Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._3

While Skocpol’s and Goldstone’s models emphasize either structural or demographic sources of strain on the state, interest in geopolitical principles and strains became increasingly prominent during the 1980s, inspired by Paul Kennedy’s analysis (1987) of the rise and fall of great powers. Randall Collins’s geopolitical theory (1986, 1995) offers another route to state breakdown. Bringing in the Weberian principle that legitimacy of the governing apparatus at home depends on the state’s power and prestige abroad, Collins’s analysis, given validation by his prediction of the collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrates that a state’s geopolitical position has a crucial effect on its ability to mobilize critical resources and manage internal politics. In Collins’s model, geopolitical strains result in inability to maintain fiscal health. A state that suffers the geopolitical disadvantage of being surrounded by multiple enemy states experiences logistical overextension and fiscal crisis, and thus tends to decline and disintegrate to the point of revolution and state fragmentation.

Social Structures, Processes, and Institutions.

The research described above incorporates investigation of many of the major social structures, processes, and institutions that form the core subject matter of sociology. Studying change in economic and political systems requires scrutiny of economies, polities, and other social institutions and their major organizational manifestations and constituencies. However, other theoretical and substantive approaches subsumed under macrosociology either have fallen outside the scope of these large-scale studies of social change and development or are at their periphery. Theoretical perspectives include relatively recent developments such as structural, poststructural, postmodern, and feminist theories. Important substantive areas are defined by cumulating empirical bases of knowledge about power structures; work structures; social stratification and mobility; labor markets; household and family arrangements; and the intersections of race, class, gender, and nationality.

While it is impossible to survey each of these areas, the explosive growth of feminist theories to investigate both gender stratification and economic change and development provides a prime example of new influences on macrosociology. Feminist theorists argue that gender analysis must be

integrated with class, race, ethnicity, nationality, and other sources of social cleavage, and that analyses that ignore the system of gender relations embedded in society are incomplete. Feminist theories have contributed to macrosociology by demonstrating how theories of social reproduction must be joined to theories of economic production to understand social life fully, thus delineating the ways patriarchy coexists with particular economic and political systems to explain the position of women in society.

For example, the subordination of women is predicated on the allocation of tasks that exist outside formal labor markets such as household and reproductive labor and consumption activities as well as labor market work. Heidi Hartmann’s early, influential, socialist feminist analysis of the intersection of capitalism and patriarchy (1981) explains women’s disadvantaged status in both the labor market and the household in late capitalism as the outcome of an uneasy alliance between the two systems. With increasing demand for women’s labor in the second half of the twentieth century, the intersection of the two systems has taken the form of the double and even the triple day—that is, women burdened by responsibility for formal labor market activity; household work; and, frequently, informal work as well.

Similar insights from feminist perspectives have informed studies of developing nations and processes of industrialization and globalization. For example, Ester Boserup’s critique of conventional development theories (1970) demonstrates the pitfalls for development projects resulting from ignoring women, as well as the ways women have been marginalized by development scholars and practitioners. Numerous feminist scholars have built on this and related work, combining it with other theoretical perspectives such as world systems and globalization theories, to expand knowledge of the gendered social consequences of core nation exploitation of the periphery (Ward 1990) and the general pattern of ignoring women in large-scale societal accounting schemes (Beneria 1981). Postcolonial theories and ‘‘Third World feminism’’ further explore the intersections of race, class, and gender as they influence different populations in the global economy (Alexander and Mohanty 1997) Finally, the historical research of Louise Tilly and Joan Scott (1978), among

others, has been important in an understanding of how the shift from household economies to wage labor affected working-class women and their families. Unfortunately, much of this work remains underutilized and unincorporated in the kind of macro-level analyses reviewed in previous sections, representing parallel developments rather than integrated studies of macrosocial processes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF

MACROSOCIAL INQUIRY

In the past decades, research methodology in macrosociology has been widely discussed among sociologists. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used extensively, often in the same larger study. Virtually any methodological tool available to social science is found in macrosocial analysis, ranging from survey research to hermeneutic inquiry.

