1.

Il saggio di C. G. Boeree, scritto con espliciti fini didattici, è, tra quelle a me note, la più limpida esposizione delle varie teorie della personalità che sono state elaborate nel corso della storia della psicologia, da Freud ad oggi.

Ben pochi appunti si possono fare all’impianto del saggio, eccezion fatta per due omissioni abbastanza sorprendenti, che riguardano Kurt Lewin e G. Mead. La prima, tenuto conto dell’importanza della scuola gestaltica nella storia della psicologia, è del tutto incomprensibile. La seconda fa capo, forse, al fatto che Mead è un sociologo. In realtà, con la teoria dell’Altro interiorizzato, che illumina la scoperta del Super-Io freudiano, Mead ha fornito alla teoria della personalità un contributo di estremo rilievo.

Assumendo la personalità come oggetto specifico della psicologia, Boeree, di fatto, trascura gli apporti di tutte le altre scienze umane e sociali (sociologia, antropologia, storia, ecc.). L’unica eccezione riguarda la teoria della personalità buddista, che viene assunta come una teoria empirica la cui finalità è eminentemente soteriologica. Si tratta di una opzione singolare, riconducibile presumibilmente ad un tragitto esperienziale dell’autore. Quale che sia il giudizio che si dà del buddismo, è fuor di dubbio che la teoria della personalità che lo sottende è l’espressione di presupposti filosofici non facilmente condivisibili. Si tratta, in ogni caso, di rilievi di poco conto, che non inficiano radicalmente uno sforzo espositivo equilibrato, obiettivo e, nel complesso, eccellente.

Il saggio, comunque, non si limita all’esposizione delle varie teorie della personalità formulate nel corso del tempo. Esso, in virtù di una densa introduzione e di tre capitoli conclusivi affronta anche problemi metodologici e suggerisce alcune linee di sviluppo della ricerca e della modellizzazione.

Questi aspetti riguardano più da vicino la LIDI, nella misura in cui essa, pur facendo capo al saggio sull’introversione, dovrà indubbiamente farsi carico di una serie di problemi inerenti la teoria della personalità. In questa ottica, occorrerà valutare e tenere conto anche del lavoro effettuato da Boeree, il quale scrive nell’Introduzione:

Some of you may find the area a bit confusing. First, many people ask “who’s right.” Unfortunately, this aspect of psychology is the least amenable to direct research that pits one theory against another. Much of it involves things that are only accessible to the person him- or herself — your inner thoughts and feelings. Some of it is thought not to be available even to the person — your instincts and unconscious motivations. In other words, personality is still very much in a “pre-scientific” or philosophical stage, and some aspects may well always remain that way… So, at present, we are stuck with theories (plural) rather than the science of personality.

Perché mai è tanto difficile mettere a punto una teoria della personalità che sia accettata come modello di riferimento dalla comunità degli studiosi? A riguardo, occorre tenere conto sia di alcuni “trabocchetti” che incombono sull’elaborazione teorica sia alcune opzioni di fondo di ordine filosofico che sono a monte della teorizzazione.
Per quanto concerne i primi, Boeree elenca l’etnocentrismo, l’egocentrismo, il dogmatismo, gli equivoci e le ambiguità terminologiche, e, infine, l’impossibilità pratica di adottare il metodo sperimentale. Senza entrare nel merito dei singoli trabocchetti, sembra di poter dire che l’autore sottolinea quanto di arbitrario, contingente, narcisistico, legato ad un determinato contesto storico-sociale e ad un uso impreciso dei termini si dia nell’ambito di questa branca della psicologia. Per quanto concerne i secondi, l’autore li identifica nelle seguenti categorie:

1. Free will vs. determinism. Are we and the world completely determined? Is the sense that we make choices just an illusion? Or is it the other way around, that the spirit has the potential to rise above all restraints, that it is determinism which is an illusion?
Most theorists make more moderate assumptions. A moderate determinist position might say that, although we are ultimately determined, we are capable of participating in that determinism. A moderate free-will position might say that freedom is intrinsic to our nature, but we must live out that nature in an otherwise determined world.

2. Uniqueness vs. universality. Is each person unique, or will we eventually discover universal laws which will explain all of human behavior? Again, more moderate positions are available: Perhaps there are broad rules of human nature with room for individual variation within them; Or perhaps or individuality outweighs our commonalities.
I am sure you can see how this assumption relates to the previous one: Determinism suggests the possibility of universal laws, while free will is one possible source of uniqueness. But the relationship is not perfect, and in the moderate versions quite complex.

3. Physiological vs. purposive motivation. Are we more “pushed” by basic physiological needs, such as the need for food, water, and sexual activity? Or are we more “pulled” by our purposes, goals, values, principles, and so on? More moderate possibilities include the idea that purposive behavior is powerful but grows out of physiological needs, or simply that both types of motivation are important, perhaps at different times and places.
A more philosophical version of this contrasts causality and teleology. The first says that your state of mind now is determined by prior events; The second says that it is determined by its orientation to the future. The causality position is by far the more common in psychology generally, but the teleological position is very strong in personality psychology.

4. Conscious vs. unconscious motivation. Is much, most, or even all of our behavior and experience determined by unconscious forces, i.e. forces of which we are not aware? Or is some, little, or even none determined by unconscious forces. Or, to put it another way, how much of what determines our behavior are we conscious of?
This might be an answerable question, but consciousness and unconsciousness are slippery things. For example, if we were aware of something a moment ago, and it has changed us in some way, but we are now unable to bring it to awareness, are we consciously motivated or unconsciously? Or if we deny some truth, keeping it from awareness, must we not have seen it coming in order to take that action to begin with?

5. Nature vs. nurture. This is another question that may someday be answerable: To what degree is what we are due to our genetic inheritance (“nature”) or to our upbringing and other experiences (“nurture”)? The question is such a difficult one because nature and nurture do not exist independently of each other. Both a body and experience are probably essential to being a person, and it is very difficult to separate their effects.
As you will see, the issue comes up in many forms, including the possible existence of instincts in human beings and the nature of temperament, genetically based personality characteristics. It is also very debatable whether “nature” (as in human nature) even refers to genetics.

6. Stage vs. non-stage theories of development. One aspect of the nature-nurture issue that is very important to personality psychology is whether or not we all pass through predetermined stages of development. We do, after all, go through certain stages of physiological development — fetal, childhood, puberty, adulthood, senescence — powerfully controlled by genetics. Shouldn’t we expect the same for psychological development?
We will see a full range of positions on this issue, from true stage theories such as Freud’s, who saw stages as universal an fairly clearly marked, to behaviorist and humanist theories that consider what appear to be stages to be artifacts created by certain patterns of upbringing and culture.

7. Cultural determinism vs. cultural transcendence. To what extent do our cultures mold us? Totally, or are we capable of “rising above” (transcending) those influences? And if so, how easy or difficult is it? Notice that this is not quite the same as the determinism-free will issue: If we are not determined by culture, our “transcendence” may be nothing more than some other determinism, by physiological needs, for example, or genetics.
Another way to look at the issue is to ask yourself, “How difficult is it to really get to know someone from a different culture?” If it is difficult to step out of our cultures and communicate as human beings, then perhaps culture is terribly determining of who we are. If it is relatively easy, perhaps it is not so powerful.

8. Early or late personality formation. Are our personality characteristics established in early childhood, to remain relatively fixed through the rest of our lives? Or are we every bit as flexible in adulthood? Or is that, although change is always a possibility, it just gets increasingly difficult as time goes on?

L’elenco è completo e di un certo interesse. Per apprezzare tutti i problemi che esso evoca, occorre semplificare un po’ le cose.