This paper critiques Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory from a multicultural-historical perspective, examining its foundational assumptions about unconscious desire and the tripartite mind (id, ego, superego). The essay traces the evolution of psychoanalytic thought through subsequent theorists including Rogers, Berne, and Adler, while situating Freud's framework within broader historical discussions of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. Drawing on cross-cultural research and philosophical inquiry, the paper argues that while psychoanalysis provides valuable therapeutic tools, it represents a limited avenue for understanding the human psyche and soul. The analysis concludes with a clinical application to a literary character, demonstrating multiple psychoanalytic intervention strategies.
The theory of psychoanalysis views individuals as operating according to some unconscious desire or energy. Formulated in 1900 by Sigmund Freud, who wrote The Interpretation of Dreams, psychoanalysis interprets human actions, feelings, and thoughts as having their basis in the human unconscious—which is largely shaped by experiences in one's childhood but is also directed by all of life's energies. This section outlines some of the key assumptions of psychoanalytic theory and discusses the strengths and limitations of that approach from a multicultural-historical perspective.
Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory centers on the key assumption that mental and behavioral afflictions are caused by the lack of fulfillment of unconscious desires within the mind. In other words, Freud saw human nature as "basically deterministic" (Corey, 2012, p. 64). The unconscious cause was responsible for the observable effect. Freud developed a model of the mind that consisted of three parts: the id, ego, and superego. The id represents unconscious desire; the ego is that part which is recognized by the self; and the superego is the part that decides what is good and bad for the self.
According to Freud, a patient's self often fights against its subconscious, which causes stress in the patient's life. A patient's neurosis is thus linked to his or her unconscious. This foundational concept established the framework through which psychoanalysts would interpret psychological distress for generations to come.
From a historical point of view, Freud may be said to be restating an ancient formula derived by philosophers and scholastics for hundreds of years. Aquinas in the Middle Ages had identified this "struggle" as the struggle of free will, which as O'Connor (1962) states is "many wills conflicting." Today, such analysis could lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. But as Daniel Smith (2007) points out, that which is today known as schizophrenia has been known by other names in the past and been treated differently as well.
The historical continuity of this concept—from medieval theology to Freudian psychology—suggests that Freud was addressing a perennial human question about internal conflict rather than discovering something entirely new. The struggle between competing desires or wills is a theme that has occupied Western thought for centuries. What Freud did was to translate this philosophical problem into the language of modern psychology and to propose a therapeutic method for addressing it.
This perspective is important because it contextualizes psychoanalysis not as a revolutionary break from all previous thought, but rather as a modern scientific reformulation of ancient insights about human nature. The difference lies not in the observation of internal conflict but in how Freud proposed to understand and treat it.
The term "schizophrenia" was coined in 1911 by Swiss psychologist Eugen Bleuler, who first used it to rename dementia praecox—"premature dementia"—as it was called by German doctor Emile Kraepelin, who initially focused attention on the disorder in 1893. Kraepelin's study touched on auditory hallucinations and other symptoms, which researchers such as McGuire and David (1995) contend is caused by physiological defect. Bleuler's study, however, focused on the splitting of personality. In fact, throughout all history, civilizations have attempted to identify and treat what is now called schizophrenia, with varying results. It is this splitting of personality, so it may be said, that Freud recognized when he divided the personality into three distinct parts.
Today, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies schizophrenia as a disorder of the mind in which the patient suffers from delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, catatonic behavior, and negative symptoms such as loss of volition, social withdrawal, or a marked decrease in functionality. Individuals diagnosed as schizophrenic must exhibit these symptoms for a significant amount of time—at least one month, with signs continuing for up to six months. The fact that all of these characteristics might apply to every individual in a lesser degree suggests that what is called schizophrenia may be a universal aspect of the personality, which is naturally split, as Freud and the psychoanalysts have suggested.
"Evolution of schizophrenia diagnosis and cultural understanding of mental splitting"
The limitations of the psychoanalytic approach, such as the purely hypothetical construct of id, ego, and superego, served as a springboard for other psychoanalysts to construct their own theories in attempts to understand what Plato called "the soul." Freud's psychoanalytic approach opened the door for numerous other approaches, such as Berne's, which took a more active approach to helping the patient discern his or her unconscious by focusing on the child, adult, and parent states. Likewise, Carl Rogers developed an alternate approach that stemmed from the psychoanalytic tradition.
The key assumption of Rogers was that the psychoanalytic approach had to be grounded in a kind of humanism. As Rogers (1951, p. 495) himself states, "The best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the internal frame of reference of the individual." This was Rogers' "person-centered approach"—a way to understand the human personality based on the client's own subjective experience rather than the analyst's interpretation.
Rogers wrote: "Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self. Psychological maladjustment exists when the organism denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the self structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension."
