The following questions, answers, and comments about Classical Adlerian philosophy, theory, and practice have been excerpted from discussion forums, newsgroups, and e-mail correspondence. The text has been edited minimally for clarity and readability. All of this material is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced without the expressed consent of Dr. Stein at htstein@att.net.

13. Effect of Birth Order on Personality

Question from Forum: I am in a research science class in high school. My project is on birth order and how effects an individual's personality. I have read that Adler was the first to acknowledge this idea. I would appreciate some more information on this subject.

For a contemporary view of birth order influence, check out Robert Boynton's article, "The Birth of an Idea," in The New Yorker magazine (back issue) and the book Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, by Frank Sulloway.

14. Evolution of Adlerian Theory

Question from Forum: It seems to me that current cognitive-behavioral/ constructivist/narrativist approaches to therapy are an evolution of Adler's observations...

And further, that (in contrast to something in an earlier thread) it is not that current theory is becoming more Adlerian, but that current theory stands on Adler's shoulders, (as well as those of others.)

Do you think Adlerian theory has evolved? If so, where is it today?

For the past seven years, with the generous help of Kurt Adler (until his death last year), I have been managing and editing the Adlerian Translation Project. It has been quite extraordinary to read a steady flow of newly translated journal articles and unpublished manuscripts. Unlike any other author, Adler consistently penetrates to the core of the human mind and heart.

Our most recent project, a re-translation of The Neurotic Constitution (adding about 20% of new material from the fourth edition, and correcting a host of mistakes) has provided continually profound insights into psychopathology. One unique quality that emerges is a consistent impression of "the whole" of Adler's model, no matter which paragraph one reads (like the structure of a hologram, wherein each piece is a small reflection of the entire image).

I, like my mentor, Sophia de Vries, believe that Adler's theory is complete, like a work of art. I have yet to see anyone "improve" it, although it is possible to elaborate on various aspects of his theory as long as the totality is retained. (Although Adler suggested an ideal for personality development, Abraham Maslow described optimal functioning more comprehensively. Adler, however, provided the therapeutic tools for realizing this goal.) In my teaching and writing, I have explored elaborations of: creative power; dissolving a style of life; childhood developmental scheme; levels of functioning; and private logic.

The evolution of Adlerian psychology will more likely take place in its practice. Adler's writings do not document the technique of psychotherapy in a step-by-step manner because he conceived it as a creative process. A few of his followers have contributed insights into the host of strategies and techniques that can be generated from his theory. Anthony Bruck mastered the art of brief therapy and created a set of graphics for teaching Adlerian theory. Sophia de Vries adapted and refined the Socratic method for promoting cognitive insight and change. Working together, we developed a twelve-stage therapeutic model to guide and evaluate the progress of treatment. I have explored the use of eidetic and guided imagery for providing "missing developmental experiences."

It has been difficult to gain a full appreciation of Adler's remarkable contribution, since so much of his work has been out of print, partly translated, or untranslated. We intend to publish The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler once we have completed the massive job of translating and editing. It will then be possible for anyone to fully access and evaluate Adler's theory.

In your message, you expressed your perspective that "current cognitive-behavioral/constructivist/narrativist approaches to therapy are an evolution of Adler's observations" and that "current theory stands on Adler's shoulders." It would be helpful if you could be more specific and illustrate your point with examples.

Comment: I agree with the person who commented about the commonality and seeming evolution from Adler to constructivist/narative/ cognitive psychotherapy. One commonality that comes readily to mind is that both Adler and these investigators see the person as constructing their own concepts of the world and not being passive reactors to external stimuli. Also, treatment considerations may have the same process in mind. Adler talks about "dissolving the lifestyle" while constructivists talk about "re-authoring the narrative." While using different terminology the similarities seem evident. Michael Mahoney's tome, "Human Change Processes," summarizes the constructivist cognitive psychotherapy position. Art Freeman who is president of AABT will be presenting at the 1997 NASAP conference. His topic - "The Adlerian roots of cognitive therapy" - may provide further insights.

Comment: Thank you for responding to my post.I had in mind some of what was commented on, as well as other commonalities between Adlerian theory and cognitive/cognitive-behavioral/ constructivist models.

In addition to a creative, ego-centered approach to apprehending reality, I see commonalities between methods. For instance, in acting "as if", a person is "testing out" their hypotheses about self, others, and the world... as well as alternative hypotheses. In looking at early recollections, the therapist assesses the person's learning history and core belief system. (I know that ERs are not veridical, in the sense of stimulus-response theory, but I look at learning theory from a social-learning perspective.)

There is some social psychology research that supports and expands upon the concepts of early recollections. Social psychologists Miller, Potts, Fung, Hoogstra, and Mintz (1990) described cross-cultural research into the social construction of self-concept or personal narrative that both supports Adlerian theory, and provides insight into specific mechanisms by which beliefs about self and other come to be what they do. This kind of basic research could, I think, be put to good use by Adlerians, as empirical validation of Adlerian constructs.

Similarly, there is research in cognitive neuroscience that supports information-processing models that fit well with CBT, constructivist, and Adlerian theories. (I don't have the references in front of me at the moment, but it's not even terribly new research... certainly at least 4-6 years old.)

However, most areas within psychology seems reluctant to look to other areas of the field for verification of basic constructs... it's hard to read broadly enough, for one thing. And then there's an inherent territoriality in what we do, particularly when we create something that has a new twist and we want to call it ours.

