Key Takeaways
- Neo-Freudian psychologists followed Sigmund Freud’s work but made changes to his theories based on their own ideas.
- They disagreed with Freud’s focus on sex and instead increased focus on social and cultural influences.
Neo-Freudian psychologists were thinkers who agreed with many of the fundamental tenets of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory but changed and adapted the approach to incorporate their own beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Psychologist Sigmund Freud proposed many ideas that were highly controversial, but he also attracted a number of followers.
Many of these thinkers agreed with Freud’s concept of the unconscious mind and the importance of early childhood. There were, however, a number of points that other scholars disagreed with or directly rejected. Because of this, these individuals went on to propose their own unique theories of personality and cognition.
Neo-Freudian Disagreements
There are a few different reasons why these neo-Freudian thinkers disagreed with Freud. For example, Erik Erikson believed that Freud was incorrect to think that personality was shaped almost entirely by childhood events. Other issues that motivated neo-Freudian thinkers included:
- Freud’s emphasis on sexual urges as a primary motivator
- Freud’s lack of emphasis on social and cultural influences on behavior and personality
- Freud’s negative view of human nature
Many neo-Freudians felt that Freud’s theories focus too heavily on psychopathology, sex, and childhood experiences. Instead, many chose to focus their theories on more positive aspects of human nature and the social influences that contribute to personality and behavior.
While the neo-Freudians may have been influenced by Freud, they developed their own unique theories and perspectives on human development, personality, and behavior.
Major Neo-Freudian Thinkers
There were a number of neo-Freudian thinkers who broke with the Freudian psychoanalytic tradition to develop their own psychodynamic theories. Some of these individuals were initially part of Freud’s inner circle, including Carl Jung and Alfred Adler.
Carl Jung and Analytical Psychology
Carl Jung and Freud once had a close friendship, but Jung broke away to form his own ideas. Freud once viewed Jung as his protege, but their disagreements eventually led to the breakdown of their friendship and professional relationship.
Jung referred to his theory of personality as analytical psychology and introduced the concept of the collective unconscious. He described this as a universal structure shared by all members of the same species, containing all the instincts and archetypes that influence human behavior.
Jung still placed great emphasis on the unconscious, but his theory placed a higher focus on his concept of the collective unconscious rather than the personal unconscious.
Like many other neo-Freudians, Jung also focused less on sex than Freud did in his work.
Alfred Adler and Individual Psychology
Alfred Adler was one of the early members of Freud’s psychoanalytic discussion group that met each week in Freud’s home. He played an essential role in establishing psychoanalysis but eventually broke away from Freud’s ideas.
Adler believed that Freud’s theories focused too heavily on sex as the primary motivator for human behavior.
Instead, Adler placed a lesser emphasis on the role of the unconscious and a greater focus on interpersonal and social influences.
His approach, known as individual psychology, was centered on the drive that all people have to compensate for their feelings of inferiority. The inferiority complex, he suggested, was a person’s feelings and doubts that they do not measure up to other people or to society’s expectations.
Erik Erikson and Psychosocial Development
While Freud believed that personality was mostly set in stone during early childhood, Erikson felt that development continued throughout life. He also believed that not all conflicts were unconscious. He thought many were conscious and resulted from the developmental process itself.
Erikson de-emphasized the role of sex as a motivator for behavior and instead placed a much stronger focus on the role of social relationships.
His eight-stage theory of psychosocial development concentrates on a series of developmental conflicts that occur throughout the lifespan, from birth until death. At each stage, people face a crisis that must be resolved to develop certain psychological strengths.
Karen Horney and Feminine Psychology
Karen Horney was one of the first women trained in psychoanalysis, and she was also one of the first to criticize Freud’s depictions of women as inferior to men. Horney objected to Freud’s portrayal of women as suffering from “penis envy.”
Instead, she suggested that men experience “womb envy” because they are unable to bear children. Her theory focuses on how behavior was influenced by a number of different neurotic needs.
Contributions and Criticisms of the Neo-Freudians
The neo-Freudians transformed and expanded some of Freud’s original psychoanalytic ideas. While many of these thinkers supported some of the basic tenets of psychoanalysis, such as the important impact of childhood events and the influence of the unconscious.
However, many of these thinkers disagreed with Freud’s emphasis on sex, his negative view of human nature, and his emphasis on psychopathology. Instead, many of the neo-Freudian thinkers believed that social and cultural influences significantly shaped human behavior and personality.
While the neo-Freudians made important contributions in shaping the field of psychology, their theories were also the subject of criticism.
Many took a highly philosophical approach and lacked empirical, scientific support. Jung’s theories, for example, were primarily rooted in his observations of dreams, mythology, and legends.
Impact of the Neo-Freudians
The work and theories of the neo-Freudian thinkers significantly impacted the field of psychology. Erikson’s work, for example, influenced the field of developmental psychology with its emphasis on how social and cultural factors impact human development throughout the entire lifespan.
Other neo-Freudians, including Karen Horney, helped inspire the person-centered therapy of Carl Rogers. In this non-directive form of therapy, individuals take an active role in the therapy process.
Adler and the other neo-Freudians’ also influenced the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow, who developed an influential hierarchy of needs to explain human motivation.
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
McCarthy JB. Hundred years of the psychoanalytic progressive mental health movement. Am J Psychoanal. 2023;83(1):1-11. doi:10.1057/s11231-023-09390-1
American Psychologicial Association. Neo-Freudian. In: APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychologicial Association.
Doran C. Rage and anxiety in the split between Freud and Jung. Humanities. 2017;6(3):53. doi:10.3390/h6030053
Alfred Adler Institute of New York. About Alfred Adler.
Hoffman L. Un homme manque: Freud’s engagement with Alfred Adler’s masculine protest: Commentary on Balsam. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 2017;65(1):99-108. doi:10.1177/0003065117690351
Mosak H, Maniacci M. Primer of Adlerian Psychology: The Analytic-Behavioural-Cognitive Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Routledge; 2013.
Sacco RG. Re-envisaging the eight developmental stages of Erik Erikson: Fobonacci Life-Chart Method (FLCM). Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology. 2013;3(1). doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n1p140
Aldridge J, Kilgo JL, Jepkemboi G. Four hidden matriarchs of psychoanalysis: The relationship of Lou von Salome, Karen Horney, Sabina Spielrein and Anna Freud to Sigmund Freud. International Journal of Psychology and Counseling. 2014;6(4):32-39. doi:10.5897/IJPC2014.0250
Psychology’s Feminist Voices. Profile: Karen Horney.
Mansager E, Bluvshtein M. Adler and Maslow in collaboration: applied therapeutic creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2020;60(6):959-979. doi:10.1177/0022167817745643
Thanks for your feedback!
What is your feedback?
Helpful
Report an Error
Other
