Placing Horney in Context: Culture and the Female Psyche
WEEK 6 FORUM ASSIGNMENT
Gender Differences in Personality
This week, your forum assignment is about male and female differences in personality. What male and female differences in personality have you observed and where do you think they come from (e.g., are they learned, inborn, etc.)?
NOTE: If you believe more than one personality theory explains male/female differences, give concrete examples. Link the theory you choose solidly to the personality differences you describe to provide evidence of your thorough comprehension of your selected theory by your accurate application of it rather than just picking a theory by name and listing characteristics believed by the general public to differ between genders. You must describe how the theory you choose explains specific differences. MINIMUM 300 WORDS.
READING
Personality Theory
Created July 7, 2017 by userMark Kelland
Karen Horney stands alone as the only women recognized as worthy of her own chapter in many personality textbooks, and the significance of her work certainly merits that honor. She did not, however, focus her entire career on the psychology of women. Horney came to believe that culture was more important than gender in determining differences between men and women. After refuting some of Freud’s theories on women, Horney shifted her focus to the development of basic anxiety in children, and the lifelong interpersonal relationship styles and intrapsychic conflicts that determine our personality and our personal adjustment.
Personally, Horney was a complex woman. Jack Rubins, who knew Horney during the last few years of her life, interviewed many people who knew her and came away with conflicting views:
She was described variously as both frail and powerful, both open and reticent, both warm and reserved, both close and detached, both a leader and needing to be led, both timid and awesome, both simple and profound. From these characterizations, the impression emerges that she was not only a complex personality but changeable and constantly changing. She was able to encompass and unify, though with struggle, many diverse attitudes and traits… (pg. 13; Rubins, 1972)
Erich Fromm, who was a lay-analyst with a Ph.D. (not an M.D. like most early psychoanalysts), focused even more than Horney on social influences, particularly one’s relationship with society itself. He not only knew and worked with Horney personally, but the two were intimately involved for a number of years, and Fromm analyzed Horney’s daughter Marianne. Both Horney and Fromm can be seen as extending Adler’s emphasis on social interest and cooperation (or the lack thereof), and their belief that individuals pursue safety and security to overcome their anxiety is similar to Adler’s concept of striving for superiority.
Brief Biography of Karen Horney
Karen Clementine Theodore Danielssen was born on September 16th, 1885, in Hamburg, Germany. Her father was Norwegian by birth, but had become a German national. A successful sailor, he had become the captain of his own ship, and his family accompanied him on a few of his voyages, including trips around Cape Horn, along the west coast of South America, and as far north as San Diego in the United States. Those trips established a life-long interest in travel, foreign customs, and diversity in the young Karen Horney. Although her father was a stern and repressive man, her mother, who was Dutch and 17 years younger than Horney’s father, was a dynamic, intelligent, and beautiful woman who maintained a very happy home for the children (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978).
From early childhood, Horney enjoyed reading, studying, and going to school. She was particularly interested in the novels of Karl May, who often wrote about the Native Americans, and Horney would play many games in which she pretended to be an Indian (usually, Chief Winnetou, a fictional character from May’s novels). Her father believed that education was only for men, but her mother encouraged Horney’s schooling, and in doing so, set an example of independence that greatly influenced Horney’s life and career. Horney followed the traditional education of the day, covering science, math, French, Latin, English, and the humanities. She also took special classes in speech, and for a time was very interested in dancing, drama, and the theatre. Despite the challenging curriculum, she was an excellent student, and often placed first in her class. After being impressed by a friendly country doctor when she was 12, she decided to pursue a career in medicine. When she began college at the University of Freiburg-in-Breisgau, at the age of 20, her mother came along to get her settled in and care for her. Horney soon became good friends with Ida Grote, who moved in with Horney and her mother to help offset the costs of attending college. In 1906, Horney also met her future husband, Oskar Horney (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978).
