•aren hornby & erich fromm -...

nA*V£6it T

3 H

:

R

•AREN HORNBY & ERICH FROMMPsychoanalytic Social Psychology

St the very reason that love in our civilization is so rarely a genuine affection,• „ maltreatment and betrayal abound.^*%> Karen Horney, Our Inner Conflicts

- fa the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead; in the twentieth centurythe problem is that man is dead.

?, , Erich Fromm, "The Present Human Condition"

Psychoanalytic Social Psychology 643

/(.bout Horney's and Fromm's Social PsychoanalysisI Karen Homey and Erich Fromm began as psychoanalytic theorists. But each of them found classic^Freudian ideas too restrictive by their emphasis on sexual and aggressive motives to the exclusion of

social motives.Karen Homey widened classical psychoanalysis with her concepts of

1. childhood as a period of anxious helplessness and hidden anger toward all-powerful but indif-ferent adults;

2. strategies to cope with the anxiety and anger that alienate the person from the true self, so thatthe neurotic personality is one who cannot simply be, but must avoid, attack, or completelycomply with others;

3. a desexualized Oedipus complex in which the key issues are power and love instead of sexual-ity and fear.

Erich Fromm also widened classical psychoanalysis with concepts initially from Karl Marx andlater from the existential philosophers. Fromm wrote about the human need for meaning in life, andhe believed that people can find that meaning only if they can accept the responsibility for theirchoices. Fromm's central tenets are these:

1. Freedom to make choices, to regulate one's life, and to assume responsibility for the conse-quences of decisions is a frightening experience for people. Used productively, such freedomleads to genuine intimacy and caring between people; used unproductively, such freedombecomes license to exploit and manipulate others.

2. Some personality types become malignant in their handling of aggression. The necrophiloustype of personality is a lover of death, decay, and destruction.

3. The fundamental dichotomy between healthy and unhealthy personality types is in the dis-tinction between the having and being modes of existence. The having mode is consumptive,based on the malignant belief that one is what one has. The being mode of existence is anembracing of life, a belief that one is as one lives.

Both Homey and Fromm transcended Freudian classical theory in their search to understandhow people create order in their lives rather than merely gratifying their drives.

KAREN HORNEY

THE WAY THE WORLD LOOKS: COPINGIndividuals differ in the way they view the world and in their perception of the best

y to conduct their lives in relation to the people in it. Some individuals are human

644 KAREN HORNBY & ERICH FROMM

doormats, inviting an endless succession of significant (that is, emotionally impor-tant) others to tread all over them. These compliant personalities behave as if themost crucial aspect of existence were to please and pacify other people.

At the opposite extreme, there are persons who operate with a typically hostilestrategy for dealing with others. These aggressive personalities seem to be behavingin a world that they view as dangerous. Only by constant vigilance, they seem tobelieve, can the continually hostile efforts of others be thwarted.

Yet a third form of interpersonal strategy is exemplified by individuals whoremain coldly aloof and withdrawn from any genuine interaction with significant oth-ers.These detached personalities seem to construe the world and its people as essen-tially troublesome and unjustly demanding. The only reasonable solution, they feel, isavoidance.

Karen Horney brilliantly described these three views of the world and the corre-sponding coping strategies. Although nearly everyone adopts from time to time eachof these stances toward others, neurotics are unable to shift posture. Because theyhave become entangled in the web of their own efforts to ward off anxiety, neuroticpersonalities adopt one mode of interaction as a rigidly unshakable coping tech-nique. The first task, therefore, in exploring Horney's account of personality is tounderstand the neurotic's striving for safety and control over his or her world.

THE NEUROTIC TRENDSOn the basis of theoretical assumptions derived partly from psychoanalytic theoryand partly from her own clinical observations, Karen Horney postulated that the neu-rotic personality is governed by one or more of 10 needs or trends. Each of thesetrends is directed toward interpersonal control and coping, that is. toward makinglife and its necessarily people-oriented contacts bearable. Horney separated herselffrom the rest of the psychoanalytic school in an important way:

Freud believed that the [neurotic] disturbances generate from a conflict betweenenvironmental factors and repressed instinctual impulses. Adler, more rationalisticand superficial than Freud, believes that they are created by the ways and means thatpeople use to assert their superiority over others. Jung, more mystical than Freud,believes in collective unconscious fantasies which, though replete with creativepossibilities, may work havoc because the unconscious strivings fed by them are theexact opposite of those in the conscious mind. My own answer is that in the centerof psychic disturbances are unconscious strivings developed in order to cope withlife despite fears, helplessness, and isolation. I have called them "neurotic trends"(1942, p. 40; italics added)

Each of the neurotic trends is characterized chiefly by its compulsive rigidity,Although a neurotic trend for affection, to take one example, may resemble thenormal need for love, neurotics are unaware of the indiscriminate nature of theirneed. Their need for affection is out of all proportion to reality: "If it is affection thata person must have, he must receive it from friend and enemy, from employer an"bootblack" (Horney, 1942, p. 41).Thus the 10 neurotic trends superficially resemblehealthy values but are different in four important respects:They are disproportion-.

a

1


ate in intensity; indiscriminate in application to all other persons; evidence anextreme disregard for reality; and show a tendency to provoke intense anxietywhen they remain unsatisfied.These 10 neurotic "needs" are (Horney, 1942. pp. 54 - 60)as follows:

1. The neurotic need for affection and approval: an indiscriminate desire toplease others and to be liked and approved of by others. The person's "cen-ter of gravity" is in others, not in self.

2. The neurotic need for a "partner" who will take over one's life: a partnerwho will fulfill all expectations the neurotic has in life; 'who will take respon-sibility for good and evil, success and failure.The neurotic so inclined has atendency to overvalue "love" because love can solve everything.

3- The neurotic need to restrict one's life within narrow borders: a necessityto be undemanding and contented with little; a need to remain inconspicu-ous, belittling one's potential.

4. The neurotic need for power, for control over others, and for a facade ofomnipotence: domination over others craved for its own sake; essential dis-respect for others; indiscriminate adoration of strength and contempt forweakness; belief in the power of reason and intelligence; extreme valueplaced on foresight and prediction; tendency to relinquish wishes and to•withdraw because of dread of failure.

5. The neurotic need to exploit others and get the better of them: others eval-uated primarily according to whether they can be exploited or made use of;dread of being exploited or made to look "stupid."

6. The neurotic need for social recognition or prestige: self-evaluation depen-dent entirely on public acceptance; all things and people evaluated only interms of prestige value.

7. The neurotic need for personal admiration: inflated image of self; need tobe admired not for what one possesses or presents in the public eye, but forthe imagined self.

8. The neurotic ambition for personal achievement: self-evaluation depen-dent on being the very best—lover, athlete, •writer, worker—particularly inone's own mind, recognition by others being vital too, however, and itsabsence resented.

9. TJje neurotic need for self-sufficiency and independence: necessity never toneed anybody, or to yield to any influence, or to be tied down to anything;necessity to avoid any closeness that involves the danger of enslavement.

10. The neurotic need for perfection and unassailability: ruminations orrecriminations regarding possible flaws; relentless driving for perfection;feelings of superiority over others because of being perfect.

There are obviously overlaps and similarities among the 10 needs or trends. Hor-ney devoted a great deal of her later theoretical efforts to grouping and categorizingthese 10 discrete trends into clusters descriptive of particular personalities. Theimportant fact to be kept in mind is that none of these trends is by itself abnormal;only -when the trend is disproportionate, indiscriminate, relentless, and anxiety-provoking when frustrated can it be classed as neurotic.


ll

BASIC ANXIETY AND BASIC HOSTILITYVery much like Adler, Horney assumed that one of children's most potent early per-ceptions of themselves was the discovery of their helplessness. In the face of power-ful and authoritative, manipulative and decisive "giants"such as parents, they perceivethemselves to be weak and small. Children thus soon learn that their needs, theirsafety, and their comfort are wholly dependent on these powerful people. Their verysurvival depends on evoking in them a favorable and responsive attitude towardthemselves.

Parental Indifference: The "Basic Evil"Horney felt that the "basic evil" that lies at the source of later neurosis is a coldly in-different, perhaps hostile, rejecting attitude of the parents toward the child:

The basic evil is invariably a lack of genuine warmth and affection. A child can standa great deal of what is often regarded as traumatic—such as sudden weaning.occasional beating, sex experiences—as long as inwardly he feels wanted andloved. . . . The main reason why a child does not receive enough warmth andaffection lies in the parents' incapacity to give it on account of their ownneuroses. . . . We find various actions or attitudes on the part of the parents whichcannot but arouse hostility, such as preference for other children, unjust reproaches,unpredictable changes between overindulgence and scornful rejection, unfulfilledpromises, and not least important, an attitude toward the child's needs which goesthrough all gradations from temporary inconsideration to a consistent interferingwith the most legitimate wishes of the child, such as disturbing friendships,ridiculing independent thinking, spoiling its interest in its own pursuits . . .altogether an attitude of the parents which if not in intention nevertheless in effectmeans breaking the child's will. (1937,pp.80-81;italics added)

The main result of such parental indifference, inconsistency, and interference is thecreation within the child of an attitude of basic hostility.

