Erik eriksons psychosocial approach to identity
The first attack to individuality I will look at is the psychosocial attack. Erik Erikson was foremost to place individuality as psychosocial which is non merely psychological but besides societal.He identified eight phases associating to age from birth – 1 right up to late maturity, these phases contain normative crisis that may happen at each phase with positive and negative results depending on if the crisis is resolved or non.
Erikson felt the fifth ( stripling ) phase was of import, he saw it as a phase of psychosocial moratorium were immature people put off doing societal picks, accomplishing individuality is the chief undertaking in this phase. Young people try out different individualities without perpetrating to one. Erikson felt ego individuality has to be achived by the terminal of this phase for healthy development to happen. If immature people do n’t perpetrate to adult functions Erikson feels they are enduring individuality crisis he labelled this function diffusion.
Erikson influenced Marcia whose work allowed Erikson thoughts to be measured. Marcia ‘s work focused on the 5th phase. He developed a semi structured interview to prove 18 – 25 yr old college pupils. Research workers can inquire follow up inquiries and examining inquiries, participants can besides reply in their ain words.
Marcia used two dimensions ( committedness and geographic expedition ) for his four classs: individuality diffusion, individuality foreclosure, and moratorium and individuality accomplishment. In Moratorium phase the immature people search for an individuality and research their options. Adolescents are unsure and battle with their individuality. Marcia felt this phase was indispensable to travel through earlier making individuality accomplishment were Young people achieved a meaningful individuality and have resolved any adolescent individuality crisis.
Erikson and Marcia viewed individuality as psychosocial ; they besides concentrated on persons non on group individualities. Others looked into group individualities. Social individuality theory focuses on ‘we ‘ and ‘us ‘ individualities instead than the ‘me ‘ and ‘I ‘ individualities of psychosocial theory.
Tajfel developed a theory of societal individualities and intergroup dealingss. He split individuality into two sub systems, the first being personal individuality associating to personal relationships e.g. parents. The 2nd was societal individuality which focused on wider relationships e.g. being English/white.
The cardinal thought of societal individuality theory is that is made up of ego descriptions that come from features that we believe specify the societal group we belong to.
Tajfel used different methods than Erikson and Marcia he used an experimental method, he carried out lab surveies on unnaturally created groups. They ask the inquiry is being a member of a group adequate to advance individuality with an in group and ill will towards an out group even if the groups had no significance.
Tajfel found the male childs gave reasonably between the in group and out group, though when giving points to one member of each group they favoured the in group over the out group. Tajfel feels the male childs used schemes that would maximize the points ‘ difference between the group even if it would intend the in group get less points if it meant halting the out group acquiring more points. He found if male childs got the chance to favor their ain group and disfavor the other group they would, even though it gave them no advantage, they had n’t got to cognize the people they were giving points to so the lone ground they would make this is they were connected through their individuality ( they liked the same creative person ) .
SIT explicitly discusses how societal difference in power affects individuality. It allows for alteration in societal individuality by explicating how socially low-level groups may seek to better societal place. Harmonizing to SIT some members of the subsidiary groups use societal mobility through publicity in employment to better societal place by go forthing behind old societal groups. Peoples can work for societal alteration though some societal group boundaries are non accessible, e.g. race
These were called minimum groups they had small or no ground to be grouped. He found such groups still create intergroup favoritism, prejudicing against the out group and assisting their ain group. Tajfel felt classification entirely was adequate to make bias between groups.
Can these theories help explicate the individualities of people with physical damages? The theories all treat embodiment as of import to individuality. In the psychosocial theory of individuality is explicitly concerned with the bodily facet of individuality since the organic structure affects psychosocial issue we face e.g. old age.
The SIT theory says importance of incarnation is inexplicit in concern with intergroup favoritism which allows it to see, for illustration individualities associated with people who have physical damage.
Erikson argued a sense of continuity is of import to individuality. Those who face menaces to life are witting of individuality. This can explicate why people who become physically impaired frequently have a profound consciousness of corporal individualities ( dandeker 94, morris 93 ) .
SIT has a different position, alteration in consciousness of individuality for those who become physically impaired, SIT suggests alteration is going portion of a lower degree societal group ( be treated as a member of a devalued group ) . Rather than a alteration in itself it leads to a consciousness of individuality.
Merely Erikson and Marcia argue development of individuality accompanied by normative crisis and accomplishment of individuality is of import undertaking in adolescence.
Embodied individuality besides important in adolescence for immature without physical damage. Sub civilization manner more outstanding, eating upsets are more likely to happen. Though Erikson and Marcia accent on individuality accomplishment as cardinal to striplings limit fluidness of individuality since if important portion should be achieved in early life makes subsequently alteration less possible. Most who run for displacement in societal position for people with physical damage are grownups. Some who become physically impaired in maturity SIT allow more possibility for alteration to individuality through life than psychosocial.
All theories suggest we have a pick of individuality. Erikson and Marcia ‘s theory can be criticized for proposing we have more pick in individuality than most really do e.g. Grievant 92 argue contradiction between premise it ‘s possible to hold pick between individuality options and some individualities are non unfastened to all for illustration the individuality of an adopted kid, some societal options for able bodied people are non unfastened to physically impaired people.
Erikson and Marcia argue individuality has to be achieved in different country of people ‘s lives e.g. gender and instruction. However they consider people develop one cardinal individuality from those different spheres.
Harmonizing to SIT for illustration people use individualities in order to better low societal position or to keep high societal position by know aparting against other societal groups. Less clear how SIT would account for child ‘s usage of group individuality as handicapped to better societal position
In psychosocial theory the usage and categorising individualities is interlinked e.g. psychosocial research workers categorise immature people ‘s individuality position harmonizing to how they act in mundane life, yet individuality position helps bring forth peculiar ways of interacting with the universe.
Though those theories pay small attending to embodiment all are relevant to consideration of corporal individuality, different facets of each theory relate to consideration of individualities of people with physical damage.