Rogers published Client-Centered Therapy in 1951, which set forth his principles by analyzing the client in varying contextual situations. "Congruence" and "Incongruence" were two terms that helped identify the client-patient's situation. A patient who was in a state of congruence had no difficulty fulfilling the need for "positive regard"—his or her life could be lived with little disturbance. Incongruence, however, resulted in patients trying to satisfy their need for "positive regard" by living inauthentically or falsely. By trying to satisfy certain societal conditions, the authenticity of the individual is subjugated and the true nature of the person is not established.
Rogers identified the patient who suffers from incongruence by recognizing certain "defense mechanisms," which the patient would exhibit in order to protect his or her concept of self. The "defense mechanisms" could take two avenues: the patient could "distort" or "deny" the truth about himself or herself.
However, psychoanalytic approaches have multiplied through the years since Freud's initial formulation. All over the world, each approach attempts to define its strengths and point out the limitations of other approaches. Often a combination of approaches is studied in the hope of formulating a cohesive form of psychoanalysis that accounts for human complexity across different contexts.
Richard Weaver (1984) views the dependency upon empirical or quantitative data in research as a sign of a loss of faith in the universals which William of Occam denied in the 14th century, effectively setting off a chain of philosophical events that led to the West's rejection of scholasticism and Platonic inquiry. If psychologists today use motivational interviewing or the Socratic method in order to counsel and direct, a phenomenologist might infer that the method works because it speaks a universal language—or, as Kyziridis (2005) states, the "language of the soul."
Moreover, the multicultural analyses performed by Hofstede (2010) in his seminal cross-cultural sociological studies suggest that the theory of psychoanalysis is a limited avenue towards understanding what every culture has attempted to understand about the human psyche and the human soul. The Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions has supported the work of psychoanalysts who claim that culture is a factor in the formation of individual wills, attitudes, and desires. It also supports, however, the notion of universality—that what Socrates identified as the one, the good, and the true (the transcendental virtues) are known or can be known in all cultures and by all individuals.
Thus, the final analysis of the theory of psychoanalysis suggests that there is more to the psyche and the soul than the thrust of unconscious desires. It suggests that an even greater mystery—one that may be called a spiritual mystery, in fact—is at play. The psychoanalytic framework, while offering valuable insights into one dimension of human experience, may be insufficient as a complete account of psychological and spiritual development.
The old Reverend Boughton is chosen as the subject of psychoanalytic theory. It appears that his conscious desire is for his prodigal son Jack to show that he has truly returned for good. He wants Jack to be a true penitent. He wants him to show that the Reverend has not wasted all his words and thoughts and prayers—that Jack will show some sign of true gratefulness. It appears that the Reverend is simply expressing a desire for Jack to become a good man, a holy man. But if that were true, one must ask why there is so much tension in the home and why the Reverend seems somehow unable to truly forgive Jack for going astray. Herein lies the riddle of the old man's unconscious desire. Is it that he himself is somehow jealous of Jack's wanton ways and prodigality—that he is frustrated that while he himself has preached sin and redemption, he has secretly begrudged those who don't hear his words but go off to have "their fun"? Does he too want to be part of the fun?
That question could reasonably be posed by the psychoanalyst, but because psychoanalysis theory has developed in so many different ways over the years, it is impossible to limit one's approach to the question of this individual character to one individual theory. One might take a family systems approach, which would allow the researcher to analyze the family as a whole and how their interactions with one another affect each other. However, because the Reverend is the subject here—he who believes in the soul and the power of spirituality—it suggests itself to view the character from the multicultural-historical perspective that Kyziridis (2005) imparts: the psyche is beyond anything that can be put in tangible words, yet that can be touched sometimes by tangible methods. Or, as O'Connor states, it is where multiple wills conflict.
It appears then that the Reverend is torn between forgiving Jack and accepting him with judgment and spiting Jack because Jack, he feels, has betrayed him and will betray him again. The problem, it appears, is that the Reverend places himself at the front and center of Jack's life, when, as the Reverend himself preaches, the front and center should be God. Boughton's problem, or unconscious desire, is that he wants or sees himself as "God." He acts as though he alone were offended by Jack's prodigality. He forgets that it is God who is the judge of Jack's soul—not him—and that whatever Jack does is between Jack and God. Boughton acts as though he were the Lord, but his frustrations at not being able to change Jack reveal the limitations of Boughton's "god-like" powers: in short, he has none because he is not the Lord.
What Boughton should realize therefore is that he is secretly judging his son, whereas it is not his place to do so. On the contrary, it is his duty to raise, teach, and guide his son, but if the prodigal goes astray, it is no fault of the father if the father has done his duty. And if the prodigal returns, it is the duty of the father to rejoice, not to loathe.
"Applying multiple psychoanalytic approaches to literary character analysis"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.