Basic Hostility: Repression for Survival and SecurityLike mature persons, children sense the injustice of their treatment at the hands ofemotionally manipulative elders, and they rightfully resent both the manipulation andthe manipulators. Unfortunately, unlike mature adults, children are in no position toalter the circumstances by a direct expression of hostility and anger; they must represstheir angry feelings—drive them right out of awareness—in the service of continuedsurvival. Repression of the hostility is triggered by a combination of feelings on diechild's part: feelings of helplessness, fear, love, or guilt (Horney, 1937, p. 85). But what-ever the motive for repression, the result is die creation of feelings of increased unwor-thiness and anxiety. Because children are caught between dependence on their par-ents and the growing feeling of hostility toward them, they may actually intensify theconflict by turning those feelings against the only available "safe" target, their ownselves. Their feelings of helplessness are thus magnified and the need to maintain therepression of hostility is reinforced, hi mottolike form, the child's behavior says "I haveto repress my hostility because I need you" (Horney, 1937,p. 86).

Ttjt(Psi


In some cases,parents actively strive to dominate their children by teaching themfear of the world and its people.They impress their children with the "great dangersof life": germs, cars, strangers, other children, and on and on. In consequence, suchchildren become apprehensive lest they be unable to survive in such a dangerousworld without their parents' help. Furthermore, they learn to fear the parents them-selves because they have the awesome power to evoke images of the dangers. Forsuch children, repression of hostility is a product of their fear: They do not dare toexpress it. "/ have to repress my hostility," their motto goes, "because I am afraid ofyou" (Horney, 1937, p. 86).

hi other families, where genuine affection and warmth are lacking, there occursa kind of verbal substitute expression of love in the form of continual protestationsby the parents of how much they are sacrificing for the child. In this case, the childmay cling desperately to this mock emotion and feel "/ have to repress my hostilityfor fear of losing love" (Horney, 1937, p. 86).

All three cases are essentially similar in that the child's fundamental motive is tosustain satisfying contact with the powerful people of his or her world. Survival need,fear, and love are in most ways closely related by the thread of helplessness that runsthrough the child's entire pattern of existence.

Basic Anxiety: Lonely and Helpless in a Hostile World

The danger of children's repression of basic hostility toward their parents is that theywill generalize that "grudging and anxious" attitude to people in general. The morethey cover their hostility and their "grudge against their own family," the more likelythey are to project their anxiety to the outside world and its people. They will soonconvince themselves that the whole world is, as their parents' behavior may have sug-gested, a dangerous place:

The condition that is fostered or brought about by the factors I have mentioned . . .is an insidiously increasing, all-pervading feeling of being lonely and helpless in ahostile world. . . . This attitude as such does not constitute a neurosis but it is thenutritive soil out of which a definite neurosis may develop at any time. Because of thefundamental role this attitude plays in neuroses I have given it a special designation:the basic anxiety; it is inseparably interwoven with a basic hostility. (Horney, 1937,p. 89; italics added)

Horney's concept of basic anxiety sounds similar to Adler's notion of the inferi-ority feelings of childhood. Her explicit definition of basic anxiety strengthens thesimilarity:

It [basic anxiety] may be roughly described as a feeling of being small, insignificant,helpless, deserted, endangered, in a -world that is out to abuse, cheat, attack, humiliate,betray, envy. (Horney, 1937, p. 92)

The most immediate consequence of the combination of basic hostility and the resul-tant basic anxiety is the creation of a characteristic mode of reacting to the world andto significant others. Originally, Horney proposed four such character types (1937,p. 96); later, however, in keeping •with her tendency to formulate concepts in threes,she reduced the number (1945).

• ''V

648 KAREN HORNEY & ERICH FROMM

If children come to feel that they can survive only by complying with others andby placating them — "If you love me, you will not hurt me" — they may solve theirsurvival problems by offering the world a passive, nonassertive, appeasing personal-ity (Horney 1937, p. 97).

Other children may develop the attitude that life is a struggle which must befought by maintaining an aggressive stance toward others: "If I have power, I shallnot be hurt" (Horney, 1937, p. 97). These children's characteristic interaction withothers solves their survival problems by keeping others at arm's length or by exert-ing dominance over them.

Last, children may solve the conflict between unexpressed basic hostility and anx-iety by withdrawal from others: "If I withdraw, nothing can hurt me" (Horney, 1937,p. 99). The habitual mode of dealing with others is to create a protective shell of isola-tion, thereby removing themselves from any significant emotional interactions.

Transitional SummaryWe will give each of these character attitudes fuller treatment. For now, however, it isimportant to retrace the sequence of Horney's ideas about the nature of personalitydevelopment to emphasize the importance of basic hostility and basic anxiety.

Out of the fundamental feelings of hostility and anxiety develops a set of valuesfor living. As we have seen, Horney initially proposed 10 such values or neurotictrends, and later she regrouped them in terms of the three character attitudes of com-pliance, aggression, and withdrawal.

The child has been made aware that his or her feelings of hostility and anger can-not be openly displayed; he or she represses them and the repression is reinforced byparental indifference, inconsistency, or withdrawal of love. His or her feeling of help-lessness is thus also intensified. The world and its people become a source of antici-pated pain and anxiety. Out of these anticipations the child develops a series of needsthat are rigid, compulsive, and indiscriminate strivings to predict, control, and survivethe manipulations and the indifference of a hostile world.

Horney's lucid portrait of a child's basic hostility and basic anxiety — feelings, thatis, of resentment to parental indifference and of impotence in the face of a hostileworld — may have had important personal sources. We turn next to a recent bio-graphical study of Karen Horney to trace out the roots of her special sensitivity tochildren's feelings of rejection and their strategies for coping with them.

the iwrit!the]and

Wacfourbeei197:andyou:cap'hea'per:con

Ka\!Thon'(Rushijreal

rynhesilethrschGometenthedo:ter

PERSONAL SOURCES OF THE BASIC-ANXIETYAND BASIC-HOSTILITY HYPOTHESESLike so many other personality theorists, Karen Horney felt she had been an un-wanted child. This theme is so prevalent in the life histories of people who later madeimportant contributions to psychology that it surely must lead historians to wonderwhether feelings of unwantedness are a prerequisite in the career of a personalitytheorist. Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Alfred Adler, Carl Jung,Gordon Allport, R. D. Laing, and Erik Erikson evidence similar childhood themes. Tothis list of "unwanted "children who became eminent theorists of human personality

an-resanok19

adraileipi;


it be>hallwithxert-

anx-937,sola-

it isality

luesoticom-

:an-I bydp-tici-•edsfive

iiatitilebio-- to

the name of Karen Horney must be added. Rubins (1978) and Quinn (1987) havewritten the first full-length biographies of Horney, and they provide much insight intothe personal sources of her theoretical concepts. In what follows we rely on Rubinsand Quinn and on Horney's (1980) own diaries and letters.

Karen Horney was born on September 16, 1885, to a ship's captain, BerndtWackels Danielson, and his second wife, Clotilde. Captain Danielson already hadfour children by his previous marriage, and his search for a second wife may havebeen motivated by the desire to have a mother for them (Quinn, 1987, p. 20; Rubins,1978, p. 8). However, Captain Danielson's children never'accepted his new wife,and they resented the two new children born into the marriage, Berndt and hisyounger sister, Karen. Moreover, the marriage between the gruff and masterful seacaptain and his 18-year-younger bride, despite all appearances, was not made inheaven. In August 1904, Clotilde Danielson could stand her husband's tyrannicalpersonality no longer, and with her two children, separated from Captain Danielsoncompletely.

Karen's Relationship With Her Mother and FatherWhen Karen's brother Berndt was born, he fulfilled the family tradition by carryingon the family name. He was a boy, he was wanted, and he became his parents' darling(Rubins, 1978, p. 10). Karen's birth, four years later, came at a time when the relation-ship between her parents had grown abrasive. "Karen questioned whether she hadreally been wanted" (Rubins, 1978, p. 11).

Captain Danielson was an authoritarian personality, drawing his rigidity andtyrannical style from his avid fundamentalist religious beliefs. It was biblical truth thathe sought to impose on his wife and children. On occasion, after a long period ofsilent Bible reading, he would erupt into one of his frequent explosions of anger andthrow his Bible at his wife. The children later referred to their father as der Bibel-schmeisser (Bible-thrower), when he was not present (Rubins, 1978, p. 11). For theGod-fearing Captain Danielson, -women had been created second to men, in talent, inmorality, and in privilege. The Bible itself had shown that a woman had yielded totemptation in the Garden and was therefore the source of evil. "What was permittedthe male could not be tolerated in the female. His son Berndt would be allowed free-dom, privilege, education; these were not necessary for his wife or youngest daugh-ter" (Rubins, 1978, p. 11).

Danielson's wife, nicknamed "Sonni," was beautiful and a more sophisticatedperson than her husband. Karen's relationship with her mother was close, loving,and devoted. Rubins (1978, p. 13) speculates that Sonni so often came to the girl'srescue in disputes with the father because she identified with her daughter's talentsand wishes, vicariously fulfilling her own blocked ambitions. As the children grewolder, the three of them formed a "protective alliance" against the father (Rubins,1978,p. 13).