Over the next few years, she began her medical studies at the University of Gottingen, and then transferred to the University of Berlin, where she received her medical degree in 1911. In 1909 she had married Oskar Horney, who was described as a tall, slim, handsome man, a brilliant thinker, gifted organizer, and possessing great physical and emotional strength. He also attended the University of Berlin, eventually receiving doctorate degrees in Law, Economics, and Political Science! They soon had three daughters, Brigitte, Marianne, and Renate (between 1911 and 1915). Both Karen and Oskar Horney were successful in their careers during the beginning of their marriage. He worked as a lawyer for a munitions company, and did very well financially. She was actively developing her medical career, but had to work that much harder due to continued discrimination against women at the time. Still, the family spent time together on weekends, when her brother’s family often visited, and vacations. Nonetheless, the Horneys grew apart during these years. In 1923, during the turmoil following World War I, Oskar’s investments collapsed, and he eventually went bankrupt. A year later, he was stricken with severe encephalomeningitis, and spent 8 months in critical condition. These events radically altered his personality, as he became a broken and depressed person. In 1926 they separated, and never got back together. It was not, however, until 1939 that Karen Horney legally divorced her husband (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978).
For Karen Horney’s career, the years in Berlin were important and productive. She entered into psychoanalysis with Karl Abraham, and later she was also analyzed by Hanns Sachs for a brief time. Abraham appointed her as an instructor in the Berlin Psychoanalytic Poliklinik in 1919, and brought her to the attention of Sigmund Freud (with high praise). She came to know many of the candidates for psychoanalytic training, and also became friends with many of them, including Melanie Klein, Wilhelm Reich, and Erich Fromm. She also had many friends outside psychoanalytic circles, including the existential theologian Paul Tillich and the neurologist Kurt Goldstein (who coined the term self-actualization). The psychoanalytic scene in Berlin was active and dynamic, and Horney was very much in the middle of it all, never shy about expressing her own ideas and different opinions. One such issue was that of training lay-analysts (psychologists, as opposed to psychiatrists). She favored allowing the training for the purposes of research, but clearly favored medical training for those who would actually practice therapeutic psychoanalysis. This eventually led to conflict between Horney and her close friend Erich Fromm. Despite the many favorable circumstances in Berlin at the time, in the early 1930s Hitler was elected, and the Nazi regime began. Although Horney was not Jewish, psychoanalysis was considered a “Jewish” science. So, when Franz Alexander, who had been asked to come to Chicago to establish a new psychoanalytic training institute, asked her to be the Associate Director of the newly established Chicago Institute of Psychoanalysis, she accepted (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978). This dramatic turn in the events of her life did not, however, occur without a bit of chance. Alexander had first asked Helene Deutsch, one of the first women to join Freud’s psychoanalytic group (see Sayers, 1991), but Deutsch was not interested at the time. Thus, Horney was the second choice for the position that brought her to America for the rest of her life (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978).
Once in Chicago, however, her theoretical differences with Alexander became a clear source of disagreement. Alexander was not willing, as Horney was, to discard significant elements of Freud’s original theories. So, just 2 years later, in 1934, Horney moved to New York City and joined the New York Psychoanalytic Institute. A number of her friends from Berlin had also come to New York, including Erich Fromm and Paul Tillich, and Wilhelm Reich also visited her there. She soon met Harry Stack Sullivan and Clara Thompson, as they were establishing their new training institute in New York. She also began teaching at the New School for Social Research, and the American Institute for Psychoanalysis. Her private practice grew steadily, and Alvin Johnson, the president of the New School (as it is commonly known) introduced her to W. W. Norton, who established a well-known publishing house that produced all of Horney’s books. Her first book was entitled The Neurotic Personality of Our Time (1937), which was followed by perhaps her two most radical books, New Ways in Psychoanalysis (1939) and Self-Analysis (1942). Horney had pursued new techniques in psychoanalysis and self-analysis, in part, because of her dissatisfaction with her own results as both a patient and a psychoanalyst. Later, she published Our Inner Conflicts (1945), Are You Considering Psychoanalysis (1946), and Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization (1950). After her death, Harold Kelman (who was both a friend and colleague) brought together a number of her early papers in Feminine Psychology (Kelman, 1967), and, as a special tribute, Douglas Ingram published the transcripts of her final lectures, presented during a class she taught in the fall of 1952 (Ingram, 1987).
