Childhood and early years
Erik Erikson was born in Frankfurt, Germany, into the family of Carla Abrahamsen and Jewish stockbroker Waldemar Isidor Salomonsen. At the time the boy was born, his parents had not seen each other for several months. He was recorded as Erik Salomonsen, but there is no real information about his biological father. Soon after the birth of her son, his mother moved to Karlsruhe, where she got a job as a nurse and married a second time, to pediatrician Theodor Homburger.
In 1911, Homburger officially adopted the boy, and he became Eric Homburger. The story of his birth is carefully hidden from him, and the boy grows up not knowing who his real father is.
What is ego integration?
The feeling of ego integration represents a sense of the integrity of one's self. Children under 3 years of age do not have their own “I”; they identify themselves with the world around them.
When a person feels comfortable in the world, when the world becomes a place to satisfy all human needs, this is integration. That is, integration is the highest degree of fitness.
According to E. Erikson’s epigenetic theory of personality development, ego integration manifests itself in old age, provided that a person has learned from his own experience moments of joy and the bitterness of defeat, and has inspired others. Such a person is not afraid of death, because she managed to leave a mark behind herself (in creative achievements or her descendants), thereby gaining immortality.
Scientific activity
Erikson teaches at a private school in Vienna, where he meets Anna Freud, the daughter of Sigmund Freud. It is she who kindles his interest in psychoanalysis, and Erikson goes to comprehend this science at the Vienna Institute of Psychoanalysis.
In 1933, while he was studying at the institute, the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, and Erikson had to flee the country. First, he goes to Denmark, and then moves to the USA, where he becomes the first child psychoanalyst in Boston.
After working there for some time, Erickson changed positions in various institutions, including the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Judge Baker Center for Family Education, Harvard Medical School and the Psychological Clinic, etc.
In 1936, Erickson taught at Harvard Medical School and also worked at the Institute of Interpersonal Relations at this university. He also finds time to teach a group of children on the Sioux Reservation in South Dakota.
In 1937 Erickson leaves Harvard and joins the staff of the University of California. He works closely with the Institute for Social Protection of Children and is engaged in private practice. Erickson devotes part of his time to teaching children of the Yurok tribe.
In 1950, his personal experiences with people of different races living in different social conditions led to the writing of the most famous book of his entire scientific career, Childhood and Society. In this book, the author presents to the world his own theory of “personal crisis.”
After leaving the University of California, Erickson began working and teaching at the Austen Riggs Center, the premier psychiatric treatment facility in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. There, due to the nature of his activity, he encounters mentally unbalanced teenagers.
In 1960, Erikson returned to Harvard University, where he would work until retirement, after which, together with his wife, he would begin writing papers on various topics in psychology.
Stages of personality development according to E. Erikson
ABSTRACT
topic: “Stages of personality development according to E. Erikson”
Content.
Page
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3
- The concept of “personality”…………………………………………………….4-7
- Ego psychology………………………………………………………..8-10
- Epigenetic principle……………………………………………………………11-13
- Personality development: psychosocial stages………………………….14-20
- Infancy: basic trust/basal distrust………………14
- Early Childhood: Autonomy/Shame and Doubt…………………………15
- Age of play: initiative / guilt…………………..15-16
- School age: hard work/inferiority…………………..16
- Youth: ego - identity / role confusion………………………16-17
- Youth: achieving intimacy / isolation…………………………..18
- Maturity: productivity / inertia…………………………………18-19
- Old Age: Ego Integrity/Desperation……………………………………………………19-20
Introduction.
Of all the problems that people have faced in the course of human history, perhaps the most perplexing is the mystery of the nature of man himself. In what various directions have the searches been conducted, what many concepts have been put forward, but a clear and precise answer still eludes us. The essential difficulty is that there are so many differences between us all. People differ not only in their appearance, but also in their actions, which are often extremely complex and unpredictable. Among the more than five billion people on our planet, no two are exactly alike. These enormous differences make it difficult, if not impossible, to solve the problem of establishing what the members of the human race have in common. Let's compare, for example, a repeat killer, a dedicated scientist, a drug addict, a corrupt politician, a monk and a high-ranking officer. Apart from the fact that these people share the same tissues and organs, it is difficult to imagine what common properties of “human nature” could unite them. And when the horizons of scientific inquiry expand to the study of different cultures, we discover an even greater diversity of underlying values, aspirations and lifestyles.
