Theory Of Self And Self Concept Essay Example for Free

Theory Of Self And Self Concept Essay Karen Horney formulated a theory of neurotic needs which is central to the understanding of the development of personality (Paris, 1994). Horney developed her assumptions from experience as a psychotherapist and falls under the psychoanalytic tradition in the sense that she emphasized childhood experiences influenced how adults develop their own personal constructs. She said that basic anxiety as perceived by the child in relation to its feelings of alienation and helplessness with his/her relationship with his/her parents motivates the child to develop various strategies to cope with these feelings of isolation and helplessness (Horney, 1950). When the child has to resort to these strategies in a regular manner, then these strategies may become more or less permanent fixtures of personality. In her early writings Horney identified ten neurotic needs that a person utilizes to find solutions to its problems and anxiety, these were then categorized as falling under moving towards people, moving away from people and moving against from people (Paris, 1994). Furthermore, Horney believed that any of these three orientations can be assumed by the person as a way of life and hence influence his/her relationships with other people. These orientations are the source of inner conflict in the sense that the person develops an unrealistic conception of the self and tries to live up to that idealized self. The normal person could resolve these neurotic needs easily because they have a stronger sense of self. Horney also developed a theory of self wherein the self defined the person’s ability to become well integrated or to become neurotic (Quinn, 1987). For Horney, the self is the core of a persons being, it is seen as the driving force behind the persons ability to transcend its existence in relation to other people. If a person has an accurate concept of the self then he/she does not need to resort to neurotic needs and he/she is more attuned to the realization of personal potentials. On the other hand, the neurotic is handicapped by the conflicting despised self and idealized self. To the neurotic, the self is divided into two opposing forces the despised personal characteristics that we believe we have based on other people’s perception of us and the personal traits that we lack and strive to live up to. The neurotic self is pulled by these two forces at the same time and is referred to as the tyranny of the shoulds and neurotic striving for glory. While the person fluctuates between hating themselves and pretending they are perfect, they become estranged from their true core and thus fail to realize their potentials. Carl Rogers (1959) of the humanistic tradition is well known for his person-centered theory that has become one of the most influential methods of psychotherapy. Rogers emphasized that the key to a person’s development of personality is how he/she forms his/her self-concept. The self-concept refers to the ideas and perceptions that the individual has about his/her self and is manifested through his/her experiences of â€Å"I† and â€Å"me† (Kahn, 1996). Moreover, the self-concept is not only affected by the how the person evaluates his/her self in relation to the real world but it also dictates how that person behaves towards that world. Thus, a person who believes him/her self to be strong and powerful will behave differently from someone who believes that he/she is weak and helpless. It is a normal tendency for man to behave according to their self-concept and evaluates his/her experience as congruent or incongruent to his/her self-concept. Any inconsistencies between the person’s experience and his/her self-concept will cause anxiety and the person then tries to deal with this anxiety by denying the incongruence which would then become a way of life and lead to maladjustment (Ford, 1991). Rogers also identified the ideal self as the kind of person that we wish and strive to become, the more similar the real self is to the ideal self, the better adjusted the person is. On the other hand, if the discrepancy between the ideal self and the real self is wide then the person will become unhappy and dissatisfied. Horney and Rogers both developed a theory of self from two opposing perspectives, while they may share similar views on their theoretical discussions of the self, they also differ considerably in several points. Horney and Rogers both defined the self as the core of a person’s being and personality. The development of the self was seen as the product of the person’s experience and his/her evaluation of that experience in relation to his/her feelings and perceptions of his/her self. This indicates that the self is an important construct that each person subscribes to and is later shaped through external and internal influences. Thus, the self is affected by how other people relate to us and how we define who we are. In spite of this similarity, Horney and Rogers differed in how the self influences the development of maladjustment and neurosis. To Horney, the self is torn between the despised self and the idealized self while Rogers believed that the inconsistencies between the behaviors of the person and how he/she perceives him/her self would lead to maladjustment. Moreover, to Horney the idealized self has a negative connotation in that it is a set of beliefs about the self that a person should live up to but fails to because it is impossible to attain. Rogers has a more positive treatment of the ideal self, to Rogers the ideal self represents the qualities and personal traits that we wish and strive to become, and the person continues to work towards this ideal self and that it is attainable. Despite this difference, both Horney and Rogers believed that the self is capable of realizing its potentials, to Horney if a person is healthy, he/she would be free to seek to develop his/her potentials, and Rogers believed that the self is constantly in the process of self-actualization. Horney and Rogers both developed their theory of the self from their professional practice, however, Horney came to it as a byproduct of her theory on neurotic needs while Rogers observed during psychotherapy that clients always referred to the self and hence he deduced that the self was of prime importance. Horney was one of the first to identify the self as central to the development of personality and neurosis. However, Horney emphasized that without a strong sense of self the person will be consumed by his/her neurotic needs corresponding to the person’s self-image. While Roger’s conception of the self and the self-concept positively impacts how a person behaves towards other people and his/her world. This means that Roger’s felt that the self is very real and that we are constantly in touch with who we are while to Horney, the normal person has a more real self than the neurotic one. Furthermore, the neurotic self can only resolve its anxieties by becoming integrated as a person and by identifying and controlling behaviors that are motivated by neurotic needs. This is quite similar to how Rogers explained that a person who is maladjusted has only to be able to believe in his self and to identify the discrepancy within his/her self-concept and his/her actions. References Ford, J. (1991). Rogerss theory of personality: Review and perspectives. In A. Jones R. Crandall (Eds.), Handbook of self-actualization. [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(5), 19-44. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization. New York, WW Norton. Kahn, E. (1996). The intersubjective perspective and the client-centered approach: Are they one at their core? Psychotherapy, 33, 30-42. Paris, B. (1994). Karen Horney: A Psychoanalysts Search for Self-understanding. New Haven: Yale University Press.   Quinn, S. (1987).   Mind of Her Own: the Life of Karen Horney. New York: Summit Books.   Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (ed.). Psychology: A study of science. (pp. 184-256). New York: McGraw Hill.