During the 1930s and 1940s, Horney’s personal life was a social whirlwind. She entertained frequently, often cooking herself, and when her own home was in disarray she would arrange the party at a friend’s home. She bought and sold vacation homes often, including one where Oskar Horney stayed for a time, and she traveled frequently. She enjoyed playing cards, and wanted to win so much that she would sometimes cheat! When caught, she would freely admit it, laugh, and say that her opponents should have stopped her sooner. Sometimes she would even gather her friends together and loudly sing German songs, in memory of their homeland (Kelman, 1971; Rubins, 1972, 1978).
At work, however, there was constant tension regarding theoretical and political issues in the psychoanalytic societies. In 1941, the New York Psychoanalytic Institute voted to disqualify Horney as a training analyst, due to her seemingly radical ideas on psychoanalytic techniques. Half the society did not vote, however, and they soon left to form a new institute. Immediately following the vote, Horney walked out, and a group of analysts led by Clara Thompson followed her. The very same month, twenty analysts joined Horney in forming the Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, and Horney was asked to become the Dean of their soon to be established American Institute for Psychoanalysis. When Thompson suggested that Sullivan be granted honorary membership, and Horney recommended the same for Fromm, Fromm refused because he was not going to be recognized as a clinical psychoanalyst. The resulting controversy led to a committee review, which voted against Fromm’s membership. Among others, Fromm, Thompson, and Sullivan left the society. There were other political battles as well, and Horney was routinely torn between her professional beliefs, her need to control the direction of the society and institute, and her personal friendships with the individuals involved. Through it all, although she held strong beliefs (such as opposing therapeutic psychoanalysis by lay-analysts like Fromm), she nonetheless encouraged challenging the original theories developed by Freud, as well as her own theories:
I recall being impressed by her response at my first meeting with her, when I indicated my own curiosity and bent for research. She had warmly hoped I would continue this way, since her views needed further work and clarification. Indeed, during an interview in 1952, she stated that she knew her ideas would be changed, if not by herself by someone else. (pg. 37; Rubins, 1972)
By 1950, Horney seemed to be feeling lonely and isolated. Perhaps the political and theoretical battles had taken their toll, perhaps it was her strained relationships with her daughters (they were never really close), or perhaps it was the beginning of the cancer that would eventually take her life. Although Horney would not consult with her physician about the abdominal pains she was experiencing (thus she did not know that she had cancer), she did begin to develop strong spiritual interests. She occasionally attended Tillich’s sermons at St. John the Divine Church, though she seemed more interested in the philosophical and ethical aspects of religion than the spiritual aspects. She kept a copy of Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy (1945/2004) by her bedside for over a year, reading daily on Huxley’s interpretations of Eastern and Western mystics. A few years earlier she had met D. T. Suzuki, and she became particularly interested in Zen. She was especially impressed by a book he recommended entitled Zen in the Art of Archery (Herrigel, 1953; based on an article he wrote in 1936). In 1951, Suzuki led Horney on a trip to Japan, where she visited a number of Zen temples and had lengthy discussions with Zen monks. Although she seemed more interested in the practical aspects of being a student of Zen, she nonetheless endeavored to put Zen principles into a context she could understand (such as equating enlightenment with self-realization; Rubins, 1972, 1978). Late in 1952, her cancer became so advanced that she finally sought medical care. However, it was too late. On December 4, 1952, she died peacefully, surrounded by daughters.
Placing Horney in Context: Culture and the Female Psyche
Karen Horney’s career intersected many areas of psychology, relevant both to the past and to the future. One of the first women trained in psychoanalysis, she was the first to challenge Freud’s views on women. She did not, however, attempt to reject his influence, but rather, felt that she honored him by building upon his achievements. The most significant change that she felt needed to be made was a shift away from the biological/medical model of Freud to one in which cultural factors were at least as important. Indeed, she challenged Freud’s fundamental belief that anxiety follows biological impulses, and instead suggested that our behaviors adapt themselves to a fundamental anxiety associated with the simple desire for survival and to cultural determinants of abnormal, anxiety-provoking situations.
Horney was also significant in the development of psychodynamic theory and psychoanalysis in America. She helped to establish psychoanalytic societies and training institutes in Chicago and New York. She was a friend and colleague to many influential psychoanalysts, including Harry Stack Sullivan and Erich Fromm. She encouraged cross-cultural research and practice through her own example, not only citing the work of anthropologists and sociologists, but also through her personal interest and support for the study of Zen Buddhism.