Quantitative approaches include quantification of documentary and archival data, such as analysis of the lists of grievances, or cahiers de doleances (Markoff 1996); analysis of official socioeconomic, demographic, and political data aggregated for larger geopolitical units such as counties, states, or nations; time series of such data for a single state or nation; and standard survey research techniques interpreted to represent structural and contextual process (Coleman et al. 1970). Trend analysis using survey data is one method frequently used by sociologists to establish long-term patterns of change by examining historical change in statistical data. Quantitative methods that use longitudinal designs of panel and cohort analyses to conduct observations at two or more points in time have been extensively employed in the assessment of social change and development at the local, national, and global levels.

Historical and comparative methods are featured prominently in macrosociological analysis and have been consistently used by the most prominent classical and contemporary sociologists. This approach develops ideal-typical case studies of large-scale organizations, nations, and civilizations across time and space. Thus, social and cultural differences manifest in temporal processes and contexts are the focal point of macrohistorical studies that, as Skocpol (1984, p. 1) summarizes:

(1) ‘‘address processes over time, and take temporal sequences seriously in accounting for outcomes,’’ (2) ‘‘attend to the interplay of meaningful actions and structural contexts in order to make sense of the unfolding of unintended as well as intended outcomes in individual lives and social transformations,’’ and (3) ‘‘highlight the particular and varying features of specific kinds of social structures and patterns of change.’’

In the existing literature on macrosociological research, historical and comparative methods, with their focus on case studies devoted to understanding the nature and effects of large-scale structures and fundamental processes of change, have proven to be an effective approach to macrosociological explanations of macrosocial phenomena. While most historical and comparative research still involves qualitative analyses using available documents and records, more and more research attempts to employ both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

In advocating ‘‘moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies’’ Charles Ragin (1987) points out that, in macrosociological analysis, there are two basic strategies: the case-oriented strategy and the variable-oriented strategy. The former is very much evidence oriented, while the latter is theory centered. The goals of case-oriented investigation, with its extensive use of ideal types, often are both historically interpretive and causally analytic. ‘‘Investigators who used case-oriented strategies often want to understand or interpret specific cases because of their intrinsic values’’ (Ragin 1987, p. 35). Work by Bendix (1977, 1978) exemplifies this approach.

Unlike the case-oriented strategy, the variableoriented strategy tests hypotheses derived from theory, often using quantitative techniques such as multivariate statistical analysis. In macrosocial analysis, a typical variable-oriented study ‘‘examines relationships between general features of social structures conceived as variables. Social units, such as nation-states, have structural features which interact in the sense that changes in some features produce changes in other features, which in turn may produce changes in others’’ (Ragin 1987, p. 55). For example, a cross-national study of modernization by Delacroix and Ragin (1978) is a typical example of variable-oriented research, and

this approach has remained quite popular in the study of development issues as well as in macrolevel studies of organizations.

Each of these two strategies has its strengths and weaknesses. The case-oriented research enables investigators to comprehend diversity and address complexity by examining causal processes more directly in historical and comparative context. In variable-oriented research, by contrast, generality is given precedence over complexity when investigators are able to digest large numbers of cases. In some macrosociological studies, scholars combine the two approaches, as in Jeffrey Paige’s Agrarian Revolution (1975).

THE FUTURE OF MACROSOCIOLOGY

Macroscopic analysis of human society stands as a foundational area of research in sociology, and it is safe to predict that it will continue to grow and expand its scope of inquiry. In an increasingly global economy, marked by shifting boundaries and allegiances, and linked by rapidly advancing communications and information technology, there will be pressing need for explanation and analysis of the major historical and contemporary social movements and upheavals. Events of state formation, transition, and breakdown; revolution and devolution; conflicts based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, region, and class; global movements of populations; and numerous other largescale processes that increasingly mark the post– cold war era will provide the raw materials for scholarly and policy relevant analysis.

At the same time, in the interests of advancing social theory, sociologists will continue to seek ways to link macroprocesses to microprocesses. One of the perennial debates that surfaces among sociologists is whether macroprocesses or microprocesses have primacy in explaining social life. A variant revolves around the issue of whether microprocesses can be derived from macroprocesses or vice versa. Those who believe that the macro has causal priority risk being labeled structural determinists. Those who think that macrophenomena can be derived from microprocesses are dismissed as reductionists. Quite often an uneasy truce prevails in which practitioners of the two types of sociology go their own ways, with little interaction or mutual influence.

