Personalization 

The teaching of the Buddha about personalization (upadana) is very significant, in relation to Freud’s structural hypothesis. He spoke of four kinds of personalization as follows: 

BUDDHA 

1. Personalization of likes and dislikes for pleasure and pain (kama upadana) = (id)

 2. Personalization of rational thoughts about reality (ditthi upadana) = (ego)

 3. Personalization of moral principles (silabbata upadana) = (superego)

4. Personalization of the notion of self (atta vada upadana)


FREUD 

id – the emotional urge dominated by the pleasure principle

ego – the rational faculty dominated by the reality principle

superego – the conscience dominated by the morality principle


It is clear that there is a parallelism between Freud’s structural hypothesis and the Buddha’s account of personalization. Freud considered the id, the ego, and the superego as structural divisions of the personality. This assumption was based on the notion of “personality,” which was a kind of “self.” Even the use of the terms ego and superego implies that a concept of “self” underlies the hypothesis. The id, which is the Latin for “it,” has been called as such because Freud saw the id as a mechanical process. It seems that Freud called the rational part the ego following Descartes’ idea, “I think therefore I am.” (cogito ergo sum). The superego was also seen as a part of the ego. This is why it was named as such. This means, the idea of “self” remains in hiding in the structural hypothesis, even though Freud considered the mind or personality to be an energy system or machine. This helped his followers to lay stress on the “ego,” and want to make it more real. 


The Buddha’s fourfold personalization explains the problem contained in the structural hypothesis. Freud has personalized the id, ego, and the superego, in calling them parts of the personality. In addition, he has personalized the notion of “self” in using the term personality. According to the Buddha, the idea of personality is the result of personalization. This explains why the critics condemned Freud for depersonalizing the personality when Freud compared the personality to a machine. Although Freud compared the mind to a machine or energy system, even calling it the “psychic apparatus,” and even speaking about psychic determinism, it appears that he could not get the idea of “self” as “personality” out of his mind. This is why this hypothesis is also called the personality theory of Freud. This means that Freud did not really make a full depersonalization of the personality. 


The later followers of Freud carried the idea of personality even further. They criticized Freud for seeing the ego only as the rational faculty. They wanted the ego to represent a real person or “self.” The ego psychology, or object relations psychology that resulted was interested in the relationship between the “self” and the external world. 


In psychoanalytic therapy, the aim of Freud was to integrate these three parts of the personality. Neurosis and psychosis was seen as a disintegration of the personality. In explaining neurosis, Freud thought that the id, being a part of the personality, is denied expression, and is rejected by the ego through repression.