Although Horney herself abandoned the study of feminine psychology, suggesting instead that it represented the cultural effect of women being an oppressed minority group, her subsequent emphasis on the importance of relationships and interpersonal psychodynamic processes laid the foundation for later theories on the psychology of women (such as the relational-cultural model). Thus, her influence is still being felt quite strongly today.
Horney’s Shifting Perspectives on Psychodynamic Theory
Horney did not establish a specific theory of personality. Rather, her career proceeded through a series of stages in which she addressed the issues that were of particular concern to her at the time. Accordingly, her theories can be grouped into three stages: feminine psychology, culture and disturbed human relationships, and finally, the mature theory in which she focused on the distinction between interpersonal and intrapsychic defenses (Paris, 1994).
Feminine Psychology
Horney was neither the first, nor the only, significant woman in the early days of psychodynamic theory and psychoanalysis. However, women such as Helene Deutsch, Marie Bonaparte, Anna Freud, and Melanie Klein remained faithful to Freud’s basic theories. In contrast, Horney directly challenged Freud’s theories, and offered her own alternatives. In doing so, she offered a very different perspective on the psychology of women and personality development in girls and women. Her papers have been collected and published in Feminine Psychology by her friend and colleague Harold Kelman (1967), and an excellent overview of their content can be found in the biography written by Rubins (1978).
In her first two papers, On the Genesis of the Castration Complex in Women (Horney, 1923/1967) and The Flight from Womanhood (Horney, 1926/1967), Horney challenged the Freudian perspective on the psychological development of females. Although she acknowledged Freud’s pioneering theories, even as they applied to women, she believed that they suffered from a male perspective, and that the men who originally offered these theories simply did not understand the feminine perspective. Horney agreed that girls develop penis envy, but not that it is the only dynamic force influencing development during the phallic stage. Girls envy the ability of boys to urinate standing up, the fact that boys can see their genitals, and the relative ease with which boys can satisfy their desire for masturbation. More important for girls than penis envy, however, was the fear and anxiety young girls experience with regard to vaginal injury were they to actually have intercourse with their fathers (which, Horney agreed, they may fantasize). Thus, they experience a unique dynamic force called female genital anxiety. Another element of the castration complex in women, according to Horney, was the consequence of castration fantasies that she called wounded womanhood (incorporating the belief that the girl had been castrated).
Far more important than these basic processes, however, was the male bias inherent in society and culture. The very name phallic stage implies that only someone with a phallus (penis) can achieve sexual satisfaction and healthy personality development. Girls are repeatedly made to feel inferior to boys, feminine values are considered inferior to masculine values, even motherhood is considered a burden for women to bear (according to the Bible, the pain of childbirth is a curse from God!). In addition, male-dominated societies do not provide women with adequate outlets for their creative drives. As a result, many women develop a masculinity complex, involving feelings of revenge against men and the rejection of their own feminine traits. Thus, it may be true that women are more likely to suffer from anxiety and other psychological disorders, but this is not due to an inherent inferiority as proposed by Freud. Rather, women find it difficult in a patriarchal society to fulfill their personal development in accordance with their individual personality (unless they naturally happen to fit into society’s expectations).
Perhaps the most curious aspect of these early studies was the fact that Horney turned the tables on Freud and his concept of penis envy. The female’s biological role in childbirth is vastly superior (if that is a proper term) to that of the male. Horney noted that many boys express an intense envy of pregnancy and motherhood. If this so-called womb envy is the male counterpart of penis envy, which is the greater problem? Horney suggests that the apparently greater need of men to depreciate women is a reflection of their unconscious feelings of inferiority, due to the very limited role they play in childbirth and the raising of children (particularly breast-feeding infants, which they cannot do). In addition, the powerful creative drives and excessive ambition that are characteristic of many men can be viewed, according to Horney, as overcompensation for their limited role in parenting. Thus, as wonderful and intimate as motherhood may be, it can be a burden in the sense that the men who dominate society have turned it against women. This is, of course, an illogical state of affairs, since the children being born and raised by women are also the children of the very men who then feel inferior and psychologically threatened.
