Extent to Which Freud, Rogers and Eysenck Believe That Personality Is a Product of Free Will - Research Paper Example

Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers and Hans Eysenck have all theorised about personality. Critically discuss the extent to which these theorists believe thatpersonality is a product of free will. Human personality is a well-discussed topic that has drawn the attention of psychologists and researchers. Psychologists direct their interest in human behavioural patterns, emotion and thought as well as the manner in which individuals interact with each other as a means of defining personality. Human personality has been found to determine some aspects of human life (Glassman & Hadad, 2013). For instance, humans are social beings and personality dictates the way they associate with other members of the human race. The personality of an individual is a major determinant on how a person also reacts to situations or reacts to other people. Psychologists have debated on the origin of human personality with some proposing that it originates from within the individual. On the contrary, others argue personality is influenced by external environments an individual is subjected (Glassman & Hadad, 2013). Psychoanalysts propose that unconscious motivators combine with social factors such as childhood influences to play a role in personality development. While studies continue to take place with the aim of generating greater understanding of the human personality, two psychologists; Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers critically evaluated the development of personality and the various factors that influence this development. This paper discusses the extent to which these two theorists believe that the personality is a product of free will. Freud was introduced to psychology and psychoanalysis through the practice of hypnosis that was at the time used to cure the human mental ailments and conditions. He experienced and studied hypnosis under the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. While Charcot sought to investigate the root causes of hysteria, he found out that symptoms of hysteria could be alleviated through hypnosis. It led him to believe that deeper underlying levels of consciousness could be behind an individual’s conscious conduct or personality (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998). From his associations with other practitioners of psychology, psychoanalysis and behavioural sciences, Freud developed the technique of psychoanalysis based on case observations of his patients (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998). Freud was able to observe the connection between the associations his patients developed consciously with the dreams they had. Freud’s principle argument in discussing personality was that personality was dependent on a person’s interaction with the components of the human mind. Tis could imply that personality is not a personal choice but is moulded by factors beyond the individual, which could suggest the lack of free within individuals to develop their personality of choice. To explain that personality was a result of interaction with the components of the human mind, Freud categorized the human mind into three parts: the id, the ego and the super-ego (Freud, 2006). The idea behind psychoanalysis was that the mind with its distinct parts as illustrated above is ultimately responsible for personality and decision-making capabilities of the individual. Largely, Freud portrayed an individual as a captive of their mind, which denies them the free will to decide their preferred personalities. In essence, in the topographical dissection of the human mind, Freud sought to justify that human personality resulted from mind functions beyond the individual’s control and hence denies the possibility of free will in developing personalities. For instance, the id that Freud considered to be the most primitive part of the mind operated unconsciously. However, even in the unconscious function of the id, it utilized the pleasure principle and often guided people towards attaining instant gratification (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998). Considering that the id operates unconsciously, individuals do not have control of unconscious processes and hence the result of any operation from the id part of the brain, which also affects personalities, is not willed. Freud labelled the second portion the ego. Freud considered the ego to be less primitive when compared to the id. According to Freud, the ego operated in a semi-conscious mode and served to regulate the id. For example, when the id was driven towards satisfying an urge, the ego moderated the id. It moderated the id by allowing the gratification of urges only when it deemed them appropriate (Freud, 2006). The ego, in this case, functioned based on reason and reality, therefore, influencing an individual’s personality and actions based on free will. The most advanced portion of the human mind in the Freudian context was the superego. Considering the superego was the only conscious part of the brain, Freud could have suggested that though the brain could function unconsciously and subconsciously, individuals still had a role to play in developing their preferred personalities, especially concerning acting morally. Freud came up with five stages of human development collectively known as the psychosexual stages of development. The staging of human development is based on the primary centres of physical pleasure that Freud believed played a role in the formation of human adult personality. The Oral Stage; was estimated lasted from between birth to 1.5 years. The prominent centre of pleasure in this stage was located in the oral cavity. Children expressed pleasure through motions such as eating, sucking, talking