The paper is a presentation of a research article on sexual development, social oppression, and local culture written by Gilbert Herdt. This analysis presents the four major points explained by Herdt while stating the reasons why I agree with his findings. The final part not only consists of a portion that invites the audience response and thoughts on the article but it also includes what future research on the topic should consider.
Nature vs. Nurture:
The modern field of psychology has been characterized by various significant questions including the concern regarding nature vs. nurture. This concern can also be described as the determination of the extent with which biology influences an individual's psychology as compared to cultural constructs or factors. Based on his analysis, Herdt (2004) presents an evaluation of Freudian and development psychology in which he explains the progression of adolescent development through a more culturally-informed means. To support his claims, article states that traditional theories of adolescent development have focused on the person and the formation of adult self on the basis that it existed outside of culture as presented in Freudian and biological discussions of psychology. The article consists of several important points including the following
Isolation of Adolescent Development from the Community:
According to historical analyses on sexuality, policies have constantly focused on the individual not culture to the extent that it seems people lived outside of space and time. As a result of this isolation, the fields of developmental psychology and psychoanalysis have reduced sexuality to mere internal drives and as symbols of successful morbidity, biological fitness, and personal or moral weakness. Consequently, the author focuses on analyzing the profound impact of social oppression on an individual's adolescent development.
Role of Sexuality in Development of Personality Development:
Following the exploration of social oppression, Herdt (2004) examines the role of sexuality in the development of the human personality. In this case, Freudian discourses of psychology emphasized on sexuality as the only factor that shapes the development of human personality, a theory that was refuted by various psychologists and theories. The view of sexuality as the only shaping force for human personality development as presented by Freud was not only controversial but it was also substituted by the biological theories of development.
These theories in turn focused on efforts to present all-inclusive descriptions of the reason and the process for the development of the human brain.
Psychological and Psychoanalytic Conceptions of Development:
One of the major reasons for Freud's perspective on the role of sexuality on human personality development is attributed to his failure to engage in cross-cultural comparison of sexuality, sex, and gender. This has contributed to the reason why anthropological sexuality theories have failed to primary shift from critical psychological and psychoanalytic conceptions of development. Consequently, these theories of sexuality emphasized on sex as a person's biological need or an essential factor for reproduction. Unlike the psychoanalytical perspective, the anthropological perspective regarded heterosexual development as equal to marriage with extramarital affairs as issues of personality adjustments and personal sexual drives.
Assumption of Normality:
The final point in the article is the assumption of normality of normative path by both the anthropological and psychological perspectives of adolescent development. These models of development consider any deviation from the normative paths or normality as abnormal. However, normality is a factor that varies based on culture despite of whether human biology may be constant.
The Article's Findings:
Based on the various points presented by the article, I agree with the author's findings though his agenda seems to be more political as he advocates for more compassionate consideration of people who are oppressed due to their sexuality or gender. One of the major reasons for agreeing with the author's findings is that healthy sexual development in an individual involves the biological, socio-cultural, and psychological processes (Kriepe, n.d.). Similar to other aspects of an adolescent development, sexual development takes place within the individuals through interactions with the community or environment that is based on culture. Any attempts to examine the sexual development of an adolescent without the consideration of all these processes does not present a clear picture of adolescent development and contributes to a distorted view of the development process.
Since these processes play a critical role, should an individual's environment appropriately support the biological, socio-cultural, and psychological processes to result in a positive sexual health? According to Levy (2009), adolescence sexual development is evident through an increase in the person's body size and sexual maturation. Are the timings and speed of these changes in sexual development stimulated by hereditary and environmental factors?
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.