Let's start with Freud. Freud had a very simple but functionally effective model of the human psyche -- for both therapist and common folk alike. It was a metaphysical model involving 3 compartments in the personality: 1. the superego; 2. the id; and 3. the ego. Basically, the division of responsibility and function in the personality worked like this: 1. the superego handles all social-ethical responsibilities. It functions as the 'ethical and social conscience' of the personality; 2. the id handles all the biological instincts in the personality -- both acceptable and non-acceptable , sensory, sexual and violent (although all three of these points are debatable as we shall soon see); 3. the ego handles all the 'reality-testing', 'epistemology', 'conflict-mediation', and 'executive action' functions in the personality. It is the 'conflict-negotiating, compromising bridge' between the id and the superego. The name 'DGB(N) Philosophy expresses the same idea -- 'Dialectical, Gap-Bridging Negotiations'. In other words, the ego in Freudian Psychology fulfills a 'Hegelian conflict-mediating function' -- specifically the evolutionary function of: a) thesis (superego), b) anti-thesis (id), and c) synthesis (ego)'. Again -- a simple and functionally effective metaphysical model.
However, boys will be boys -- they all want(ed) to make their own models and put their own 'personal stamp' on it. Is this a sexist comment? Perhaps -- or even probably -- today. 'The times they are a changin'. Anyways, Melanie Klein, a German Psychoanalyst got involved in the 'model-building competition' -- and she was a girl/woman; not a boy/man. Stereotype broken.
Alfred Adler couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's brand of conceptual narcissism (Psychoanalysis) so they split -- Adler creating the school of psychology now known as Adlerian or Individual Psychology;
Carl Jung couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's model of Psychoanalysis -- so they split too -- Jung went on to create his own school of psychology called 'Jungian Psychology'. Carl Jung was also partly influenced by Adler's thinking -- parts of which can be found in Jung's system, particularly the idea of 'compensation'. The idea of 'compensation is also important in my own brand of DGB Philosophy-Psychology.
Adler's effect on personality theory was substantial and partly paradoxical. In a field of 'dialectical' theorists, Adler was an exception -- he was a 'monistic' theorist: he believed in the 'unity' and 'wholism' of the personality in 'Spinozian fashion' or like the very ancient 'monistic philosophy' of the Greek philosopher Thales (water being the source of all things) vs. the 'dialectic philosophy' of Anaxamander and Heraclitus where they began to talk about 'opposites colliding' with each other (Anaxamander) or 'opposites needing to balance with each other' (Heraclitus).
I had a tough time wrestling with this conceptual problem in the early 1980s: in attending both The Gestalt Institute in Toronto and The Adlerian Institute of Ontario at the same time, I was struck with the paradoxical difference between the 'dialectical theory' that I was learning at The Gestalt Institute and the 'wholistic-unity' theory I was learning at The Adlerian Institute. How could they both be theorizing about the same human personality when the difference in this theoretical outlook was so -- remarkably different? 'Unity and Wholism in The Personality' (Adler) vs. Dialectical Polarity and Conflict in the Personality (Freud, Jung, Klein, Perls...) Why was Adlerian theory -- 'non-dialectical'?
Or was it? There was a 'hint' of a 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory that I was grasping a bit of back then when I was learning it in 1980-81, more so now. But it was explained in a different way. 'Lifestyle' was/is the central concept in Adlerian theory. All of an individual's unique personality according to Adler -- and I am paraphrasing what I remember learning -- revolves around the person's unique 'lifestyle (pattern)' which is similar to what I will be developing in my concept of a person's unique 'transference-lifestyle complex'. This is Freud and Adler integrated in typical DGB Post-Hegelian style.
What was the hint of a possible 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory? Adler postulated that every person had some unique form of an 'inferiority or insecurity feeling' which he or she 'compensated for' through his or her own unique process of 'superiority-striving' -- which was the essence of his/her own unique 'lifestyle pattern'. That is as far as Adler took it basically although there is obviously a lot more to Adlerian theory than I have just quickly summerized here. But I will 'extrapolate' on Adlerian theory a bit in DGB terminology and conceptuology.
This connects Adlerian Theory with Freud's pre-1900 'Traumacy Theory' and his post-1900 'Narcissistic Theory'.