Astrology, theology, philosophy, literature and social sciences are just some of the movements that attempt to understand the complexity of human behavior and the very essence of man. Some of these paths turned out to be dead ends, while other directions are on the verge of flourishing. Today the problem is more acute than ever, since most of humanity's serious ills - rapid population growth, global warming, pollution, nuclear waste, terrorism, drug addiction, racial prejudice, poverty - are the result of human behavior. It is likely that the quality of life in the future, and perhaps the very existence of human civilization, will depend on how far we advance in understanding ourselves and others.
1. The concept of “personality”.
The word “personality” in English comes from the Latin “persona”. The word originally referred to the masks worn by actors during theatrical performances in ancient Greek drama. In fact, this term originally indicated a comic or tragic figure in theatrical action. Thus, from the very beginning, the concept of “personality” included an external, superficial social image that an individual takes on when he plays certain life roles - a kind of “mask”, a public face addressed to others. This point of view coincides with the opinion of the modern layman, who usually evaluates personality according to the criteria of charm, ability to behave in society, popularity, physical attractiveness and other socially desirable characteristics. This approach gives rise to comments like “Oleg is the right person” and “Anna is an unpleasant person.” Personality was also viewed as a combination of the most striking and noticeable characteristics of individuality. Thus, a person can be said to be an “outgoing personality” or a “timid personality,” meaning that timidity or friendliness are his most characteristic traits. In such examples, we observe the identification of the individual with the external social impression that the individual makes on others when interacting with them, that is, we can say that we see the extent to which his most prominent, striking features color the majority of his actions in communication situations. Unfortunately, this generally popular use of the term overlooks the possibility that a person can be either relaxed or timid depending on the specific situation. In addition, the term “personality” in the understanding of most personologists does not imply an assessment of a person’s character or his social skills. When we refer to Olga as an “extraordinary person,” we probably mean her kindness, sincerity, or willingness to help others. However, psychologists who study personality do not use characteristics in an evaluative sense (that is, they do not divide personalities into good and bad).
To get an idea of the variety of meanings of the concept of personality in psychology, let us turn to the views of some recognized theorists in this area. For example, Carl Rogers described personality in terms of the self: as an organized, durable, subjectively perceived entity that is at the very core of our experiences. Gordon Allport defined personality as what an individual actually is - an internal “something” that determines the nature of a person’s interaction with the world. And in the understanding of Erik Erikson, an individual goes through a series of psychosocial crises throughout his life and his personality appears as a function of the results of the crisis. George Kelly viewed personality as each individual's unique way of making sense of life's experiences. A completely different concept was proposed by Raymond Cattell, according to whom the core of the personal structure is formed by sixteen initial traits. Finally, Albert Bandura viewed personality as a complex pattern of continuous interaction between the individual, behavior and situation. Such an obvious dissimilarity of the above concepts clearly shows that the content of personality from the perspective of different theoretical concepts is much more multifaceted than that presented in the original concept of “external social image.” It carries within itself something more important, substantial and permanent. In addition to this fundamental agreement, most theoretical definitions of personality contain the following general provisions:
— Most definitions emphasize the importance of individuality, or individual differences. A personality represents those special qualities that make a given person different from all other people. In addition, understanding what specific qualities or combinations thereof differentiate one personality from another can only be done by studying individual differences.
— In most definitions, personality appears in the form of some hypothetical structure or organization. The behavior of an individual that is directly observable, at least in part, is considered to be organized or integrated by the person. In other words, personality is an abstraction based on inferences derived from observing a person's behavior.
— Most definitions emphasize the importance of viewing personality in relation to the individual's life history or developmental prospects. Personality is characterized in the evolutionary process as subject to the influence of internal and external factors, including genetic and biological predisposition, social experience and changing environmental circumstances.
— In most definitions, personality is represented by those characteristics that are “responsible” for stable forms of behavior. Personality as such is relatively unchanging and constant over time and changing situations; it provides a sense of continuity in time and environment.
Despite the above points of contact, definitions of personality vary significantly among different authors. To understand what exactly a particular scientist means by the term “personality,” it is necessary to analyze the theory in its essential details. Thorough testing of a theory reveals the behaviors on which the theorist focuses, as well as the specific methods used to study those behaviors. It should be added that certain definitions of personality are not necessarily true or false, but are only more or less useful to psychologists in researching, explaining the patterns of human behavior, and also in discussing the results.
