Question

In discussing the primary task of young adulthood, Erikson says there are serious consequences for development for those who do not choose a partner with whom to share their life, have children, and help those children achieve their own healthy development. Do you think that Erikson's view is correct? Why? What groups of people may feel excluded from Erikson's view of the purpose of young adulthood? Is his theory dated? Can a person be fulfilled without meeting these goals?

How could you re-write Erikson's view of this stage to make it less exclusionary and more pertinent to today's society?

Answer 1

In the theory of Erikson, personal conflicts are a part and parcel of human development and they help an individual to grow. human development involves a series of personal conflicts. The conflicts exist naturally since birth and they become more evident once the individual develops keeping the environmental adaptions in mind. Each confrontation with our environment is called a crisis. A shift in our approach is called a crisis and it forces us to concentrate on our instinctual energy in accordance with the needs of each stage of the lifecycle. Erikson was biological in the belief that there are innate drives to develop social relationships and that these promote survival (Darwinism).He divided lifespans into eight psychosocial stages, each associated with a different drive and a problem or crisis to resolve. The outcome of each stage varies along a continuum from positive to negative. Each stage is characterized by a different conflict that must be resolved by the individual. If a person is unable to resolve a conflict at a stage, then they will be confronted and struggle with it later in life.

A critical look at the psychosocial development theory shows that it is based on speculation and interpretations, although it is not as far-fetched as Freud’s interpretation. Few critics of the theory are that:

1. No attention toward emotional and cognitive development

The theory does not cover all the development aspects of life like the cognitive and emotional development. It only covers the basic principles such as individual’s basic attitude towards other people and towards life.

2. Vague causes of development

The causes of development are unclear in the theory. Erikson does not elaborate on the type of experiences a child must have to develop autonomy as a toddler, initiate as a preschool child, or a stable identity during adolescence. He does not reason out why a sense of trust so important for the development of autonomy, initiative and identity. Unfortunately, Erikson is not very explicit about these important issues. Hence, Erikson’s theory is really a descriptive overview of human social and emotional development that does not adequately explain how or why this development takes place.

3. Self-experiences Based theory

Erikson moulded the theory based on his experiences. It was a mere shift from Freud’s theory which emphasized sexual determinants of development to a theory which focussed on sociocultural determinants.

4. Incomplete description

A more specific criticism relates to the incomplete description of the developmental stage of maturity, which Erikson attempted to correct in his 1986 book. Criticisms of Erikson’s theory vague terminologies, incomplete descriptions of the psychosocial stages, and poorly supported claims of male-female personality differences based on biological factors.

5. Not Scientific

Erikson built his theory largely on ethical principles and not necessarily on scientific data. Erikson's theory must be judged by the standards of science, not ethics or art.

6. Only masculine Stages of development

Erikson also wrote in the male voice, as was typical of psychologists (and indeed, most scientific writers) of an earlier age. But beyond that, Carol Gilligan (1982) believed that he also portrayed a masculine psychology in his stages of development. She observed that Erikson recognized a somewhat different pattern of development for girls and women – one that depends more on intimacy and relationships with others and less independence. The theory was written keeping boys and men in mind and not women. Carol Gilligan’s theory also views female identity as rooted in connections to others and in relationships: “Women conceptualize and experience the world in a different voice, and men and women operate with different internal models.” However, since the 1970s, identity development in women has been looked at more closely using Erikson’s identity statuses as a base (Marcia, 1991). Josselson studied women’s identity statuses and found that “a woman’s identity at the close of adolescence forms the template for her adulthood.” The issues most important to her female subjects were social-emotional and religious, not occupational or political. Josselson agrees with Jean Baker Miller’s relational theory: “Women’s sense of self-becomes very much organized around being able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships” (Josselson, 1982).

7. Identity Development

The development period of an adolescent represents an optimal time for identity formation due to a variety of physical, cognitive, and social factors and changes. Even though Erikson mentioned that the overall identity of an individual was eventually formed by the end of the adolescence period, he did, he did suggest that identity continues to evolve throughout adulthood. Erikson did not guide us through the process of the identity formation. As a result, he has been criticized for covering his theory beyond adolescence without providing elements. Some critics charge that Erikson’s personality theory does not apply to people in reduced economic circumstances who are still undergoing their identity crisis, their occupational and their ideological commitments are vague. This stage may be a luxury available only to those with the means to attend college or take time out to travel (Slugoski & Ginsburg, 1989). All the same, Erikson’s theory is one of the most successful attempts to provide a consistent and reasonably complete picture of human development (Louw, 1998).