Despite pendulum swings that alternately emphasize one approach over the other, there are ongoing efforts to construct theory and conduct research built on genuine principles of micromacro linkage. These have come form a variety of theoretical traditions and perspectives, including those with both macro and micro foundations. While many of these efforts ultimately result in de facto claims for theoretical primacy of one or the other approach, they nonetheless represent an interesting effort to create uniform and widely applicable sociological theory (Huber 1991).

Ultimately, most of the efforts to integrate micro and macro levels reflect the initial concerns of the theorist. For example, Randall Collins’s efforts (1998) begin with a microfocus on interaction to derive macrophenomena, while neofunctionalist Jeffrey Alexander (1985) gives primacy to subjective forms of macrophenomena. Perhaps the most highly developed integrative effort is found in Anthony Giddens’s theory of structuration (1984) in which social structure is defined as both constraining and enabling human activity, as well as being both internal and external to the actor.

The efforts to link microphenomena and macrophenomena are mirrored in a growing body of empirical research. Such work appears to follow Giddens’s view of the constraining and enabling nature of social structure for human activity and the need to link structure and action. It appears safe to say that, while macrosociology will always remain a central component of sociological theory and research, increasing effort will be devoted to creating workable models that link it with its micro counterpart.

REFERENCES

Alexander, M. Jacqui, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty, eds. 1997 Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. New York and London: Routledge.

Alexander, Jeffrey (ed.) 1985. Neofunctionalism. Beverly

Hills, Calif.: Sage.

——— 1998 Neofunctionalism and After. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Amin, Samir 1976 Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Aminzade, Ron 1984 ‘‘Capitalism Industrialization and Patterns of Industrial Protest: A Comparative Urban Study of Nineteenth-Century France.’’ American Sociological Review 49:437–453.

Beneria, Lourdes 1981 ‘‘Conceptualizing the Labour Force: The Underestimation of Women’s Economic Activities.’’ Journal of Development 17:10–28.

Bendix, Reinhard 1977 Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. Berkeley: University of California Press.

——— 1978 Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bluestone, Barry, and Bennet Harrison 1982 The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry. New York: Basic Books.

Boserup, Easter 1970 Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Burawoy, Michael 1979 Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coleman, James S., Amitai Etzioni, and John Porter 1970 Macrosociology: Research and Theory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Collins, Randall 1986 ‘‘Future Decline of the Russian Empire.’’ In Randall Collins, ed., Weberian Sociological Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———1995 ‘‘Prediction in Macrosociological Theory: The Case of the Soviet Collapse.’’ American Journal of Sociology 100: 1552–1593.

———1988 ‘‘The Micro Contribution to Macro Sociology.’’ Sociological Theory 6:242–253.

Delacroix, Jacques, and Charles Ragin 1978 ‘‘Modernizing Institutions, Mobilization, and Third World Development: A Cross-National Study.’’ American Journal of Sociology 84:123–150.

Edwards, Richard 1979 Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.

Evans, Peter, and John Stephens 1988 ‘‘Development and the World Economy.’’ In Neil Smelser, ed., Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Foster, John 1974 Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Foucault, Michel 1979 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

——— 1980 The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.

——— 1985 The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Uses of Pleasure. New York: Pantheon.

Frank, Andre Gunder 1967 Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goldstone, Jack A. 1991 Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gordon, Milton 1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gutman, Herbert G. (1966) 1977 Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America. New York: Vintage Books.

Habermas, Jurgen 1979 Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Harris, Marvin 1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. New York: Random House.

Hartmann, Heidi 1981 ‘‘The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework.’’ Signs 6:366–394.

Hawley, Amos H. 1971 Urban Society: An Ecological Approach. New York: Wiley.

Huber, Joan (ed.) 1991 Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Kennedy, Paul 1987 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.

Lenski, Gerhard 1966 Power and Privilege. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Lenski, Gerhard, Patrick Nolan, and Jean Lenski 1995 Human Societies, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mann, Michael 1986 The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——— 1993 The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 2: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luhmann, Niklas 1982 The Differentiation of Society (trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore). New York: Columbia University Press.

Markoff, John 1996 The Abolition of Feudalism: Peasants, Lords and Legislators in the French Revolution. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

Mingione, Enzo 1991 Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life beyond the Market Paradigm (trans. Paul Goodrick). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966 Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.

