'A Primer in Positive Psychology' when referring to Barry Schwartz circumplex model places independence in the dimension of self-transcendence. I am curious of your thoughts on why Independence could be classed as a construct within self-transcendence when it could also be argued that power enables independence, so does achievement.
In a three dimensional model (rather than the 2 dimensions of the circumplex), independence might be charted in the extra dimension. For example, the semantic differential specified 3 dimensions of evaluation, potency & activity. Self has a different meaning in a three dimensional scheme than the circumflex scheme, and thus so does self-transcendence. So my venture at an answer to your question is that the reason independence is in that sector is because the model has no where else it could put it, and if this seems inaccurate or wrong maybe the model is overly simplistic for the purposes you want to use it for (i.e. to understand independence).
I am not sure that these concepts are quite so well defined as you might hope; interpretation of this model rests on a particular conception what was actually measured. For example, achievement is considered "self-enhancement". So to be an "achieving" leader in your field, something that is inherently social in construction and execution, is a "self" orientation. Service to community would not necessarily be achievement. It might be classed as self-trancendance through benevolence or universalism.
So why is independence part of "self-trancendence"? In this particular conception independence is labelling the ability to discount social norms which would otherwise lead to achievement and power. It is more closely related to "self-direction" then to the "independence" you might be thinking of.
I can't say it is a model that appears very helpful.
I agree with Erich Fromm's view (as expressed especially in his books, "The Sane Society", "The Art of Loving" and "Escape from Freedom") that psychologically healthy individuals are BOTH independent in the sense of not depending on other people for their basic sense of identity, fulfillment or wellbeing, wholeness, and self-development or self-actualization of their natural potentials, but also self-transcending in the sense of being willing and able to at least occasionally let go of narcissistic self-preoccupation in being unselfishly attentive to the legitimate needs and concerns of other persons. Other prominent psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Alfred Adler express similar views.
Thank you all, that really helps. William how do I search for this three dimensional model? Do you have a reference that may be particularly useful? Bruce, I really like your interpretation and agree it really does make more sense that that it is defined more as self-direction than independence. Interestingly my journey of 'independence' has taken me to a book by Eva Feder Kittay called Love's Labor; her introduction certainly seems to support Eric Fromm's view as you describe it Barry. In the book it talks of "group identities being an unwelcome intrusion of difference into the ideal of equality". So in this context would independence be the construct of equality or one of the intruding group identities? What are your thoughts? Thank you so much for your fabulous interpretations. Merisa
I think this best way to look at the semantic differential is through work that summaries of "Affect Control Theory" . There is a chapter in _The Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions_ on that theory...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology