Eric Erikson’S Psychosocial Theory Of Development And Modern Feminist Applications

Eric Erikson’s psychosocial theory of human development is a foundational tier of understanding lifespan behavior. Erikson’s model was the first to explore psychosocial development into old age, and at the time of its conception was the most comprehensive explanation of the individual interacting with their environment (Rogers, 2016). According to Erikson, the individual is in a constant state of collaboration with their social environment (Rogers, 2016). His theory is centered on the epigenetic principle, which argues “people have a biological blueprint that dictates how they grow and reach maturity (Rogers, 2016, p. 89). ” Erikson believed it was this blueprint coupled with social influences that guided growth (Rogers, 2016). Present day research has validated and built upon Erikson’s idea of the epigenetic principle, proving that it is the whole of the experience which molds the brain and its neural connections, thus developing behavior (Rogers, 2016).

Erikson’s theory assumes an individual flows through the stages of psychosocial development; either completing each stage with mastery or finishing with incompleteness (Rogers, 2016). Throughout the theory’s eight stages, age-appropriate responsibilities (or crises) are assigned which when successfully mastered will earn a growth virtue—otherwise maladaptation in the task stunts the individual’s growth and lays a foundation for future hardships (Rogers, 2016). As one stage builds on the last, unresolved crises are detrimental for lifetime wellbeing. In the first stage, Trust Vs. Mistrust (birth to 18 months) the child is developing a sense of trust (Rogers, 2016). If they are met with attentive caregiving, they can learn this trust. If their cries go unanswered, they may develop mistrust—which is a foundation upon which the following stages build upon. In the second stage, Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (18 months to 3 years), children are seeking independence and it is how that independence is received by others in their lives that will determine if they grow a sense of autonomy or feelings of self-doubt (Rogers, 2016).

Children in this stage will seek to do activities such as getting dressed independently; through which they learn self-confidence. If this is not stimulated, or if it is actively punished, children may grow to inherently doubt themselves. In the next stage, Initiative vs. Guilt (3 to 6 years), a child’s curiosity for learning in their environment must be stimulated, otherwise they can grow a sense of guilt and deficiency of assurance to lead activities in the future (Rogers, 2016). Particularly at ages five and six children are displaying a sense of industriousness. When actively encouraged, children learn they are able to chase after future competencies. In the fourth stage, Industry vs. Inferiority (6 to 12 years), children are inherently seeking skill mastership through learning and play (Rogers, 2016). Success teaches them that through hard work they are capable, while recurrent letdowns teach them they are less than their peers.

The next stage is Identity vs. Identity Confusion (Adolescence), in which the adolescent fosters their identity (Rogers, 2016). They are actively trying on future positions which they then factor into their sense of self-esteem and identity. Those who are unable to master this task will have misperceptions about their identity. Messages from an adolescent’s social, familial, and cultural spheres are all major components in their ability to try on these roles as well as develop identity. In the sixth stage, Intimacy vs. Isolation (Young Adulthood), individuals seek intimate understanding out of relationships (Rogers, 2016). If successful, they can sacrifice in the context of these relationships without hurting their identity. If they cannot successfully achieve intimacy, they may move on to feel social isolation. Individuals who do not experience positive resolution of this stage may lack healthy boundaries or they may lose themselves when involved in intimate relationships. The seventh stage, Generativity vs. Stagnation (Adulthood), describes a stage where adults have moved towards actively advancing both their work and social society as a whole—which could include their families, the public, and the next generation (Rogers, 2016). Successful resolution of this stage involves generativity, or the ability to think outside of themselves and transfer to concern for the welfare of others. At this age, the brain is especially sharp and adults have grown to have much to offer society. Generativity translates to productivity. If an individual is not capable of doing this, they are self-centered and stagnant. This stagnation can be particularly detrimental as they enter old age. The final stage of Erikson’s model is Integrity vs. Despair (Old Age) (Rogers, 2016). Individuals in this stage will either feel satisfaction or dissatisfaction when they look back on the successes (or lack thereof) that marked their lives. Fulfilment at this stage brings with it peace and happiness, while dissatisfaction brings with it hopelessness and grief. As this stage continues on, individuals may experience feelings of accomplishment if they can stay active and feel valuable. Erikson’s model of stages laid the framework for helping professionals to know which crises could simply be a standard component of a client’s development—which is an essential part of viewing the client as a whole in helping practice. Likewise, if a client did not successfully resolve a stage it gives the professional a starting point to delve into with their therapy.