or biting. In Freud’s analysis, the formative stages of seeking pleasure to satisfy the oral stage in children emanated from breastfeeding and learning to speak. Human personality and character during adulthood would be affected depending on whether the satisfaction was attained during this stage or not (Kahn, 1963). Consequently, fixated children would choose to compensate during adulthood by performing oral functions such as smoking, drinking alcohol, being aggressive talkers or biting their nails (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998). Therefore, Freud in this suggested that individuals do not deliberately will to develop these antisocial behaviours, but the behaviours are a response to pleasures not satisfied early in life. In the Anal Stage; toddlers aged between 1.5-3 years underwent the anal stage whose centre of pleasure according to Freud was the anal cavity. Freud proposed that one of the first demonstrations of the anal cavity as a centre of pleasure was the child’s attempt to control their excretion. If a child were punished as they learnt to use the toilet or manage the excretion process, the children would develop fixation. According to Freud, the fixated behaviours could include retentive or expulsive anal tendencies (Freud, 2006). Therefore, individuals with these tendencies do not develop them from a free will perspective, but the behaviours are controlled by powers beyond their control as compensation for the pleasures that the individual was denied earlier in life. The Phallic Stage occurs at around 3-5 years of childhood. The phallic stage refers to both male and female sexual organs as centres of pleasure. Children who are unable to display their respective affection during this stage will also become fixated. The fixation during the phallic stage will account for strained child-parent relationships during adulthood (Kahn, 1963). Again Freud could have implied that failed relationships are not directly willed but are an indication of an abnormality in this stage of development. The Latency Stage is mainly a period characterized by consolidated but hidden/dormant sexual attraction for members of the opposite sex. This period takes place when children are between 5-12 years. Children need to master developmental aspects of this stage to enable them acquire adult personalities. Lack of friendships either at home or school might result in individuals developing neuroses/fixations that manifest as activities deemed as socially unacceptable (Kahn, 1963). Again, as children grow their personality and ability to found and nurture relationships with the opposite sex members depend on whether this pleasure was satisfied in childhood. Fixations such as the development of unsocial behaviours and failure to nurture relationships are thus not willed but are a response to the pleasures that the individual failed to satisfy During the Genital Stage; Sigmund Freud classifies the age between 12 years and adulthood as a defining period during which personalities in humans develop. In this period, a person’s genitals become the main point of pleasure. This period is characterized by puberty and the onset of hormonal-driven growth and development. This stage must be satisfied through the establishment of functional relationships between young people of the opposite sex. However, fixation can also take place during this stage. Affected adolescents will grow up having unsuccessful relationships during their adulthood, which demonstrates the extent to which the behaviours of individuals as adults is determined by their experiences as children. However, some psychologists strongly believed that personalities were developed out of free will. One of such psychologists is Carl Rodgers. Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was another authority in psychology and personality studies apart from Freud. Rogers, like Freud, was a theorist who developed elaborated arguments and research. However, unlike Freud’s often complex theories, Rogers put forward simpler and straight forward arguments and theories (Glassman & Hadad, 2013). Rogers derived most of his research material from years of interaction with patients. Rogers considered that all the people he was studying had healthy states of mind as opposed to having bad mental illness. Behavioural patterns such as mental illness and criminality signified normal and natural life progression. Unlike Freud whose personality theories portrayed man as an object and a victim of his environment, Rogers had much respect for human dignity and was interested in people as subjects and not mere objects. As such, Rodgers believed in the free will of individuals to define their personalities. According to Rogers, organisms including people know what is good for them. Consequently, they seek out things and make decisions that best suit them. For instance, people looking for food do not pick whatever food that comes their way but selectively choose that which suits them best through the process of organism valuing (Rogers, 1957). Similarly, considering that people know what is good for them, they are free to choose a personality that helps them achieve their willed ends. Rogers distinguishes humans from other organisms based on their unique ability to strive towards attaining their potential based on their personality. Consequently, the persons actualization potential is a push that forces and allows a person to experience his true self in a way that actually reflects his conscious view of whom he/she is. The self-actualization occurs when their true self matches their personality/behaviour or self-image. For Rogers, a fully functional person is the one who is actualizing. Like the Freudian psychosexual theory, Rogers believed that one’s childhood experiences determined whether one would become self-actualized