Women in Psychology - Essay Example

Running Head: WOMEN IN PSYCHOLOGY Women in Psychology: Karen Horney (1885-1952) BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANIZATION HERE HERE This paper explores the background of Karen Horney and her various contributions to the field of psychology. Horney developed theories closely-connected with those of Sigmund Freud, blending rationale with wisdom to assist in building a new element of psychological examination. Women in Psychology: Karen Horney (1885-1952) Introduction Karen Horney was a theorist of psychodynamic personality traits who utilized many of Sigmund Freud’s theories to create a new viewpoint on sexual instinct. Additionally, Horney developed the first widely-accepted view of the constructs of anxiety and neurotic trends, significantly contributing to the field of psychology. Karen Horney maintained additional views of children and the onset of anxiety, granting her respect in the psychological community. This project describes the background of Karen Horney and highlights her many contributions to psychology. The Woman and Her Perspectives Karen Horney (1885-1952) grew up in Hamburg, Germany to more affluent, upper-middle-class parents with a Protestant background. Horney’s father was a deeply religious man and a ship captain while her mother was a more liberal thinker who promoted Horney to succeed in medical school (Smith, 2007). This was during a period in the early 20th Century when women had not yet achieved the right to vote, making Horney’s arrival in medical school in 1906 a monumental event, especially with her focus on studying Freud’s viewpoints on psychoanalysis (Eckardt, 2005). In the 1920’s, Horney began to challenge Freud’s viewpoint on masculinity and femininity, especially in areas of sexual development and sexual instinct. She began to criticize Freud’s perspective in which he believed that women felt inferior to men because they did not have a penis (Eckardt). Horney felt that this was a very one-sided perspective, riddled with masculine narcissism, which consistently created bias against women during psychoanalysis. Over time, Horney redeveloped Freud’s view on feminine sexuality and created a new template by which women are assessed: One in which the absence of a penis no longer became the perceived foundation of women’s troubles. In a sense, based on the women’s suffrage movements occurring during this time period, Horney managed to liberate women when being analyzed for psychological study as more than merely the product of masculine envy. Sigmund Freud laid the foundation for many of the views of the time regarding anxiety and the development of positive personality traits. Over the years, Karen Horney redeveloped the view of anxiety by suggesting that anxiety is not necessarily a product of sexual conflicts (as Freud believed) but can occur from non-sexual issues as well (Morris & Maisto, 2005). Horney believed that during childhood anxiety is a product of having to rely on parental figures for all of their basic survival needs. Insecurities arising from ineffectual parenting skills or other nurturing activities tended, by Horney’s view, to create maladjusted personality traits and anxiety (Morris & Maisto). In many respects, this viewpoint on anxiety also appears to have threatened the masculine ego which existed during the time of women’s suffrage moments. Where Freud’s viewpoints on sexuality and anxiety were widely-respected, Horney challenged these beliefs to suggest a more liberal series of situations or events which can drive the development of personality. This tends to illustrate that Horney was much more flexible than many of her colleagues and could use rationale and wisdom to create a new model of psychological examination and assessment. Horney also built on Freud’s theory of neurosis, with Horney creating three specific neurotic trends which she felt were observable in most people. These trends involved submission, aggression, and detachment. Submission is the process of moving toward others as a means to cope with emotional issues (Morris & Maisto). This represents an individual who will avoid conflict and confrontation even in the face of personal anxiety. Aggression is the process of acting out against others as a coping mechanism while detachment is an isolation from various social environments in order to cope. Through this three-characteristic psychological model on neurosis, Horney determined that the personality itself is reliant on one or more of these trends and will dictate the specific personality type of the individual who carries these traits and acts on them. Karen Horney’s view on neurosis was, again, a liberal approach to understanding personality constructs which appears to be the cornerstone of her values and beliefs. One notable psychologist states that Horney “fought for a more open, optimistic, growth-oriented, and socially conscious psychoanalysis…who put humanity above gender” (Lieberman, 2000). Horney appears to have created a more flexible model of psychoanalysis by understanding that the essence of sexuality is not the driving motivation in