In a later paper, Horney (1932/1967) carried these ideas a step further. She suggested that, during the Oedipus stage, boys naturally judge the size of their penis as inadequate sexually with regard to their mother. They dread this inadequacy, which leads to anxiety and fear of rejection. This proves to be quite frustrating, and in accordance with the frustration-aggression hypothesis, the boy becomes angry and aggressive toward his mother. For men who are unable to overcome this issue, their adult sexual life becomes an ongoing effort to conquer and possess as many women as possible (a narcissistic overcompensation for their feelings of inadequacy). Unfortunately, according to Horney, these men become very upset with any woman who then expects a long-term or meaningful relationship, since that would require him to then prove his manhood in other, non-sexual ways.
For women, one of the most significant problems that results from these development processes is a desperate need to be in a relationship with a man, which Horney addressed in two of her last papers on feminine psychology: The Overvaluation of Love (1934/1967) and The Neurotic Need for Love (1937/1967). She recognized in many of her patients an obsession with having a relationship with a man, so much so that all other aspects of life seem unimportant. While others had considered this an inherent characteristic of women, Horney insisted that characteristics such as this overvaluation of love always include a significant portion of tradition and culture. Thus, it is not an inherent need in women, but one that has accompanied the patriarchal society’s demeaning of women, leading to low self-esteem that can only be overcome within society by becoming a wife and mother. Indeed, Horney found that many women suffer an intense fear of not being normal. Unfortunately, as noted above, the men these women are seeking relationships with are themselves seeking to avoid long-term relationships (due to their own insecurities). This results in an intense and destructive attitude of rivalry between women (at least, those women caught up in this neurotic need for love). When a woman loses a man to another woman, which may happen again and again, the situation can lead to depression, permanent feelings of insecurity with regard to feminine self-esteem, and profound anger toward other women. If these feelings are repressed, and remain primarily unconscious, the effect is that the woman searches within her own personality for answers to her failure to maintain the coveted relationship with a man. She may feel shame, believe that she is ugly, or imagine that she has some physical defect. Horney described the potential intensity of these feelings as “self-tormenting.”
In 1935, just a few years after coming to America, Horney rather abruptly stopped studying the psychology of women (though her last paper on the subject was not published until 1937). Bernard Paris found the transcript of a talk that Horney had delivered that year to the National Federation of Professional and Business Women’s Clubs, which provided her reasoning for this change in her professional direction (see Paris, 1994). First, Horney suggested that women should be suspicious of any general interest in feminine psychology, since it usually represents an effort by men to keep women in their subservient position. In order to avoid competition, men praise the values of being a loving wife and mother. When women accept these same values, they themselves begin to demean any other pursuits in life. They become a teacher because they consider themselves unattractive to men, or they go into business because they aren’t feminine and lack sex appeal (Horney, cited in Paris, 1994). The emphasis on attracting men and having children leads to a “cult of beauty and charm,” and the overvaluation of love. The consequence of this tragic situation is that as women become mature, they become more anxious due to their fear of displeasing men:
…The young woman feels a temporary security because of her ability to attract men, but mature women can hardly hope to escape being devalued even in their own eyes. And this feeling of inferiority robs them of the strength for action which rightly belongs to maturity.
Inferiority feelings are the most common evil of our time and our culture. To be sure we do not die of them, but I think they are nevertheless more disastrous to happiness and progress than cancer or tuberculosis. (pg. 236; Horney cited in Paris, 1994)
The key to the preceding quote is Horney’s reference to culture. Having been in America for a few years at this point, she was already questioning the difference between the greater opportunities for women in America than in Europe (though the difference was merely relative). She also emphasized that when women are demeaned by society, this had negative consequences on men and children. Thus, she wanted to break away from any perspective that led to challenges between men and women:
…First of all we need to understand that there are no unalterable qualities of inferiority of our sex due to laws of God or of nature. Our limitations are, for the greater part, culturally and socially conditioned. Men who have lived under the same conditions for a long time have developed similar attitudes and shortcomings.
