Erik Erikson’s theory of development represents an extension of Sigmund Freud’s work; in that, he describes the stages of human development from infancy to old age (Fleming, 2004). While Freud contributed little to the various stages of development beyond the genital stage, which represents the adolescent stage, Erikson explicitly indicates the processes of development further. A stark contrast here is that Erikson’s stages of later years, middle adulthood, and young adulthood are well defined and present numerous insights to the obligations adults have as presented by life in the process of maturity (Fleming, 2004). Similar to other psychologists whose timeless works base their premise on Freud’s psychoanalytic tradition, Erikson has the title of being an ego psychologist, primarily because he had the premise that ego is essentially a moderator between the id and superego, in that, it checks the id’s demands. In other words, the ego has a life of its own. According to Erikson, the ego, although slightly conscious and unconscious, precisely represents total personality than the id.
Similarly, alongside other hypotheses from ego psychologists, Erikson emphasized the overall significance of social pursuits and interactions in the process of development. This stance is decidedly crucial in the understanding of Erikson’s stages of development as psychologists such as Freud focused on the psychosexual process as a hypothesis for development. From the onset, Erikson downplayed the role of sex as it was by most neo- and post-Freudians within the tradition of psychodynamics. While he did not overtly downplay psychosexual phenomena such as the Oedipus complex and oral fixation, Erikson refuted sex and the unconscious mind in the process of human development and chose to focus on influences within daily life activities that bordered the cultural, social, and interpersonal (Fleming, 2004). In understanding development, Erikson interprets developmental stages as sets of challenges he termed crises. According to Erikson’s belief, these crises within the developmental stages alluded to ego and presented challenges to an individual’s identity. His ultimate premise was that successful personality development depended on overcoming these crises or tasks (Fleming, 2004). Up until young adulthood, Erikson’s stages resemble those of Freudian concepts; however, they are greatly expounded.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As such, this paper discusses the stages of development among three interviewees at divergent stages of life, carefully analyzing these stages in reference to the premises of Erikson’s theory of development. In achieving this, three individuals, excluding myself come into question. The first individual aged 17 is at the fidelity stage represented by Identity vs. Role Confusion. The second aged 29 is at the love stage, represented by Intimacy vs. Isolation. The third interviewee aged 39 is at the caring stage, embodied by Generativity vs. Stagnation. All these interviewees, within their divergent stages of development, offer in-depth insight toward the understanding of Erikson’s stages and their role in the progress of life and development. Fundamentally, Erikson’s theories are at the very center of psychosocial development.
While interviewing the first case, numerous challenges surfaced. To understand these challenges, having an understanding of this stage is paramount. The fidelity stage represents a time whereby great changes appear due to the psychosexual mode of puberty. Around this stage, the body together with its sexual organs matures, giving rise to novel challenges within social and academic settings (Graves & Larkin, 2006). With the transition of school levels, this stage presents numerous challenges that differ according to the personalities of affected individuals. It is here that teenagers learn of themselves. Not only do they learn who they are, but also have the task to invent themselves and most importantly, look for role models they may emulate to design the desired future for themselves. Some of the role models include teachers, parents, film stars, coaches, and musicians as well as individuals considered “rebels” by the society. The latter being a nightmare for parents. However, while they may be inclined to anxiety over the behavior of their child, the fact remains that rebelliousness at this stage does not necessarily represent the core values of teenagers; they are primarily in experimental stages in which teens undergo.
Therefore, under this stage, parental conflict comes about in the sense of freedom and how much of it to grant and assume control over. At this stage of control, mutual respect and the understanding of both parties in terms of perceptions is key. This interviewee presented challenges such as sexuality, academic and social expectations, and self-image. To overcome this, the respondent mentioned coping mechanisms such as foreclosure, which is the suppression of anxiety that does not conform to the id; moratorium, which is essentially a timeout on the search for one’s self through the exploration of divergent options; and diffusion, which essentially represents apathy, the lack of commitment and passion (Fleming, 2004). Another imperative coping mechanism presented is identity achievement and positive role identity, which represents a sense of understanding of who one is and where he or she is heading in life. Using these coping mechanisms and owing to the fact that this particular interviewee is 17 years old, indicative of a near transition to the next stage, she was able to overcome the crisis associated with this stage. Moreover, in the previous stage of Latency vs. Inferiority, the interviewee overcame her challenges by having a work ethic that exemplified acute skills
The second interviewee also presented challenges in dealing with the crisis of his stage. To understand its challenges, it is imperative to comprehend its nature. Considered the Genitality stage in a psychosexual perspective, the sixth stage, otherwise known as the Intimacy vs. Isolation stage represents closeness and mutual sharing as its core strength and isolation as its core pathology (Malone et al., 2016). According to Erikson, intimacy between two individuals, as a couple, is centered on the development of strong identity senses. However, during the times of Erikson, many couples married young and the dilemma therein is the arguable fact that it remains challenging for couples to be together and grow into maturity together unless they invariably matured first. Unsurprisingly, divorce becomes a normal occurrence for couples who married young while still immature (Ahmed et al., 2013). It is a fact that young adults have not reached desired levels of maturity from adolescence. Also, while some may have reached a certain level, they are not yet at a desirable peak as seen among individuals well into their mid-thirties. Furthermore, present complexities in the world stifle the attainment of full maturity and relative independence.
