Introduction
Child development psychologists consider personal development from two polar perspectives: continuous and discontinuous. The former ones argue that developmental process undergoes gradual changes based on accumulated experiences and skills, while the latter ones are deeply convinced that this process is influenced by certain turnaround points, which predetermine it. Erik Erikson and Sigmund Freud agree on the discontinuity of lifespan development, but view it differently: psychosocially and psychosexually respectively.
Psychosocial vs Psychosexual Classification
Both scientists considered personal development in relation to age, but Freud paid more attention to infant to puberty development, while Erikson’s classification is more homogenous. Still, we can draw certain parallels between both taxonomies. The essence of Erikson’s developmental theory is performance at every stage, ability to overcome the associated crises predetermining further success, even that of adults, while Freud’s approach allowed identify key fixations at every stage with accent on personal child’s experiences. Both of them include indication to results: consequences of psychological fixation (Freud) or exitential questions and examples (Erikson). However, Erikson’s theory is better developed, and appears to view lifespan development on a broader scale, as it does not only identify critical points in development, but explains significant social relationship, as well as virtues for each stage, while Freud’s model is somehow limited by centering around sexual drives in childhood with almost no proper attention to adults. In fact, personality development according to Erikson’s stages is much influenced by personal experiences and psychological conditions, which predetermine the formation of this or that crisis at any stage. In his turn, Freud suggested that they are early sexual experiences of children that influence presonality development through life (Zelazo, 1989).
Some of the developmental stages are of greater interest to us as they are represented by the results of interviews (see Table 1). Thus, interviews helped me recognize the relationship between the developmental stage status and evens of life that led to it. Thus, good cognitive performance at school, as well as sociability skills (like in Linda’s and my examples) are often associated with positive stages (industry and intimacy respectively), while bad learning record and absence of friends result in negative realization (Brad and his role confusion).
Overall, it seems that my personality development can be better explained by Erikson’s theory, as Freud did not pay due attention to the respective period of age – young adulthood. Erikson’s contribution is that he “boldly told why and how qualitative development occurs during the adult years” (Hoare, 2002). Erikson considered the crises for this age – intimacy versus isolation with its key existential question: “can I love?” For example, at the moment, having established my own identity, I am now seeking commitment to another person, intimacy as Erikson defines it. The purpose of this search is not to stay in isolation putting my own needs prior to others’. At the same time, I am deeply convinced that it is a person himself/herself who predetermines the crisis point at the respective developmental stage, and who can change either deliberately or unconsciously. It is …