Once and for all we should stop bothering about what is feminine and what is not. Such concerns only undermine our energies…In the meantime what we can do is to work together for the full development of the human personalities of all for the sake of general welfare. (pg. 238; Horney cited in Paris, 1994)
In her final paper on feminine psychology, Horney (1937/1967) concludes her discussion of the neurotic need for love with a general discussion of the relationship between anxiety and the need for love. Of course, this is true for both boys and girls. This conclusion provided a clear transition from Horney’s study of the psychology of women to her more general perspectives on human development, beginning with the child’s need for security and the anxiety that arises when that security seems threatened.
Discussion Question: After a number of years studying feminine psychology, Horney came to believe that women are no different than any other minority group, and she began to pursue different directions in her career. Are the problems faced by women different than other minority groups? If so, how are they different?
Anxiety and Culture
In the introduction to The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, Horney (1937) makes three important points. First, she acknowledged that neuroses have their roots in childhood experiences, but she also considered the experiences of adulthood to be equally important. Second, she believed that neuroses can only develop within a cultural context. They may stem from individual experience, but their form and expression are intimately tied to one’s cultural setting. And finally, she emphasized that she was not rejecting Freud’s basic theory. Though she disagreed with many of his ideas, she considered it an honor to build upon the foundation of his “gigantic achievements.” To do so, she wrote, helps to avoid the danger of stagnation. If any more evidence than her word was necessary to demonstrate her loyalty to Freud, in this introduction we also find mention of Alfred Adler. Although Horney acknowledges some similarities with Adler’s perspective, she insists that her ideas are grounded in Freudian theory, and she describes Adler’s work as having become sterile and one-sided.
Horney believed that anxiety was a natural state of all living things, something the German philosophers had called Angst der Kreatur (anxiety of the creature), a feeling that one is helpless against such forces as illness, old age, and death. We first experience this anxiety as infants, and it remains with us throughout life. It does not, however, lead to neurotic anxiety. But if a child is not cared for, if their anxiety is not alleviated by the protection of their parents, the child may develop basic anxiety:
The condition that is fostered…is an insidiously increasing, all-pervading feeling of being lonely and helpless in a hostile world…This attitude as such does not constitute a neurosis but it is the nutritive soil out of which a definite neurosis may develop at any time. (pg. 89; Horney, 1937)
Thus, in contrast to Freud’s belief that anxiety followed the threat of id impulses breaking free of the unconscious mind, Horney places anxiety before behavior. The child, through interactions with other people (particularly the parents), strives to alleviate its anxiety. If the child does not find support, then basic anxiety develops, and neurotic disorders become a distinct possibility. From that point forward, the child’s drives and impulses are motivated by anxiety, rather than being the cause of anxiety as proposed by Freud. Basic anxiety is considered basic for two reasons, one of which is that it is the source of neuroses. The other reason is that it arises out of early, but disturbed, relationships with the parents. This leads to feelings of hostility toward the parents, and Horney considered there to be a very close connection between anxiety and hostility. And yet, the child remains dependent on the parents, so it must not exhibit that hostility. This creates a vicious circle in which more anxiety is experienced, followed by more hostility, etc. Unresolved, these psychological processes leave the child feeling not only basic anxiety, but also basic hostility (Horney, 1937; May, 1977). In order to deal with this basic anxiety and basic hostility, Horney proposed both interpersonal and intrapsychic strategies of defense (which we will examine in the next two sections). First, however, let’s take a brief, closer look at Horney’s views on culture and anxiety.
