Erikson's Psychosocial Development Theory: Extensions by Franz & White

Overview of Franz and White's Approach

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 the authors deem 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.

Erikson's Core Theory of Individuation

In explicating Erikson's theory, 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 relate it to their adult roles in society. Erikson's explication of these roles is problematic in 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" — that is, 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 his purpose in society to "extending" himself in the workplace in order to support not only himself, but also a wife and children. Both male and female carry the inherent paradigm of caring in order to ensure the survival of the family, and hence of society.

Limitations of Erikson's Framework

One of the main problems with this theory, and with those upon which it is based, is that it projects 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 couples who, although they love and care for each other, both choose to enter the professional market and either postpone or reject entirely the possibility of having children. The theory does not appear to allow for success in the workplace solely for the sake of that success. Instead, it appears to view procreation as the ultimate purpose of human life, with workplace success serving only as a vehicle toward attaining fulfillment within the loving family circle.

To these concerns, 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 full paradigm of successful adult individuation and attachment. Furthermore, the authors note that the theory is very limited in its connection between the biological and psychological dimensions of difference between male and female. While the theory does 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.