Compare and Contrast Freud’s Psychoanalytic Approach with Adlerian Therapy: Historical Origins, Key Similarities, and Differences| Psychotherapeutic Intervention ~ Dr Manju Antil (Counselling Psychologist and Psychotherapist)

Freud’s Psychoanalysis and Adler’s Individual Psychology are two foundational theories in the psychotherapeutic tradition. Both approaches share common psychoanalytic roots but diverge significantly in conceptualizing human motivation, personality structure, and the therapeutic process. This essay examines their historical development, theoretical constructs, and contemporary applications, culminating in a structured comparative analysis.

Historical Origins and Emergence

Freud’s Psychoanalysis emerged in late 19th-century Vienna, evolving from Freud’s collaboration with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria through hypnosis and catharsis. Freud’s model shifted towards the talking cure, emphasizing free association, dream interpretation, and the role of the unconscious. With landmark texts such as The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Freud laid the groundwork for classical psychoanalysis. He founded the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society in 1902, shaping the first formal school of psychotherapy.

Adlerian Therapy, or Individual Psychology, arose from Alfred Adler’s departure from the Freudian school in 1911. Concerned with Freud’s emphasis on sexuality and intrapsychic conflict, Adler posited that striving for superiority, compensating for inferiority, and social interest (Gemeinschaftsgefühl) were more central to understanding human behavior. His approach was integrative, holistic, and preventive, with a strong focus on social connectedness and early education.

Core Similarities

Despite their split, Freud and Adler shared several foundational ideas:

Unconscious Processes: Both believed in the influence of unconscious mental activity.
Childhood Experiences: Early family dynamics and developmental experiences were considered pivotal.
Psychoanalytic Heritage: Both used insight-based therapy and considered symptom formation meaningful.
Emphasis on Interpretation: Both employed interpretation, albeit with different focuses—Freud on unconscious conflict, Adler on lifestyle patterns and mistaken beliefs.

Key Theoretical Differences

Dimension	Freud's Psychoanalysis	Adlerian Therapy (Individual Psychology)
View of Human Nature	Deterministic; driven by instincts (libido, death drive).	Teleological; motivated by goals and social interest.
Primary Drives	Sexual and aggressive instincts (libido and Thanatos).	Striving for superiority and overcoming inferiority.
Unconscious Focus	Repressed memories and conflicts.	Unconscious goals, fictional finalisms.
Structure of Mind	Tripartite model: id, ego, superego.	No structural model; emphasis on lifestyle and unique self.
Symptom Function	Expression of repressed conflict.	Purposeful behavior to avoid perceived failure or inferiority.
Therapist’s Role	Neutral analyst interpreting unconscious content.	Collaborative guide fostering insight and encouragement.
Technique	Free association, dream analysis, analysis of transference.	Early recollections, lifestyle analysis, Socratic questioning.
Family Influence	Recognized but less emphasized.	Central role of family constellation and birth order.
Goal of Therapy	Insight and resolution of intrapsychic conflict.	Lifestyle correction and development of social interest.
View on Development	Psychosexual stages, fixation, and regression.	Continuous striving for significance, shaped by environment.

Case Illustrations

Freud’s Case of “Rat Man” (1909) demonstrated the role of obsessive thoughts tied to unconscious guilt and childhood trauma. The treatment highlighted free association and transference analysis.

Adler’s Application in Schools: Adler worked extensively in education, emphasizing the need for encouragement, equality, and preventive mental health. For instance, a child expressing defiance might be understood not as “disobedient” but as striving for significance due to perceived inferiority.

Influence on Contemporary Therapy

Freud's Legacy: Modern psychodynamic therapies, object relations theory, and relational psychoanalysis are derived from Freudian roots.
Adler's Legacy: Adler’s principles are evident in cognitive-behavioral therapy, positive psychology, family systems therapy, and motivational interviewing.
Cultural Adaptability: Adler’s emphasis on social context and purpose makes his approach particularly adaptable across diverse cultures and in community mental health initiatives.

Critiques and Limitations

Freud's theory has been critiqued for biological reductionism, gender bias, and lack of empirical support.
Adler’s theory, though more holistic, has been seen as less systematic and criticized for conceptual vagueness.

Summary Table: Freud vs. Adler

Aspect	Freud’s Psychoanalysis	Adler’s Individual Psychology
Founded	1890s–1900s	1911 (post-Freudian split)
Focus	Unconscious conflict, sexuality, repression	Inferiority, goals, social connectedness
Theory of Mind	Id, Ego, Superego	Unified personality, lifestyle
Motivation	Libido, death instinct	Striving for significance
Therapeutic Technique	Free association, dream analysis	Early recollection, lifestyle assessment
Therapist Role	Neutral, analytic observer	Encouraging, collaborative coach
Developmental View	Psychosexual stages	Continuous striving shaped by family and society
Treatment Aim	Resolve unconscious conflict	Promote social interest and realistic goals
Impact	Psychoanalysis, psychodynamic therapy	Humanistic, CBT, family therapy

Conclusion

Freud and Adler remain towering figures whose contributions continue to reverberate through the field of psychotherapy. Freud’s psychoanalysis laid the groundwork for understanding the unconscious and transference, while Adler introduced a socially embedded, goal-directed model that emphasized human agency and community. Rather than viewing them in opposition, modern psychotherapy increasingly integrates insights from both perspectives—using Freud’s depth and Adler’s optimism—to address the complexities of the human psyche in contemporary therapeutic contexts.