Conscious Orientation

A Study of Personality Types in Relation to Neurosis and Psychosis

J H Van Der Hoop, Van Der Hoop, J H

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780415209472
• eBook ISBN: 9781136302954
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medizin
• Subtopic: Gesundheitsversorgung

Routledge is now re-issuing this prestigious series of 204 volumes originally published between 1910 and 1965. The titles include works by key figures such asC.G. Jung, Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, Otto Rank, James Hillman, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and Susan Isaacs. Each volume is available on its own, as part of a themed mini-set, or as part of a specially-priced 204-volume set. A brochure listing each title in the "International Library of Psychology" series is available upon request.

PART I
PSYCHOLOGY AND THE TYPES OF CONSCIOUS ORIENTATION

CHAPTER 1
JUNG’S PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES

IN recent years numerous attempts have been made, especially in Germany, to make the manifold variety in human personalities more comprehensible by means of a description of types. The points from which one may start are so different, that in most cases the results do not coincide with one another, although agreement may be found on some points. The general result is rather confusing, so that it does not seem to me to be a good plan to deal with these various systems side by side.¹ It is, however, of great importance to compare the bases of these various typologies, with a view to recognizing the most vital divergences. As a basis for a theory of types, one must choose characteristics suggesting the main tendencies of the mental structure. For myself, I have, in describing psychological types, taken the classification employed by Dr Jung² of Zürich as a starting-point. In the first place, I should indicate why, in my opinion, this classification is preferable, although I can recognize the value of others. At the same time it will become apparent that I have various objections to Dr Jung’s conceptions, and that these have led me to formulate rather differently some essential points.

Dr Jung’s classification of types has found only slight acceptance. I believe this is partly to be ascribed to its vague and insufficiently systematic description. Another difficulty, however, lies in his peculiar manner of approaching psychological material. The simple observation of mental phenomena, from which most psychologists and psychiatrists set forth, is complicated with him by the conception of the unconscious as the source of some of these phenomena. His standpoint is, in this respect, in accordance with that of psychoanalytical psychology. Here I must explain the significance of this difference in standpoint for our conception of psychological types.

All psychological distinctions are based on peculiarities in the conduct of our fellow-men. We describe and explain that conduct in psychological terms. As this description and explanation become clearer, our terminology becomes more exact, and we become better able to lay down general characteristics, enabling us, under certain circumstances, to predict behaviour. In addition to the external features, by means of which we primarily differentiate our fellowmen, we have learned to recognize certain mental characteristics, giving rise to the concept of temperaments, a term used to designate certain general psychogenic tendencies. Since Galen, in the second century after Christ, differentiated the sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic temperaments, these terms have been part of the current speech of many nations. At this stage psychological description remained stationary for a long period. Exact description and classification of phenomena by the natural sciences has in recent times had reference primarily to changes in the constitution of matter. All manner of philosophical speculations, relating to subjective introspective experience, had removed psychology ever farther from exact observation. In the past century the success of the natural sciences induced several psychologists to seek once more a firmer basis for their science in exact observation and description. While experimental psychology sought to find a basis for mental processes in measurable bodily manifestations, men like Kraepelin succeeded in bringing some order into the bewildering field of psychiatry, by means of accurate descriptions. Observation of every kind of phenomenon in mental life, in society and in the individual, in normal and pathological states, in modern as well as in primitive people, has considerably deepened our insight into the life of the mind. The main principles of psychology not only became more comprehensive, but also much more exact. In the field of the differentiation of character-types, Heymans and Wiersma in Holland have sought to deepen current distinctions by means of detailed enquiries of, and communications from, a great number of people. In this work they adopted the differentiations established by Galen, but added further characteristics. The starting-point here, too, was the observation of manifestations as revealed in people’s behaviour.

The search for distinguishing characteristics in this field, and their classification into definite systems, has recently been pursued with great zeal, especially in Germany. I need only mention names such as Kretschmer, Klages, Stern, Ewald, Hoffmann, Kronfeld, Spranger, to indicate how scientists are searching from all points of view for useful data for a clearer psychological differentiation of our fellow-men. Klages and Kretschmer, in particular, have contributed a great deal towards stimulating widespread interest in the problem of character-types, the former by careful psychological differentiations, the latter by combining mental and physical types in biological entities. In spite of differences of opinion, all these investigators agree in aiming at exact observation of the forms of expression of an individual, and at an objective comparison of these with those of others. In this, their attitude corresponds directly with that of psychiatrists in their observation and study of their patients, There, too, manifestations, as noted by the observer, form the foundation for scientific description and classification of psychogenic phenomena.¹ From a scientific point of view, this standpoint is unassailable, but it is not always broad enough, because it overlooks a complication which may lead to difficulties in practice, and which seems to demand a more complicated explanation.