A neurotic individual, simply put, is someone whose anxiety levels and behavior are significantly different than normal. What is normal, of course, can only be defined within a cultural context. Horney cited a number of famous anthropologists and sociologists to support this claim, including Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict. She cites H. Scudder Mekeel’s somewhat famous example of Native Americans having high regard for individuals who have visions and hallucinations, since those visions are considered to be special gifts, indeed blessings, from the spirits. This is in sharp contrast to the standard Western view, which considers hallucinations to be a symptom of psychosis. And yet, Native Americans are not fundamentally different than Westerners. Only one year after Horney’s book was published, Mekeel led Erik Erikson on the first of Erikson’s studies of Native American development, which led Erikson to conclude that his stages of psychosocial crisis were valid, since they seemed to apply to Europeans, European-Americans, and Native Americans. After citing many such examples, from simple matters such as preferred foods to complex matters such as attitudes toward murder, Horney concluded that every aspect of human life, including personality, was intimately tied to cultural factors:
It is no longer valid to suppose that a new psychological finding reveals a universal trend inherent in human nature…This in turn means that if we know the cultural conditions under which we live we have a good chance of gaining a much deeper understanding of the special character of normal feelings and attitudes. (pg. 19; Horney, 1937)
This emphasis on culture, however, should not be confused with the importance of individuality. Anxieties and neurotic symptoms exist within individuals, and present themselves within personal relationships. Culture, once again, merely guides the nature or form of those anxieties. In Western culture, we are driven primarily by economic and individual competition. Thus, other people are seen as competitors, or rivals. For one person to gain something, another must lose. As a result, according to Horney, there is a diffuse hostile tension pervading all of our relationships. For those who cannot resolve this tension, most likely due to having experienced the culturally determined anxieties in exaggerated form during a dysfunctional childhood, they become neurotic. Accordingly, Horney described the neurotic individual as “a stepchild of our culture” (Horney, 1937)
Interpersonal Strategies of Defense
Horney considered inner conflicts, and the personality disturbances they cause, to be the source of all psychological illness. In other words, calm, well-balanced individuals do not suffer psychological disorders (consider the stress-diathesis model of abnormal psychology). Although Freud approached this concept in his work, it was those who followed him, such as Franz Alexander, Otto Rank, Wilhelm Reich, and Harald Schultz-Nencke, who defined it more clearly. Still, Horney felt they all failed to understand the precise nature and dynamics of character structure, because they did not take into account the cultural influences. It was only during her own work on feminine psychology that Horney came to the full understanding of these psychodynamic processes (at least, in her own view; Horney, 1945).
At the core of these conflicts is a basic conflict, which Freud described as being between one’s desire for immediate and total satisfaction (the id) and the forbidding environment, such as the parents and society (the superego). Horney generally agreed with Freud on this concept, but she did not consider the basic conflict to be basic. Rather, she considered it an essential aspect of only the neurotic personality. Thus, it is a basic conflict in the neurotic individual, one which expresses itself in the person’s predominant style of relating to others. The three general attitudes that arise as neurotic attempts to solve conflict are known as moving toward people, moving against people, and moving away from people (Horney, 1945). Although they provide a way for neurotics to attempt solutions in their disturbed interpersonal relationships, they achieve only an artificial balance, which creates new conflicts. These new conflicts create greater hostility, anxiety, and alienation, thus continuing a vicious circle, which Horney believed could be broken by psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis is important for understanding neurotic individuals in part because they build a defensive structure around their basic conflict. Their behavior, according to Horney, reflects more of their efforts to solve conflicts, rather than the basic conflict itself. Thus, the basic conflict becomes so deeply embedded in the personality, that it can never be seen in its pure form. Nonetheless, when one of the basic character attitudes becomes predominant, we can observe characteristic behaviors that reflect the neurotic failure to resolve one’s inner conflicts.
Moving toward people, also known as the compliant personality, incorporates needs for affection and approval, and a special need for a partner who will fulfill all of one’s expectations of life. These needs are characteristic of neurotic trends: they are compulsive, indiscriminate, and they generate anxiety when they are frustrated. In addition, they operate independently of one’s feelings toward or value of the person who is the object of those needs (Horney, 1945). In order to ensure the continued support of others, the compliant individual will do almost anything to maintain relationships, but they give themselves over so completely that they may enjoy nothing for themselves. They begin to feel weak and helpless, and they subordinate themselves to others, thinking that everyone is smarter, more attractive, and more worthwhile than they are. They rate themselves by the opinions of others, so much so that any rejection can be catastrophic. Love becomes the most compulsive desire, but their lack of self-esteem makes true love difficult. Accordingly, sexual relations become a substitute for love, as well as the “evidence” that they are loved and desired.