On the other hand, Karen had rather contradictory feelings toward her father. Sheadmired and respected him and was caught up in the romantic vision of his far-ranging sea travels. For his part, Captain Danielson took his daughter on at least threelengthy voyages aboard his ship, and he occasionally brought her gifts from exoticplaces. At one point, when she was in her thirties, she took to wearing a captain's


style cap, indicating at least some positive and sympathetic feelings for the memoryof her father (Rubins, 19"'8. p. 12). Karen may even have lied late in her life about trav-eling to South America on one of the ships her father commanded. She told severalpeople, including her daughter, that it was the first time she had tasted bananas(Quinn, 1987, p. 36). Clearly the "lie" was more of a wishful fantasy that betrays at leastsome urge to be close with her father. On the whole, however, she felt rejected by herfather, and less loved by him than her brother Berndt.

In childhood, Karen felt deprived of affection, and her coping style up to the ageof eight was to behave "like a little lamb" (Rubins, 1978, p. 13). She even once placedsome of her toys on the street for some poorer child to find, telling no one about heraltruistic deed because self-sacrifice was her way of being the good child she hopedher parents would love. (See Horney's semiautobiographical case history and com-ments in Horney, 1950, p. 20, and 1942, pp. 190 ff.) By the age of nine, Karen shiftedstrategies, becoming rebellious and openly ambitious in the company of her school-mates. Partly to escape the intolerability of her home life, and partly because of hernative intelligence and curiosity, Karen attacked her schoolwork with a passion. Hersense of basic inadequacy was further intensified by concern over her physicalappearance. "As she said years later to her daughter, 'If I couldn't be beautiful. Idecided I would be smart' " (Rubins, 1978, p. 14). In reality, Karen was a strikinglygood-looking young girl.Yet, schoolwork and achievement were seized upon as a wayof compensating for her self-perceived defects.

At puberty Karen's open and excessive affection toward her brother, stemminginitially from her attempts to cope with her more genuine feelings of resentmenttoward him, was rebuffed by Berndt, who found his sister's loving protestationsembarrassing. This rejection proved overwhelming for Karen: "It was a blow to herpride; . . . she felt ashamed and humiliated" (Rubins, 1978, p. 14). She becamedepressed, and believing a family doctor, who said that the strain of schoolwork hadbeen responsible, her parents placed her in a lower grade. The result of these machi-nations was that Karen vowed to be first in her class always!

By the age of 12, she had decided on a career in medicine, a choice that her sternfather regarded with amazement and opposition, and one that her mother encour-aged. Through both her mother's and her brother's intercession with her father.Karen finally convinced him to provide the tuition to enter a school that would pre-pare her for later admission to medical school. Karen even gave him a statement writ-ten in verse, wherein she promised to ask nothing more of him if he would help herthrough this new undertaking (Rubins, 1978, p. 21).

The Religious CrisisIt is not surprising that, in the light of her ambivalent relationship with her father andhis less than exemplary biblical interpretations, Karen developed a painful hostility toreligion in adolescence. A growing theological skepticism emerged in her expressedas a doubting of authority figures and fundamental religious belief. She immersed her-self in religious studies, and in typically adolescent fashion, her zealousness for truthturned into metaphysical questioning of the divinity of Jesus. Her brother Berndtguided her to one way of understanding the contradiction contained in the belief thatJesus was both man and God; and his explanation was as vague as it was loving. Karen

co:be

anhe

A:re1!

bS'

IKiibtai'tt

I


mingment.tionsD hercamevhadlachi-

sterncour-ither,ipre-writ-pher

randity tosssediher-truthsrndtfthatiaren

confided to her diary:" 'Something like a stone fell from my heart. . . . He [Jesus]became dearer to me' " (Rubins, 1978, p. 18).

Her religious skepticism (really her form of rebellion) continued to mount, sothat at the time of her confirmation, religious authority and her father's authoritari-anism were roughly identical to her, and, in consequence, equally worthy targets ofher despair and anger. Karen wrote in her diary:

It must be grand to have a father one can love and esteem.The Fourth Commandmentstands before me like a specter, with its "Thou shall." I cannot respect a person whomakes us all unhappy with his hypocrisy, egocentricity, crudeness and illbreeding. . . .[These are] indescribable days for Mother and us under the fearful domination of themaster of the house and our pastor. Pen and paper would rebel against writing downanything so coarse and mean. Confirmation was no blessing for me. On the contrary,it was a great piece of hypocrisy, for I professed belief in the teachings of Christ, thedoctrine of love, while carrying hatred in my heart (and for my nearest at that). I feeltoo weak to follow Christ. Yet I long for the faith, firm as a rock, that makes oneselfand others happy. (Quoted by Rubins, 1978, p. 19; see also Horney, 1980, p. 37)

As Rubins notes, such hostile feelings could not be expressed openly, for Karen wasrebelling against her father, his edicts, and her own deepest childhood beliefs (1978, p.19). As she confided years later to her friend Franz Alexander, such grave doubts meant" 'standing up to the frightening gaze of my father's blue eyes' " (Rubins, 1978, p. 19).

Horney's Relationship With Her Husband and ChildrenIn 1906, Karen entered one of the few medical schools that permitted women tostudy for the degree in Freiburg, Germany. Strongly competing with her brother'saccomplishments at law school and finding herself in a virtually all-male atmosphere,Karen nevertheless relished her newfound sense of freedom and independence. Dur-ing this exciting time, she met Oskar Horney. an economics student on vacation fromhis own studies at the University of Brunswick, and they struck up a close friendship.Karen was apparently attracted to the strong but stern Oskar, who radiated emotionaland physical strength, intelligence, and independence, because she valued these qual-ities hi her own character. She wrote letters to him for the next year in which sheexpressed her most private feelings, including her changing attitudes toward hermother. Sonni had become, in her daughter's less idealized view of her, a basicallygood person but one who was nevertheless coldhearted and lacking in self-control(Rubins, 1978, p. 31).

In 1909 Karen and Oskar were married. He had earned a law degree and wasemployed by an investment firm that was eventually to fail disastrously, taking his for-tunes with it. By 1910, Karen was pregnant with her first of three daughters, Brigitte.Shortly before Brigitte's birth, Sonni suffered a stroke; she died one week later in Feb-ruary 1911. Thus in a relatively short space of time, Karen had experienced profoundchanges—her marriage, a death, and the giving of new life. At this time she was alsoundergoing her own personal psychoanalysis with Karl Abraham in preparation forher career in psychiatry. The net effect of all these experiences, along with the reex-amination of childhood conflicts necessitated by the analysis, has been well summa-rized by Rubins (1978, p. 38):

Karen's ambivalent feelings toward her father, her dependency upon her mother andher struggle to free herself from this dependency, her longstanding resentment atplaying a secondary role to her brother, the conflict within herself between the rolesof assertive professional woman and the compliant childbearing homemaker—allthese had to be confronted.

The outcome of her analysis was not satisfying to Karen, and she remained depressed,asking in a letter to her analyst," 'Does not the real work begin after the analysis? Theanalysis shows one her enemies but one must battle them afterwards, day by day' "(Quinn, 1987, pp. 157 ff. and pp. 193 ff; Rubins, 1978, p. 39).

The Horneys eventually had three children, all daughters. In matters of discipline,Oskar was as severe and demanding as Karen's own father had been with her, butKaren never intervened. One Christmas, Marianne, the middle daughter, leaned backtoo far in her chair at the dinner table; she grasped the tablecloth and took with herto the floor an entire new dinner service and the Christmas meal. Oskar spanked Mar-ianne with a dog whip, while Brigitte, the eldest, cried in sympathy, but Karen showedno outward reaction to her daughter's plight (Rubins, 1978, p. 51).

All three of the girls recalled that Karen had a "laissez-faire" and detached attitudetoward their own concerns. Both parents believed in encouraging independence andin avoiding coddling, an amazing attitude on the part of a mother who herself hadbeen so desperate for parental warmth and affection, and who would later constructan entire theory around parental indifference as a "basic evil."

She would not interfere with their growing up, with their comings and goings. Butthe children felt that this noninterference might have bordered at times on neglect:Their clothes were often too long or too short, their stockings did not fit. A governesswas no longer needed now that they were all in school, and the maids did not lookafter them personally. (Rubins, 1978, p. 83)

Due partly to her own hectic schedule, and partly to genuine personality differ-ences with her husband, Karen's marriage began to disintegrate. In 1923 Oskar'sinvestments collapsed and his salary with his bankrupt firm was worth little in the ris-ing inflation of the day. He borrowed heavily, contracted encephalomeningitis duringa business trip to Paris, and eventually returned home a broken, defeated, spiritlessman. He became morose, withdrawn, and argumentative, losing friends and posses-sions with equal speed. As their finances deteriorated, so did the marriage—by 1926the couple was emotionally, if not physically, separated by a wide gulf. Karen and herdaughters actualized the separation later that year by moving into a small apartmentwith their few possessions. Some 10 years later, Karen filed for divorce, which becameofficial hi 1939.

