Psychoanalytic Theory: Strengths, Limitations, and Cultural Perspectives

Foundations of Psychoanalytic Theory

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.

Unconscious Desire and Historical Context

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.

Strengths of the Psychoanalytic Approach

One of the supposed strengths of the psychoanalytic approach is that it provides treatment through free association. While the patient talks to the psychoanalyst, signs or clues of the patient's unconscious desires are detected by the psychoanalyst, who then tries to bring these desires to the surface and to the patient's awareness or consciousness. The psychoanalyst does not do so through direct intervention but by asking questions that will lead the patient to discover unconscious motives for his or her behavior. The treatment is aimed more at helping the patient to understand himself or herself better.

Thus, while Freud attempted to get the patient to understand the subconscious motivation behind the neurosis or personality disorder, his descendants would attempt to do even more and would pursue that goal through broader applications and approaches. Berne developed the theory of transactional analysis and Erikson a theory of psychosocial development. Adler's theory of individuals being in a perpetual state of "becoming" essentially restated the same problem (as so many before and after had done) but this time with what could be called a more Socratic approach—viewing the patient as whole, but with competing drives.

Dream analysis played an important role in the development of Freud's psychoanalytic approach. According to Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams, the "dream proves on psychological investigation to be the first of a series of abnormal psychic formations, a series whose succeeding members—the hysterical phobias, the obsessions, the delusions—must, for practical reasons, claim the attention of the physician" (1911, p. 5). Yet according to others, Freud's analysis was not entirely verifiable through empirical means.

Evolution Beyond Freud: Rogers and Others

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.

Limitations and Multicultural Critique

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.