Compare and Contrast: Ellen G. White vs. Sigmund
Freud
By: Valerie Hernandez
In Partial Fulfillment of PSYC 360
Dr. R. Mark Aldridge
11 December 2012
Introduction
Throughout life we might hear people mention phrases
such as, “personality is something we are born with and
cannot change, or a trait we can develop and change over
time.” Personality is such a complex concept that such
concept cannot be described in simply one phrase or
definition. Definitions of personality include: (1) the
visible aspect of one’s character, as it impresses others;
(2) A person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities;
(3) a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional,
and social characteristics of an individual. (b) The
organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the
individual; (4) The quality of being a person; existence as
a self-conscious human being; personal identity; (5) The
essential character of a person. It is no surprise that,
Ellen G. White and famous theorist Sigmund Freud have
similar and different reasoning about the theory of
personality development.
Knowing Ellen G. White and Sigmund Freud individually
can
help
one
better
understand
their
perspective
on
personality. For my self, the way these two people lived
their lives, where they came from, and where they came to
end up influences their contributions to a great extent.
Ellen G. White, (Harmon being her maiden name), was
born in Gorham, Maine on November 26, 1827 and died at age
89, on July 16, 1939 in Saint Helena, California.
Ellen G.
White wrote an approximate of 100,000 pages total.
number
includes
her
published
books,
the
This
unpublished,
periodical articles in the journals of the church, tracts
and pamphlets, documents, letters, diary entries that when
typed
were
added
up.
Clearly,
Ellen
G.
White
enjoyed
writing about the movement she was so involved in.
This
movement involved the forming of the Seventh-day Adventist
(SDA) Church.
was
not
only
It’s impressive to know that Ellen G. White
a
phenomenal
writer
but
also
apart
of
something extraordinary.
Twenty-nine years younger, Sigmund Freud was born on
May 6, 1856, in Freiberg in Mähren, Moravia (present day
Czech Republic.) Freud later died in London, England on
September
23,
1939.
More
than
320
essays, and articles were published.
of
Freud’s
books,
Freud looked up to
well-known intelligent men – such as Charcot- yet merged
views and theories to make his own.
Freud focused on his
own phenomena’s; he saw connections and paired them up.
Similarities as Civilians
To determine the two different perceptions of
personality development by these two admirable people I
first distinguish the similarities between the two. Much
like Sigmund Freud, Ellen G. White was a woman with many
talents, with devotion to a higher purpose in life.
Both
Ellen G. White and Sigmund Freud were phenomenal writers
and their passion was easily reflected through their
writings.
Similarities between the two are the abilities
to carry out their realistic goals in life and the
stubbornness they both entailed, which helped them be the
recognizable people they are today.
Religion Difference
Religion wise, Ellen G. White and Sigmund Freud are
practically opposites.
Choosing to compare Ellen G.
White’s perspective on personality development and Sigmund
Freud’s perspective on personality development, I knew the
differences of their spirituality would be the leading
factor of difference.
E.G. White’s theories on Personality development
It is no surprise Ellen G. White doesn’t have her own
structured theory about personality development like most
psychologist. But she does have her theories on how it is
established and how it should be composed. E.G. White
actually pin points many of her views on personality in her
published works.
Workers
Testimonies to Ministers: and Gospel
states, Personalities To Be Avoided – In this
period of the world’s history we have altogether too great
a work, to begin a new kind of warfare in meeting the
supernatural power of satanic agencies.
We must put aside
personalities, however we may be tempted to take advantage
of words or actions. (White, 1923, p.249).
Though my
interpretation of this passage may not be one that some
theologians agree on, my understanding is, to not put all
our focus on certain types of personalities.
Instead, do
not focus on trying to impress others by searching for a
different personality, because in search of a different
personality can lead one astray and one can lose focus in
ungodly things.
Reading E.G. Whites passages I notice her
passion for keeping focused.
E.G. White can come off as an extremist, especially
when reading ideas such as these, Over and over the message
has been given to me that we are not to say one word, not
to publish one sentence, especially by way of
personalities, unless positively essential in vindicating
the truth, that will stir up our enemies against us, and
arouse their passions to a white heat…(1946, p 575).
E.G. White believes that personalities should be a positive
thing and if they are not, they should not be spoken of
because it could stir up problems between people.