The DepressionsThroughout her life, beginning with her brother's rejection of her effusive protesta-tions of love for him in adolescence, Karen Horney suffered periodic bouts of dejec-tion bordering on depression. In 1923, at the height of her husband's financial diffi-culties, her brother Berndt died of a pulmonary infection. He was 40 years old, andshe was devastated at the senselessness of his death. Profound depression was the

CO

ex

Hithloal

irnii

Pdti

st


consequence. Writing to Georg Groddeck some months after Berndt's death, Karenexpressed a curiously ambivalent kind of acceptance.

. . . in the beginning I considered [the death of my brother] as something totallysenseless—he belonged to those people •who seem to burst with the joy of living. Inthe face of this, after many weeks I arrived at the conclusion: something in him hadwanted to die. That insight I tend to accept in general and I have only one suspicionabout it. and that is that it is too much of what we want to believe. (Quoted in Rubins,19~8.p.72)

Her ambivalence, and her self-skepticism of her explanation, are understandable inthe light of Karen's early belief in Berndt's favored position with her father. But theloss of this idealized yet resented person was too potent for even Karen's psychoan-alyzed adjustment to life.

Shortly after Berndt's death, while on vacation at the beach with her family andfriends, Karen went alone for a swim. When she failed to return after more than anhour, Oskar found her clutching a piling in deep water, ruminating on whether to endher life or swim back to the beach (Rubins, 1978, p. 87). Much pleading was requiredby Oskar and his friends to convince Karen her life was worth living.

Overall, the central conflicts of Karen Horney's life were profound feelings ofinadequacy and guilt-provoking resentment toward her parents and her brother formaking her feel that way. The death of her brother evoked such profound depressionin Karen possibly because Berndt's demise fulfilled her darkest, rageful childhoodwishes and simultaneously triggered the most intense adult guilt: self-punishment insuicidal longings. It is small wonder, then, that Karen Horney's theory stressed inter-personal relations as the core of neurotic conflicts. Tracing over her life history, threethemes emerge. First, her sense of her own unwantedness and unattractiveness ini-tially had produced a compliant, meek, over-eager-to-please child. From this stance ofselflessness emerged a rebellious, skeptical, and defiant young woman, who soughtby her intellectual achievements to compensate for her presumed weaknesses and toexact revenge with the evidence of her hard-won competence.

Second, Karen found herself almost unwittingly married to a man who bore morethan superficial resemblance to the authoritarian father she so resented. Almost asthough attempting to master in her marriage what she felt she had failed to master asa child, she professionally and parentally surpassed her husband.

Third, achieving in a frowned-upon profession for women in the early 1900s,Karen adopted psychoanalytic theory, drew what intellectual and emotional suste-nance she could from it, and then abandoned some of its central tenets in favor of herown insights. She rebelled against paternalistic psychoanalysis in much the same wayas she had rebelled against religion and her father's conception of it, and through thatrevolt, against the father himself. As Rubins (1978, p. 113) tactfully phrased it:"It wasthe same old conflict within her that she had experienced so often before, how to beaggressive yet friendly and loving at the same time."

Relationship With Erich FrommKaren had gotten to know Erich Fromm and his wife, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann,from her days in Berlin, where all three had studied psychoanalysis together (Quinn,

L


1987, p. 269). Although Fromm was 15 years younger than Horney, a close friend-ship and intellectual relationship developed. Once in America, in Chicago, theyrenewed their relationship, initially on an intellectual-professional level. At somepoint during the next several years, the relationship deepened into a romantic one,and the closeness intensified (Quinn, 1987, p. 270). As Quinn points out, it becomesimpossible to separate the degree of influence they each had on the other in theirwritings, but the clear similarities of theme and content are testimony to the close-ness they shared.

During this time, Horney's revisionist views on the psychology of women werecreating some degree of divisiveness in the psychoanalytic society to which shebelonged. Quinn's (e.g., 1987,p. 274) portrait of Horney indicates a strong, somewhatauthoritative demeanor, fueled by no little amount of competitiveness with her malecolleagues. It was not a personality recipe destined to soothe troubled waters in theintensely opinionated atmosphere of psychoanalytic circles. In 1934 Horney decidedto leave Chicago for New York. Her reasons for leaving were part political, part frus-tration with the intellectual climate, and part a rumor that she had seduced a youngercandidate at the psychoanalytic institute. Quinn (1987, p. 262) has sorted the evi-dence and presents the hypothesis that if Horney had seduced a candidate, and thetruth of that assertion is likely never to be known because the analyst involved is nowdead, it probably grew from her depression and despair with which she fought a life-long battle. After the move to New York, Erich Fromm joined her there within theyear. Friends remembered them as inseparable weekend companions.

The relationship with Fromm had a bitter ending. Eventually, a kind of competi-tiveness developed between the two. When students at the psychoanalytic institutewanted to study with Fromm, Horney suggested that a nonphysician (Fromm was aPh.D., not an M.D. like Horney) should not teach courses to analytic candidates(Quinn, 1987, p. 363). When the matter came to a vote, Horney's view prevailed, andFromm resigned from the institute along with Harry Stack Sullivan. Clara Thompson.and Janet Rioch.Together they made plans to establish an alternative institute, but thebitterness between Fromm and Horney was now crystallized.

Quinn (1987, pp. 366 ff.) points out that the romantic relationship between thecouple had ended by the early 1940s, and these political-competitive disputes merelyreflected that personal bitterness. Quinn believes that the relationship probablyended because Horney perceived Erich Fromm as not being able to provide thedegree of intimacy she wanted. Perhaps marriage, too, had been an issue. A furthercomplication involved Karen Horney's daughter, Marianne, who had gone to Frommfor psychoanalysis during the time of the relationship at her mother's suggestion.Theanalysis was a success, and Marianne reported that she lived a fuller life because of it(Quinn, 1987, p. 368). But it is possible that Horney resented the outcome or perhapsinterpreted Marianne's increased independence from her as Fromm's fault. At allevents, the relationship was complex, fraught with conflicts from the start, and endedsourly.

We turn next to the case history of Clare, which, there is good reason to believe,contains thinly disguised autobiographical elements of Karen Horney's own familyhistory. In the case of Clare, we can catch a glimpse of Karen Horney's view of herown struggle (cf. Rubins, 1978, p. 17).

J -

zlose friend-nicago, they-el. At some>mantic one,t, it becomes>ther in theirto the close-

women were;o which sheng, somewhatwith her malewaters in thearney decideddeal, part frus-iced a youngersorted the evi-iidate. and theavolved is nowic fought a life-icre within the

md of competi-nalytic institutei (Fromm was aytic candidatesv prevailed, and;iara Thompson,institute,but the

tip between thedisputes merely

anship probably: to provide thei issue. A furtheri gone to Fromm's suggestion.Thelife because of it

;come or perhapsnm's fault. At all.e start, and ended

reason to believe,rney's own familymev's view of her

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:CLARE, AN UNWANTED CHILDDespite several of her mother's abortion attempts, Clare was born into the unhappymarriage. Her parents' first child, a boy, had been born at a time when the marriagewas a happy one, and in some ways he remained the only object of genuine parentalapproval and affection. Not that Clare was in any material way mistreated or abused.She always received the same quantity and quality of gifts, trips, lessons, and educa-tional opportunities as her brother.

But in less tangible matters she received less than the brother, less tenderness, lessinterest in school marks and in the thousand little daily experiences of a child, lessconcern when she was ill, less solicitude to have her around, less willingness totreat her as a confidante, less admiration for looks and accomplishments. (Horney,1942, p. 49)

Always away from home, Clare's father, a doctor, became the object of the mother'sridicule and loathing. As the "dominating spirit" of the family, mother's evaluation offather soon was converted into a family law of contempt. So great was the bitternessagainst the father that open death wishes were often expressed by Clare's motherand these "contributed much to Clare's feeling that it was much safer to be on thepowerful side" (Horney, 1942, p. 49).

The most immediate result of the family atmosphere on Clare's developmentwas her lost opportunity to develop a sense of confidence and self-trust. As Clarematured, her feelings of unworthiness and her sense of total unlikableness grew:

This shift from essentially true and warranted accusations of others to essentiallyuntrue and unwarranted self-accusations had far-reaching consequences. . . .And theshift meant more than an acceptance of the majority estimate ofherself.lt meantalso that she repressed all grievances against the mother: If everything was her ownfault, the grounds for bearing a grudge against mother were pulled away fromunder her. (Horney, 1942, p. 50; italics added)

Clare thus relinquished any possibility of genuine rebellion against the injustice ofher own treatment at the hands of her family. Instead, she became a "joiner," a com-pliant member in the circle of admirers surrounding the powerful mother."By admir-ing what in reality she resented, she became alienated from her own feelings. She nolonger knew what she herself liked or wished or feared or resented" (Horney, 1942,p. 51). In short, she began to act on the unconscious premise "that it is safer to admireothers than to be critical." In a word, Clare had become compliant.

The essentially self-effacing quality characteristic of compliance was expressedin a variety of ways in Clare's behavior. One way was her compulsive modesty, a ten-dency to "put herself into second place," and to judge herself more critically than any-one else ever could. In effect, Clare had lost the capacity to take control of her ownlife; she lived life only to appease and placate others. Beneath the facade of compli-ance, passivity, and modesty7, however, there developed an unconscious need to sur-pass others, to beat them at their own game, a striving aimed at restoring some muchneeded self-esteem. But of course that need had to remain submerged.

