THE FAMILY AND THE GROWTH OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY
[Sidenote: We must recognise both the sexual and the individual aspects of
development]
The considerations raised at the end of the last chapter were somewhat
in the nature of a digression. Such a digression was however inevitable,
for the questions involved in the controversy between the psychological
schools of Vienna and Zürich (whose leading exponents are Freud and Jung
respectively) are of fundamental importance for our present inquiry. Our
whole attitude towards the psychological problems presented by the family
relationships must to a very considerable extent depend upon whether
we believe, as the more extreme exponents of the Zürich school would
sometimes seem to do, that the whole significance of these problems lies
in the fact that they are intimately concerned with the development of the
vital energies and independence of the individual, or whether (following
the Vienna school) we feel bound to recognise also the existence of a
number of highly important sexual aspects which, directly or indirectly,
play a fundamental rôle in the psychology of the family.
Our short review of the principal points concerned in this controversy
(so far as they touch our present purpose) has led us to the conclusion
that the sexual aspects with which we were dealing in Chapters II and
III possess more than a mere symbolical significance--that they must in
fact be looked upon as, for the most part, actually being that which they
appear to be, _i. e._ manifestations of (relatively) infantile tendencies
which, as regards their nature and origin, are continuous with, and
comparable to, the fully developed sexual tendencies of adult life.
We concluded also, however, that besides these sexual aspects there
are other important aspects of family life, which may legitimately be
looked upon as fundamental factors in the psychic growth and development
of individuality. These factors it is now our duty to study somewhat
more closely, before we pass on (as we shall do in the next chapter)
to consider the variations and abnormalities that may occur in the
development of the individual's mental attitude towards the other members
of his family.
[Sidenote: Difficulties of individual development]
Apart altogether from the questions of mysticism and symbolism, with which
Jung and his followers have tended to surround the whole matter, it is I
think, abundantly clear that normal psychic development involves a gradual
emergence from a condition of dependence on parental authority and care
to one in which the individual is dependent to a greater or less extent
upon his own efforts as regards his livelihood, and upon his own judgment
as regards his conduct[29]. Failure in such development will result in a
relatively feeble adult personality--one which still seeks the support of
its parents (or their substitutes), when it should have learnt to stand
alone. Such failures are, however, (as all psycho-analysts will admit) of
very frequent occurrence. Normal development in this respect appears to
be at least as difficult as in the case of the sexual tendencies we have
already considered, and is liable, as in their case also, to arrests and
retardations at various points and to regressions to earlier stages of
development, whenever serious obstacles and difficulties are encountered.
[Sidenote: Self-preservation]
It would seem possible to distinguish two main aspects of this
process of development, though in real life these two aspects are,
it is almost needless to say, throughout intimately connected with
one another. The first, and more primitive aspect, is that which is
concerned with the actual manifestations of vital activity for the
purpose of self-preservation and for bringing about the fulfilment of
the individual's aims and desires. During babyhood the child is almost
entirely dependent on his parents or other grown-up persons for the
accomplishment of these objects: at best he can only indicate by cries or
gestures the nature of his wants, in order that others may satisfy them.
As he grows older however, he has to learn to fulfil an ever increasing
number of these wants himself--to feed, to wash, to clothe himself and to
satisfy his other bodily needs, to walk abroad without the protection and
guidance of his elders, and generally to attain his desires by his own
efforts rather than to wait for the attentions of others. To keep pace
with the ever growing wants and desires of the individual, a continuous
output of energy is required, and it will sometimes happen that the
motive force immediately available (the strength of the conation) is
not sufficient to overcome the obstacles which prevent the fulfilment
of a want. When this is the case, the individual may react in a variety
of ways. If the conation is a relatively weak one, he may abandon his
attempts to attain the desired end, at least in its original form; or he
may content himself with an imaginary fulfilment of his desire. If the
conation is sufficiently strong, however, it may continue to manifest
itself in different ways; if the first means of approach is unsuccessful,
other means will be tried, until the end is eventually attained. Of these
other means, one that is frequently among the most effectual is to call in
the assistance of others. Especially is this the case in infancy when many
feats that are difficult or impossible to the child are easily performed
by its parents or other adult persons, and when such persons (especially
the parents) often take a delight in assisting the child in this way. That
the child should receive such assistance is natural and inevitable at a
certain stage of development, but it is easy to see that help thus given
may constitute a source of danger to the child's development, if it is
granted not only in cases of real difficulty (having regard to the child's
age and capabilities) but in cases where, by the expenditure of a little
additional effort, the child could attain his end unaided. If assistance
is given indiscriminately the child may acquire the habit of relying upon
the help of others whenever any difficulty arises; and this habit may
persist throughout life, rendering the individual a relatively useless
and helpless member of society, incapable of any prolonged or intensive
effort[30]. Normal development, however, implies that the occasions on
which assistance is required should grow fewer and fewer as ability and
experience increase, so that the adult should finally be able to transact
the ordinary business of life and to maintain himself, entirely by his
own efforts, except of course in unusual or exceptionally difficult
circumstances, or where the economic principle of the division of labour
makes it desirable to call in the assistance of other persons possessing
ability or training of a different nature to his own.