or not (Rogers, 1957). Consequently, one’s potential was determined by events earlier in life and thus the individuals had no free will to decide their personalities later in life. Rogers’ fully functional person possessed five key characteristics. These were; openness to experience, existential living, they trust feelings, are creative and live a fulfilled life. Rogers’ theory regards personality development as a process based on the self or self-concept. According to his analysis, the self refers to the humanistic term denoting a person. The self is one’s inner self-equivalent to the mind or the psyche as used by Freud. A person’s character or personality in Rogers’ context draws influences from past experiences and how they can be interpreted. The social environment plays a function in the way a person’s behavioural pattern is shaped (Glassman & Hadad, 2013). As such, individual’s behavioral patterns are not willed but are a product of interaction with the existing environment. Rogers (1957) proposes that people seek to behave, feel or get experiences that reflect their self-image. People, therefore, realize a higher sense of self-worth when their ideal selves are in sync with their self-image. Self-worth according to Rogers is equivalent to self-esteem; self-image refers to how people perceive themselves, and the ideal self is what one aspires to be. For example, the personality of a child was motivated by a desire to attain two needs; self-worth and positive regard from people (Rogers, 1957). Therefore, contrary to Freudian theory, Rogers believed in the ability of individuals to will and shape their personalities especially when their self-worth is in sync with their self-image. Rogers suggests that the personality was a product of self-worth that ranged from low to high. People with self-esteem are more likely to face challenges of life, take risks and concede failure. Such people are also more friendly and open. On the contrary, low esteem individuals are more likely to avoid challenges or risks and adopt a defensive stance when confronted (Glassman & Hadad, 2013). However, humans are "capable of evaluating the outer and inner situation, understanding herself in its context, making constructive choices as to the next steps in life, and acting on those decisions" (Rodgers 1977, p.15). Therefore, individuals have the power to freely determine their self-worth. In a similar fashion to the Freudian outlook, Rogers traces the development of self-worth to childhood interactions between an individual and parents. Social interaction plays a part in the development of personality and how people evaluate each other in social settings, which could imply that personalities are as a result of social interaction and hence not freely willed. In the human growth and development curve, people are met with a positive reception based on how they behave. For example, children receive positive regard and approval by conducting themselves in a manner parents deem to be appropriate. However, this type of treatment will in the end affect the person’s personality as an adult (Rogers, 1957). Conclusion Overall, Freud illustrated in his theories such as the Psychoanalytic Personality theory and the psychosexual theory that to some extent, personality is a result of free will. For instance, in the Psychoanalytic theory, the superego that is the most informed and conscious part of the human mind exercises control over the ego and the id. This form of informed control of the entire human psyche gives a person a free will to determine his/her personality and overall manner of conduct (Freud, 2006). However, Freud portrays individuals as being at the mercy of experiences experienced in the development process, which rigidly determines their personalities as adults. As such, Freud could have implied that personalities are not willed but result from a series of influences from experiences in the development process to adulthood. However, personality in Rogers’ context is determined by a combination of free will and circumstances beyond an individual’s control. For example, a person who as a child only received approval as a child based on what he or she did which parents deemed to be appropriate will grow up to constantly seek approval from other people. This personality trait might be involuntary because their childhood determined their personalities as adults. To conclude, the development of the human personality is a complex process that continues to be studied. Human behaviour continues to evolve based on many factors such as the environment, childhood and adulthood experiences, response from other people, as well as socialization. Theories by Freud and Rogers among other psychology experts and scholars have attempted to give an insight into human behaviour. It can, therefore, be stated that though human personality can be a product of free will, so is it a result of exposure to different environments, people, socializations and personal values, ambitions. It is, therefore, not wholly the product of free will, but the result of a host of factors. References Baumeister, R., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. (1998). Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction, Projection, Formation, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1082-1095. Freud, S. (2006). Personality & Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 8(2) , 163-169. Glassman, W. E., & Hadad, M. (2013). Approaches to Psychology, (6th ed). Ontario: McGraw-Hill Education. Kahn, E. (1963). Sigmund Freuds Mission. An Analysis of His Personality and Influence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120(6), 612-613. Rogers, C. (1957). The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103. Rogers, C. R. (1977). Carl Rogers on personal power. N.Y.: Delacorte Press Read More