-

At the age of 30 Q

. . .she drove with her frie,

REAL SELF

• •

SELF:Confronted by the iunexpressible ho

arf S^r °f ******

feelin§S °f helplessness and the,slowly develop a character^

asChildren

"despised more appropriately be

I" contrast to authentitoward whose ̂idealized magc is a

* static quaHty. It is not a goalt a feed ldea which he worships. . . .Thet0 growth ^cause it either denies short-

a


indbleted

hat•ov-uchgatSheow-•selfvedshe

thatdtoningfinal

theirxisticalize,erento fur-alselfevalu-3.98).dy be

age ofder to

icrt-

comings or merely condemns them. Genuine ideals make for humility, the ideal-ized image for arrogance. (Horney, 1945, p. 99; italics added)

The idealized self-image substitutes for genuine self-confidence and pride. It is basedon a wishful-thinking style that is betrayed in all of its unrealistic compulsivity later inadulthood when the neurotic continually refers to his or her "shoulds":

Forget about the disgraceful creature you actually are [i.e., the despised real self]; thisis how you should be. . . . He should be the utmost of honesty, generosity, con-siderateness, justice, dignity, courage, unselfishness. He should be the perfect lover,husband, teacher. He should be able to endure anything, should like everybody,should love his parents, his wife, his country; or, he should not be attached to anythingor anybody, nothing should matter to him, he should never feel hurt, and he shouldalways be serene and unruffled. He should always enjoy life; or, he should be abovepleasure and enjoyment. He should be spontaneous; he should always control hisfeelings. He should know, understand, and foresee everything. He should be able tosolve every problem of his own, or of others, in no time. He should be able toovercome every difficulty of his as soon as he sees it. He should never be tired or fallill. He should always be able to find a job. He should be able to do things in one hourwhich can only be done in two to three hours. (Horney, 1950, p. 65)

This seemingly endless list of things neurotics feel they ought to be or do was termedby Horney the "tyranny of the should" (1950, pp. 65 ff.). The contradictory anduncompromising nature of the items in the list suggests the compulsive, inexorableprocess of personality distortion that has resulted from the creation of the idealizedself-image.With time, the idealized self-image becomes converted into an ideal self, nolonger to be recognized as a fiction. It is now seen as a state of being that is nearlyimpossible to attain (Horney, 1950, p. 158). Nevertheless, the neurotic is compelled tostrive toward this unreachable ideal in what Horney called the "search for glory"(1950, p. 23). Indeed, the ideal self slowly becomes more real to the neurotic than the"real" despised self ever was. The idealized self becomes the comprehensive neuroticsolution, for it actualizes the fantasied image by which all problems can be solved, alldifficulties surmounted. With the creation of the ideal self, the neurotic "solves" theconflict between feelings of basic anxiety and hostility; he or she learns to deal withthe world and its people through the shoulds of the ideal self.

In writing about the tyranny of the shoulds, it is almost as though Horney werewriting about her father and his rigid standards of conduct and impossible demandsfor moral perfection. Horney, no doubt, was expressing to some degree her experi-ence of these demands, as well as her striving to surpass her more favored brother,who served, so to speak, as another, parentally reinforced,"should" in her life.

In her later work, Horney created a further distinction among the images neu-rotics have of themselves. Originally the term real self was used to indicate the dam-aged self-image produced in children by their parents' reinforcement of their feelingsof helplessness. Horney later changed the usage somewhat by employing "real self" todesignate the true core of a person's being, his or her very center of existence. Thereal self harbors all the potential for growth and health: "clarity and depth of his ownfeelings, thoughts, wishes, interests; the ability to tap his own resources, the strengthof his will power, the special capacities or gifts he may have; the faculty to express

i . SK.

658 KAREN HORNEY & ERICH FROMM

TABLE 13.1 Horney's Conception of the Self

1. DESPISED REAL SELFFalse conceptions of one's competence, worth, and lovability based on belief in others'evaluations, especially those of the parents. Negative evaluations may reinforce one's senseof helplessness.

2. REAL SELFThe true core of one's being, containing potential for growth, happiness, will power, spe-cial capacities and gifts, and the urge for "self-realization," that is, the need to be sponta-neously what one truly is.

3. ACTUAL SELFDistinguished from the subjectively perceived real self as the objectively existing person,physically and mentally, independent of anyone's perceptions.

4. IDEAL SELFThe damaged real self, hurt by negative evaluations and indifference from parents, strug-gles with the "tyranny of the shoulds," that is, strives to be perfect in a wishful way as acompensation for feelings of inadequacy and unlovability.

tb

c<ic

dnarIt

himself, and to relate to others with his spontaneous feelings" (Homey, 1950, p. 17). Itis this core that is damaged by parental indifference. The goal of the real self is thestriving for self-realization, that is, the accomplishment of the person's own valuesand aims in life. In this sense, Horney began to use the term 'real self" to indicate a"possible self," that is, a self that the individual can realistically learn to express.

To a large extent, the real self is a product of the person's own perceptions, his orher own interpretations of what he or she is. To distinguish from this phenomenallyreal self the objective sum of what the person is at any moment in time as observedby others Horney used the term actual self. The actual self is thus the totality ofeverything, physical and mental, that the person "really" is, independent of die per-son's own perceptions. In summary, the real self is the core of the person's existenceas he or she perceives it and perhaps despises it; the ideal self is a glorified image ofwhat he or she should be, an image that is impossible to attain; the actual self is thesum of objectively observable characteristics of the person at one moment in time.

It should be pointed out that for Horney the goal of psychotherapy was to pro-vide the individual with the means to free the real self, to accept its character, and toallow it full and spontaneous expression without the curtailment of learned defen-siveness (Horney, 1946,pp. 202 ff.).Table 13.1 summarizes the differences among thereal, actual, and ideal selves.

THE CORE NEUROTIC CONFLICT:ALIENATION FROM REAL SELFThe central neurotic conflict can now be rephrased. Recall that Horney originallydescribed it as the contradictory trend between unexpressed hostility and anxietyover feelings of helplessness. These feelings are generalized to people at large from


their original focus against the family, causing the individual to adopt one of threepossible orientations to the world. On the basis of most-valued needs, the individualmay adopt a strategy of compliance, aggression, or withdrawal. Now, however, thecentral conflict was rephrased in terms of Horney's developing ideas of the real andidealized selves.

The basic anxiety experienced in childhood and coupled with basic hostilitythat could not be expressed causes an alienation of the individual from his or herreal self. The central neurotic conflict is furthered by the adoption of an idealized selfat the expense of one's spontaneity, self-trust, and independence. In essence, neu-rotics attempt to mold themselves into something they are not to gain what they havelost: security. Since other people are the key agents in what has become a dangerousworld, they adopt defensive strategies for dealing with them:"He feels what he shouldfeel, wishes what he should wish, likes what he should like" (Horney, 1950, p. 159; ital-ics added).

In other words, the tyranny of the should drives him frantically to be somethingdifferent from what he is or could be. And in his imagination he is different—sodifferent, indeed, that the real self fades and pales still more. Neurotic claims, in termsof self, mean the abandoning of the reservoir of spontaneous energies. Instead ofmaking his own efforts, for instance, with regard to human relations, the neuroticinsists that others should adjust to him. (Horney, 1950, p. 159)

Three consequences of the individual's alienation from his or her real self can be dis-cerned in the neurotic's feelings of being removed from him- or herself (Horney,1950, pp. 159-161):

1. Abandonment of self-responsibility for his behavior: The neurotic comes tofeel that "I am driven instead of being the driver" (1950, p. 159).

2. Active moves away from the real self: His or her own inner creative forces liefallow as he or she succumbs to the idealized self and the search for gloryembodied in "shoulds"; at all costs the ideal image must be striven for, perpet-ually and inexorably, since only by investing all energy in these strivings canthe despised real serf be left behind.

3. Active moves against the real self: The individual experiences bouts of self-hate, with the idea of "being oneself" becoming terrifying and appalling. Theneurotic has an unconscious interest in not being him- or herself, in not hav-ing a clear self-perception. In short, the neurotic treats him- or herself imper-sonally, as an object.

INTERPERSONAL COPING STRATEGIES: MOVESTOWARD, AWAY FROM, AND AGAINST OTHERSUnlike Freud, who saw conflict between repressed instincts and the forces of the eth-ical side of personality as the core of neurosis, Horney observed a different kind ofconflict, interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict:

They [i.e., the conflicts] operated between contradictory sets of neurotic trends, andthough they originally concerned contradictory attitudes toward others, in time they


encompassed contradictory attitudes toward the self, contradictory qualities andcontradictor}'sets of values. . . .(1945, p. 15)

Horney viewed the neurotic's symptoms and interpersonal strategies as attempts to"solve" basic conflicts. Compulsive and indiscriminate strivings, contradictory andconflicted needs for perfection, power, affection, and independence, are all anxiety-allaying techniques designed to maintain the alienation between the despised realself and the ideal self, and between the real self and significant others. The 10 neurotictrends or needs began to be more comprehensible to Horney as clusters of strivingsdirected toward dealing with people and their demands. Horney organized the 10needs into three patterns of traits, illustrated by the three hypothetical personalitieswith which we began. It is necessary to examine those three character types from theperspective of Horney's concept of self-alienation.

