---
# System prepended metadata

title: Untitled

---

### Carl Jung and Alfred Adler: Alike but Different

Interests in the human mind and behavior has attracted philosophers from Ancient Greeks to contemporary. In the modern world, Sigmund Freud(1856–1939)  and his followers–the Neo-Freudian psychiatrists and psychologists–had significantly contributed to people’s thoughts. Carl Jung(1875–1961)  and Alfred Adler(1870–1937) , two famous representatives of Neo-Freudian, both extended Freud’s theories, psychoanalysis,  but later dissented from it; Jung focused on his collective unconscious while Adler turned to individual psychology. Although they developed different concepts, Jung and Adler still have some similar and different points.

One similarity is their close relationship with Freud. Afred Adler received Frued’s invitation of his own psychology group in 1902, and then he not only became a colleague of Frued but also the first president of the Vienna Psychoanalytical Society (Freud’s inner circle of colleagues). Like Adler, Jung was Frued’s proponents at the beginning. When he met Frued for the first time in 1906, “Jung recalled the discussion between [them] as interminable.(“Carl”, part 11)” Jung with Frued’s support later had been elected as chairman of the International Psychoanalytical Association.

Interestingly, the reason why they left from Freud were alike: Freud’s controversial ideas of biological experiences.  Although Afred Adler agreed with Freud that childhood experiences were important, he took issue with Freud's belief that early sexual development was the primary determinant of the making of character.  Carl Jung, similarly, de-emphasized the importance of sexual development. While Jung admitted that libido( a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity) was an important source for personal growth, he denied that it alone was responsible for the core personality.   

In spite of the same early career path, these two psychologists developed different theories.

First, a difference between Adler and Jung is their concept of the human mind. Adler focused on social  tensions as a source of personality development, which stated one person is indivisible from the whole of society. For instance, Adler argued that “what shapes a woman’s character is not an unconscious desire to obtain a penis, but rather the envy of the social advantages that accompany being male.” 
Despite Jung mentioned individuality, he believed that a mask that 'pretends' individuality is for the "collective psyche". In his theory of the collective unconscious: the part of the unconscious that contains memories and ideas were inherited from ancestors. In addition, “he applied the term persona, explicitly because, in Latin, it means both personality and the masks worn by Roman actors of the classical period. (“Carl”, part 23)”
The persona, he argues, is a mask for the "collective psyche", a mask that 'pretends' individuality, so that both self and others believe in that identity, even if it is really no more than a well-played role through which the collective psyche is expressed. Jung regarded the "persona-mask" as a complicated system which mediates between individual consciousness and the social community: it is "a compromise between the individual and society as to what a man should appear to be" (“Carl”, part 24).

Moreover, they had the opposite attitude to gender and sexuality. Unlike traditional  gender binary, Jung described the animus as the unconscious masculine side of a woman, and the anima as the unconscious feminine side of a man, which influence a person's attitudes and interactions with the opposite sex. People could control their anima/animus when they discern those from reality. Adler's theory of homosexuality differs from Jung’s. His attitude to 'homosexuals' was dissimilar to Jung’s fluid gender identity.  He classified it as "failures of life" and believed it was entrenched in the dominant culture of the time. (“Alfred”,  part 13)

Carl Jung and Alfred Adler: Alike, yet different. Although two of them were cultivated by the mentor, Frued, and share the same reason for leaving him, they engaged in different ways that explained personality and gender developments. It will be interesting to see where those concepts progress in the future.


---
Works Cited
Janovsky Angela, “Adlerian Theory vs. Freudian Theory” study.com   8 Mar. 2020
<https://study.com/academy/lesson/adlerian-theory-vs-freudian-theory.html>

“Neo-Freudians: Adler, Erikson, Jung, and Horney” lumen 8 Mar. 2020
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wsu-sandbox/chapter/neo-freudians-adler-erikson-jung-and-horney/>

“Neo-Freudians in Popular Psychology“ Psychology 8 Mar. 2020
<https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/popular-psychology/neo-freudians-in-popular-psychology/>

“Carl Jung” Wiki  8 Mar. 2020 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung>

“Alfred Adler” Psychology Wiki 8 Mar. 2020
<https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler>