At APA a couple of years ago, I wandered into a session that was on cognitive neuroscience. At first, my inclination was to leave... not the place for a practitioner, I thought. But I stayed, because it was a fun and quirky thing to do. And I discovered that the neuroscientists were "discovering" things that clinicians -- particularly Adlerian and Cognitive clinicians -- could have told them, or at least contributed to... and I realized that the lack of communication was reciprocal.We'd all support the profession of psychology better if we paid attention to our more scientific peers.

Over the half century since Alfred Adler articulated his theory of personality and system of psychotherapy, his ideas have gradually and persistently permeated the whole of contemporary psychology (Ellenberger 1970, 645-648). The shift of psychoanalysis to ego psychology reflected Adler's original thinking and Adler was "hailed by certain psychoanalysts as a precursor of the later developments of psychoanalysis" (Ellenberger 1970, 638). Adler's observation that "human beings live in the realm of meanings" reflects the social constructivist view of human behavior. An early feminist, he held that both men and women suffered from our society's overvaluing of men and undervaluing of women, and he believed the only positive relationship between men and women was one of equality. His earliest work in which he argued for the unity of mind and body was a precursor of psychosomatic medicine.

Even the findings of anthropologists, biologists, and physicists parallel Adlerian concepts. Adler's view of the interconnectedness of all living beings and their natural proclivities toward cooperation has been echoed by anthropologists (Ho 1993; Kim and Berry 1993; Maybury-Lewis 1972), and biologists (Augros and Stancui 1988; Hamilton 1964; Simon 1990; Trivers 1971; Wilson 1975). His concept of the style of life, where one central theme is reflected in every psychological expression, suggests the concept in physics of the hologram, wherein each part of a whole is an enfolded image of that whole (Briggs and Peat 1989). His concept of the final goal, a fictional future reference point that pulls all movements in the same direction, is similar to that of a strange attractor in chaos theory, a magnetic end point that pulls on and sets limits for a process (Nelson 1991). He believed in the fundamental creative power of individuals and their freedom to choose and change their direction in life; this is very similar to the biological process called autopoesis which is the autonomous, self-renewing, and self-directing nature of all life forms (Nelson 1991).

When sociologists, anthropologists, biologists, mathematicians, physicists, and psychotherapists begin describing remarkably similar dynamics, one wonders if we are on the brink of a new unified field theory. Forty years ago, Alexander Müller frequently referred to Adler's body of work as "philosophical anthropology," and held that it had the potential for providing the magnetic center that would draw other disciplines together (Müller 1992).

The scientific paradigm shift and intellectual climate of the 1990's might well be ripe for a re-discovery of Adler's original and full contribution to an understanding of human beings and their relationship to the world. He created an exquisitely integrated, holistic theory of human nature and psychopathology, a set of principles and techniques of psychotherapy, a world view, and a philosophy of living.

15. Clarification of Striving for Superiority

Question from Forum: Could you please discuss what Adler means by "striving for superiority." I find so many people (and clinicians) do not completely understand what Adler was trying to say.

The fundamental dynamic of human striving is a constant movement from a felt "minus" to an imagined "plus". The striving is influenced by: the type and intensity of the "minus" feeling (inferiority or insecurity); the degree of activity; the strength of the feeling of community; and the particular goal of an imagined "plus". The character of this movement is not easy to capture in a short phrase--it may erroneously suggest a static "snapshot" rather than a dynamic "moving picture". Also, the generalized, abstract concept of striving must be tailored to reflect the quality and direction of that striving in each individual's life.

It is helpful to consider a palette of terms to describe the variety of directions that individuals could take. People may strive for: superiority over difficulties, superiority over others, significance, completion, compensation, perfection, improvement, achievement, fulfillment, power, prestige, connection, recognition, security, adaptation, or overcoming. Generally, we evaluate each variation as either positive or negative (for the individual as well as society). The overuse of the phrases "striving for superiority" and "striving for power" in the literature implies that Adler saw all social relationship as fundamentally unequal and aggressive. In fact, he used these terms to describe only the negative or pathological variation. The desire to "be perfect, without flaw" can lead to socially useless activities, discouragement, and retreat into fantasy. The striving for godlike supremacy can lead to psychosis.

Adler's terms "striving for completion", "striving to overcome difficulties", and "striving to improve life for all people" reflect more of the positive potential of striving. At an optimal level, he talked about aligning ones striving "in the stream of evolution". He considered the active "striving for perfection" a potentially inspiring ideal, if it led to courageous improvement, correction, and refinement as well as useful social contribution. The striving to "actualize one's potential" was later echoed by Abraham Maslow.

In a spiritual/psychological context, Alexander Mueller used the phrase "striving to become one's best self" in his book You Shall be a Blessing. Kurt Adler has talked about "striving for a better adaptation to the environment". Sophia de Vries often referred to a "striving for overcoming obstacles". Lydia Sicher wrote about "striving after some personal truth". Anthony Bruck suggested a "striving for personal significance". All of these expressions try to suggest the general upward striving of human beings. The direction of each person's striving is greatly influenced by the strength of that individual's feeling of community.


For permission to copy or reproduce any of this material, please contact:

Henry T. Stein, Ph.D., Director
Alfred Adler Institute of Northwestern Washington
2565 Mayflower Lane
Bellingham, WA 98226
Phone: (360) 647-5670
E-mail: HTStein@att.net
Web Site: http://www.Adlerian.us