[Sidenote: Self-determination]
The other main aspect of the principle of development that we are
considering, is concerned with the matter of self-guidance rather than
with that of self-help. In this respect also, normal development implies a
change from dependence upon others to dependence upon self. In infancy a
very great part of the individual's mode of life is determined by others,
and especially by his parents. Just as he is dependent upon the efforts
of his parents for the necessaries of life, so is he also dependent upon
their decision as to how and when he shall enjoy these necessaries. He
feeds, walks, sleeps, works and plays very largely according to their
pleasure. At most the nature of his play activities is left to his own
discretion. Later on during the school period the authority of the parents
is to some extent exchanged for that of his teachers, but it is not till a
comparatively late stage of development that an individual is allowed to
dispose of the bulk of his time as he himself thinks fit.
On the moral side, again, he is at first almost entirely dependent on the
judgment of others. He hears certain tendencies, activities and sentiments
condemned as wicked, others upheld as praiseworthy, and even when he
begins to pronounce moral judgments on his own account, these judgments
must, for a long period, consist for the most part merely of fresh
applications of the moral code that he has learnt from others.
This subservience to the will and opinion of others (and especially to
those of the parents) is a necessary and natural condition of early
childhood, but it is plain that the successful development of mind and
character must demand a gradually increasing degree of autonomy as regards
both thought and conduct, as capabilities mature and experience widens.
Success in adult life requires the capacity for determining for oneself
the nature and course of the principal activities--indeed, the degree of
success that is attained is to a very considerable extent dependent on
the amount of such capacity. He who can only carry out the instructions
of others, however obediently and skilfully, is only fitted to occupy an
inferior position in the economic or the social scale. Hence, one who has
never progressed far from the infantile condition of dependence on the
commands and opinions of others will be lacking in one of the character
qualities which are essential for the attainment of any high degree of
individuality or of social and economic responsibility.
[Sidenote: Autonomy and Moral Development]
On the moral side also, he is debarred from the higher levels of ethical
development. At the best, his morality will be one of hard and fast rules,
the dictates of parental, ecclesiastical, legal or social authority,
incapable of enlightened growth or modification to suit the ever changing
flow of circumstances and the widening experience of life. At the worst,
he may grow up destitute of all true moral consciousness whatsoever,
morality being regarded by him as a certain (usually unpleasant) kind of
conduct, arbitrarily imposed by external authority, and only fit to be
abandoned as soon as the pressure of this authority is relaxed.
Sound moral development is characterised by an ever increasing degree of
autonomy in place of the heteronomy which distinguishes the immature,
and to some extent, the primitive mind generally. At first the child
learns to act in accordance with the desires of its parents, as expressed
in threats, punishments or rewards. Thereafter, the idea of "good," as
signifying conduct in accordance with these desires, becomes operative
as an inner motive force in the mind of the child, independently of the
occurrence of the rewards or other incentives. This is the first stage
of autonomy. As development proceeds, the ideas concerning right conduct
(continually enlarged by the experience of new persons and new situations)
become more and more dissociated from their original authoritative
sanctions, new "inner" sanctions being substituted for the old "external"
ones which are abandoned. These inner sanctions are themselves capable
of many different levels of development, ranging from the simple idea of
the individual's own benefit in the immediate future, to the desire for
the ultimate benefit of humanity as a whole or the concept of action in
conformity with the general principles of the Universe. If the individual
is to progress satisfactorily from the stage of outer sanctions to that of
inner sanctions and to attain in due course to the higher levels of these
inner sanctions, he must have opportunities for the gradual development of
his own powers of initiation, deliberation and self-control; this implying
a corresponding gradual emancipation from the jurisdiction of the parents
and their substitutes in later life (teachers, advisers, superiors,
_etc._), until there is obtained at full growth the completest possible
autonomy of thought and action that is compatible with the individual's
position in the society to which he belongs.
