Psychology: Psychoanalysis and Humanism

The different psychological schools of thought reflect ideas and emotions of each time period in which they developed, and yet it can be said that they still have relevant value today. Each approach to psychology –the biological, the humanistic, the cognitive, the behavioural and the psychoanalytical– all have relevance in today’s society in their own ways, as well as having distinguishing features yet similar aspects to their teachings. As an example of this, when we first look between psychoanalysis and humanism, we can name the basic and drastic differences between these theories. For starters, the time frame between the development of each spans around fifty years, with Freud growing his idea of psychoanalysis in the 1890’s, and the humanistic view point not coming to the spotlight until the 1950’s. Another obvious difference between these two schools of thought lies within the basis of humanism as an optimistic philosophy, and by most accounts psychoanalysis is formed from what many would view as a pessimistic study of psychological conditions. At its birth psychoanalysis was viewed as a form of psychology that would fill the gap in psychiatry, and find a common ground between physical and mental health (Freud, 1915). Humanism came about as a reaction to the pessimistic aspects of psychoanalysis, to try and focus more on the actual human and personal choice. Because of this, it became known as the ‘third force’ of psychology (Maslow, 1962). Psychoanalysis literally means to take care of the psyche, and how through the talking cure we can use our psyche to realise unconscious psychological concerns that may be present; whereas the humanistic approach is more concerned with personal choice, self-help and the patient’s own abilities to solve their psychological issues. However, both approaches have intergraded similarities as well as the pre-mentioned opposing views, and yet they are both equally important sides in psychology today.

One of the main