By Dennis Sale
IN my previous column I outlined the big five personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism), and their key implications for understanding aspects of self, others and human behaviour. In this follow-up column, I will continue this theme through a summary of two other major strands of theory that have addressed the nature and workings of human personality: psychoanalytic and humanistic psychology.
There are different strands within both these theoretical traditions and I will concentrate solely on what I see as the key concepts relating to the basis, structure, and workings of human personality.
Sigmund Freud, probably the most famous figure from psychoanalytic theory, argued that there are three main components that comprise the structure of personality – the id, superego and ego. These are systems, not identifiable physical parts of the brain, but exist as a dynamic psychological entity and, most importantly, are often in conflict.
The id is the unconscious, primitive and instinctual part of the mind which responds directly and immediately to basic urges, needs and desires. It is also illogical, irrational, fantasy-oriented and totally self-oriented. A newborn baby, according to Freud, is all id.
In contrast, the superego incorporates the values and morals of society which are learned from one’s parents and other agents of socialisation (school, peers, media), and typically develops between the ages of three to five. It largely operates un/subconsciously, though can be explored, in part, through self-analysis.
The superego’s main function is to control the id’s impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It contains the voice of conscience and the source of self-criticism, as well as our notions of ideal self, which is an imaginary picture of how we might like to be.
The ego is the only fully conscious part of our personality. At the level of experience, it is what we think and feel about ourselves in the ‘here and now’, and typically works at projecting a desired self-image to others. This desired projected self-image can vary from situation to situation, and according to whom one is interacting with.
In structural terms, it mediates between the selfish unconscious drives from the id and pressure to conform to societal laws, values, and norms from the superego. It constitutes the decision-making component of personality and can be seen as the ‘manager’ between these conflicting forces in deciding how to behave. On the one hand, behaviour that is at variance to our conscience and/ or ideal self may lead to feelings of guilt and self-punishment. On the other hand, extreme oppression of the id can lead to frustration that is displaced onto other things – even people.
From a Freudian perspective, managing the self is an ongoing struggle, with much being one of inner conflict and overt compromise. This view of the mind – one largely dealing with inner confusion rather than enduring stability – is also supported by other personality theorists. For example, Apter (2001) describes the mind in these terms: ‘…everyday life, as it is experienced, is a tangled web of changing desires, perceptions, feelings, and emotions that filter in and out of awareness in a perceptual swirl’.
Similarly, Bandler and Grinder (1999) make the point: ‘It’s really important to understand that most people are very chaotically organised on the inside.’
How relevant Freud’s model of human personality is in today’s context is contested, and much of his other work has been significantly challenged.
However, the concepts of id, superego, and ego – and how their dynamics play out – remain popular, offering insights into explaining much of everyday behaviour. Furthermore, the role of the unconscious mind in shaping human behaviour is now a prominent research area in the growing field of cognitive neuroscience.
Perhaps most significant, Freud’s depiction of the mind as one of internal conflict at the level of psychological processing may enhance our understanding of increasing mental-health concerns among young people.
We are certainly living in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous times – the so-called VUCA world. This may be making the search for consistent purpose and meaning in life more ubiquitous and challenging for many people, especially the young. This cocktail of both existential inner conflict and that of perceived external chaos is one that may pose problems for many individuals’ personal wellbeing, and ultimately a significant challenge for educational framing and curriculum focus.
Humanistic psychology stands in sharp contrast to Freud’s dark and pessimistic view of human nature and personality structure. Carl Rogers, one of the founding fathers of humanistic psychology, saw human nature in more positive terms, empathising an inborn ‘actualising tendency’ which drives individuals to shape their own character, develop innate potential, and attain personal success and wellbeing.
He also argued that in optimal social conditions, people have great potential for goodness. Central to developing one’s potential and a healthy functioning personality (what Rogers referred to as ‘congruence’) is the importance of positive and unconditional self-regard from significant others. For him, people become destructive only when starved of positive self-regard and meaningful relationships.
Humanistic psychology, like psychoanalytic theory, has its critics, especially in challenging the premise that all individuals are potentially good. However, it highlights the importance of providing social environments that promote positive self-regard and meaningful relationships, and encourage individuals to use their own free will to work productively to achieve personal success and wellbeing. Such framing of human personality development has underpinned much of educational practice in recent decades.
Contrasting psychological theories challenge our thinking about what shapes a person. It is important to know both the commonality, and what makes people different, and in what ways. For that reason, I see the understanding of personality as an area of importance in the school curriculum.
Young people need to learn that the very notion of being human carries immense challenges that are internally driven, not just externally imposed, and collectively they are only manageable through developing strong resilience, responsibility and self-regulation – and this is not easy.
A better understanding of human personality does not solve the problems that life’s challenges throw up, but it can be a resource for dealing with them in more productive ways. Knowing me, knowing you, as the ABBA song goes, may not always make things work, but in understanding what does not work and how, it offers potentially better choices and outcomes in the future. We may just call it wisdom.
-
Dennis Sale worked in the Singapore education system for 25 years as an advisor, researcher and examiner. He coached over 15,000 teaching professionals and provided over 100 consultancies in the Asia region. Dennis is author of the books Creative Teachers: Self-directed Learners (Springer 2020), and Creative Teaching: An Evidence-Based Approach (Springer, 2015). To contact Dennis, visit dennissale.com.
