You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The differences between the various schools of depth psychology—as between all schools of thought on man, whether in science, philosophy, or religion-reflect different conceptions of a fundamental problem: the nature of human selfhood. This refers to the center of personality, the seat of man's psychic individuality—that which makes the individual an autonomous and potentially creative being.
Freud viewed man's psychic individuality as rooted in biological nature. According to him, even “the differentiation between ego and id must be attributed not only to primitive man but… to much simpler forms of life.” 4* Jung, too, retains a naturalistic viewpoint. He believes that “the individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures.” 11
Adler was the first to break away from nineteenth-century biological naturalism. His more pragmatic conception of the self and concern with the role of social influences in its development foreshadowed more recent trends in depth psychology. 1 H. S. Sullivan's theory of the formation of the self—as built upon the “reflected appraisals” of others—is in fact a systematic and thoroughgoing social determinism. 29 Erich Fromm, 6 similarly to Karen Horney, 10 distinguishes between a pseudo or “social self” which also reflects the social environment, and a “real self” which is the true center of personality.
From the standpoint of sober naturalism (which leaves out visionary