To make this clear, let us imagine that a person has been examined and described in accordance with one of these exact methods of classification, and that the result is shown to him. Possibly he will admit that the description, according to the assembled data, is correct, and yet he cannot recognize himself in the character described. The cause of this might be that the observer, in spite of his accurate observation of the details, has nevertheless failed to get a true picture of the total personality, and that the subject himself would prefer to place the accents differently. When it is a question of testing suitability for a certain occupation, or of the diagnosis of a person mentally ill, the subjective standpoint of the individual concerned will not carry much weight. But in the relationship between a teacher and his pupil, or between a psychotherapist and his patient, it is all-important that the person under examination should be able to share the opinion of the examiner. On this will depend whether an altered point of view will be able to effect a change of attitude, both towards the self and towards the world, and, in consequence, a change in behaviour. Both teacher and psycho-therapist will now discover that the individual in question will readily accept certain views concerning himself, but will repudiate others. This experience will not tempt us, without further evidence, to regard the behaviour and utterances of an individual as consisting of more than one totality. We shall have to differentiate between those manifestations representing his own intentions and opinions and his own conscious personality, and those which he feels to be more or less accidental. Great credit is due to Freud for his increasingly clear emphasis on this distinction, as a result of his own psycho-therapeutic experience. The conscious personality (to which the “pre-conscious” also belongs) provides the origin of some of the mental phenomena, while others must be traced back to unconscious mental processes. A closer study of these unconscious processes revealed that their influence was of much greater importance than had at first been thought. It is well known today that Freud concentrated his researches especially on those manifestations which the patient is not able to recognize as part of his personality. By means of the psycho-analytical method, he sought to make these unconscious sources of psychogenic manifestations conscious, and thereby to bring them under conscious self-control. Through him and his followers this sphere of unconscious mental life has become increasingly better known. In psycho-analytical treatment the patient is confronted with those expressions of his personality which do not correspond with the judgments, opinions and feelings by which he consciously supposes himself to be directed. It is not the doctor who says that certain things are wrong, but contradictions in the patient himself compel him to realize that something is wrong somewhere.

Thus Freud and his followers by no means study the manifestations offered by their patients less exactly than do other scientific psychiatrists, but they offer a more complicated explanation of these manifestations. The difference in this explanation is still further emphasized by the fact that the unconscious, as the source of behaviour, has taken an ever larger place in psychoanalytical conceptions. Originally Freud, like Janet, assumed unconscious mental processes only as the source of certain abnormal phenomena. Very soon, however, he came to the conclusion that in normal people, also, all manner of insignificant disturbances, and other manifestations too, must be explained in the same way. Gradually he came more and more to see in unconscious emotional drives the influence which, in the main, determines human behaviour. As a result, conscious personality with its motives was forced into a subsidiary position in both sick and healthy people. The self believes that it controls, but actually it is controlled. Feelings and aims are usually given a fixed direction in early youth, and they continue to dominate life in the form in which they originally arose.

Anyone who has become to any extent familiar with the practice of psycho-analysis will have to admit that these conceptions are not just taken out of the blue. It may be an amazing and alarming experience to discover to what extent conduct, both in ourselves and in others, is determined by fixated feelings and tendencies. At the same time, one may ask whether the unconscious, as the source of conduct, has not gradually come to occupy too large a place in psycho-analytical conceptions, and does not dominate them too much. As a matter of fact, there has been for some time a reaction, even with Freud and his followers, as a result of which the ego and the personality have come more into the foreground of interest. This reaction had already, at an earlier date, induced two former followers of Freud, the late Alfred Adler and Jung, to separate from him, and their criticism has, without a doubt, had some influence on the changes in psycho-analytical theory. Adler’s reaction went farthest. He gave up any explanation of conduct by reference to the unconscious, and made the conscious personality entirely responsible for behaviour. Individual Psychology consequently deals exclusively with conscious motives and aims, and has certainly drawn attention to important data in this respect. Where Freud went too far in the assumption of unconscious sources, Adler’s work forms a decidedly useful counter-poise. It would, however, be a retrogressive move to abandon the distinction between conscious motivation and unconscious drive.

Jung’s criticism of the Freudian conceptions has not gone so far. It is true that Jung, too, as well as Adler, has defended the value of conscious motivation against a too one-sided explanation from unconscious impulses. He has not repudiated the unconscious, however, but has aimed at finding the right relationship between the influence of the conscious personality and that of the unconscious. For that purpose, it was necessary to indicate much more clearly the characteristics which distinguish unconscious adaptation. We had already learned to define the effects of the unconscious more exactly by means of the hypothesis of unconscious complexes.¹ For the conscious guidance of conduct Jung found another standard, namely the motives which a person offers, when accounting to himself for his behaviour. In treating patients, and in ordinary conversation, he observed that there are conspicuous differences in the form of these motives. At first one important distinction in this respect entirely dominated Jung’s investigations, namely, the difference between extraversion and introversion.