Considering if Erikson’s theory can be applied in today’s world or if it is outdated, a few observations have been made. The concept of identity that Erikson’s theory introduced to social science, and particularly to human developmentalists, is rich and beautiful and useful to our continuing quest for understanding human lives. Likewise, the conceptualization of identity development as a lifelong psychosocial process perhaps better, a biopsychosocial process is very much in step with contemporary thinking in many disciplines. Many—not all, but many—postmodern standpoint theorists and researchers, especially those concerned with human development, have implicitly or explicitly adopted analytical strategies congruent with the life-span biopsychosocial framework, even as they reject other aspects of Erikson’s theory. Second, some aspects of Erikson’s theory are insidiously misleading. Androcentric (or ethnocentric or sociocentric) theory does not yield useful research (Eichler, 1988), but serves primarily to obscure the many varieties of lived experience of both women and men as well as to repress an analysis of cultural and social factors contributing to identity development processes. To find out what, if any, similarities and differences occur for men and women in identity development processes, research must be guided by the theory that does not define one group as normal and another as deviant. Of course, this same guideline applies to research guided by the theory that is racist, heterosexist, and classist; further standpoint analysis may reveal that Erikson’s theory needs clarification and refinement along these dimensions also. Erikson’s theory, in its formulation of specific developmental conflicts or tasks, does incorporate assumptions about normal development that have an androcentric bias. The developmental trajectory proposed in Erikson’s theory could, and should, be revised to reduce the most obvious bias of emphasizing the triumph of independence over connectedness in the content of developmental conflicts. Third, the biological ground plan component of Erikson’s theory—the epigenetic principle—has qualified utility. The suggestion that embodiment is an aspect of psychosocial development is both insightful and useful.

However, the only facet of the biological ground plan concept that is well developed in the theory links social roles and statuses to reproductive anatomy. The inner and outer space analogy confuses embodiment with biological functions. It is embodiment—life in a body with characteristics that have personal and social meanings—rather than biological functioning that contributes to psychosocial development, and the metric and meaning of embodiment change across the lifespan in ways that have not been well documented in identity development research., Erikson’s theory provides a grand idea in its focus on contextually bound identity development across the lifespan. A blending of feminist conceptualizations of embodiment – and conceptualizations offered from other standpoints – with an inclusive and elaborated Erikson’s conceptualization of lifelong psychosocial development could offer a challenging and useful framework for future studies of adult development. Much work remains to be done by theorists who would construct open, particularized descriptions of that biopsychosocial identity development process and how this occurs in diverse cultural and relational contexts. However, we must remember that not everyone could compose a personal sense of identity. Many groups and individuals, even in this new century, spend entire lifetimes in regions of extreme political chaos, severe personal restriction, or dire economic circumstances where survival demands adherence to a limited range of roles, activities, and beliefs. For these people, the story of ideal self-development that Erikson offered—of growing trust, autonomy, and a chosen personal and social identity, composed in a society that is itself trustworthy, autonomous, and generative—may be a bitter parody of their lived experience. Or it may still provide a useful framework for their developmental stories. We cannot know until new knowledge and perspectives from these other standpoints are shared.

One can conclude, that Erikson’s eight-stage theory on psychosocial development provides an insightful and mostly meaningful guide to one’s journey through life. His acknowledgement and acceptance that the world is a changing place are evident in most of the stages, the exception being intimacy versus isolation, where his six-point characterisation is now somewhat outdated. In saying that, the basis of this stage is still applicable and easily applied today.

In today's world few groups like homosexuals, single parents, divorcees, people who choose to not marry and have a family may feel excluded from Erikson's view of the purpose of young adulthood. His theory as stated above focuses on heterosexual male dominant societies. Hence, looking at the changing scenarios and overall economic and physical development of the world, this theory may not work in all aspects. Yes, a person may function adequately without meeting certain stages of Erikson's. Though I feel the initial stages of Erikson's are still important in a child's development. The later stages of role identity and confusion cannot be generalised for all. The above-stated criticisms provide a basis with respect to the sect of people that were ignored and excluded in the theory and the implications it can have in today's world. To conclude, Erikson's theory is outdated and needs to be revised keeping the economic, emotional, physical and cognitive development in mind. A holistic approach towards development is needed keeping in mind that differences of opinions may arise given the number of ethnic groups present. No one theory can be made to generalise all the groups. A theory must be made which is inclusive of men, women as well as identifying with the third gender and the role confusion and gender identity confusion individuals face.