How I
understand it is, E.G. White believes personality should be
left alone and not criticized.
One of E.G. White’s most helpful book concerning
personality formation is “Mind, Character, and Personality”
(Volumes 1 & 2). This can easily be her best book due to the
way she organizes the different aspects that make up mind,
character and personality composure according to an
Adventist person.
E.G. White separates the concept of
personality into nine different segments: Imagination,
Habits, Indolence, Emotional Needs, Disposition, Social
Relationships, Rejection, Criticism, and Happiness. E.G.
White decides to explain each segment in depth.
By doing
this, the reader can easily understand why and how E.G.
White comes up with her notions on personality.
Firstly,
for my comparison only five of the nine will be used to
further articulate the concepts.
First segment,
imagination, is something E.G. White believes is not
healthy for our personality because reason according to
White controls imagination, which can transform personality
entirely for the worse. You are capable of controlling your
imagination and overcoming these nervous attacks. You have
willpower, and you should bring it to your aid… Had you no
power over your feelings, this would not be sin; but it
will not answer thus to yield to the enemy.
Your will
needs to be sanctified and subdued instead of being arrayed
in opposition to that of God. (1977, p. 587-596).
Imagination causes many people to think of things that are
not even possible or seem so far fetched. According to E.G.
White, one’s will needs to be sanctified and subdued
instead of being arrayed in opposition to that of God. A
way to keep imagination away from personality formation is
“seeing life as it is” by casting aside the brilliant
fancies of imagination, and live by the lessons of
experience.
E.G. White’s second segment, Indolence, which focuses
on developing character. By remembering that in whatever
position we may serve we are revealing motive, developing
character.
We form our personalities by taking on
challenges and seeking to do our best.
Third segment is based on, disposition.
The different
disposition we have the different outlook we will also
have.
Our understandings of truth, our ideas in regard to
the conduct of life, are not in all respects the same.
There are no two whose experience is alike in every
particular.
another.
The trials of one are not the trials of
The duties that one finds light are to another
most difficult and perplexing. (1977, p. 615-621).
E.G. White believes that not everyone’s personality will be
formed the same because we are all different people that
experience different trials.
We will all see life through
a different lens with different eyes. In this sense, a
theory that applies for one person does not apply for
another, like most theorists would agree on.
Social Relationships being E.G. White’s forth segment
on how personality is formed. This is done by not being
governed by human standards.
In general, we don’t have to
constantly be meeting the needs of every man, as long as we
do our best as a Christians and grow expanding the mind,
the personality development will follow. Keeping a Christlike relation with each other helps everyone accept the
formation of their individual personality.
Lastly, Happiness is a factor when speaking of the
personality formation; because without happiness
personality is dull according to E.G. White. Each person
attains his or her own happiness.
Basically, E.G. White
believes if one is surrounded by God and lives a Christ
centered life, happiness will form in ones personality. In
order to live close to God, E.G. White says one must first
learn of God.
Freud’s Theory on Personality Development
Sigmund Freud’s personality development theory would
be described as having many negative drives, especially if
compared with that of E.G. White.
In his well-known stage
theory of psychosexual development, Freud suggests that
personality develops in stages that relate to specific
zones. Freud suggests that those who do not successfully
complete these stages eventually lead to personality
problems in adulthood.
According to the studies, the three elements of
personality—known as the id, the ego, and the superego—work
together to create complex human behaviors.
The id is an important part of personality it allows us to
get our basic needs met from birth.
Freud believed that
the id is based on our pleasure principle – want, want,
want. The ego on the other hand, is based on the reality
principle.
The ego understands that everyone has needs and
desires and if one is impulsive or selfish eventually it
can hurt us. It’s the ego's job to meet the needs of the
id, while taking into consideration the reality of the
situation.
The superego is the moral part of us and
develops due to the moral and ethical restraints placed on
us by our caregivers.
Many equate the superego with the
conscience as it dictates our belief of right and wrong
(Heffner, 1999).
Freud's Stages of Development begin from birth to the
age of two. The oral stage is focused around the mouth and
lips because they receive nourishment from the breast of
the mother. Freud hypothesized that this love of the mother
is the original manifestation of the sex drive. The Oedipus
complex includes both the love of the mother and the hatred
of the father, who prohibits access and competes for the
mother's attention. (Freud, Freud, and Strachey, 1991, 33).
