When two individuals coexist, do they consummate their connection initially through carnal pursuits, or do they cultivate an affectionate bond before engaging in physical intimacy? I apprehend that diverse experiences and sentiments prevail among individuals.
In the realm of psychology, disparate schools of thought proffer contrasting elucidations. For instance, Adler, the progenitor of individual psychology, accords precedence to social affiliations over carnal connections. He posits that both parties must first manifest a robust social interest in each other before succumbing to physical desires. His emphasis lies on authentic, profound interpersonal engagements.
This quasi-utopian criterion permeates his perspectives on love, matrimony, family, and the maturation of progeny. Adler contends that dysfunctional matrimony begets unhealthy families, ultimately fostering psychological aberrations in the offspring—a potential crucible for criminal proclivities. Consequently, he esteems not only earnest interaction but also underscores the societal duty inherent in matrimony.
1. Is criminality a corollary of familial dynamics?
The discourse on criminality in the Western sphere revolves around the dichotomy of “nature versus nurture.” “Nature” pertains to inherent traits, while “nurture” denotes acquired attributes. Adler, in stark contrast, unequivocally advocates for “nurture,” asserting that crime emanates from environmental influences.
Adler posits that individuals are innately predisposed to perceive external threats. From adults to children, beings find themselves incapable of contending with the world’s challenges. Consequently, a child inevitably harbors low self-esteem, cognizant of their limited abilities, fostering a natural inclination toward inferiority. Amidst anxiety, individuals strive to alleviate unease and seek tranquility—a synonym for security.
Under his paradigm, Adler scrutinizes crimes, attributing them to an inability to collaborate. He contends that individuals resort to criminality due to a lack of ingrained cooperative habits, stemming from a deficient development in interpersonal collaboration. Crimes, as defined by societal laws, are, in Adler’s view, exaggerated, theatrical transgressions, reflective of children’s extreme behaviors during personality formation under familial auspices.
Macroscopically, crime can be construed as a consequence of inadequate acquisition of skills to navigate personal security and the cultivation of a sense of power and superiority. Left unchecked upon departure from the familial cocoon, these behaviors metamorphose into societal transgressions.
According to Adler, the primary catalysts for criminal behavior are the absence of familial security and exhibition of extravagant self-centered conduct. Consequently, Adler’s theory contextualizes family and matrimony within the fabric of societal structure and functions.
To preempt criminality, efforts must be directed at nurturing individuals who, as they mature, develop a genuine interest in others. Genuine interest begets a disposition and mentality conducive to cooperative endeavors, mitigating the propensity to become criminal.
Should a child fail to manifest genuine interest in others during their formative years, focusing solely on alleviating personal insecurities or cultivating a sense of superiority, a psychological foundation for criminal proclivities is laid.
Derived from this stern admonition, Adler’s perspective on matrimony and family diverges markedly from conventional understanding.
2. Is matrimony solely a private affair between two individuals?
Adler posits that matrimony constitutes, primarily, a societal structure integral to social operations—the bedrock thereof. The nexus between matrimony and society lies in the impact wielded by families engendered through matrimony and the offspring nurtured within, echoing in the broader societal tapestry.
Furthermore, Adler’s psychology unequivocally asserts that matrimony transcends the interpersonal dynamics of two individuals. Offspring resulting from matrimony must, at the very least, not be prone to criminal inclinations. Adler contends that the likelihood of a family nurturing a criminal is non-negligible.
Contrary to the prevailing romanticism of the 19th century, Adler disapproves of the notion that love is the linchpin for matrimony. While conventional wisdom posits that love precedes matrimony, Adler contends that such a premise is insufficient, if not erroneous.
Adler cautions against presuming maternal affection, underscoring the complexity of forming and sustaining matrimony. His criterion for evaluating matrimony diverges from conventional norms, centering on the offspring a matrimony begets. This underscores the fundamental reality that proficiency in marital and parental roles is not innate but demands psychological scrutiny.
Matrimony transcends the dyadic realm; its essence lies in the offspring engendered by the union. This imparts an additional layer of responsibility. Sustaining matrimony and family necessitates continuous effort and learning, eschewing a laissez-faire approach.
Adler’s propositions, revolutionary in their time, underscore the imperative for prospective spouses to cultivate respect and understanding before matrimony. Empathy, a foundational ability, assumes centrality. For Adler, a man lacking genuine curiosity and understanding toward his prospective spouse is ill-suited for matrimony—a recipe for disaster.
Not exclusive to men, Adler contends that men, as presumed authorities, epitomize the primary obstacle in unequal relationships. He advises women against succumbing to infatuation as a sufficient criterion for matrimony. Irrespective of gender, entering matrimony mandates assuming familial responsibilities and acknowledging societal duties.
3. Why did Adler advocate for monogamy?
Amid anthropological shifts questioning monogamy, Adler staunchly supports it, not as a historical artifact but as a union exclusive to two individuals.
Monogamous unions, according to Adler, foster an environment conducive to nurturing children. He posits that enlarging the scope of matrimony makes cultivating a profound interest between individuals and setting a positive example for offspring challenging. Establishing a deep, organic connection between two individuals is inherently arduous, making Adler an ardent proponent of monogamous matrimony.
Additionally, Adler rejects the involvement of the families of origin in the new matrimony. Changes to the established dynamics exacerbate challenges, and Adler, while not explicitly addressing same-sex matrimony, is inferred to potentially favor it based on his principles.
Adler’s emphasis on “less is more” in matrimony stems from his commitment to achieving equality between spouses in the societal framework. Acknowledging the pervasive influence of patriarchy and male chauvinism, Adler contends that these dynamics impede mutual interest between spouses. Genuine interest, he posits, fosters respect for individuality and precludes neglect, oppression, or threats.
In an unequal psychological structure, mutual interest falters, hindering organic relationships. Adler asserts that a child’s personality crystallizes by the age of five, and only through an equal parental relationship can the most enduring and healthy impact be imparted.
4. Sociality precedes sexual relations: Adler’s repudiation of Freud
Adler’s theoretical parting with Freud centers on the latter’s emphasis on sexual desire as a core force in mental structure. While both Adler and Jung contest Freud’s spiritual and pansexual theories, Adler’s dissent is more emphatic.
Adler dismisses Freud’s assertion that sex and desire constitute the foundation of matrimony, contending that the crux lies in the social relationship between individuals. Physical allure and temptation, according to Adler, stem from a high level of mutual interest, integral to a genuine, long-term relationship. Problems in sexual relationships, per Adler, are not rooted in desire but in a misalignment of interaction.
Adler’s penchant for elucidating matrimony through the lens of social relationships elucidates his idealistic standards. In his paradigm, sexual intimacy and the profound connection of a physical relationship hinge on the equality and reciprocity in the interaction between spouses.