Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
VICTOR FRANKL’S THEORIES OF PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION
Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), a psychiatrist of Jewish origin, lived in Vienna during the Nazi take-over of Austria. He lost his wife, parents and all his belongings when shipped to Nazi concentration camps from 1942 to 1945, first to Auschwitz and later to Dachau. Frankl’s experiences are documented in “Man’s search for meaning” (Frankl, 1984a). It was first published as « From death-camp to existentialism » in 1946, selling more than nine million copies in 24 languages since the original publication (Washburn, 1998). In total, Frankl wrote 32 books, translated into 26 languages. Apart from being an existentialist, Frankl remained a psychiatrist, and spent most of his life as the Head of the Neurological Department of the Vienna Polyclinic Hospital. As an academic, Frankl received 29 Honorary Doctorates, and held five part time Professorships in the USA (Universities of Harvard, Stanford, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and San Diego) (Das, 1998). By the 1980s, more than 90% of all books published in the field of abnormal psychology acknowledged the importance of Frankl’s ideas (Sahakian, 1985).
Although Frankl initially was a personal student of Freud, he formed his own theory of human behaviour, called logotherapy. Frankl’s concentration camp experiences had a strong influence in shaping the course of his thinking, though he formulated many of his ideas before being imprisoned (Das, 1998). Frankl was able to test his theories under the brutal conditions that prevailed in concentration camps.
Before Frankl, the main views were that man’s actions could be explained by certain driving forces. For instance, Freud distinguished a « will to pleasure » and unconscious driven behaviour as the major driving force of behaviour, whereas both Nietzsche and Adler emphasised a « will to power ». Contrary to this focus on drives, hedonism or behaviourism, Frankl (1967) argues that man is more than just a body and a psyche. In addition to the physiological, psychosocial and psychological dimensions, there is a spiritual dimension to human life, the noös (Greek for mind). Frankl (1967) notes that most of the time, human beings live in the physical or in the psychological dimensions, but humans have the capacity to transcend or rise above these dimensions. It is only when they rise above their physical and psychological nature that they enter the spiritual dimension (Frankl, 1967). Frankl does not think of the spiritual dimension in a religious sense. He thinks of it as the realm of human existence in which one encounters meanings and values, the very essence of man, and the deepest level of his being (Frankl, 1984a). Frankl (1969, 1970, 1975, 1984a) regard meaning to be distinctly part of, and related to, this spiritual dimension of a person.
In addition to the biological, historical, and sociological factors, Frankl (1970) notes that there are some universal experiences characterising human existence that threaten meaning. Frankl (1970) calls these experiences the tragic triad: suffering, guilt, and transitoriness. Frankl (1970) accepts that no human life is free of suffering.
Grief and anguish cause one to question the meaning of the events that bring about such suffering. Guilt arises from not having made the best use of the time that has gone by. Frankl (1970) describes that the transitoriness of human life lends urgency to the task of discovering and fulfilling the purpose of one’s life. Frankl (1970) contends that in every person’s search for meaning, he has the ability to take a stand against adversity, against his emotions, and against his fears. If this is true, one can postulate that this also applies to one’s situations in the workplace.
Two terms are used in this regard, namely self-detachment and self-transcendence.
Frankl (1970) uses the terms self-detachment as the ability to realise that one has done wrong, and the ability to decide to learn from a mistake. Self-transcendence refers to the ability to look away from one’s own pain, and reach out to someone else who also needs help (Frankl, 1975, 1984a). Frankl (1984b) describes that when a person is thinking too much about his problems, concentrating too much on that which is lacking in his life, then he is hyperreflecting. Hyperreflection worsens the matter, resulting in psychosomatic illnesses. Dereflection is not to think about the negatives dominating one’s life, and putting something better in its place. Frankl (1992) experienced that by focussing outside himself in the concentration camps, he somehow succeeded in rising above the situation, above the sufferings of the moment, and observed them as if they were already of the past.
Frankl’s concept of freedom of will
Frankl’s first premise in his theory of personality is that man has the freedom of will; he can choose his actions and attitudes, although this might not always be easy under certain circumstances. People are subject to a wide variety of limiting conditions and influences – biological, psychological, and socio-cultural. However, Frankl (1969) contends that no matter what these conditions are, an individual can take a stand against them. According to Frankl (1969), human beings have the capacity to resist not only external circumstances but also their physical and psychological drives. In doing so, they essentially open up an advanced dimension of existence, namely the spiritual dimension, the dimension of meaning (Frankl, 1984a).
Frankl (1984a, p. 86) reasons that the experiences from the “living laboratory” of the concentration camps offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from man but one thing: “to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way”. Frankl (1984a, p. 86) reports that in the concentration camps he witnessed how some behaved like “swine while others behaved like saints”. Frankl (1984a) is adamant that man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualised depends on decisions, not on conditions (Frankl, 1984a). He observed that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone: man does have a choice of action.
Fundamentally, any person can decide what shall become of him mentally and spiritually, even under such circumstances (Frankl, 1984a). Frankl (1984a) concludes that as a human being, man’s freedom is restricted. A person is not free from restricting conditions, but free to take a stand toward the conditions.
However, O’Connel (1970) releases a strong attack on Frankl’s conclusions and interpretations based on his concentration camp experiences. O’Connel (1970) argues that Frankl becomes excessive in his praise of himself, and fails to extrapolate his concentration camp experiences into the modern feudal social system. O’Connel (1970) refers to Frankl’s theory as a « bootstrap » spirituality whereby one lifts himself to a new ontological position by pulling himself up on his own bootstraps.
CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Definitions of constructs
1.3. Research problem and objectives
1.4. Dissertation structure
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Victor Frankl’s theories of personality and motivation
2.2. Meaning in relation to other theories on motives for behaviour
2.3. Meaning in life as a scientific psychological construct
2.4. The relationship between work and in meaning in life
2.5. Work commitment and its relationship with meaning
2.6. Work motivation and its relationship with meaning
2.7. The need for this research
2.8. Research problem
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample and participants
3.2. Measuring instruments
3.3. Procedures
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
4.1. The level of meaning in the present sample
4.2. Relationship of meaning with biographical/lifestyle variables
4.3. Summary: Relationships of biographical/lifestyle variables with meaning
4.4. The relationship between meaning and the dependent variables
4.5. Work involvement as a moderating variable
4.6. A model of relationships
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.1. The first research question
5.2. The second research question
5.3. The third research question
5.4. The fourth research question
5.5. The fifth research question
5.6. The sixth research question
5.7. The seventh research question
5.8. Contributions of the present study
5.9. Limitations of the present study
5.10. Recommendations for future research
REFERENCES
