Self-Esteem Through the Eyes of Freud, Adler, Jung and Winnicott

It is fascinating to compare these authors because what we now call self-esteem appears in their work under quite different names and through very different psychological mechanisms.

Freud — Self-Esteem, Narcissism and the Ego Ideal

Sigmund Freud did not develop a theory of self-esteem in the contemporary sense. The concept is more closely connected to his ideas about narcissism, ego-libido and the ego ideal.

In On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914), Freud explicitly relates self-esteem (Selbstgefühl, more literally “self-feeling” or “sense of self”) to narcissism. Part of this feeling is primary; another part depends on experiences that confirm a sense of omnipotence; and another derives from satisfaction in love.

There is a fundamental idea here: being loved increases our sense of self-worth; not being loved can diminish it.

With the development of the concept of the ego ideal, and later the superego, another dimension emerges: we do not evaluate ourselves solely according to what we are, but also according to the distance between what we are and what we believe we ought to be.

From a Freudian perspective, therefore, very low self-esteem may be associated with an extremely demanding ideal. The person can never be good enough in the eyes of their own internal judge.

Adler — Inferiority and the Striving for Superiority

Alfred Adler comes even closer to what we now associate with self-esteem.

For Adler, the feeling of inferiority is part of human development. A child begins life small, dependent and limited. Experiencing a degree of inadequacy is not necessarily pathological; on the contrary, it can stimulate growth and development.

The problem arises when this develops into an inferiority complex.

In such cases, a person may attempt to compensate for it through behaviour that outwardly appears to be its exact opposite: superiority, arrogance, excessive competitiveness or a constant need to prove their worth.

Thus, someone who appears to have enormous self-esteem may, from an Adlerian perspective, be constantly defending themselves against a profound feeling of inferiority.

Jung — Becoming Who We Are

With Carl Jung, we should be cautious about translating his concepts directly into the language of “self-esteem”. Jung was primarily concerned with the relationship between the Ego and the Self and with the process of individuation.

The question is no longer simply:

“Do I like myself?”

It becomes something closer to:

“Am I becoming who I truly am?”

A person may construct an extremely successful persona — a competent professional, an admired individual, an intellectual, an exemplary parent — and nevertheless experience an enormous inner emptiness.

Why?

Because they may have become identified with the mask through which they present themselves to the world while becoming profoundly disconnected from other dimensions of their personality, including the Shadow.

For Jung, psychological maturation also requires us to recognise those parts of ourselves that we would rather not encounter. In this sense, a more solid relationship with oneself does not arise merely from thinking positively about oneself, but from the integration of the personality.

Winnicott — Perhaps the Most Interesting Perspective

Donald Winnicott also did not make “self-esteem” a central theoretical concept. Yet he offers us an extraordinarily rich way of understanding how a sense of personal worth develops.

Before a child can think “I have value”, they need to experience something much more fundamental:

“I am allowed to exist.”

This is where concepts such as holding, the good-enough mother, continuity of being and the experience of being recognised become crucial.

When the environment responds sufficiently well to the child's early needs, spontaneity can develop, along with what Winnicott calls the True Self.

When, on the other hand, the child has to adapt excessively to external demands, what Winnicott calls the False Self may develop.

This gives us a fascinating distinction when thinking about self-esteem: a person may apparently possess excellent self-esteem — they may be competent, sociable, admired and productive — and yet inwardly feel that they are not truly alive.

The problem would no longer be:

“I don't like myself enough.”

It would be something much deeper:

“Is the person everyone values really me?”

From William James to Winnicott

Simplifying considerably, we can observe an interesting progression:

William James: How much am I able to achieve in relation to what I aspire to?

Freud: How much does my sense of worth depend on narcissism, love and the relationship between the Ego and its ideals?

Adler: How do I deal with my feelings of inferiority?

Jung: Am I living according to my deeper personality, or merely through my persona?

Winnicott: Did I experience sufficiently supportive relationships to feel that I can exist spontaneously as myself?

This is precisely why, clinically, we should be cautious with the popular phrase “this person has low self-esteem.” It describes something, but explains very little.

Beneath what we call low self-esteem, we may find a cruel superego, an impossible ideal, shame, feelings of inferiority, excessive dependence on the recognition of others, a False Self, fear of losing love, or difficulty in feeling real.

Perhaps the most interesting psychoanalytic question is therefore not simply:

“How can we increase self-esteem?”

but rather:

“How was this person's relationship with themselves constructed, and whose voice are they hearing when they decide that they are not good enough?”