectual capacities. Competition in education was the manifestation of my
deficiency, and consequent masculine protest.
This
seeming strength of his theory actually presupposes an inherent weakness. His
theory has no power to predict personality development or traits if it is able
to explain and account for the development of any (Monte & Sollod, 2003a).
It would have been just as easy to explain my academic failure or unwillingness
to compete, as it was my tendency toward competition. Despite this fault, Adler
does have the advantage of taking into account an individual’s environment, and
personal differences in perception, or personal creativity. None of his
contemporaries would have been able to explain my trait any better, and Adler
has the added benefit of attributing greater active human agency to personality
development than any of his predecessors, although not enough to be included in
the humanistic movement.
The reference list
would go here.