Adler, like Freud, sought a single motivating force behind human behavior, but he rejected his mentor’s attempts to reduce that motivation to the physiologic level of a “drive.” Adler was more attentive to the entirety of personality and sought a more comprehensive model that encompassed social and cultural dimensions as well. He called his model “individual psychology,” in the sense that individual means indivisible; i.e., what we would now call a holistic approach.

He began in the Viennese Psycho-Analytic Society by postulating the existence of the “aggression drive.” Here, aggression is not precisely the same as what Freud would describe in his later dual-drive theory, but refers to the reaction one has when primary needs such as food, sex, or affection, are frustrated. What Adler described is an inborn tendency to compensatory assertiveness. Freud’s fear was that attention to this drive would detract from the centrality of the sexual drive; and the division over this subject led Adler to leave the Society, even though his ideas are consistent with some of Freud’s later writings on the drives and instincts.

Aggression drive was too negative in its destructive implications, and Adler began instead to describe “compensation,” or the “striving to overcome.” Since all individuals have some shortcomings, they naturally attempt to overcome them. Adler believed a great deal of personality could be described by individuals’ attempts to compensate for their natural deficiencies. But he became dissatisfied
with this model because it suggests that people are primarily the product of their reactions to their problems. His next step was consistent with Friedrich Neitzsche’s “will to power,” and Adler postulated the “striving for superiority” as an engine of human thought and action. Superiority was a more suitable complex notion because it included not only the attempt to better oneself, but also a desire to do so by surpassing others. Later, he came to see the interpersonally competitive aspect of this model as more neurotic than primary, and finally identified the “striving for perfection” as the thrust of human development and personality. It is the desire to achieve all of one’s potential, to approach his or her ideal state of being and achievement.

This model contains a revolutionary implication. Freud’s model was able to explain all current thought, affect, and behavior on the basis of inborn biology and past experience. Adler’s schema maintains that people are driven by potential; therefore the future, not just the past, also shapes the present. This teleological approach substantially weakens the imperative of psychic determinism. Changing one’s goals and ideals has an influence on the present. We will deal below with the ramifications of this philosophy on pathogenesis and treatment.

In the Introduction, we acknowledged that the theories we describe cannot be truths. Rather, we adopt certain beliefs because they help us make sense of things. Adler applied this principle to everyday living as well. Most people get up in the morning convinced they will survive the day and get up the next morning, even though there is no proof of such an outcome. Many people organize their thinking and behavior around notions of good and evil, for which there can also be no objective proof. Just like the theories of science, such day-to-day beliefs make it possible to function. And, like the theories of science, they shape a person’s perceptions and the meaning he or she assigns to events.

Adler called such hypotheses “fictions,” not in the sense that they are false, but in recognition of the impossibility of ever proving them. Such fictions are necessary because they maintain the possibility of mental function. The particular fictions held by any individual determine what he or she expects of himself or
herself and the world. If, for example, one holds that hard work is always rewarded, it will propel him or her to exert effort in ways that are usually socially and personally profitable. On the other hand, the same belief may lead a person to interpret random misfortune as the outcome of not having worked hard enough.

Since Adler kept a teleological perspective in mind, he identified certain fictions that pertained to one’s future. Belief in heaven and hell, or on the other hand a conviction that human mortality is final and complete, are fictions that influence a person’s expectations and view of the future. In Adler’s terminology, these particular fictions are called “finalisms” because they describe ends. Although the subject of fictional finalisms is in the future, the fictions themselves determine one’s interpretations and choices in the present. Superiority, the goal of human striving, is itself a fiction shared by all.

In Adler’s view, with teleological imperatives to development and with enduring fictions guiding perception and behavior, the straightforward Freudian notion of personality as a self-contained entity shaped by drives and trauma was inadequate. Adler preferred to describe a person’s “style of life” (what we would today call “lifestyle”). Style of life is a holistic concept including how one conducts himself or herself, how he or she handles problems and interpersonal relations. One’s style of life describes how he or she attempts to achieve superiority.

The essence of one’s style is determined usually by about age 5, and is influenced by temperament, inner goal orientation, and environmental forces that either foster or impede these motivators. From this perspective, while acknowledging the overriding importance of individuality, Adler described four basic psychological types:

Unlike Freud, who seemed to paint families as faceless and interchangeable, Adler saw some specificity in how early caregivers and circumstances could affect the evolution of style of life. He identified three particular situations that might negatively affect one’s lifestyle:

A major focus of contention between Adler and Freud was Adler’s early and energetic emphasis on the social context of human development, behavior, and pathology. For Adler, social
interest was second only to the striving for perfection as a motivating factor. Since he began from a holistic perspective, Adler saw humans as social animals that cannot be separated from their social context. Even striving for perfection is shaped by social norms. And even the most hostile, dominating person can only be hostile or dominating toward other people. Much like style of life, the tendency toward social interest is inborn, but it must be nurtured by the environment. For example, furthering one’s own welfare may require the suffering of another. While it is innate human nature to advance oneself at the expense of another, social pressures promote the development of empathic concern. Social interest usually involves some element of selfsacrifice, and the social environment provides rewards for that sacrifice.

Adler was careful to differentiate social interest from social skill or extroversion. Being friendly and demonstrative may be one manifestation of genuine social interest, or it may simply be a vehicle for advancing one’s selfish ends. Social interest for Adler meant a broader notion of caring for others: family, community, and society. From this perspective, it is clear why being socially useful was his definition of psychological health.

While Freud and most of his followers at least acknowledged the influence of parents on development, Adler was probably the first theorist to attend to the role of siblings in shaping personality. His notions of the importance of birth order (whatever may be said for their scientific validity) have demonstrated enduring popularity even among those who have never heard of Alfred Adler. In context, however, even Adler regarded birth order as a useful fiction for understanding people, not a profound truth.

The only child is likely to grow up a pampered one, as described above. Having no rival for his or her parents’ affection and attention, the only child comes to expect special care and need not learn to share. On the other hand, the only child of neglectful or abusive parents must bear the burden alone.

The first child begins, of course, as an only child. But when the first sibling arrives, the world changes dramatically. Displaced from the sole position of honor, the first child may attempt to compensate in any of a number of ways. Commonly, children will
regress, acting like babies themselves to get what the baby has taken away. This reaction is rarely successful, as most parents will tell him or her to grow up. Some children will respond by becoming defiant and contrary. Others may withdraw and become sullen. Adler thought that first children were more likely to become problem children as they attempted to find ways to compensate for their loss of superiority. On the other hand, he also acknowledged that, in compensation, they were also more likely than others to become precocious. The result, of course, depends on both temperament and upbringing. In general, Adler thought first children were more likely than others to turn out solitary and conservative.

The second child enters the world not only with the inferiority inherent in the human condition, but also with the added shadow of his or her older sibling’s obvious superiority. From the beginning, life is a competition—if not with the actual brother or sister, then at least with the internal image of that superior sibling—and quite often remains so. Driven to succeed, many will achieve a good deal, but will often be left with the sense of incomplete achievement. Others will become more withdrawn, and will give up the fight, convinced they cannot win anyway. Subsequent middle children resemble the second child, though each will choose his or her rival in the family.