Superiority complex

Abstract: Russia defines itself as a Great Power in relation to Europe and the West. The first part of the article traces how, since 1991, a story about greatness centred on being part of contemporary European civilization has given way to a story of how Russia is great by being superior to a Europe that is now seen as rotten and decadent. The former story spelled cooperation with Europe and the West, where the latter spells confrontation. The second part argues that Russia's superiority complex is unsustainable. It is hard to see how, in the face of the formative structural pressure of the state system, Russia will be able to sustain its superiority complex. A state that does not order itself in such a way that it may either gain recognition as a Great Power by forcing its way and/or by being emulated by others, is unlikely to maintain that status. The costs of maintaining Great-Power status without radical political and economic change seem to be increasing rapidly. If Russia wants to maintain its status, an about-turn is needed. Such a turn may in itself be no solution, though, for if Russia does not do anything about the root causes of its perceived inferiority to Europe, then the Russian cyclical shifting from a Westernizing to a xenophobic stance will not be broken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: IntroductionSino-Japanese relations appear to have a dual structure which is built into the long history of exchanges and interaction between the two countries. Some phrases such as ichii taisui (“neighbours across the strip of water”) and dobun doshu (“same Chinese characters, same race”) have long been regarded as a symbol of the friendly relationship between the two countries. Such a symbol, however, implies dual and conflicting sentiments of the Japanese and the Chinese, namely the feelings of inferiority and superiority with each other in a hierarchical order of foreign relations in Asia.To be more specific, the Chinese have a superiority complex deriving from their cultural influence in pre-modern history and hatred stemming from Japanese military aggression against China in the modern period, while having an inferiority complex based upon Japan's co-operation in their modernization, and admiration for Japan's advanced economy. On the other hand, the Japanese have an inferiority complex due to their cultural debt to China and the sense of original sin stemming from their past aggression against China, while having a superiority complex based upon their assistance to China's modernization and contempt for China's backwardness.

Abstract: This paper examines attributions to the influence of Alfred Adler by primary theorists from contemporary cognitive and cognitive-behavioral theories of personality and psychotherapy. Although Adler's influence is often not recognized by the mainstream of applied psychologists, a number of leading theorists have acknowledged Adler as a major source of their ideas. Circumstances leading to this discrepancy are examined. Adherents of Individual Psychology have traced the influence of Alfred Adler's work on many theories of personality and psychotherapy developed subsequent to the era of the so-called "three pillars"-Freud, Adler, and Jung. Despite the identification of many apparent lines of influence from Adler to modern theories, these researchers have documented a widespread lack of understanding of Adlerian contributions to mainstream applied psychology (e.g., Allen, 1971; Ansbacher& Ansbacher, 1956; 1979;Mosak, 1989; Sweeney, 1989). That there is little recognition of the Adlerian influence on much of contemporary cognitive theory among the mainstream of psychologists seems clear. But what of the major cognitive theorists, themselves? To what extent have they attributed major ideas to Adler? The present paper explores what major, non-Adlerian, cognitive theorists have acknowledged regarding the influence of Adler on the development of their ideas. This paper addresses several questions of relevance both to Adlerian theory as a specific case and to the evolution of psychological ideas. Where cognitive theorists have acknowledged Adler's pioneering work as a major source of their ideas, why has this linage not been recognized by the field as a whole? Where cognitive theorists have explicitly not credited Adler, despite the presence of obvious Adlerian precursors to their theories, what might account for such omissions? A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ADLERIAN THEORY Adlerian theory is an integration of cognitive, psychodynamic, and systems perspectives (Sperry, 1993). H.L. Ansbacher, a noted Adlerian scholar, described Individual Psychology as a: holistic, phenomenological, ideological, field-theoretical, and socially-oriented approach to psychology and related fields. This approach is based upon the assumption of the uniqueness, self consistency, activity, and creativity of the human individual (style of life); an open dynamic system of motivation (striving for a subjectively conceived goal of success); and an innate potentiality for social life (social interest). (Manaster & Corsini, 1982, p. 2) Adler (1982) affirmed that every individual is characterized by unity across the broad spectrum of personality-cognitions, affect, and behavior. Personality, or Style of Life, is a cognitive blueprint of the person's unique and individually created convictions, goals, and personal beliefs. Each individual's style of life, formed in childhood, encompasses the full range of human functioning in the life tasks of work, society, love, spirituality, and self (Mosak, 1989). The central human directionality is toward competence or self-mastery, what Adler called "striving for superiority." This is the individual's creative and compensatory answer to the normal and universal childhood feelings of insignificance and disempowerment, and the concomitant beliefs that one is less than what one should be, i.e., "feelings of inferiority." Thus superiority is the natural human desire to move from a perceived negative to a perceived positive. Such striving may occur in either a socially useful or a socially useless manner. The manner one chooses constitutes the Adlerian criterion for normality: healthy development follows the goal of social interest or community feeling; maladjustment is the consequence of pursuing narcissistic self-interest (Ansbacher, 1983). Adler (1935) noted that persons are motivated by subjectively created goals which impact how we perceive life. This subjective perception of life or "schema of apperception" includes the person's view of self, others, and the world. …