Hockenbury Discovering Psychology 5th txtbk

The Humanistic Perspective on Personality435CRITICAL THINKINGFreud Versus Rogers on Human NatureFreud’s view of human nature was deeply pessimistic. Hebelieved that the human aggressive instinct was innate, persistent,and pervasive. Were it not for internal superego restraints andexternal societal restraints, civilization as we know it would collapse:The destructive instincts of humans would be unleashed. AsFreud (1930) wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents:Men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who atthe most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, onthe contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments isto be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result,their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexualobject, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy theiraggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work withoutcompensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seizehis possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to tortureand to kill him. Man is a wolf to man. Who, in the face of all hisexperience of life and of history, will have the courage to disputethis assertion?In Freud’s view, then, the essence of human nature is destructive.Control of these destructive instincts is necessary. Yet societal,cultural, religious, and moral restraints also make peoplefrustrated, neurotic, and unhappy. Why? Because the strivings ofthe id toward instinctual satisfaction must be frustrated if civilizationand the human race are to survive. Hence, as the title ofFreud’s book emphasizes, civilization is inevitably accompaniedby human “discontent.”A pretty gloomy picture, isn’t it? Yet if you watch the eveningnews or read the newspaper, you may find it hard to disagreewith Freud’s negative image of human nature. People are oftenexceedingly cruel and selfish, committing horrifying acts of brutalityagainst strangers and even against loved ones.However, you might argue that people can also be extraordinarilykind, self-sacrificing, and loving toward others. Freudwould agree with this observation. Yet according to his theory,“good” or “moral” behavior does not disprove the essentiallydestructive nature of people. Instead, he explains good or moralbehavior in terms of superego control, sublimation of theinstincts, displacement, and so forth.But is this truly the essence of human nature? Carl Rogers disagreedstrongly. “I do not discover man to be well characterizedin his basic nature by such terms as fundamentally hostile, antisocial,destructive, evil,” Rogers (1957a) wrote. Instead, Rogersbelieved that people are more accurately described as “positive,forward-moving, constructive, realistic, trustworthy.”If this is so, how can Rogers account for the evil and cruelty inthe world? Rogers didn’t deny that people can behave destructivelyand cruelly. Yet throughout his life, Rogers insisted thatpeople are innately good. Rogers (1981) explained the existenceof evil in this way:My experience leads me to believe that it is cultural factors whichare the major factor in our evil behaviors. The rough manner ofchildbirth, the infant’s mixed experience with the parents, theconstricting, destructive influence of our educational system, theinjustice of our distribution of wealth, our cultivated prejudicesagainst individuals who are different—all these elements andmany others warp the human organism in directions which areantisocial.Are People Innately Good . . . or Innately Evil? These volunteersare members of Doctors Without Borders, an international groupof medical workers that won the Nobel Peace Prize for its workin helping the victims of violence and disasters all over theworld. Here, they carry a wounded survivor of a brutal massacreto safety in a refugee camp. On the one hand, killings motivatedby political or ethnic hatred seem to support Freud’s contentionsabout human nature. On the other hand, the selfless behavior ofthose who help others, often at a considerable cost to themselves,seems to support Rogers’s view. Which viewpoint do youthink more accurately describes the essence of human nature?In sharp contrast to Freud, Rogers (1964) said we should trustthe human organism, because the human who is truly free tochoose will naturally gravitate toward behavior that serves toperpetuate the human race and improve society as a whole:I dare to believe that when the human being is inwardly free tochoose whatever he deeply values, he tends to value thoseobjects, experiences, and goals that will make for his own survival,growth, and development, and for the survival and developmentof others. . . . The psychologically mature person as Ihave described him has, I believe, the qualities which wouldcause him to value those experiences which would make for thesurvival and enhancement of the human race.Two great thinkers, two diametrically opposed views of humannature. Now it’s your turn to critically evaluate their views.CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS Are people inherently driven by aggressive instincts, as Freudclaimed? Must the destructive urges of the id be restrainedby parents, culture, religion, and society if civilization is tocontinue? Would an environment in which individuals wereunrestrained inevitably lead to an unleashing of destructiveinstincts? Or are people naturally good, as Rogers claimed? If peopleexisted in a truly free and nurturing environment, would theyinvariably make constructive choices that would benefit boththemselves and society as a whole?