Comparisons of Viktor Frankls and Sigmund Freuds Thesis - Essay Example

Comparisons of Viktor Frankl’s and Sigmund Freud’s thesis on drive and drive theory Comparisons of Viktor Frankl’s and Sigmund Freud’s thesis on drive and drive theory A drive theory is a term used in psychology that describes a person’s excited state, associated with motivation to do something consisting of psychological drives. This stage occurs when a person undergoes homeostatic disturbance. In other words, it can be said that every organism has particular psychological needs that drives him to carry out certain actions (Nevid, 2012). Viktor Frankl and Sigmund Freud are two dominant and leading psychological advocates and scholars of modern times who played a remarkable role in developing theoretical ideologies and generating an insight on the roles of culture and personalities of individuals with respect to therapeutic approach. However, there are certain differences of opinions among them that provide differentiated theoretical contributions. In this regard, comparisons are made among them to understand the implication of drive and drive theory in practical life (Hatala, 2010). Sigmund Freud is mostly associated with the theories he put forward relating to the unconscious mind of individuals. According to this scholar, there is a relationship between a person’s unconscious desire and presumed dreams, which make the person drive towards predominant state which is perceived as a goal. In other words it can be said that there are several drivers of unconscious state (Cordón, 2012 ). Previously scholars had this view that every individual had the tendency to have control over his behaviors, mind with respect to their environment. However, Freud endured the concept of unconscious self in which he basically stated that a free will was merely a delusion and an unconscious mind had a certain amount of control over actions, which did not have anything to do with the conscious mind. Hence, this was a key driver of Freud’s theory. According to him, self is associated with ego as it is synonymous, comprising of a rational being, mechanistic and oppressive driving force. For him “self” was also perceived as the bridge between conscious and unconscious self. However, for Frankl unconscious mind had a negative role and stated that the conscious “self” had the responsibility of effective decision-making (Frankl, 1984). Frankl had a complete different view about the “unconscious mind”. According to him, the subconscious mind should not supersede the consciousness of an individual and a person should take the responsibility of his actions through his conscious being like mentioned before. Hence, according to him, a human being has the tendency to control and show power relating to all these aspects. Frankl basically believed that an unconscious self shows instinctual drives that are guided by potentialities that give rise to either genuine altruism or animalistic aggressions (Fuller, 1994). Freud’s had some underlying issues with the drive theory as he said that the psychoanalysis of the theory was missing and he did not agree with the systematics of psychology. He categorized drives that could relate to sexual drive, egoistic traits and driving forces towards life and death. He established key drivers and proposed them in his work “Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Cordón, 2012 ).” The death drive theory was also known as Thanatos, which was proposed by Freud, based on a drives towards self-destruction. Freud had a traumatic life, which made him relate death instincts as key drivers. Freud mostly used terminology of death drives in plural form indicating that there are death instincts that may drive people towards deaths. Eros is the exact opposite which is a life making force (Cordón, 2012 ). Freud’s manifestation of relating instincts to death or life illustrates are automated by the pleasurable principle. While advocating the theory of “Beyond Pleasurable Principle,” he identified three main conflicts. First, Freud saw that in traumatic incidents, people tend to repeat those situations. Secondly, in children’s play where children tend to repeat and restage distressing experience and thirdly in clinical practices where patients have the tendency to repeat and speculate the repressed experience they had previously encountered. The main point made by Freud was that humans are basically driven by instinctual drives (Cordón, 2012 ). Frankl Viktor had a different perspective in this regard as he had the view that death could not be deceived and though there were difficult and tragic incidents occurring but humans have the tendency and potential to reverse the underlying meaning of it and make life changing behaviors and achievements (Hatala, 2010). Although, Franksl life in camp was difficult and had similar tragic incidents like Freud but he understood the drivers in a broad perspective because he had a notion that a man is capable to make decisions that comes from his inner self, driving them towards them towards effective performances, thus for him conditions and situations do not matter. Frankl also had the view that every individual has the means to make the rights choices in regard to cultural practices but a sense of responsibility could shape and navigate the difficult discourses of lives and decisions. He related all the global social discourses with cultural myths, thinking styles, which had an influence on decision-making criteria of every individual (Hatala, 2010). In contrast, Sigmund Freud had a complete different belief. Freud stated that regulations are needed to be imposed by cultural systems that could help individuals survive in an environment where there is aggression and oppression. For him, cultural systems were an important aspect as they play an important role to suppress the driving force of natural human instincts. Most of his theories were derived from practicalities of his life (Hatala, 2010). Frankl was born 49 years later (Hatala, 2010) than Freud and he developed his theories from the trends that emerged at his time. His theories conflicted with Freud as he had emphasized that individuals should assert themselves in their lives and create dialogues. Though, in the beginning he was fascinated by Freud’s theories but he still had the opinion that those theories were “suppressive” as they related to drivers that were overpowered by instincts. Frankl had a complete opposite view. For him, human beings have the capability of coming out of problems (Hatala, 2010). Freud and Frankl had conflicting views and this was evident when Frankl was attending a conference of Freud and he got up and left in the middle of the discussion as he felt that explanation of Freud were based on key drivers such as aggression and sex as a means of human motivation. Frankl did not agree with him and he was more focused on developing his own theories (Hatala, 2010). Analysis It is seen that both the scholars, Frankl and Freud suffered the same fate in their lives but it is seen that for Freud, culture has an influence on a person to suppress himself but for Frankl, culture comes from inside a person that provides manifestations when there is dialogue with the society. There is vast difference of opinion between them. Frankl developed an optimistic approach and positive vision for human nature and their driving forces and on the other hand, Freud was more of a pessimist who gave negative arguments that could prove to be more fatalistic for human nature and their key drivers. For him, the unconscious mind controls an individual, driving him towards destruction. At Freud’s time, there were the two World Wars and his theories depicted the sufferings, which he saw. At the time of Frankl, he was able to see more hopeful and positive sides of the war as he saw how people survived in concentration camps hence, his theories depicted that individuals can play a greater role of being overcoming the issues by being proactive and using conscious self (Hatala, 2010). Reference List Cordón, L. A. (2012 ). Freuds World: An Encyclopedia of His Life and Times. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Frankl, V. (1984). Man Search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books. Fuller, A. R. (1994). Psychology and Religion: Eight Points of View. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Hatala, A. R. (2010). Frankl & Freud: Friend or Foe? Towards Cultural & Developmental Perspectives of Theoretical Ideologies. Psychology & Society , 3 (1), 1-25. Nevid, J. (2012). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Read More