Analysis Of Karen Horney

767 Words4 Pages
Critique - Karen Horney Most of Horney’s theories came from clinical experiences. With her vivid experience, she able to describes virtually and contribute to practitioners in a wide knowledge especially in neurotic personality. Horney’s comprehensive descriptions of neurotic personalities provide an excellent framework for understanding unhealthy people. In that extent, there is no other personality theorist has written so well about neuroses (Psychology, 2016). Although Horney painted a vivid portrayal of the neurotic personality, her theory rates very low in generating research and low ability to be falsified. Besides that, Horney’s theory is difficult to use in organize data, and to serve as a useful guide to action. Overall, Horney’s…show more content…
Horney’s theory of humanity is deterministic while the individual has the right to choose (free choice) to some extent (F>D). Similarly to Fromm, Horney’s theory is both optimistic and pessimistic with a tendency toward the curative powers of human (O>P). Additionally, her theory is both causal and teleological (C=T), where she believed it is directly influence by one another. Horney believed in the strength and influence of the conscious, social motivation over the unconscious, which is slightly different to Fromm’s theory (C>UC). Horney has a similar theory with Fromm where she emphasis on the social nature of humans as well as cultural influences places her theory as more social than biological (S>B). Finally, she places emphasis on the similarities between people rather than on their uniqueness (S>U) (Psychology, 2016). One of Horney’s book, Neurosis and Human Growth (1950), the concepts and formulations are precise, consistent, and unambiguous. However, when all her works are examined, a different picture emerges. Through the years, she used terms such as “neurotic needs” and “neurotic trends” sometimes separately and sometimes interchangeably. Also, the terms “basic anxiety” and “basic conflict” were not always clearly differentiated. These inconsistencies render her entire work somewhat inconsistent, but again, her final theory (1950) is a model of lucidity and consistency (Psychology,
Open Document