Moving Toward People:The Self-Effacing SolutionRecall that the first solution to neurotic conflict that Horney described was originallytermed "moving towards others" (Horney, 1945, pp. 48 ff.). This type of individualmanifests the neurotic traits that are conducive to compliance, much as Clare hadlearned to do.These traits include intense needs for affection and approval, a need fora partner in the form of friend, husband, wife, or lover, and a necessity to be unde-manding, restricting one's life within narrow borders:

t

In sum, this type needs to be liked, wanted, desired, loved; to feel accepted, welcomed,approved of, appreciated; to be needed, to be of importance to others, especiallyto one particular person; to be helped, protected, taken care of, guided. (Horney.1945, p. 51)

The goal of the compliant type's "moving towards others" is on the surface a need tobe in harmony with them, to avoid friction. But contradictory7 trends may also beserved by this strategy. Compliance on the surface may mask a strong inner need tocompete, to excel, to dominate (Horney, 1945, p. 56). Below the surface, within thereal self, an unrecognized rage, anger, and residual hostile sentiment boils.The need ofcompliant neurotics to be liked by others thus serves to conceal their need to beaggressive. Occasionally, the repressed impulses of anger will explode into fits of irri-tability or into temper tantrums. Or, he or she may make demands on others only"because he is so miserable—'poor me.' " Of course, he or she never recognizes thatsuch demands are manipulative of others, or that they are attempts to satisfy his orher aggressive strivings: "He cannot help feeling at times that he is so unfairly treatedthat he simply can't stand it any longer" (Horney, 1945, p. 58).

In her later statement of neurotic conflict (1950, pp. 214 ff), Horney referred tothe "moving towards others" strategy as the self-effacing solution to neurotic con-flict. In effect, the self-effacing person has identified the ideal self with the restrictedand subdued despised self:

He is bis subdued self; he is the stowaway without any rights. In accordance with thisattitude he also tends to suppress in himself anything that connotes ambition,vindictiveness, triumph, seeking his own advantage. In short he has solved his inner

conflict by suppressing all expansive attitudes and drives and making self-abnegatingtrends predominant. (Horney, 1950, p. 216)

The self-effacing type has idealized the qualities of suffering, helplessness, and m;tyrdom,/or only by viewing oneself as "saintly" can one supply oneself with a goireason to endure the basic hostility one has never allowed oneself to express. If 01is a saint, then it is reasonable that one must suffer. And suffering becomes even moenjoyable if one can spread the misery to others. One thus is unable to identify withe idealized and glorified self-image. One can identify only with the victimized dtortion of it. Horney felt that the self-effacing "solution" was the most damagibecause intrinsic to this strategy is intense subjective unhappiness.

Moving Against People:The Expansive Solution

The aggressive, expansive solution to neurotic conflict is based on a different viewlife: on a belief that the world is a hostile place and that life "is a struggle of all agaiiall . . ." (Horney, 1945, p. 63).These individuals characteristically behave toward oers in aggressive ways; they are best described as "moving against others." They h;a kind of Machiavellian facade of suave politeness and good fellowship that issigned to facilitate satisfaction of their needs for control and power. Aggressive irviduals need to excel by exploiting others, to attain recognition by exerting donance and power over those they perceive to be underlings. Success and prestigethe yardsticks to their sense of self-worth.

Any situation or relationship is looked at from the standpoint of "What can I get outof it?"—whether it has to do with money, prestige, contacts, or ideas. The personhimself is consciously or semiconsciously convinced that everyone acts this way,and so what counts is to do it more efficiently than the rest. (Horney, 1945, p. 65;italics added)

Where the compliant types who move toward others have a need for a mate or pner stemming from their feelings of helplessness, aggressive types desire a partwho can enhance their prestige, power, or wealth.

Horney later rechristened this type who "moves against" people as the expan;solution to neurotic conflict: the appeal of mastery (1950, pp. 187 ff.).In almost e-srespect, the expansive solution is the direct opposite to the self-effacing solution.expansive type glorifies and cultivates in him- or herself everything that leadmastery of others (1950, p. 214).

The appeal of life lies in its mastery. . . . He should be able to master the adversities offate, the difficulties of a situation, the intricacies of intellectual problems, theresistances of other people, conflicts in himself.The reverse side of the necessity formastery is his dread of anything connoting helplessness; this is the most poignantdread he has. (Horney, 1950, p. 192)

Unlike the compliant, self-effacing type who identifies with the despised realthe aggressive person has come to believe that he or she is the ideal self, that hshe is the glorified image toward which he or she strives. All of the aggressive tybehavior can be understood as an attempt to actualize the ideal self (Horney, 1p. 192).


Moving Away From People: The Solution of ResignationThe third "solution" to neurotic conflict is practiced by those individuals whodevelop a protective "I don't care about anything1' attitude. They become detachedfrom human affairs and resigned to an emotionally flat life. For if they do not allowthemselves to care about anything or anyone, they can deceive themselves that theywill never be hurt. Horney characterized this individual's dominant strategy as "mov-ing away from people" (1945, pp. 73 ff.). Resigned individuals evidence intense needsof self-sufficiency perfection, and unassailability. They tend to restrict their liveswithin narrow confines much as the compliant types do, but for resigned individualsthe motive is the need never to be dependent on anyone.

Neurotic detachment is considerably different from the normal feelings each ofus experiences on those occasions when we would like to be alone with our ownthoughts. The neurotic has persistent feelings of indifference and withdrawal basedon an "intolerable strain in associating with people" (Horney, 1950, p. 73).

What is crucial is their inner need to put emotional distance between themselves andothers. More accurately, it is their conscious and unconscious determination not toget emotionally involved with others in any way, whether in love, fight, co-operation,or competition. They draw around themselves a kind of magic circle which no onemay penetrate. (Horney, 1945, p. 75)

By their resigned attitudes and detachment, neurotic individuals who move awayfrom others have removed themselves from the "inner battlefield" of their own con-flicts. Their "don't care" demeanor provides them with a sense of superior distance,haughty removal from their own and others'"petty" problems.They become onlook-ers at themselves and their lives to the degree that even in therapy they remaindetached and view the process of their own inner explorations as "fascinating enter-tainment" (Horney, 1950, p. 261).

A consequence of this "moving away from others" is the total lack of any strivingfor achievement or success in the ordinary meaning of these terms.They belittle theirown assets. Unconsciously, they deny any desire to achieve success or to exert efforton their own behalf. They lack goal-centeredness. As a result, they are hypersensitiveto coercion or advice, which they perceive as essentially similar, and they reject bothin their attempts to remain independent.

Horney identified three modes of stilted and joyless living that characterize vari-ous subvarieties of the resigned neurotic:

1. Persistent Resignation: These individuals are characterized by a continualemotional inertia. They fulfill as few of the tasks of life as are necessary toguarantee their freedom.They may pass for essentially normal, though withoutany observable joy in living. Their persistent resignation may be only a maskcovering a feeling of rebelliousness. Instead of active resistance to life, theypractice passive resistance: a total uncooperation with the demands of living.

2. Rebelliousness: The appeal of freedom and independence from others is sostrong for these individuals that they actively resist the "trivia" of life. Theymay turn the rebellion against the self and struggle against their own inner


tyrannies and shoulds. In this sense, their rebellion may actually be liberatingand therapeutic.

3. Shallow Living: This type of individual "moves to the periphery of life"; he orshe is without hope or any positive commitment. In -worse condition than thepersistently resigned type, the" shallow liver" finds life 'worthless. Eventually heor she will settle for superficial enjoyments,"high living.1' without meaning ordirection, or will pursue opportunistic success in business. But beneath themask of sociability- he or she is merely a "well-adapted automaton" (Horney,1950. pp. 286-287). He or she goes through the motions of life, but is withoutgenuine concern or involvement. He or she lives with others, takes over theirconventions, codes of conduct, and morals, but inwardly never accepts any ofthese codes as truly relevant. In short, this individual becomes other directedand completely without responsibility for his or her own life.

The common denominator that binds the three types of detached or resignedneurotic is the presence of vacillation between identification with the despised realself and identification with the glorified ideal self. Detached neurotics strive half-heartedly toward actualization of the ideal self, but fundamentally they have surren-dered any hope of making the glorified image come true. In effect, they are unsatis-fied with the despised self, but simultaneously afraid to strive toward the goals of theideal self. They desire to be free from all demands, rather than to be free for the pur-suit of desirable activities.

Horney's description of the three patterns of neurotic conflict-solution points upan important premise of her theory. Each of the patterns is designed to minimize anx-iety in dealing with people. Thus Horney's conceptualizations emphasize her posi-tion that the neuroses are evidence of damaged interpersonal processes. Horneysummarized the three attitude types in these terms:

As we have seen, each of the basic attitudes toward others has its positive value. Inmoving toward people the person tries to create for himself a friendly relation to hisworld. In moving against people he equips himself for survival in a competitivesociety. In moving away from people he hopes to attain a certain integrity andserenity. As a matter of fact, all three attitudes are not only desirable but necessary toour development as human beings. It is only when they appear and operate in aneurotic framework that they become compulsive, rigid, indiscriminate, andmutually exclusive. (1945, p. 89; italics added)

The three attitude types are presented together with their dominant neurotic needsin Table 13.2.

i i;

AUXILIARY CONFLICT SOLUTIONSIn addition to the basic attitudes for dealing with others, Horney suggested that sev-eral secondary or auxiliary techniques might be employed by neurotic personalitiesin their striving for security. Each of these techniques is to be conceptualized as a"secondary defense" in the service of buttressing the primary attitudinal"solution" toneurotic conflict.

