Back to Table of Contents
Initiative vs. Guilt of Pre-schooler; Industry vs. Inferiority for School Age; Ego- Identity vs. Role Confusion in Adolescence; Intimacy vs. Isolation of Young Adulthood; Generativity vs. Stagnation of Middle-Age Adulthood; Ego-Integrity vs. Despair of Senior Age), thus providing a bridge between individual and social psychology. Sometimes misunderstood as a linear proposition, this eight-stage theory of psychosocial development is based upon a series of ‘core conflicts’, such as “trust vs. mistrust” at the beginnings of life, “ego-identity vs. role confusion” during adolescence, “ego integrity vs. despair” at the end of life, institute ‘developmental crises’ of increased vulnerability and heightened potential, each marked by ‘ disorganization- reorganization-consolidation’ sequence, where ego regression plays a major part . Especially during adolescence, a new consolidation of identity out of many preceding identifications, without a room for temporary transitional regressive motion of contemplating different identities, is not possible. Employing Ernst Kris’s ‘regression in the service of the ego’ and Peter Blos’ ‘regression in the service of development’, Erikson presents regression as part of the oscillating rhythms of growth processes. Self-described as a “psychoanalyst who was led to a new concept not by theoretical preoccupation but rather through the expansion of his clinical awareness to other fields (social anthropology and comparative education), and through the expectation that such expansion would, in turn, profit clinical work” (Erikson 1956, p. 56), his writings were sometimes misinterpreted as ‘not enough psychoanalytic’. At present, his work is appreciated anew as aligned with psychoanalytic interests of the 21 st century, which prominently incorporate influence of culture. Erikson’s thinking about the inner psychic oscillations in the formation of identity continues to be viewed as very relevant to the contemporary psychoanalytic thought. Although the concepts of primary and secondary autonomy were later largely eclipsed, they provided an impetus for further studies of interaction of constitutional and environmental factors throughout the development. Ego Psychology directly or indirectly stimulated and was reciprocally enriched by, child analytic and observational studies of Winnicott (1953), Spitz (1965), Jacobson (1958, 1964) and Mahler (Mahler, Pine and Bergman 1975), leading to increased understanding of the pre-oedipal domain. Erikson’s and Rapaport’s formulations, and Hartmann’s ‘change of means’ and ‘change of function’ would encourage further study of developmental transformations , from the earliest development throughout life, and indirectly led to the renewed interest in trauma, previously neglected by ego psychologists (Blum, 1987). The developmental transformation achieved in secondary autonomy was analogous to the transformation of traumatic anxiety into signal anxiety (Blum, 1998). In contrast to the relative homogeneity of ego psychology in the post-World War II period of the so-called ‘Hartmann era’, ego psychology moved off center stage in the 1970’s (Bergmann, 2000). Following Hartmann’s death, emphasis on object relations theory came further into prominence, and the era of theoretical pluralism set in (Blum, 1998). The social ferment in the USA at that time, philosophical questioning about ‘authority’ in the postmodern era and the feminist critique of inherent sex and gender assumptions also contributed to the critique of the homogeneity of Ego Psychology (Balsam, 2012).
258
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online