Ollman, Bertell 1976 Alienation, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paige, Jeffrey 1975 Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World. New York: Free Press.

Parsons, Talcott 1966 Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren- tice-Hall.

Portes, Alejandro, Manuel Castells, and Lauren Benton, eds. 1989 The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 1987 The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ritzer, George 1988 Sociological Theory, 2nd ed. New York: Knopf.

Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

———1980 The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press.

———1988 The Modern World-System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Walton, John 1987 ‘‘Theory and Research on Industrialization.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 13:89–108.

Ward, Kathryn, ed. 1990 Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Ithaca, N.Y.: Industrial and Labor Relations Press.

Wuthnow, Robert 1989 Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

ANN R. TICKAMYER AND JIELI LI

Shannon, Thomas Richard 1989 An Introduction to the World System Perspective. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press.

Skocpol, Theda 1979 States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (ed.) 1984 Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smelser, Neil 1964 ‘‘Toward a Theory of Modernization.’’ Pp. 268–284 in Amitai Etzioni and Eva Etzioni, eds., Social Change. New York: Basic Books.

——— 1988 ‘‘Social Structure.’’ In Neil Smelser, ed., Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Sorokin, Pitirim 1962 Social and Cultural Dynamics. New

York: Bedminster Press.

Thompson, E. P. 1963 The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage.

Tilly, Charles 1975 The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

——— 1990 Coercion, Capital, and the Rise of European States A.D. 990–1990. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

———, Louise Tilly, and Richard Tilly 1975 The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Tilly, Louise, and Joan Scott 1978 Women, Work, and Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

MAJOR PERSONALITY

THEORIES

Problems of definition arise with the terms personality and personality theories. Personality is understood by some people to mean self-concept; by others, the consensus of other people’s opinions about one’s character, and by others, one’s true character. Some personality theories have elaborate coordinated concepts discussing how personality originates and develops from conception to senescence, taking up cognitive, conative, and affective aspects of the mind as well as free will, holism, philosophy, and other issues. On the other hand, there are relatively simple, one-dimensional theories of personality that pay little attention to what seems important to other theorists.

This topic is complicated not only by its complexity and variations but also by intellectual belligerence among those who favor one theory over another and those who differ about the same theory. The analogy to religions is inescapable.

In view of this situation, personality theories will be handled in an unusual way. Sentences in italics are reprinted from Personality Theories, Research, and Assessment (Corsini and Marsella 1983).

Table 1

NOTE: Some Personality Theories and Their Originators

They contain quotes of selected assertions about the various theories written by authorities of nine major systems. Additional sources presenting comparative information on personality theories include: Burger 1993; Cloninger 1993; Corsini and Wedding 1995; Drapela 1995; Engler 1999; Ewen 1997; Schultz and Schultz 1994.

Table 1 is a list of a number of other important personality theories.

PSYCHOANALYSIS (SIGMUND FREUD, 1856–1939)

Psychoanalysis is both a theory of personality and a form of psychotherapy (see Freud 1952–1974). Highly controversial throughout Freud’s lifetime, it continues to be so.

Freud saw personality as a dynamic conflict within the mind between opposing instinctual and social forces. The topographical hypothesis views the mind in terms of three systems. They are: the unconscious, the preconscious, and the conscious. The mind is composed of the id, ego, and superego. The id

consists of primitive instinctual demands, the superego represents society’s influence restricting the id’s demands, and the ego is dynamically in between the two. Fundamental motives are instinctual. Instincts are the basic forces (drives) of the psyche. The aim of drives is their satisfaction. All instincts are basically sexual. Freud’s concept of sexuality was equivalent to physical pleasures. There is a series of built-in stages of sexual development. Freud postulated that people went through three sexual stages: An oral stage following the primary infantile narcissistic stage, then an anal phase, and finally a phallic phase. Children develop libidinal attitudes towards parents. This notion of the Oedipus and Electra complex of children having sexual attractions to parents of the opposite sex has especially generated controversy.

The psyche develops a number of defenses. To survive, the human being’s ego develops a number of processes intended to repress awareness of conflicts. Repression is the main mental mechanism, but others defenses are related to it, including rationalization, displacement, identification

and conversion. Dreams have meaning and purpose. According to Freud, dreams are disguised desires permitting people to sleep by permitting expressions of illicit desires disguised by various symbolisms.

INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY (ALFRED

ADLER, 1870–1937)

Alfred Adler’s personality theory is distinguished by its common sense and simple language (see Adler 1956). In contrast to Freud and Jung, Adler’s views demonstrate social concern.

Man, like all forms of life, is a unified organism. This basic holistic notion contradicts Freud’s classifications and opposing theses and antitheses. Adler viewed the individual as an indivisible totality that could not be analyzed or considered in sections. Life is movement, directed towards growth and expansion. Adler took a dynamic and teleological attitude toward life, that people were always striving toward goals of personal self-improvement and enhancement. Man is endowed with creativity and within limits is self-determined. Instead of taking the usual position that only biology and society were to be considered in the formation of personality, Adler posited a third element: personal creativity or individual responsibility, akin to the concept of free will. Adler accepted that we all have certain biological and social givens and what is made of them is the responsibility of individuals.

Man lives inextricably in a social world. Adler had a social personality theory. Individuale in German does not have the same denotation as individual in English but rather denotes indivisibility or unity. Adler did not see humans apart from society. The important life problems—human relations, sex, occupation—are social problems. Adler believed that to be successful in life all humans had to complete the life tasks of socialization, family, and work.

Social interest is an aptitude that must be consciously developed. Social interest is the criterion of mental health. Social interest is operationally defined as social usefulness. This trio of related statements is an explicit philosophy unique for personality theories. Adler believed that psychological normality

depended on Gemeinschaftsgefühl—social interest. He saw all human failures, such as criminals, the insane, and neurotics, as lacking this element.

ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY (CARL G.

JUNG, 1875–1961)

Jung’s analytical psychology stresses unconscious mental processes and features elements in personality that derive from mankind’s past (Jung 1953–1972).

Personality is influenced by potential activation of a collective transpersonal unconscious. Jung believed that individuals upon conception came with something from the past that directed their personalities, a concept somewhat like Lamarckism relative to physical heredity. Complexes are structured and energized around an archetypical image. This is an extension of the first assertion. Complexes refer to important bipolar aspects of personality, such as introversion–extraversion. Complexes, directed by archetypes, are seen as innate and universal capacities of the mind to organize human experiences. Archetypes are considered innate potentials of the mind derived from the experiences of ancestors, a kind of directing blueprint of one’s character.

The ego mediates between the unconscious and the outside world. According to Jung, a strong, wellintegrated ego is the ideal state for a person.

Unconscious psychic reality is as important as the outside world. Jung stressed the importance of phenomenology in contrast to overt behavior. He explored people’s inner realms with great diligence. He even exceeded Freud in concentrating on the importance of the unconscious. Personality growth occurs throughout the life cycle. Jung saw individuals in constant growth and development with imperceptible stages that sometimes, as in the case of adolescence and midlife crises, became evident.

The psyche spontaneously strives towards wholeness, integration, and self-realization. This last statement is echoed in many different ways by a number of other theorists, including the two just considered, and is made a central point by some theorists such as Carl Rogers and Kurt Goldstein.

PERSON-CENTERED THEORY (CARL

ROGERS 1902–1987)

Carl Rogers developed his theory as part of his system of client-centered or nondirective therapy (see Rogers 1951). He had a lifelong abiding faith in the potentials of people to correct the errors of their past if a therapeutic environment could be created in which the client felt understood and accepted by a neutral nonevaluative therapist. His system emerges from one central theme, the first assertion below.

Each person has an inherent tendency to actualize unique potential. Rogers viewed each person as having a built-in tendency to develop all his or her capacities in ways that serve to maintain or enhance the organism. Each person has an inherent bodily wisdom which enables differentiation between experiences that actualize and those that do not actualize potential. Rogers’s trust in people is indicated here: There is a wisdom of the body in that everyone knows what is best for one’s self in terms of the ultimate goal of self-realization.

It is crucially important to be fully open to all experiences. Experiencing becomes more than bodily sensing as one grows older. Through complex interactions with our body and with other persons we develop a concept of self. These three assertions belong together, and in them Rogers is taking up the naturenurture, heredity-environment controversy. Essentially, his position is that personality is a function of bodily wisdom and the effect of others (primarily parents).