A person invariably and inevitably experiences a number of similar and/or different types of 'narcissistic ego traumacies' in his early childhood -- some of a more subjectively psychologically significant nature than others, some of a unique, individual nature, and others of a more 'chronic, serial' nature. It is impossible to get through childhood without experiencing 'narcissistic ego traumacy' from the 'objectively small' to the 'objectively huge' to the 'subjectively small' to the 'subjectively huge'. Objective psychology and 'objective narcissistic ego traumacy' does not always meet 'subjective narcissistic traumacy'.
It is subjective narcissistic ego traumacy that counts and subjective narcissistic ego traumacy is in the eye of the beholder; specifically, the eye of the person who experiences, interprets, and evaluates the 'nature of the ego-traumacy' and often ends up carrying this narcissistic ego traumacy consciously and/or subconsciously -- together with his 'superiority compensations' for the rest of his or her life. So now we have a theoretical connection between: 1. 'narcissistic ego traumacy'; 2. 'inferiority feeling and/or feeling of insecurity'; 3. 'compensation' and/or 'compensatory action'; and 4. 'superiority-striving' (lifestyle pattern which generally consists of the compensatory action). DGB Psychology will call this whole state of affairs the person's 'transference-lifestyle complex'.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Back to the history of personality theory. There were other things happening in the history and evolution of personality theory that need to be accounted for, and integrated into our evolving DGB model of the human psyche.
Perls' Gestalt Model: Perls (or maybe it was Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman -- or maybe it was Fritz and Laura Perls) introduced -- and I am not sure when and under what circumstances these two concepts were introduced (I will have to research it) -- the 'bi-polar dialectical concepts' of 'topdog' and 'underdog'. This was similar to Freud's dialectical split between the superego and the ego -- but with a little difference: more of an articulation of a 'power struggle' in the personality, and kind of a hint of a possible Adlerian influence of the 'underdog' being connected to Adler's idea of the 'inferiority feeling'. The underdog has the inferiority feeling; whereas the 'topdog' has the 'superiority complex'. An important difference in the evolutionary direction of personality structure/theory was starting to happen here.
This difference was even more clearly articulated in Eric Berne's 'Transactional Analysis' model of the human psyche. From Classic Psychoanalysis to Object Relations to Transactional Analysis, the idea of different 'ego-states' was starting to catch on and become more and more popular. DGB Personality Theory has likewise moved in this direction -- with Transactional Analysis providing the main theoretical influcence.
In Transactional Analysis, the classic Freudian 'superego' was dialectically split in two, giving one of the dialectical splits a new 'job-function' (nurturing)-- and giving both a new name: 'The Nurturing Parent' (the new more 'maternal' Superego)vs. 'The Critical Parent' (the old paternal Superego). An interesting evolutionary development, indeed.
Berne argued basically that the developing child introjects the 'righteous, critical parent' (sexistly speaking -- the paternal father) and introjects the 'nurturing, encouraging, supportive parent (sexistly speaking -- the maternal mother) -- and splits the difference. (One detects the presence and the essence of the Chinese 'yin/yang' theory here.)
On the bottom part of this first 'multi-dialectical psychological model', Berne postulated another psychological split -- and two more 'ego-states' -- the 'approval-seeking child' vs. the 'rebellious child'. Thus, Transactional Analysis had become the first form of 'Multi-Dialectical-Analysis'. Bernes' '4 ego-state' model was topped off with one more additional ego-state sitting 'topologically' in the middle of the model and functioning mainly as the old Freudian (Hegelian) ego -- as an 'adult conflict-mediator'. He called this last ego-state 'The Adult'. Thus, Bernes worked very effectively in Transactional Analysis for a good number of years -- I'm not sure how popular it is now -- with a multi-dialectical, 5 ego-state (or ego-compartment) model of the personality. I liked it although I wasn't crazy about the popularized names for the different ego-states. Still -- I was influenced by, and continue to be influenced by, this model.
However, I wanted to introduce my Freudian-Adlerian influence into this model -- specifically, 1. narcissistic theory; and 2. transference-lifestyle complex theory.
Furthermore, I found Berne's work a little too 'cognitive' and 'analytic' for my liking; I preferred the 'existential anxiety-excitement' of Gestalt Therapy.
Finally -- and this has been a much more recent development of the last few years -- I wanted to add a Jungian 'mythological-archetype' influence to the model, and I wanted to add a few different 'philosophical ego-states' to the model. This would make the model much bigger -- in terms of number of 'ego-states-functions-compartments' -- than all of its predecessors, even the Bernes' Transactional Analysis model.
This brings us historically up-to-date -- and ready for Part 2.
-- dgb, May 11th, 2008.
