Gender Issues and Horney Theory

In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the theories of Karen Horney stimulated by the women's movement. Women in the field of mental health have taken a new look at Horney's contribution to psychoanalysis, especially her critique of Freud's theory of feminine psychology. The focus has been primarily on Horney's early papers published in Feminine Psychology (Horney, 1967). Few people have gone beyond these early papers to understand Horney's later contribution—her own unique theory of neurotic character structure.

A true understanding of Horney's contribution to psychoanalysis must be seen in two phases. In the first phase, from the early 1920s to the late 1930s, Horney's work was within the context of Freudian language and structure and represented attempts at adding to Freud's theory or revising it. In her later more developed phase Horney produced her own theory of neurosis and neurotic character structure using her own terminology. In the first phase Horney's contributions were largely in the area of feminine psychology. Later, after moving away from the Freudian model, Horney's theory was not gender-specific. In her own theory, Horney does not talk of women's behavior or men's behavior, but of human behavior. Her theory truly encompasses human potential without specifying gender. Most mental health professionals are not familiar with Horney's later work, and are not aware of its usefulness in understanding gender issues in today's world. In this paper I wish to discuss the application of Horney's theory to current issues concerning gender.

Before discussing theory I would like to review certain aspects of Horney's life, both personal and professional, which were significantly influenced by the gender issues of her day. She was born in 1885, just prior to a period of social pressure for women's rights. As noted by Quinn in her biography of Horney, “Had it not been for the social ferment of the 1890s,