“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1889)
The Path Psychology Refused to Take
Modern psychology, as it stands today, is inseparable from the influence of Sigmund Freud. Psychoanalysis, childhood trauma, the unconscious mind, and sexual drives have shaped not only clinical practices but also popular culture. Yet history reveals an alternative path—one championed by Alfred Adler, the lesser known pioneer of Individual Psychology. Where Freud saw individuals as largely bound by their past and unconscious drives, Adler envisioned a psychology of choice, responsibility, and social connectedness. Carl Jung, in his turn, expanded the field toward the transcendent, speaking of the collective unconscious and the spiritual dimensions of human life.
Freud’s dominance may likely not have been solely due to scientific merit but rather due to compatibility with emerging capitalist structures that rewarded lengthy treatments, emphasized individual pathology, and created long-term dependence on psychological services. Adler’s empowering, goal-oriented model—alongside Jung’s spiritual framework—would have served not only personal development but societal harmony more directly. However, such a model may have threatened the economic underpinnings of the psychological industry.
The Divergence of Paths: Freud vs. Adler
Sigmund Freud posited that human behavior was deeply rooted in early childhood experiences and unconscious desires, particularly of a sexual and aggressive nature. His work was groundbreaking, yet deterministic. The famous Freudian slip, the Oedipus complex, and the primacy of libido framed a person’s destiny as a struggle against internal forces shaped long before rational choice entered the equation.
Alfred Adler broke from Freud in 1911, introducing a revolutionary idea: that human beings are not merely products of their past but active creators of their future. In The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology (1927), Adler stated: “Man knows much more than he understands.” His emphasis was on “striving for significance,” social interest (Gemeinschaftsgefühl), and overcoming feelings of inferiority through purposeful action. Here lies a psychology of freedom and empowerment.
Yet Adlerian psychology struggled to gain a foothold. Freud’s model was dramatic, mysterious, and provided fertile ground for an expanding profession of interpreters—the psychoanalysts. Adler’s model, in contrast, equipped individuals to outgrow therapy.
Jung’s Contribution: The Missing Spiritual Dimension
Carl Jung, another early Freudian disciple turned critic, introduced concepts that transcended both Adler and Freud. Jung believed that true psychological healing was incomplete without addressing the spiritual dimension of human life. He saw the psyche as composed not only of personal unconscious material but also of a collective unconscious—a shared reservoir of archetypes, symbols, and ancestral wisdom embedded in every human being.
Jung’s process of individuation—the lifelong journey of integrating the conscious and unconscious parts of the self—was at its heart a spiritual process. This journey was not merely about resolving past trauma but about discovering one’s authentic self and aligning with universal truths beyond ego-driven concerns. Jung introduced concepts like the “shadow” (the disowned parts of the self), the “anima/animus” (inner feminine and masculine energies), and the “Self” as the unifying center of the psyche that connected the individual to a higher order.
Importantly, Jung emphasized that spiritual experiences—dreams, symbols, myths, and synchronicities—were not delusions but meaningful communications from the unconscious and the cosmos itself. As he famously asserted in Memories, Dreams, Reflections: “Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.”
Jung’s model would have paired remarkably well with Adler’s social interest. Where Adler asked individuals to take responsibility for their actions and contribute meaningfully to society, Jung urged them to align with deeper, transpersonal truths, ensuring that individual growth was both inwardly transformative and outwardly harmonious.
Capitalism’s Perfect Patient: The Freudian Model
Why then did Freud’s model win the cultural and professional dominance? The answer may lie not in psychology alone but in its intersection with capitalism. Freudian psychoanalysis was a lengthy, expensive process, sometimes requiring years of sessions—often multiple times per week. This model aligned comfortably with an emerging economic structure in which services rendered over long durations generated steady revenue.
Christopher Lasch, in The Culture of Narcissism (1979), critiques modern therapeutic culture, suggesting that Freudian psychology helped create a “therapeutic state,” producing individuals preoccupied with their own traumas and internal conflicts rather than empowered actors in society.
Adler’s brief, goal-oriented interventions would have been economically less attractive. His therapy aimed at enabling the individual to function independently, to re-engage with the community, and to transcend limiting narratives. It was efficient—and perhaps too efficient for an industry seeking sustainable income streams.
A Tale of Two Patients: Freudian Dependence vs. Adlerian Empowerment
To illustrate the real-world implications of these divergent models, let us imagine a hypothetical patient: a 35-year-old woman named Layla, living in a modern urban environment. Layla struggles with anxiety, a sense of purposelessness, and a history of parental neglect.
In the Freudian Model:
Layla enters a traditional psychoanalytic process. Her therapy involves multiple sessions per week, for several years. The focus remains heavily on her childhood—excavating memories, dreams, and unconscious motives. She learns that her anxiety stems from repressed desires and unresolved Oedipal dynamics. This model does provide some relief in terms of insight, but Layla becomes increasingly reliant on the therapeutic process itself.
Economically, Layla’s ongoing therapy costs tens of thousands of dollars over the years. Socially, she invests less time in community engagement as therapy consumes her emotional and financial resources. Politically, this aligns with a system where mental health becomes privatized, commodified, and distant from collective responsibility. Ecologically, her inward focus discourages engagement with broader existential issues like environmental stewardship.
In the Adlerian + Jungian Model:
Layla’s therapy begins with identifying her life goals and values. Adler’s method encourages her to accept her past but move beyond it. The therapy equips her with courage to act differently, to build healthy relationships, and to develop a sense of belonging. Jung’s contribution allows her to explore dreams not merely as echoes of trauma but as symbols of her unfolding spiritual journey. She connects her healing to a larger cosmic purpose—aligning her actions with environmental responsibility and community service.