every situation which an individual experiences. Horney, it appears, began to develop the modern framework of humanistic psychology simply by questioning the status quo in relation to psychological beliefs and philosophies. In every sense of the word, Horney was an innovator and a pioneer in the development of many of the psychological models used today. Later in her psychological career, Horney redeveloped many of her own theories, again illustrating her progressive viewpoint on psychology. Horney began to believe that certain cultural forces were far more important in the development of positive personality traits than biological factors, which had been a widely-held belief in this time period. Horney believed that through careful counseling and psychoanalysis, an individual could come to recognize their own personality defects and make positive changes toward correcting them (Morris & Maisto). Horney began to recognize that hidden motivations and past experiences were the driving factor of personality problems and certain destructive behaviors and maladjusted thought patterns were the outcome of long-term cultural influence. This took a much more flexible viewpoint in a psychological community which remained focused on the sex drive as the proverbial end-all, be-all of psychological evaluation. Many of the psychological models used today recognize cultural impact on healthy human development. Cognitive psychology recognizes this as well as humanistic psychology. These beliefs are likely evident in today’s psychiatric evaluations as well. Karen Horney was likely drawing on her mother’s long-standing lessons on free-thinking and liberal lifestyle to assist her in developing a more sound and rational model of human behavior. Her father’s religious roots and firm dedication to religious doctrine also likely played a factor in Horney’s liberal views on psychology as she often questioned his stern devotion to biblical principles. In many respects, Horney’s background itself would seem to justify many of her theories on culture impacting healthy development due to the positive impact it left on her. During the early 20th Century, the dominant theme in psychology was the idea that man was more like a machine, guided and directed by sexual instinct. Through a series of unhealthy behaviors, the individual was believed to be unable to gain control of his or her senses in the face of sexual drive and ambition. Freud, specifically, believed in this pessimistic theory of mankind (Morris & Maisto). Karen Horney viewed the person as a much more complicated and efficient individual with the capacity to both control their own fate and redevelop unhealthy behaviors into well-adjusted behaviors. At a time where psychoanalysis was being recommended widely for personal issues, Karen Horney worked to uncover the more rational foundations of personality defects, which likely paved the way for modern psychological counseling as a means to support healthy growth and development. Without Horney’s contributions to the field of psychology, there might be a growing consensus that sexual instinct is still the cornerstone of maladjusted thoughts and behaviors with full-blown psychoanalysis as the only rational model of choice. Conclusion Clearly, Karen Horney was a pioneer in psychology who was not afraid to challenge the existing viewpoint on both assessment and treatment of a wide variety of psychological disorders. Her view that anxiety can be produced from more than sexual drive and her identification of various neurotic trends created a new guidance in studying the human mind. Recognizing that culture rather than biology can influence personality development was likely the foundation of modern childhood studies as well as she recognized, in the early 20th Century, that anxiety can be borne of parental influence rather than genitalia. Though this is only speculation, it does appear that Horney was well-ahead of her colleagues during this time period and made others in the field of psychology consider alternatives in treatment and assessment. This flexible viewpoint has made considerable contributions to the field of psychology and has allowed for the creation of a wide variety of study domains in which to approach the creation of a better society. Most people in today’s society would likely thank Karen Horney for being progressive and outspoken at a time when women’s viewpoints were being stifled and trampled upon. Without her contributions, there is no telling what modern psychology would be comprised of in the 21st Century. References Eckardt, Marianne. (2005). “The 120th Anniversary, Karen Horney, September 16, 1885 – Karen Horney: A Portrait”. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 65(2). Lieberman, E. J. (2000). “The Unknown Karen Horney: Essays on Gender, Culture, and Psychoanalysis”. Library Journal, New York. 125(7): 112. Morris, C. & Maisto, A. (2005). Psychology: An Introduction. 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ: 426-427. Smith, Wendy B. (2007). “Karen Horney and Psychotherapy in the 21st Century”. Clinical Social Work Journal. Vol. 35: 57-65. Read More