Original Form Limitations

Erikson contended that it is the whole of the individual’s experience—both biological and environmental—that compose the individual (Rogers, 2016). What he did not factor into his analysis is the vast amount of dissimilar experiences that individuals from different backgrounds will experience. Indeed, Erikson’s model represents the white westernized male, but does not take the experiences of other minority groups into account. It does not account for the varying experiences gay and lesbian youth, people of color, those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or women will endure (Rogers, 2016). Furthermore, the original form of Erikson’s model does not allow for updates in societal expectations (Rogers, 2016). One such example of this are the intimacy versus isolation and generativity versus stagnation stages—both emphasize the ideals of marriage and procreation (Rogers, 2016).

In an ever-changing society, there have been extensive developments since the original form of this model. Take for example women’s rights—women are now much more integrated into the workplace, are commonly not seen as having to marry, and are given much more autonomy over their bodies than society allowed them when Erikson was alive. It stands to reason in today’s society that there would be different ways to achieve these milestones that do not involve traditional standards, but this is not mentioned in Erikson’s model.

Feminist Perspective on Erikson’s Theory: Their Relevance for Contemporary Identity Development Research

Theory mandates a degree of fluidity as cultures and eras change. When Erikson devised his model, it would have been difficult for him to factor in other viewpoints as women’s rights were much more limited and he did not belong to any minority groups, thus making it impossible to fully grasp the reality of marginalized groups he was not a part of (Sorrell & Montgomery, 2011). According to the method of standpoint epistemology, “…members of groups differing in social position also differ in their material interests and their social understandings (Sorrell & Montgomery, 2011, p. 99). ” Indeed, Erikson’s stages were written through the “optimistic incorporation of the ideals of American industrial and consumer capitalism inspired by the growth economy of the 1950s and 1960s…(with) emphasis on the experience of White, middle class, European and American men (Sorrell & Montgomery, 2011, p. 99). ” Universalism, like the kind represented in Erikson’s theory, minimizes the experience of marginalized groups and does not provide the best model to which to help them through (Sorrell & Montgomery, 2011).

It could be assumed that Erikson is stating females navigate and resolve these crises exactly the same as white men, who as the dominant figures in society have vastly different life experiences than minority groups. “However, females approach and resolve these conflicts on the basis of their inherent rationality, whereas males seek resolutions that reflect and foster their dispositional agency and separateness… Men’s generativity will derive primarily from involvement in public life, whereas women’s generativity will be based on investments in marriage, parenting, other relationship activities. To find out what, if any, similarities and differences occur for men and women in identity development processes, research must be guided by theory that does not define one group as normal and another as deviant (Sorrell & Montgomery, 2011, p. 119). ” Furthermore, there are many groups that will never be given the chance to explore their own personal identities—thus circumventing the entire cusp of this theory. These groups may include immigrants from war torn lands, or the extremely impoverished who are only able to focus on survival tasks. Truly, the foundational structure of Eriksonian theory is inherently good; it merely needs to be built upon to include all groups of people. A wide variety of theories, feminist theory included, need to be at the table to update Erikson’s theory so that it may be encompassing of an array of identities.

Case Study

Anthony is a 13-year-old boy navigating Erikson’s Identity vs. Identity Confusion stage. He is actively exploring identity by trying on different roles. His father is his primary role model. His father is a hunter, so at school Anthony brags about being the best hunter there is. His father is also very confrontational and never backs down from a fight—and as such Anthony starts to become known for being an instigator at school. His father is also an alcoholic who smokes at least one pack of cigarettes a day. Anthony is exploring who he is and where he belongs. When he offers Anthony a cigarette in exchange for doing chores, Anthony tries it and takes up a life-long smoking habit. Anthony was never able to successfully resolve this stage, and as such remained inherently confused about his identity as he went through other stages.