This model concludes in months rather than years. Economically, Layla saves substantial resources. Socially, she becomes a community leader advocating for ecological sustainability and mental health literacy. Politically, her transformation suggests a model where empowered citizens engage in participatory democracy rather than dependency-driven consumerism. Ecologically, her spiritual awakening deepens her sense of planetary stewardship.
Contemporary research supports this connection. For example, a 2009 study by Amel, Manning, and Scott found that individuals who engage in spiritual practices or hold transcendent beliefs are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behaviors. Their research suggests that a sense of connectedness to something larger than oneself often leads to greater ecological responsibility and sustainable action.
References for these models are consistent with Adler’s original work on social interest (The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology, 1927) and Jung’s reflections on individuation (Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 1962). The economic implications mirror critiques of the “therapeutic state” by Lasch (1979) and modern studies on the cost-effectiveness of brief therapy interventions.
Social Harmony Through Adlerian Psychology
What might society look like if Adlerian psychology had become the dominant framework? Education systems might focus more on cultivating courage, social responsibility, and resilience rather than merely diagnosing learning disabilities or trauma responses. Mental health would be reframed not as an industry of endless introspection but as a community-based effort toward collective wellbeing.
Adler’s emphasis on “social interest” aligns with contemporary needs for empathy, collaboration, and sustainable living. His vision saw the individual not as isolated but as deeply embedded in social networks whose health reflects the health of the individual.
The Economic Implications of a Jung-Adler Synthesis
Integrating Jung’s transpersonal psychology would have enriched this vision. Spirituality—detached from dogma—offers a profound sense of purpose and meaning beyond material success. Research today continues to affirm the relevance of meaning-centered approaches to wellbeing. For example, a study published in the Journal of Positive Psychology found that individuals who perceive a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life exhibit greater psychological resilience, improved physical health, and stronger social engagement. These findings echo what Adler envisioned: that empowerment through meaning and social responsibility not only heals the individual but contributes to the health of society at large.
A Jung-Adler synthesis might have given rise to educational programs focused on life purpose, ethical responsibility, and even environmental stewardship—areas often neglected in Freudian-based clinical settings. Instead of a world dominated by pharmaceutical solutions and lengthy therapies, we might see flourishing movements of community healing, rites of passage, and spiritual mentorship.
Freud’s Legacy and the Contemporary Crisis
Today, we witness the consequences of a Freudian-leaning world: increasing loneliness, consumer-driven identity, and a mental health industry that often medicalizes normal emotional pain. The World Health Organization reports a global mental health crisis, with depression now ranked as the leading cause of disability worldwide. Suicide rates have increased by 60% globally over the past 45 years, a sobering indicator of widespread existential distress. In the United States alone, antidepressant usage increased nearly 400% between 1988 and 2008, reflecting a culture that often turns to pharmacological solutions over meaningful psychological or communal intervention.
Moreover, a report by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2019 revealed that despite increased access to therapy and medication, levels of reported stress, anxiety, and social isolation continue to rise, particularly among younger generations. This suggests a systemic failure to address the root causes of human suffering: disconnection, meaninglessness, and alienation—issues that Freud’s model was never designed to resolve.
Freud’s focus on endless introspection and pathology may have inadvertently cultivated a generation of “patients” rather than empowered individuals. His insights into the unconscious remain valuable. They opened necessary conversations about sexuality, repression, and internal conflict. Yet their dominance has crowded out other equally important frameworks that prioritize resilience, purpose, and community-driven healing.
Evidence from Cultures Living Adler’s Vision
While the Freudian model has dominated Western clinical settings, regions and subcultures that align more closely with Adlerian principles of social interest, collective responsibility, and purpose-driven life often show stronger social and psychological outcomes. The Scandinavian countries, for instance, consistently rank among the highest in global happiness reports, largely due to their emphasis on social trust, egalitarian values, and community-based welfare—all hallmarks of an Adlerian ethos. In Denmark, concepts like “hygge” encourage communal intimacy and wellbeing, while Sweden’s emphasis on “lagom” advocates balance and moderation within community settings.
Similarly, indigenous cultures around the world—from the Ubuntu philosophy in southern Africa, meaning “I am because we are,” to the Native American view of the individual as part of a living, spiritual ecosystem—embody Jung’s vision of connectedness and Adler’s principles of social interest. These models also echo Nietzsche’s assertion that individuals thrive best when connected to a “why,” and ultimately align with Baruch Spinoza’s vision of God not as a distant being, but as the totality of existence—the divine manifest within all life forms (Spinoza, Ethics, 1677).
Jung’s exploration of archetypes, collective unconscious, and individuation closely mirrors the ancient wisdom traditions that view the self as incomplete without integration into the whole. Such cultures naturally generate ecological stewardship, political cooperation, and psychological resilience. They validate what Adler, Jung, Nietzsche, and Spinoza all pointed toward: human flourishing emerges not from isolated self-analysis but from belonging to a greater unity.
A Way Forward
It is not too late to reclaim the wisdom of Adler and Jung. Modern integrative psychology shows promising signs, from positive psychology to mindfulness-based therapies, yet these often operate within a system still shaped by Freudian assumptions.
Imagine a world in which education, healthcare, and governance embraced Adler’s vision of socially interested individuals, empowered to choose their responses, aware of their worth, and connected to a greater spiritual reality as Jung proposed. Such a world would be less profitable for certain industries—but infinitely richer in meaning, connection, and harmony.
As Nietzsche himself warned in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss.”
Perhaps it is time to step across the abyss and reclaim a psychology of responsibility, community, and transcendence—not merely of pathology and profit.
