Erikson\'s Theory of Psychological Development

Erikson's Theory Of Psychological Development

Franz and White's study addresses Erikson's theory of psychosocial development by first examining general professional opinion regarding the theory, subsequently discussing the theory itself, and finally providing the extensions that the authors feel necessary. The authors note that both feminists and several current theorists believe that Erikson's references to the "inner space" paradigm relating to the feminine individuation process are inadequate and unrealistic in the light of current psychosocial paradigms.

In explicating Erikson's theory itself, the first stages of development during infancy and early childhood do not appear as problematic as those relating to the female and male individuation processes, particularly during puberty and early adulthood. During these stages, both male and female discover their sexuality and furthermore relate these to their adult roles in society. Erikson's explication of these roles is problematic in the light of current manifestations not only of social roles, but also of relationships. At the core, Erikson's theory holds that the female discovery of the "inner space," or the female sex organs, provides a woman with a sense of purpose and connectedness with society as a whole. This purpose is grounded in the woman's ability to bear children, while the male relates his sex organs and purpose in society as "extending" himself, as it were, in the workplace in order to support not only himself, but also a wife and children. Both male and female have the inherent paradigm of caring in order to ensure the survival of the family and hence of society.

One of the main problems with this theory and those it is based upon is the fact that it projects the paradigms of love and work as the only successful outcomes of human development from childhood to adulthood. It does not account for the fact that females can choose to remain single and hold a profession as the primary purpose of their lives. Nor does it account for the fact that some couples, although they do love and care for each other, both choose to enter the professional market and either postpone or reject entirely the possibility of children. The theory does not appear to allow for success in the workplace solely for the sake of workplace success. Instead, it appears to view procreation as the ultimate purpose of human life, with workplace success only a vehicle towards attaining success within the loving family circle.

To these ideas the authors add that the theory does not account for intimacy beyond the heterosexual and indeed beyond the sexual. As such, the theory is fundamentally inadequate to address the entire paradigm of successful adult individuation and attachment. Furthermore, the authors note that the theory is very limited in its connection between the biological and the psychological paradigms of differences between the male and female. While the theory does indeed better address the positive aspects of female development, it does so primarily in terms of the female drive to bear children, which substantiates the feminist view that the theory appears to be sexist.

In order to avoid this charge, the authors propose not so much a fundamental change as an extension of Erikson's existing theory. Instead of focusing only on the biological differences between male and female, the authors propose an extension that also includes psychological elements as they relate to both male and female. The drives to care for children, to love another human being, and to succeed in the workplace are therefore expanded to transcend biological differences and instead address human beings in general.