The anal phase from age two to four is the second
stage. The child is given the opportunity to be potty
trained because they are undergoing the last stage of
digestion.
Either the child is rewarded during this time
and later becomes creative and productive, or if isn’t
supported becomes stubborn and anal. (Mendaglio, 2008,
262).
The next stage, phallic stage – ages four to seven
begins by increased ego influence. Freud believes the child
begins to identify with the father as an attempt to impress
the mother. In this case, repression is considered
necessary to cope with the subconscious hatred of the
father's competition.
Finally, the genital stage is the final stage of
Freud's model of personality development.
The genital
stage is when the individual continues to cope with
balancing all of the psychological forces such as ego, id,
superego, etc. According to Freud, now during puberty, the
individual is fully sexually developed, has gone through
all the stages, and is fully developed.
How They Agree on Personality Formation
Ellen G. White and Sigmund Freud agree that the mind
can be controlled.
As I stated earlier, E.G. White
believes the mind can be controlled by being devoted to God
and keeping the mind busy therefore controlling the growth
of our personality.
Though Freud does not believe God can
control the mind, he does though believe the mind is
controled by other means, like the id, ego, sugerego, etc.
Therefore making a connection between the two being
restricted to superior forces that drive to a certain
pattern in personality formation. According to E.G White
and Freud, the mind cannot simply control itself.
The idea
I expanded from the two, is that they both strongly support
their idea of relying on “assistance” to progress.
How They Disagree on How Personality Formation
It was much easier noticing the disagreement E.G.
White and Freud would have if they sat in a room together
to discuss personality formation.
E.G. White would be
completely appalled in hearing about Freud’s stages of
development.
She strongly believed that psychology in
general was an easy way for the devil to intervene in. E.G.
White would not agree on the stages due to her more
“conservative” approach she has to development.
Freud
would also think E.G. White was closed-minded and only
believed in her own perceptions because of her prophecy
standing.
E.G. White clearly states, that imagination
causes many people to think of things that are not even
possible or seem so far fetched. To many people today,
Freud is completely far fetched and they would say only
focuses on sexual aspects, which is true to a certain
extent. It is safe to say, the two would rather disagree
than agree about the personality formation.
In comparison, Ellen G. White is more of a
conservative and religious person, therefore approaching
personality development in a religious aspect, whereas
Freud in a sense is the opposite.
Freud's theories of
personality development focus on how our natural psychic
drives adjust due to societal regulations.
good case of church versus state.
This would be a
Though with few
similarities, differences are what can drive these two
scholars apart.
References
White, E.G., (1946). Evangelism: As Set Forth in the Writings
of Ellen G. White. Washington, DC: Review and Herald
Publishing Association.
White, E.G., (1977). Mind, Character, and Personality:
Guidelines to Mental and Spiritual Health. (2) Nashville,
TN: Southern Publishing Association.
White, E.G., (1948). Testimonies: For the Church. Boise, ID.
Oshawa, ON, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association.
White, E.G., (1915). Gospel Workers: Instruction for All Who
Are “Laborers Together With God.” Washington, DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association.
White, E.G., (1946). Counsels to Writers and Editors.
Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association.
White, E.G., (1923). Testimonies to Ministers: And Gospel
Workers. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing
Association.
Bunnin, N., and Jiuan Y. (2010). Eros (Freud) : The Blackwell
Dictionary of Western Philosophy : Blackwell Reference
Online. Blackwell Reference Online.
Faulkner, J. (2005). Freud. An Internet Journal of Philosophy
(9). University of Limerick Homepage.
Freud, S., Freud, A., and Strachey, J., (1991). Beyond the
Pleasure Principle: The Essentials of Psychoanalysis.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freud, S., Strachey, J., Freud, A., Rothgeb, C.L., and
Richards, A., (1953). The Economic Problem of Masochism."
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of
Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.
Mendaglio, S., (2008). The Theory of Positive Disintegration
(TPD) and Other Approaches to Personality. Dabrowski's
Theory of Positive Disintegration. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential.
Heffner, C., (1999), AllPsych Heffner Media Group,
Incorporation.