TABLE 13.2 "Solutions" to Neurotic Conflict

Self-Effacing Solution: Love"Moving Toward" (Compliance)

Expansive Solution: Mastery"Moving Against" CAggression)

Resignation Solution: Freedom"Moving Away" (Detachment)

Need for

1. Affection and approval

2. Partner to take control

3. Restriction of life to narrow borders

"If you love me, you ivillnot hurt me."

Identification -with the despisedreal self

Need for

4. Power and omnipotence

and perfection

5. Exploitation of others

6. Social recognition and prestige

7. Personal admiration

8. Personal achievement

"If I have power, no onecan hurt me."

Identification with theideal self

Need for

3. Restrictions of life to narrow

borders*

9. Self-sufficiency

10. Perfection and unassailabilitv

"If I withdraw, nothing canhurt me."

Vacillation between despised realself and ideal self

* Need 3 is repeated from the Self-Effacing Solution.Based on Homey, 1945, Chapters 3,4, 5; 1942, Chapter 2; and 1950, Chapter 3.

Externalization

Though the neurotic personality seeks to bridge the distance between the idealizedself and the real self, all efforts paradoxically broaden the gap. In the most extremecase, when the gap between the idealized self and the real self becomes so great thatthe person can no longer tolerate the discrepancy, he or she must turn elsewhere forthe solution. "The only thing left then is to run away from himself entirely and seeeverything as if it lay outside" (Horney, 1945, p. 116).

Externalization is the auxiliary neurotic defense technique by which individualsshift their "center of gravity" from the self to others. Although somewhat similar tothe defensive technique described by Freud as projection, externalization is muchmore comprehensive, for it involves the shift outward to others not only of unac-ceptable feelings, but of all feelings, all emotion. Other people become the center ofall the neurotic's emotional life; these external individuals become the nucleus of allimportant strivings that would normally be directed to and experienced by the self.Thus, one may be angry with oneself, but instead attribute the anger to another:He isangry with me. A profound consequence for dealings with others emerges from thistendency to externalize:

When a person feels that his life for good or ill is determined by others, it is onlylogical that he should be preoccupied with changing them, reforming them,punishing them, protecting himself from their interference, or impressing them. . . .Another inevitable product of externalization is a gnawing sense of emptiness andshallowness. . . . Instead of feeling the emotional emptiness as such, the personexperiences it as emptiness in his stomach and tries to do away with it by compulsiveeating. Or he may fear that his lack of bodily weight could cause him to be tossedabout like a feather—any storm, he feels, might earn7 him away. He may even say that

HewlCriniticfo:

cTlal:thtr.d.

-- . If

he would be nothing but an empty shell if everything were analyzed. (Homey, 1945p. 117; italics added)

Horney's description of the emptiness of the self resembles Laing's descriptiiwhat he called the experience of implosion or the vacuum of the empty sellChapter 10). By externalizing his or her very being, the individual can forgo an}ings of humiliation, self-hate, or self-contempt, merely assigning these damagingtions to others. He or she still feels unworthy but now has provided a rational r<for the self-hatred: Others have no use for him or her, since he or she is nothing

Creation of Blind SpotsThe magnitude of the difference between neurotics' ongoing behaviors and thalized picture of themselves can sometimes be so great that outsiders marvethey never detect the discrepancy. The fact that neurotics never consciously ;the difference is evidence for the existence of a blind spot, that is, the creatioidefensive "refusal to see" their own defenses.

A patient, for example, who had all the characteristics of the compliant type anthought of himself as Christlike, told me quite casually that at staff meetings hwould often shoot one colleague after another with a little flick of his thumb. Truenough, the destructive craving that prompted these figurative killings was at th;time unconscious; but the point here is that the shooting, which he dubbed "play" dinot in the least disturb his Christlike image. (Horney, 1945,p. 132; italics added)

CompartmentalizationSimilar to blind spots, Compartmentalization involves pigeonholing one's lif<rigid and exclusive categories: Thus there is a compartment for friends, for enefor family, for outsiders, a compartment for professional activities separate frorsonal life, and so on (Horney, 1945, p. 133).The important point is that anythinoccurs in one compartment cannot contradict, influence, or support what tranin another. "Compartmentalizing is thus as much a result of being divided byconflicts as a defense against recognizing them" (Horney, 1945, p. 134). A widelyexample is that of the man who ruthlessly runs his business affairs during the •taking no real interest in the hurt or humiliation he causes his competitors, aSunday serves as the deacon of his church. Religion and business are in separatepartments, and so too, unfortunately, is his humanity.

RationalizationHorney treated the defense of rationalization pretty much as had other theincluding Freud. "Rationalization may be defined as self-deception by reasc(Horney, 1945, p. 135).Thus when the person rationalizes, he or she creates areason for some action where the reason would be unacceptable to his or heesteem. For example, the compliant type offers as the reason for "giving hi" to <the desire to make them happy, when, in fact, he or she seeks to bring them uncor her control. Where an altruistic reason is consciously offered, a desire fornance lurks.

Excessive Self-Control

In her clinical practice, Horney found that the tendency for excessive self-control wasso pervasive that she originally classed it among the 10 neurotic trends or needs: theneed to restrict one's life within narrow borders. Individuals who are exertingexcessive self-control are attempting to prevent being caught up in emotion: They"will not allow themselves to be carried away, whether by enthusiasm, sexual excite-ment, self-pity, or rage. . . . In short, they seek to check all spontaneity" (Horney, 1945,p. 136).

Arbitrary Rightness

Because the inner conflicts that have shaped the individual's life always producedoubt and hesitation, the individual is sometimes paralyzed, unable to take anycourse of action. All energy is spent in keeping the conflicts under control.Therefore,almost any outside influence will tip the scales, even temporarily, in one direction oranother. To an outsider, it appears that the neurotic decides important events arbi-trarily and then defends the decision with rationalizations.

Horney felt that the most "fertile soil" for such rigid Tightness was the develop-ment of aggressive tendencies coupled with feelings of detachment from others(1945, p. 138). For example, a neurotic may end a family dispute by preemptivelydeclaring that he will do what he has already decided to do since he is right. He thenstorms off, effectively ending the argument by absenting himself to pursue a courseof action chosen more in spite than by reason.

Elusiveness

Sometimes the only way neurotics can avoid the inherent contradictions of their livesis to avoid making any decisions whatsoever. Completely opposite to the arbitrarilyright neurotic, the elusive neurotic seeks never to be pinned down to anything, neverto state any issue or opinion clearly. "They have a bewildering capacity to becloudissues. It is often impossible for them to give a concrete report of any incident; shouldthey try to do so the listener is uncertain in the end just what really did happen" (Hor-ney, 1945, p. 138).

CynicismTo defend against the recognition of inner conflict, the neurotic may adopt a cynicalstance toward life and its traditional moral and ethical values. By treating such issuesderisively, the neurotic can forestall any conflict over deciding what his or her ownposition is. In effect, he or she adopts the Machiavellian attitude "Do what you please,so long as you don't get caught" (Horney, 1945, p. 140).

THE PRICE OF PROTECTIONFor Horney, the development of personality is an interpersonal process involvingthe achievement of self-confidence and the capacity for spontaneity. The character

attifen;procor

pa}thefelt

HothemiFupnex(&sc<

ocHeat

Ta

Crr

DO 7

attitudes of compliance, aggression, and withdrawal, coupled with the auxiliary de-fenses, constitute an entire, protective structure. The protective structure is designed toprovide neurotics with a sense of security, however falsely based, and with the meanscontinually to fend off any potential new threats to their idealized self-images.

It must not be forgotten, however, that for these attainments of security, neuroticspay a heavy price: They must abandon the realization of their true potentialities,the fruition of their genuine skills for living, and the expression of their authenticallyfelt needs.

MODIFICATION OF FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSISHorney's jumping-off point was, of course, traditional psychoanalytic technique andtheory. She accepted, for example, Freud's orientation toward psychological deter-minism. For Horney, as for Freud, every mental event was caused (1939, p. 18).Furthermore, that the cause of each mental event may be found in unconsciousprocesses and motives, another fundamental Freudian tenet, was a postulate Horneyeasily accepted. The basic concept of unconsciously motivated defenses against self-disturbing perceptions also was taken over from psychoanalysis by Horney, as can beseen in her list of defensive strategies for coping with others.