[Sidenote: Autonomy should come about gradually]
[Sidenote: and not suddenly as the consequence of a revolt against
parental authority]
In these considerations we have throughout laid the principal emphasis
upon the desirability and necessity of the acquirement of self help
and self guidance on the part of the individual. This has been chiefly
because the results of psycho-analytic work have indicated that the
danger lies most frequently in the direction of too great, rather than
of too little, dependence on the efforts and guidance of the parents or
their substitutes. This fact must not however be allowed to blind us to
the existence of a danger of an opposite character--that of a too rapid
or too complete emancipation from parental authority. Such emancipation
would, it is true, seem to occur seldom enough as a direct consequence
of the unfolding of the child's individual capabilities and desires: the
attitude of dependence necessarily adopted in childhood and early youth,
together with the respect almost inevitably inspired in the very young by
the greater power, knowledge and experience of the parents, effectually
prevents this in the majority of cases. But it may easily come about as
the result of a reaction against a too insistent or despotic use of the
parental power. Parents who are too severe, too repressive, or even too
careful, as regards the upbringing of their children, will--especially if
the latter happen to possess strong tendencies to self-assertion--often
bring about a state of revolt against their own authority, in which all
that may be good and wise in that authority is deliberately neglected
or condemned, since the children have grown to look upon their parents
as tyrants and taskmasters rather than as helpers and protectors. A
stern or bullying father, a nagging or over anxious mother, will thus
frequently produce a rebellious son or daughter, who will respect neither
the advice or commands of the parents themselves nor those of their
(mental) substitutes in later life. Such children, as they grow up, may
be prevented from profiting to the desirable extent by the wisdom and
experience of past ages, as represented in the traditions and dictates
of authority, and (what is worse) may even become unfit for taking their
place in any scheme of harmonious social life, through inability to
submit to the degree of individual subordination, which such social life
inevitably demands[31].
[Sidenote: The wider social bearings of this subject]
These considerations with reference to the growth of the individual
personality in relation to the family environment are indeed, as we have
already pointed out, for the most part of a sufficiently obvious character
and, in their more general bearings at any rate, have for some time been
commonplaces in certain schools of social, ethical, and educational
thought. Where modern psychology (and particularly the work of the Zürich
school) has been of service, is in drawing attention to the importance
of the family as the environment in which the first steps in the path of
self help and self guidance must take place--steps upon the direction and
extent of which subsequent progress in the wider spheres of scholastic,
social and political life very greatly depends. The rapidity with which,
and the extent to which, a child attains to independence in relation to
his family, are to a large extent prophetic of the subsequent attainment
of independence towards the world at large. A too close reliance upon
the ideals, standards, conventions and protective power of the family
circle may hinder all initiative and originality in individual thought
and action. On the other hand, a too sudden or too complete revolt from
the parental guidance and tradition may be productive of a bias against,
and disrespect for, every kind of authority and convention, that will
tend to prevent all use and enjoyment of the experience of the past and
all orderly co-operation in the social life of the present. With these
possibilities as the result of failure, the task of the proper upbringing
of the child in relation to his family environment becomes indeed one the
importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 29: The somewhat sharp distinction here drawn between the sexual
aspects of the family relationships and those here under consideration
(which for the sake of convenience we may call the dependence aspects),
although employed throughout this essay, is made primarily for purposes of
exposition and is not intended to imply that the distinction is in fact
so sharply cut as the present method of treatment might possibly suggest.
In real life the sexual and the dependence aspects are inextricably
interwoven, and it is probable that the majority of psycho-analysts would
be inclined to lay somewhat less stress on the distinction than does the
present writer.]
[Footnote 30: This, of course, is especially liable to be the case in
those children--for example in most of those technically described as
"mentally deficient" and in many of those technically described as
"backward"--who do not readily acquire interest in the details of a
process leading to a desired end, apart from the end itself (_i. e._ in
whom work does not become pleasurable for its own sake), or in those
in whom there is no strong self feeling associated with the idea of
successful achievement. The granting of an undue amount of assistance
will, however, in its turn tend to retard or prevent the formation of
these desirable mental characteristics.]
[Footnote 31: There is good reason to believe that revolt against parental
authority constitutes an important factor in the production of a certain
class of delinquents. See _e. g._ several of the cases recorded in Healy's
"Mental Conflicts and Misconduct," 1919.]