We will first consider more closely this differentiation of motives. It was observed that some people, in the way in which they consciously seek direction and adjustment in their lives, are almost exclusively guided by objects of the external world. Facts and circumstances, the opinions and feelings of other people, and ideas in current use, determine the adaptations which these people make to life. When in difficulty, they seek support first of all from the external world. Jung calls these people outwardly directed, or extraverted types. Another group of people are guided, in so far as conscious motives are concerned, by entirely different factors; they are primarily conscious of their own subjective reactions to events. They are peculiarly sensitive to these—to what they feel, how they think, about any situation. Where these reactions conflict, they seek to weld them into some sort of harmony of attitude and opinion. In their adjustment to life they thus take as starting-point their own needs and the demands of their own being. They also consult these when in difficulty, and for this purpose they withdraw into themselves. For this reason Jung called them inwardly directed, or introverted types.

A closer investigation shows us that we are here dealing, not with different character-structures, but with typical habits of emphasis, for in everyone we find both forms of adjustment, and it is impossible to say that the one form remains entirely unconscious while the other prevails in consciousness. Under certain conditions, everyone will consciously direct himself towards the external world, while under other conditions he will turn to himself for counsel. Introverted and extraverted states occur in everyone. The only difference is the fact that one person will feel more at home in the one state, while another will find the other more familiar. The extraverted individual will feel much more secure when in contact with other people than when alone. If he reflects too long by himself, everything becomes more confused than if he can guide himself by the opinions of others. The extravert will therefore prefer to maintain contact with others for as long as possible, and if he should find himself in an introverted state, he will soon escape from it. The reactions of others assume more precise and more differentiated forms in his consciousness than do his own.

With introverts, it is exactly the opposite. For them the introverted state is the safest and most agreeable. Alone with himself, the introvert knows exactly what he wants. In contact with others, he loses his sense of security. He finds it an over-whelmingly difficult task to assert himself and to express himself properly. When alone, he feels himself at ease; and when forced into contact with the external world, he has no regrets when the contact is broken and he may withdraw into himself once more. Since an individual of this type is more intensively in touch with himself than with others, he will know his own intentions relatively better than those of other people, and the activities of his own ego will be more differentiated in his mind than those of the external world.

In saying this, it is obvious that contact with both the external world and the self are necessary factors in all living creatures. Even with animals this is evident. If they were to react to external stimuli only, they would become completely exhausted under certain conditions; while under other circumstances they would show no activity at all. If, on the other hand, they were to respond to inner needs without any regard to circumstances, they would probably soon perish. In man both influences are to be found in the conscious personality, but the distinctness with which their effects are seen varies considerably, according to whether the individual is predominantly introverted or extraverted.

Once this difference is recognized, there is usually little difficulty in finding extreme cases of the two types. There are outstandingly extraverted persons, who are almost exclusively led by impressions and impulses aroused in them from the outside. They are, as a result, lively and changeable, and they really do not know themselves at all.¹ On the other hand, extremely introverted people entrench themselves against the external world, and after the slightest contact with it quickly withdraw into themselves again. They impress one as withdrawn and shy.

Even where the general attitude is less marked, it is usually possible, when things are difficult, to note which form of adaptation is the predominating one. The extravert, when uncertain, conforms to the opinion of other people, and immediately becomes more lively and freer in his activity. Under similar circumstances, the introvert is more inclined to withdraw into himself, seeking a solution there. The way in which they take life may also occasionally lead us to a correct diagnosis as to type. The extravert seeks, above all things, to remain in harmony with his environment; the introvert seeks harmony in himself.

I think that what I have said will have shown how important is this differentiation as expounded by Jung. Various investigators have pointed out that his introverts and extraverts correspond with contrasts already described by others. If, for instance, we compare Kretschmer’s description of the schizoid type with that of Jung’s introverted type, many similarities will be recognized. The same holds true of the cycloid (Kretschmer) or syntonic (Bleuler) types and the extravert. There is also an apparent resemblance between the predominance of the primary function (Gross, Heymans, Wiersma) and extraversion, while the secondary function seems to correspond with introversion. This resemblance could be carried still farther. If, however, an attempt is made to equate Jung’s differentiation with these other pairs of opposites, the danger arises that its most essential points will be overlooked. It is, accordingly, extremely important that we should proceed to examine rather more closely the special quality of Jung’s conceptions.

We saw that Jung took as his starting-point Freud’s discovery that only a part of man’s behaviour can be deduced from conscious motives, a discovery which has led to the hypothesis of the unconscious, This means the recognition of other important mental factors in addition to the conscious personality.¹ In comparison with other classifications of types, this one is distinctive in regarding the type as an extract from the totality of human capabilities. Moreover, that part of ordinary human experience, which is but little represented in consciousness, is not without effect, although it is expressed more indirectly. Freud gives one the impression that repression of what does not accord with social standards is the only factor accounting for the separation from a general disposition of a kind of conscious extract. Conscious personality, however, is not formed exclusively by repression of what is unserviceable, but also by such development and better adjustment of mental forms as will give more unity and stability to life. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that we should look upon the conscious psyche as prim...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Part I Psychology and the Types of Conscious Orientation
• Part II Psychiatry and the Types of Conscious Orientation
• Part III A Philosophical Commentary
• Index