In the case of Intimacy vs. Isolation, geniality according to Erikson refers to sexual intimacy, a physical correlate of psychological intimacy (Fleming, 2004). According to the interviewee, there are several challenges at this stage. According to his experiences on this stage, grappling with the fear of rejection and isolation was his most burdensome challenge. According to this interviewee, he was always afraid of being turned down or breaking up with partners due to the pain experienced afterward. To overcome this challenge, the interviewee had to attune to his identity fully to form reciprocal relationships such as marriage and close friendships. Here, identity is crucial. As mentioned above, the understanding of identity brings about maturity; therefore, once the interviewee was able to identify himself, the problems of isolation dissipated as he found the right partner to love and consequently develop towards full maturity. In dealing with the previous stage, this interviewee used coping mechanisms similar to the first interviewee.
The third interviewee, at the stage of Generativity vs. Stagnation, characterized by the psychosexual mode of procreativity, contended with the normalcy of traditional morality, the individualistic nature, and stagnation (Slater, 2003). According to Erikson, traditional social standards encourage young men to produce children through marriage. While the men were required to have a career or a profession, women were largely exempted. Presently, this is not the case as individuals view marriage as an optional choice. In fact, more people realize that the fulfillment of life does not mean having children but requires the ability to care for others and having a humanistic spirit capable of aiding others in times of need. According to Erikson, generativity is a dominant theme particularly during the thirties, forties, and fifties, and has its roots in early adulthood, consequently continuing through to older years (Slater, 2003).
Psychology scholars indicate that decidedly generative adults display a higher understanding of spiritual life than less generative ones. In this stage, the interviewee experienced the challenge of conforming to social standards while having the desire to procreate and promulgate generativity. Being a single woman at the age of 39 is a crisis of epic proportions to her as she continually contends with stagnation. However, through giving back to the community and having a focus on generativity, she is able to overcome this challenge and disperse the stigma associated with it in the society. Since she could not resolve her previous stage of Intimacy vs. Isolation, she is contended by overcoming the challenges of her present stage and having overcome it, she looks forward to the next stage.
Ultimately, Erikson’s developmental theories have both merits and demerits. Among its merits, as mentioned earlier, is the fact that he expounded on Freud’s theories to the later stages of life. Moreover, through this expansion, Erikson broadened these theories through an emphasis on cultural differences and a focus on how ego develops through challenges presented by the identity. Although his theories have a basis on intuition and personal observation, including the analysis of his own life, the numerous observations he made reflected his own life and were resultantly insightful. However, critics often term his ideas vague and subjective. In response, Erikson accepts these criticisms and reaffirms that his theories were guided by an artistic sense and not scientific methodologies or training (Fleming, 2004). Nonetheless, in practical life, his theories resonate among many. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with his postulations.
References
Ahmed, S., Khan, S., Alia, M., & Noushad, S. (2013). Psychological Impact Evaluation of Early Marriages. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENDORSING HEALTH SCIENCE RESEARCH (IJEHSR) , 1 (2), 84. doi: 10.29052/ijehsr.v1.i2.2013.84-86
Fleming, J. (2004). 9-1 9. Erikson’s Psychosocial Developmental Stages. Retrieved from http://swppr.org/Textbook/Ch%209%20Erikson.pdf
Graves, S., & Larkin, E. (2006). Lessons from Erikson. Journal Of Intergenerational Relationships , 4 (2), 61-71. doi: 10.1300/j194v04n02_05
Malone, J., Liu, S., Vaillant, G., Rentz, D., & Waldinger, R. (2016). Midlife Eriksonian psychosocial development: Setting the stage for late-life cognitive and emotional health. Developmental Psychology , 52 (3), 496-508. doi: 10.1037/a0039875
Slater, C. (2003). Journal of Adult Development , 10 (1), 53-65. doi: 10.1023/a:1020790820868