One can sacrifice the wisdom of one’s own experiences to gain another’s love. Rogers as a therapist came to the conclusion that a great deal of human suffering is due to the tendency of people to sacrifice their own body wisdom to gain positive regard from others. Children, in order to gain acceptance by their parents, will too often agree with them, accept their premises, and maintain them throughout life, generating problems thereby if the premises are incorrect. His therapeutic system was intended to get people to understand their historical processes and to be able to revise the history of their life. A rift can develop between

what is actually experienced and the concept of self. The same theme is here elaborated. A person may deny reality to gain approval from others, and this bifurcation can generate a host of problems. When the rift between experiencing and self is too great, anxiety or disorganized behavior can result. Once again, the same theme is emphasized. We all want to be loved and accepted, but the continued pursuit of acceptance may separate us from reality. Validating experiencing in terms of others can never be completed. All maladjustments come about through denial of experiences discrepant with the self-concept. And so, one must depend on one’s self for reality and not on others. Adler believed that maladjusted people lacked social interest, while Rogers stated that maladjustment essentially came from people listening to others rather than to their own bodily wisdom.

PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS THEORY

(GEORGE A. KELLY, 1905–1967)

Kelly was a highly original thinker. He developed a unique cognitive system that called for the use of idiosyncratic language (see Kelly 1955). While his personal constructs theory covers all of psychology from the ideographic point of view, he bypassed usual terms and concepts such as learning and emotions and paid no attention to the environment or heredity.

All our interpretations of the universe are subject to revision. Kelly starts with a skepticism about beliefs and takes the position that there is no absolute reality. He took the position of constructive alternativism to indicate that people with differences of opinions could not necessarily be divided in terms of right and wrong. Two people can view the same situation in quite different ways and both can be right, both can be wrong, or one or the other may be right. No person needs to be a victim of his own biography. Here we have a statement of the freewill concept in a different form.

A person’s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events. This is Kelly’s fundamental postulate. Essentially, this viewpoint states that what is important is how events

are interpreted rather than the events themselves. This assertion leads naturally to Kelly’s major contribution to personality theory, a series of other personal constructs, relative to how people view reality. We need not attempt to cover all of his constructs, but a few of them will give the reader a sense of Kelly’s thinking: A person anticipates events by construing their replication. (The construction corollary.) Persons differ from one another in their construction of events. (The individuality corollary.)

A person may successively employ a variety of construction subsystems which are inferentially incompatible with each other. (The fragmentation corollary.) This last corollary relates directly to Carl Rogers’s theme that maladjustment comes from divergent forces: from within and from without.

Many of the important processes of personality and behavior arise as a person attempts to change or is threatened with forced change in his construct system. Kelly’s point here is echoed by many other theorists, that one establishes some sort of life pattern or life-style, but changes in thinking about one’s self and others will disrupt the individual.

Kelly’s system is the purest cognitive system of any discussed here, solely dependent on perceptions and interpretations.

OPERANT REINFORCEMENT THEORY (B.F.

SKINNER 1904–1990)

Skinner has denied that his operant reinforcement is a personality theory, but rather that it covers all aspects of overt human behavior (Skinner 1938). In contrast to those theorists who view personality as essentially phenomenological, Skinner decries the term mind and concerns himself solely with overt behavior. As a radical behaviorist, Skinner does not deny internal processes but considers them not relevant to psychology as an objective science of behavior.

Personality is acquired and maintained through the use of positive and negative reinforcers. Skinner applies operant reinforcement to all aspects of human behavior. We tend to repeat what works and to give up what does not work, to continue behavior that leads to pleasant consequences and

to discontinue behavior that leads to unpleasant consequences. Behavior may be altered or weakened by the withholding of reinforcers. If other people change their ways of operating towards an individual, this in turn will affect that person’s behavior and consequently his personality.

Personality develops through a process of discrimination. In life, we experience all kinds of consequences, and we have to make decisions about our future behavior to these consequences. Personality becomes shaped or differentiated. Over time, our personalities are shaped by generalizations about ways that lead to the achievement of goals.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY (ALBERT

BANDURA, 1925–)

Bandura, like Skinner, came to his opinions about personality mostly through research (Bandura and Walters 1963). His system is of the cognitive-learn- ing type stressing the capacity of individuals to generalize in terms of symbols.

