Note: This essay concerns the systems approach and its treatment of personality theory. The systems approach treats personality theory quite differently from more traditional, theory-by-theory approaches to the personality course. Here I describe how the conflict between the systems approach, and my own desire to teach a theory, played out for me one day in the classroom. I include a description of some of the tensions surrounding the course that I experience (and I imagine others may as well).
10/6/06 (Revised 10/18/06). On the class meeting before Columbus Day. I was running a bit behind in my lectures. I was teaching Chapter 5: Inner Selves; Inner Worlds. Some Jungian theory appears toward the end of the chapter and I had a sudden urge to teach more about Jung’s theory than I really had planned for initially.
Some people consider the systems framework controversial because of its contemporary approach to the field, and its de-emphasisis of early 20th century personality theories, relative to other personality textbooks. I believe the integrated framework allows for the continued respect of the most important ideas of early 20th century theories. Some, however, would rather continue to treat theories in greater depth.
Maddi (2006, p. 300), for example, wrote:
“I do not agree with Mayer’s (2005) assertion that emphasizing existing personality theories is necessarily damaging because of their specific content disagreements. Indeed, his alternative of highlighting only what personality psychologists agree on gives too large a role to the popularity of approaches and concepts, an especially problematic strategy in a time when systematic personality theorizing is not delved into deeply.” (Maddi, 2006, p. 300).
When I first read Maddi’s (1968) comparative analysis of personality theories, it inspired me greatly. It was one of the early influences on the systems approach I use. Yet I disagree with his current position on teaching personality theory. I think we need to focus more directly on personality as a system, and emphasize those areas where research has validated certain areas of a theory over those where the research is more ambiguous or non-existent (e.g., Mayer, 2006).
That said, I can’t help but be fan of certain personality theories. To put it in somewhat corny terms, some of them “speak to me.” I recognize, too, that, as a consequence of the textbook's emphasis on integration of the field, and given the natural limits of a one-semester course, some instructor's favorite theories are treated all-too-briefly (and sometimes, not at all) in the textbook.
I usually don’t feel any urge to teach Freud’s theory beyond what is in the book, because I believe his ideas are well-represented in a number of chapters. In addition to the overview of psychodynamic theory that forms one section of Chapter 3, the book contains discussions of case studies (Chapter 2), transference phenomena (Chapter 5), structural models (Chapter 8), manifest and latent content (Chapter 9) and defense mechanisms (Chapter 10). Treaments of other theorists, such as Jung however, are more limited. And if you like Horney or Adler, I acknowledge that mention of their work is minimal – which gives instructors the opportunity to add something in.
Aspects of Jung’s theory are an admitted favorite of mine, in particular, his theory of archetypes (relevant to what I was teaching in Chapter 5). Partly, it is a function of my interest in literature and film. At least a few film directors, for example, consciously use Jungian archetype theory to guide their work – and I have appreciated the process and the result.
I was, as I said, behind in my lectures. In planning my lecture for that day, I guessed that I had about 15 minutes left in a class period. The responsible thing to do, I suppose, would have been to preview Chapter 6 on mental abilities which, because of the Columbus Day holiday, I was asking the students to read and study on their own. I could have used one of the PowerPoint overview lectures I developed for this purpose. My attention, though, kept drifting to Jung.
So, I decided to take a 15 minute break and teach about Jung’s theory of archetypes in a bit more depth than usual.
I downloaded some still images from Frederico Fellini’s movie 8 ½, showed them to my students, pointed out the various archetypes that appeared in the movie, and lectured on role of the anima and animus in the protagonist’s psyche, and how the protagonist’s integration of his more feminine side during the film helps move the plot move forward. (There is a magic word in the middle of the film: ASA NISI MASA, ruminated over by the protagonist – take off the last two letters of each part of the magic incantation and you get...ANIMA).
From time-to-time, I think it is good to give in to an obsession with a theory. I happen to believe Jung’s theory of archetypes is under-researched, and that it continues to have a great deal of applied relevance to psychology and the arts.
Perhaps, however, had I stayed on message – providing an overview of Chapter 6, for example -- that would have been better.
Jung was (like many early 20 th century theorists), a bit harsh, judgmental, and dogmatic when it came to many forms of personality. Acknowledging that, I nonetheless pay attention to this warning from Jung about certain instructional styles (specifically, the introverted instructor, dominated by the thinking function)...
He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation (Jung, 1923, p. 488).
Jung, I think, was warning us to remember not to get too involved with the material. Keep the material enough at arms length, he was suggesting, to remember to communicate it well to the students. I am not sure that I entirely succeeded this time around. Next time, if I repeat this lecture, I will explain better how archetypes in the movies, and the viewers' responses to them, can be relevant to other aspects of their lives as well.
Does giving in to the temptation to teach a theoretical idea in greater detail work? At its best, perhaps, it can stimulate creative thinking and help students understand themselves and the field. If it falls a bit short of those goals, perhaps it still can provide a useful change of pace for the course.
References for this Page
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological Types or the Psychology of Individuation. H. G. Baynes (Trans). New York: Harcourt, Bace, & Company.
Maddi, S. R. (1968). Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Maddi, S. R. (2006). Taking the theorizing in personality theories seriously. American Psychologist, 61, 330-331.
Mayer, J. D. (2006). A new view of personality…and of personality theory. American Psychologist, 61, 331-332
.