Just as the compliant type clings to the belief that people are “nice,” and is continually baffled by evidence to the contrary, so the aggressive type takes it for granted that everyone is hostile, and refuses to admit that they are not. To him life is a struggle of all against all, and the devil take the hindmost. (pg. 63; Horney, 1945)
As noted in the preceding quote, those who move against people, the aggressive personality, are driven by a need to control others. They view the world in a Darwinian sense, a world dominated by survival of the fittest, where the strong annihilate the weak. The aggressive person may seem polite and fair-minded, but it is mostly a front, put up in order to facilitate their own goals. They may be openly aggressive, or they may choose to manipulate others indirectly, sometimes preferring to be the power behind the throne. Love, which is such a desperate need for the compliant person, is of little consequence for the aggressive person. They may very well be “in love,” and they may marry, but they are more concerned in what they can get out of the relationship. They tend to choose mates for their attractiveness, prestige, or wealth. What is most important is how their mate can enhance their own social position. They are keen competitors, looking for any evidence of weakness or ambition in others. Unfortunately, they also tend to suppress emotion in their lives, making it difficult, if not impossible, to enjoy life.
Those who move away from people, the detached personality, are not merely seeking meaningful solitude. Instead, they are driven to avoid other people because of the unbearable strain of associating with others. In addition, they are estranged from themselves, they do not know who they are, or what they love, desire, value, or believe. Horney described them as zombies, able to work and function like living people, but there is no life in them. A crucial element appears to be their desire to put emotional distance between themselves and others. They become very self-sufficient and private. Since these individuals seek negative goals, not to be involved, not to need help, not to be bothered, as opposed to having clear goals (needing a loving partner or needing to control others) their behavior is more subject to variability, but the focus remains on being detached from others in order to avoid facing the conflicts within their psyche (Horney, 1945).
Each of these three character attitudes has within it some value. It is important and healthy to maintain relationships with others (moving toward), ambition and a drive to excel have definite benefits in many cultures (moving against), and peaceful solitude, a chance to get away from it all, can be very refreshing (moving away). The healthy individual is likely able to make use of each of these solutions in the appropriate situations. When someone needs our help, we reach out to them. If someone tries to take advantage of us, we stand up for ourselves. When the daily hassles of life wear us down, we retreat into solitude for a short time, maybe exercising, going to a movie, or listening to our favorite music. As Horney attempted to make very clear, the neurotic individual is marked by a compulsion to use one style of relating to others, and they do so to their own detriment.
Connections Across Cultures: Cultural Differences in
Interpersonal Relationship Styles
As Horney repeatedly pointed out, neurotic behavior can only be viewed as such within a cultural context. Thus, in the competitive and individualistic Western world, our cultural tendencies are likely to favor moving against and moving away from others. The same is not true in many other cultures.
Relationships can exist in two basic styles: exchange or communal relationships. Exchange relationships are based on the expectation of some return on one’s investment in the relationship. Communal relationships, in contrast, occur when one person feels responsible for the well-being of the other person(s). In African and African-American cultures we are much more likely to find communal relationships, and interpersonal relationships are considered to be a core value amongst people of African descent (Belgrave & Allison, 2006). While there may be a tendency in Western culture to consider this dependence on others as somehow “weak,” it provides a source of emotional attachment, need fulfillment, and the influence and involvement of people in each other’s activities and lives.
Cultural differences also come into play in love and marriage. In America, passionate love tends to be favored, whereas in China companionate love is favored. African cultures seem to fall somewhere in between (Belgrave & Allison, 2006). When considering the divorce rate in America, as compared to many other countries, it has been suggested that Americans marry the person they love, whereas people in many other cultures love the person they marry. In a study involving people from India, Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, England, and the United States, it was found that individualistic cultures placed greater importance on the role of love in choosing to get married, and also on the loss of love as sufficient justification for divorce. For intercultural marriages, these differences are a significant, though not insurmountable, source of conflict (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). Attempting to maintain awareness of cultural differences when relationship conflicts occur, rather than attributing the conflict to the personality of the other person, can be an important first step in resolving intercultural conflict. However, it must also be remembered that different cultures acknowledge and tolerate conflict to different extents (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto, 1997; Okun, Fried, & Okun, 1999; for a brief discussion of intergroup dialogue and conflict resolution options, see Miller & Garran, 2008).