2. Ego psychology
Many researchers after Freud tried to revise psychoanalysis to show the significance of ego processes and to trace their development. The most prominent of the so-called ego psychologists was Erik Erikson. As for other post-Freudians, for Erikson the ego and its adaptive abilities were of greatest importance in connection with the problem of individual development. However, this does not mean that he neglected biological or social factors in his theory. Essentially, Erickson insisted that any psychological phenomenon can be understood in the context of the coordinated interaction of biological, behavioral, experiential, and social factors. Other features of Erikson's theoretical orientation include the following: 1) an emphasis on developmental changes throughout a person's life; 2) emphasis on the “normal” or “healthy” rather than on the pathological; 3) the special importance they attach to achieving a sense of identity; 4) attempts to combine clinical observations with the study of cultural and historical factors in explaining personality structure. Erikson's "eight stages of man" represent his most original and important contribution to personality theory. His attempt to show the influence of culture on personality development was a stimulus for all who study human behavior to develop new approaches to the study of the main psychological problems facing humanity today.
The emergence of ego psychology was preceded by a number of related theories, mainly devoted to the influence of various aspects of the social and cultural environment on personality development. Erikson's theoretical formulations deal exclusively with ego development. Although he consistently insisted that his ideas were no more than a further systematic development of Freud's concept of psychosexual development in the light of new discoveries in the social and biological sciences, Erikson decisively departed from classical psychoanalysis on four important points. First, his work clearly shows a decisive shift in emphasis from the id to the ego, which Freud himself only partially recognized in the last years of his activity. From Erikson's perspective, it is rather the ego that forms the basis of human behavior and functioning. He viewed the ego as an autonomous personality structure, the main direction of development of which is social adaptation; In parallel, the development of ids and instincts occurs. This view of human nature, called ego psychology, differs radically from early psychodynamic thinking in that ego psychology describes people as more rational and therefore making conscious decisions and consciously solving life's problems. While Freud believed that the ego struggled to resolve the conflict between instinctual drives and moral constraints, Erikson argued that the ego was an autonomous system that interacted with reality through perception, thinking, attention, and memory. Paying special attention to the adaptive functions of the ego, Erikson believed that a person, interacting with the environment in the process of his development, becomes more and more competent.
Second, Erikson develops a new perspective regarding the individual's relationship with parents and the cultural context in which the family exists. If Freud was interested in the influence of parents on the formation of the child’s personality, then Erikson emphasizes the historical conditions in which the child’s ego is formed. It draws on observations of people from different cultures to show that ego development is inevitable and closely related to changing social prescriptions and value systems.
Third, the theory of ego development covers the entire life space of an individual (that is, from infancy to adulthood and old age). Freud, on the contrary, limited himself to the influence of early childhood experiences and did not pay attention to issues of development beyond the genital stage.
And finally, fourthly, Freud and Erikson have different views on the nature and resolution of psychosexual conflicts. Freud's goal was to reveal the essence and characteristics of the influence of unconscious mental life on the individual, as well as to explain how early trauma can lead to psychopathology in adulthood. Erikson, on the contrary, saw his task as drawing attention to a person’s ability to overcome life’s difficulties of a psychosocial nature. His theory focuses on the qualities of the ego, that is, its virtues, which are revealed during various periods of development. Perhaps this last distinction is key to understanding Erikson's concept of organization and personal development. Freud's fatalistic warning that people are doomed to social decline if they give in to their instinctual aspirations is countered by the optimistic position that every personal and social crisis represents a kind of challenge that leads the individual to personal growth and overcoming life's obstacles. Knowing how a person dealt with each of life's significant problems, or how inadequate resolution of early problems left him unable to cope with later problems, is, according to Erikson, the only key to understanding his life.
Labor
- Einsicht und Verantwortung; Frankfurt aM (1964) 1971
- Identität und Lebenszyklus. Drei Aufsätze; Frankfurt aM 1966; 2. Aufl. 1973
- Der junge Mann Luther. Eine psychoanalytische und historische Studie. 1975.
- Gandhis Wahrheit. Über die Ursprünge der militanten Gewaltlosigkeit. 1978.
- Jugend und Krise; Stuttgart 1970
- Der vollständige Lebenszyklus; Frankfurt aM 1988; 2. Aufl. 1,992
- Childhood and Society; New York 1950; Kindheit und Gesellschaft; Zurich 1957