Where Horney radically differed from Freud was in the area of motivational con-tent. She reinterpreted the Oedipus complex, for example, as a culturally determined,occasional process of jealousy and aggression within some families (1939, p. 84). ForHorney, the roots of the Oedipal situation were not so much sexual as interpersonalattitudes:

The typical conflict leading to anxiety in a child is that between dependency on theparents . . . and hostile impulses against the parents. Hostility may be aroused in achild in many ways: by the parents' lack of respect for him; by unreasonable demandsand prohibitions; by injustice; by unreliability; by suppression of criticism; by theparents dominating him and ascribing these tendencies to love. . . . If a child, inaddition to being dependent on his parents, is grossly or subtly intimidated by themand hence feels that any expression of hostile impulses against them endangers hissecurity, then the existence of such hostile impulses is bound to create anxiety.. . .The resulting picture may look exactly like what Freud describes as the Oedipuscomplex; passionate clinging to one parent and jealousy toward the other or towardanyone interfering with the claim of exclusive possession. . . . But the dynamicstructure of these attachments is entirely different from what Freud conceives asthe Oedipus complex. They are an early manifestation of neurotic conflicts ratherthan a primarily sexual phenomenon. (1939, pp. 83-84; italics added)

Thus Horney desexualized the Oedipal conflict and transferred the dynamics of itsemotional constellation into the realm of disturbed interpersonal relations.

Some years before Horney rejected the orthodox Freudian interpretation of theOedipus complex, she applied it rather tellingly in the classic manner to the topic ofmarriage. Her comments contain echoes of her own marriage to Oskar Horney:

In his paper on a case of female homosexuality, Freud says that there is nothing aboutwhich our consciousness can be so incomplete or false as about the degrees of

Excessive Self-Control

In her clinical practice, Horney found that the tendency for excessive self-control wasso pervasive that she originally classed it among the 10 neurotic trends or needs: theneed to restrict one's life within narrow borders. Individuals who are exertingexcessive self-control are attempting to prevent being caught up in emotion: They"will not allow themselves to be carried away, whether by enthusiasm, sexual excite-ment, self-pity, or rage. . . . In short, they seek to check all spontaneity" (Horney, 1945,p. 136).

Arbitrary RightnessBecause the inner conflicts that have shaped the individual's life always producedoubt and hesitation, the individual is sometimes paralyzed, unable to take anycourse of action. All energy is spent in keeping the conflicts under control.Therefore,almost any outside influence will tip the scales, even temporarily, in one direction oranother. To an outsider, it appears that the neurotic decides important events arbi-trarily and then defends the decision with rationalizations.

Horney felt that the most "fertile soil" for such rigid rightness was the develop-ment of aggressive tendencies coupled with feelings of detachment from others(1945, p. 138). For example, a neurotic may end a family dispute by preemptivelydeclaring that he will do what he has already decided to do since he is right. He thenstorms off, effectively ending the argument by absenting himself to pursue a courseof action chosen more in spite than by reason.

Elusiveness

Sometimes the only way neurotics can avoid the inherent contradictions of their livesis to avoid making any decisions whatsoever. Completely opposite to the arbitrarilyright neurotic, the elusive neurotic seeks never to be pinned down to anything, neverto state any issue or opinion clearly. "They have a bewildering capacity to becloudissues. It is often impossible for them to give a concrete report of any incident; shouldthey try to do so the listener is uncertain in the end just what really did happen" (Hor-ney, 1945, p. 138).

CynicismTo defend against the recognition of inner conflict, the neurotic may adopt a cynicalstance toward life and its traditional moral and ethical values. By treating such issuesderisively, the neurotic can forestall any conflict over deciding what his or her ownposition is. In effect, he or she adopts the Machiavellian attitude "Do what you please,so long as you don't get caught" (Horney, 1945, p. 140).

THE PRICE OF PROTECTIONFor Horney, the development of personality is an interpersonal process involvingthe achievement of self-confidence and the capacity for spontaneity. The character

attifen;procor

thefelt

HothemiFupnea:dissei

teiocHeat

Tei

CIT

affection or dislike we feel for another human being. This is quite especially true ofmarriage, it being often the case that the degree of love felt is overestimated. . . . Onceagain, the relation to the Oedipus complex provides a very much deeper explanation.For we see that the commandment and the vow to love and cleave to husband or wifewith which one enters into matrimony are regarded by the unconscious as a renewalof the fourth commandment ["Honor thy father and thy mother"] in relation to theparents, and in this respect also—the suppression of hate and the exaggeration oflove—the earlier experiences are compulsorily repeated with exactness in everydetail. (Horney, 1967, p. 88)

The reference to the "fourth commandment" is reminiscent of Horney's diary entryon the same theme with reference to her difficulties with her father and with reli-gious doubt. In the just-quoted passage, Horney, in a paper entitled "The Problem ofthe Monogamous Ideal," is apparently trying to justify to herself ill-fated marriages onthe basis of resurrected Oedipal themes. It is not surprising that this basic tenet ofFreudian theory was reworked during her period of rebellion from psychoanalysisinto the more interpersonal concept with which she had firsthand familiarity.

Along these same lines, Horney found Freud's libido theory to be a grossly inac-curate representation of feminine psychology. The concept of "penis envy" by whichFreud sought to explain women's feelings of inferiority and subsequent developmentinto the role of motherhood Horney found to be based on inadequate and biasedinterpretations of "evidence" from neurotic women (1939,pp. 104 ff.; see also Horney,1967, for a selection of her early papers on feminine psychology in which sheadhered more closely to the orthodox views of the psychoanalytic school).

Horney differed with Freud on other issues in personality theory, but the centraldistinction that divided the two theorists was Horney's resculpting of human moti-vation theory in cultural terms. Consequently, for Horney, personality developmentcannot be understood exclusively in terms of instinctual or biological dynamics. Per-sonality is meaningful only •when individuals' cultural settings, familial interactions,and wider interpersonal relationships are taken into account. Basic anxiety and basichostility can be conceptualized only as interpersonal outcomes; masculinity and fem-ininity can be understood psychologically only as cultural products.

A FINAL WORD ON KAREN HORNEYKaren Horney, in recent years, has become the unwarranted object of neglect amongstudents of personality theory. Her contributions have been less valued, less fre-quently studied, and more rarely applied by researchers than those of other neo-Freudian theorists. The reason for this narrowing of interest in Horney's writings isdifficult to comprehend fully. Certainly other theorists whose contributions were oflesser magnitude have retained their popularity. In Karen Horney's case, it would bedifficult to find another personality theorist with whom to compare her lucid andbrilliant descriptions of neurotic misery and compulsive overstriving for imaginaryand defensive self-excellence. That her lucidity and attention-compelling style derivetheir potency from her self-explorations should, in coming years, rearouse at leastscholarly historical interest in Karen Horney's body of writings. But, as may be saidof any personality theory, until the creative researcher devises an empirical way of

testingoutsidt

ERIC

FRELikeKwhichunnecpassioalizatkpendeof paiimpactrial s<humaisharecparad(

nsonalpeopldoms.

\xfrAe:h

Pli

n

qafca

Thusconeety.\>camependsionsociahand


testing or applying Horney's ideas, it is unlikely that her work will become influentialoutside the clinical realm of intuitive and artistic understanding of troubled people.

ERICH FROMM

FREEDOM AS FRIGHTFULLike Karen Horney. Erich Fromm found in psychoanalysis a rich bed of concepts bywhich to understand human action. He felt that classical psychoanalytic doctrine wasunnecessarily constraining in its near exclusive concern with unconscious humanpassions. Fromm sought to broaden psychoanalytic instinct theory with a conceptu-alization of the human person as a social being in a culture of interacting, interde-pendent creatures.Where Horney had focused on the alienating and damaging effectsof parental indifference and emotional coldness, Fromm stressed the deadeningimpact on the human spirit of the entire cultural enterprise. In Fromm's view, indus-trial society has the pathological potential to' enforce isolating competition amonghuman persons whose human nature desperately requires nurturing cooperation andshared caring. Fromm began his theorizing with an analysis of human freedom and itsparadoxical power to numb the human will.

The rise of modern capitalism was paralleled by an expansion of people's per-sonal freedom. Bounded by strict custom and rigidly enforced social roles, medievalpeople remained relatively unconcerned with problems of individual rights and free-doms. Fromm described medieval society in this way:

What characterizes medieval in contrast to modern society is its lack of individualfreedom. Everybody in the earlier period was chained to his role in the social order.A man had little chance to move socially from one class to another. With fewexceptions he had to stay where he was born. He was often not even free to dress ashe pleased or to eat what he liked. The artisan had to sell at a certain price and thepeasant at a certain place, the market of the town. . . . Personal, economic, and sociallife was dominated by rules and obligations from which practically no sphere ofactivity was exempted. But although a person was not free in the modern sense,neither was he alone and isolated. In having a distinct, unchangeable, and un-questionable place in the social world from the moment of birth, man was rooted ina structuralized whole, and thus life had a meaning which left no place, and no need,for doubt. A person •was identical with his role in society; he was a peasant, an artisan,a knight, and not an individual who happened to have this or that occupation.(1941, pp. 57-58)

Thus medieval people had no need for individual freedom because they had yet noconception of themselves as individuals. Each was as one with the structure of soci-ety. With Martin Luther, in the period known as the Protestant Reformation, therecame a revolutionized social and psychological milieu. Emphasis was placed on inde-pendence from smothering institutions like the Catholic church, on individual deci-sion making, and on personal achievement. In effect, when it came to political andsocial conduct. Luther and Calvin showed nennle that th/=;r fin-*, imc ;« r^~;- ™,r-

•aren hornby & erich fromm -...

Documents