Forward thinking: an introduction to Adlerian psychology

Alfred Adler’s theory of individual psychology

This article introduces Alfred Adler’s theory of individual psychology, which proposes that our actions are not merely reactions to past events but are driven by a desire to achieve both conscious and subconscious social goals. This purpose-driven view of behaviour is known as teleology, which stands in contrast to aetiology, the explanation of behaviour as the result of past causes. While it's common to look to the past for answers, individual psychology encourages us to consider that all behaviour is future-oriented and serves a goal. By examining both the strengths and limitations of the teleological perspective, we can begin to understand how purpose and cause might work together to enrich an individual’s experience and processing of life. 

Aetiology is the study of why things happen. By examining the sequence of events that lead to a phenomenon, a story can be constructed to explain the end result. If the phenomenon is significant in some way, knowing the story of how it came to happen can potentially allow us to either repeat it or avoid repeating it in the future. For example, an aetiological explanation of a broken window would involve examining the environment around the window for clues. If there is a child holding a football nearby, one may consider this information when explaining the window breakage. Having an explanation of how the break occurred would, in theory, allow for measures to be taken to prevent future breakages (e.g. sedate the child with a smartphone, so they lose all interest in playing outdoors and breaking windows).      

In contrast, teleology examines not the cause of a phenomenon, but the purpose. What end is served? What goal is achieved? Although the details of teleology have been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries (McDonough, 2020), for the purpose of this article, teleology presupposes intentionality. In other words, teleological explanations are only relevant in the context of beings capable of having a purpose, of making choices. So, footballs do not have personal goals, but children do. A teleological account of the broken window would involve ascertaining the child’s intentions when kicking the ball near the window: perhaps it was simply a mistake, and they didn’t see the window. Or maybe they were bored and purposefully trying to cause mischief.     

According to individual psychology, teleological explanations allow for a more useful understanding of human behaviour. This is because the framework perceives humans not as being defined by past events but driven by goals for the future. We may not always understand why we act the way we do, but a teleological explanation, even when it is tentative, allows for reflection and makes meaningful change possible. Aetiological explanations, on the other hand, are viewed as deterministic; if we construct our sense of self from the events of our past, then we lock ourselves into patterns of reaction based on the stories we tell ourselves.  

For an example, think of anger. This is an emotion that most would agree feels involuntary and can be explained aetiologically as being the effect of a cause. Maybe a lover rejected you in favour of someone else, or someone cut in front of you in a queue. Or perhaps it's the result of adverse childhood experiences - a stimulating event occurred and then you involuntarily experienced anger. However, according to Adler, even seemingly unconscious reactions like anger are not the inevitable effect of an external cause, but a tool chosen for the purpose of achieving a goal  (Adler, 1927, p. 271).     

Feeling anger could be teleologically interpreted as a means of gaining control over a situation by forcefully subjugating another person, making them conform to one’s ideal version of the future. Of course, there are situations for which anger is an appropriate and useful tool, but being able to mentally step back and assess what one is trying to achieve can bring about new perspectives on both the goal and the means. One may then ask, “Do I really need to be in control here? And if I do, can it be achieved in a way that doesn’t involve becoming angry and risking harm to myself and others?” The point of this is not to suppress or ignore how one feels, but to understand that people are not necessarily chained to a future of behaviour determined by their past.     

Individual psychology even goes so far as to claim that individuals have the power to choose how they feel and react to things (Kishimi & Koga, 2013, p. 9). This emphasis on agency is where the potential benefit of individual psychology lies, but it is also where its limitations begin to emerge. For example, there is strong evidence that major depressive disorder is heritable (McMahon, 2018), which calls into question Adler's notion that all psychic movements, like thoughts, feelings, and emotions are goal driven. While it's possible to explain such conditions teleologically - for example, interpreting depressive symptoms as a means of avoiding threatening social situations - this remains speculative. Becoming aware of one’s cognitive processes can allow for the reduction of ruminative thoughts (one aspect of depression) (Jones et al., 2008), but given the heritability of depression, an aetiological perspective is likely to be useful, if not essential, in its treatment.    

 So, if one example of internal experience is heritable, and therefore suitably explained in aetiological terms, is there a possibility that all internal experiences could actually be predetermined by the past? Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean that teleological explanations are invalid or useless. In fact, they can be liberating.  

Consider social anxiety. Those who have suffered it will attest to how uncontrollable and debilitating it can be. But think about what it is: an uncomfortable constellation of physiological responses that arises because of the misappraisal of a situation as being more dangerous than it truly is. Adler asserted that faults with interpersonal relationships are the basis of all problems (Kishimi & Koga, p51), and this is where the power of teleological thinking lies.  Figuring out the purpose for why your subconscious would trigger these symptoms is done by personal reflection, but a plausible example would be that they protect an individual from wading further into the unknown waters of social interaction, thus maintaining a sense of safety. Here is what Adler would consider a “mistaken style of life”. By that it is meant that the individual subconsciously miscalculates their goal and utilises maladaptive tools to achieve it.   

When mistaken goals and their accompanying solutions form in childhood, it can be difficult in adulthood to recognise that these thought patterns are neither inherent nor irreversible. By having a teleological understanding of their subconscious lifestyle errors, individuals can begin to reappraise the situations that cause undue distress. Instead of being resigned to what seems like an unchangeable fate, individuals can begin to realise that they have the tools to accomplish meaningful social relationships. This same process of introspection can be applied to any behaviour, given the right amount of honesty. For example, victim complexes, superiority complexes, feelings of helplessness, lack of self-reliance and lack of self-advocacy can all be examined through a teleological lens to nurture insight into how to begin positively changing the behavioural patterns that constitute these feelings.   

In the end, neither aetiology nor teleology offer a complete picture on their own.

Aetiological explanations can expose the roots of experience and behavior, while teleological thinking imagines what our thoughts and emotions might be trying to achieve. Adler's individual psychology, with its emphasis on future-oriented purpose, offers a framework for reclaiming agency in our emotional lives. But as we’ve seen, its application must be accompanied by an understanding of the biological factors that can shape us in ways not entirely of our choosing. True psychological insight may arise from the space between these two modes of understanding: where we recognise the influence of the past without being defined by it, and where we strive towards meaningful goals while being compassionate to ourselves about the constraints we carry.   

References 

Adler, A. (2010). Understanding human nature. Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1927). 

Jones, N.P., Siegle, G.J., & Thase, M.E. (2008). Effects of rumination and initial severity on remission to cognitive therapy for depression: Rumination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(4), 591–604. 

Kishimi, I., & Koga, F. (2019). The courage to be disliked. Allen & Unwin. 

McDonough, J. K. (2020). Teleology : A history. Oxford University Press.    

 McMahon, F. J. (2018). Population-based estimates of heritability shed new light on clinical features of major depression. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(11), 1058–1060. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070789