Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, Essay Example

Basics of Erikson’s Theory

Erik Erikson endures as one of the relatively rare, modern psychoanalysts and theorists who openly incorporate the work of Freud.  Although Erikson would dismiss some Freudian precepts and expand dramatically on others, he nonetheless holds to the traditionally Freudian stress placed upon ego development as being strongly influenced by familial and biological factors during childhood and adolescence.  He departs from Freud in that he gives equal weight to developmental process which occur throughout a lifetime.

The initial eight stages identified by Erikson eventually evolved to nine, upon completion of his The Life Cycle Completed.  As will be seen in the examination of my own experience, what  distinguishes Erikson’s theory is the total and mutual interplay between individual and external world:  “In Erikson’s view…societal demands, which are present from conception through death, act as powerful mediating and shaping forces” (Salkind, 2004, p. 140).  In my estimation, his pragmatic awareness of the inherently codependent nature of living within society, as within the family, adds great substance to his concepts and renders them valuable tools with which to gain insight.

Personal History as Viewed Through Erickson’s Template

When I reflect on my own history, it strikes me that two of Erickson’s stages are highly significant, yet not easily translated into chronological or strictly “developmental” terms.  More precisely, “trust vs. mistrust” is a stage I believe to have been manifested in most of my youth; my parents were strict and I was, by and large, obedient to their desires, and this intrinsically reflects some measure of trust.  At the same time, I was always wary of their authority in the sense that I doubted the wisdom of it.  So, too, was the stage of “autonomy vs. shame” related to this, and equally lasting in my early years.  It seems that I was conflicted whenever I expressed a sense of myself that was in any way opposed to my parents’ expectations; the force of their convictions, deeply inculcated in me, translated the conflict into shame at not behaving correctly.

With regard to Erickson’s “initiative vs. guilt” stage, the same dilemma was present, and blatantly reflective of Erickson’s belief in the power of the external.  My own initiative was, in fact, indiscernible from the ambitions of my parents.  The math my father pushed me into before I was five is indicative of this pattern; I was encouraged to do well, which breeds initiative, but only within the confines of my parents’ expectations.  Only moving into the world of school, then, allowed the stage of “industry vs. inferiority” to work to my advantage.  Somewhat relieved of the pressures of my parents’ academic demands, my abilities, admittedly honed by them, permitted me a sense of accomplishment and the opportunity to display personal initiative.

Less scholastically related, I believe that “identity vs. confusion” categorized, and not unexpectedly, my adolescence.  Teens seek to break through boundaries, yet my parents were uniformly strict in regard to behaviors, friends, and other aspects of my personal life.  The conflict was inevitable and extreme. I had a sense of wanting to become my own person, even as I knew this was at variance with what my parents desired.  This only blocked growth, I feel, in either direction, and translated to my “intimacy vs. isolation” stage.  I married young and had a child soon after, thrusting myself into intimacy to counter the isolation I lived as the only child of exacting parents.

Suffering traumatic head injuries from a car accident at the age of twenty-four heralded, in a sense, my “generativity vs. stagnation” stage.  I was a divorced parent, and I embraced the challenges of raising my child well, even as my own background created the fear that I would repeat the patterns of my own parents.  Fortunately, and ironically, having been forced to “stagnate” in a hospital for most of a year fueled my motivations for giving, and generativity.  Beyond applying this to my daughter, I find “stagnation” is best held at bay by working with other young people in mentoring capacities.  As for the stage of “integrity vs. despair”, I am simultaneously wary and hopeful.  My youth and my accident have fueled in me strong introspective tendencies, which I must never permit to become brooding, and I believe I pursue gratifying volunteer work to reinforce the integrity that can eviscerate such feelings.

Conclusion

Life, as even Erikson must concede, is never quite as neatly arranged as to be successfully engaged in through even the most intent appreciation and understanding of its stages.  I do believe, however, that these stages are very real transitional periods, even as their durations must vary with the individual.  In my estimation, Erik Erikson’s work is, quite simply, a tool set.  These carefully elucidated stages act as frameworks within which I may sensibly, and honestly, confront my own experience and, in the process, evolve.

References

Salkind, N. J.  An Introduction to Theories of Human Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.