The causes of human behavior are the reciprocal interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and environmental influences. Bandura believes personality is a function of how we think and act and our responses of the environment’s reactions to our behavior. In terms of the three elements of biology, society, and creativity, Bandura stresses the latter two. Heredity is discounted as a major determiner in personality development: How a person thinks and acts and how the environment responds to a person’s behavior determines one’s personality.

Behavior can be self-governed by means of self-produced consequences (self-reinforcement). This assertion also emphasizes the importance of reciprocity: life is interaction: the individual versus the world, with the individual changing the world and the world changing the individual.

Individuals may be influenced by symbols which act as models. Reality to people need not only be direct stimuli, such as a smile or a slap, but reality can also be via symbols, such as pictures or words. Bandura’s major research studies called for children to watch the behavior of others. He found that if a person considered to be a model acted in an aggressive

manner and got what he wanted, that observers were likely to imitate the model. Consequently, not only direct stimuli and responses (as per Skinner) but symbolic experiences also determine personality. Reinforcements (and punishment) can operate in a vicarious manner. This is more of the above. Various kinds of behavior can be changed by seeing what happens to others. We learn not only by doing and getting responses but also by observing.

EXISTENTIAL PERSONALITY THEORY

Existential psychology is a loosely organized and ill-defined set of concepts mostly based on the work of philosophers and theologians (see Blackham 1959; Grimsley 1955). Essentially, existentialists see individuals as being in search of meaning. People are also seen as striving to achieve authenticity.

Personality is primarily constructed through attribution of meaning. Essentially, this point of view is similar to Kelly’s concept of constructs. Persons are characterized by symbolization, imagination, and judgment. These are seen as attempts to find meaning. The human being is always trying to make sense out of existence, others, and self and uses mental processes in interaction with self and the world.

Life is best understood as a series of decisions. The human individual not only has to make evident decisions such as what to eat, but more subtle and important ones, such as who he or she really is. One has to decide what the world is like, what is real, what is important, and how to participate in the world. Personality is a synthesis of facticity and possibility. Facticity means the givens of heredity and environment and possibility becomes the creative aspect of personality. The facts of reality limit behavior variations.

A person is always faced with the choice of the future, which provokes anxiety, and the choice of the past, which provokes guilt. The human condition is such that people looking backwards in time can find reasons to be guilty and looking forward can find reasons to be afraid. Existentialists see anxiety and guilt as essential elements of the human being.

Ideal development is facilitated by encouraging individuality. Here we find traces of Carl Rogers’s

concept of the importance of listening to one’s own body or Adler’s and Kelly’s requirement for personal courage. A human problem is to escape the effects of one’s early environment, especially the effects of one’s family.

CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES

The oldest theories of personality formation are the constitutional that state that personality is a function of the nature of one’s corporeal body. Aristotle (1910) in his Physiognomica, for example, stated that the ‘‘ancients’’ had a variety of theories to explain differences in human character. The Greek physician Galen took Hippocrates’s physiological explanation of bodily health as a function of the balance between certain bodily fluids and stated that various personality types were a function of excesses of these fluids. Gall and Spurzheim (1809) extolled phrenology (the shape of the human head) in establishing personality. Kretschmer (1922) declared that people with certain kinds of body types tended to have particular types of mental conditions. Lombroso (1911) declared that criminal types were distinguished by a number of physiological anomalies. The list goes on and on. At present there are a variety of constitutional personality theories, some of which will be discussed below.

Structural Approach. William Sheldon (see Sheldon and Stevens 1942) classified individuals in terms of body shapes claiming that there was a positive correlation between various structural variations and personality types. He spent many years in doing basic research to find evidence for his theory. He found strong evidence to support the validity of his views. Other investigators also found supporting evidence but not to any useful degree.

The somatotype provides a universal frame of reference for growth and development that is independent of culture. This statement by implication discounts society and creativity. Born with a particular body type and you will have a specific personality type.

Three polar extremes called endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy identify the essential components of the somatotype. Sheldon had a somewhat complex classificatory system with three main body types: