I loved Erikson’s construct of balance in each of his stages – “the resolution of conflict from opposing forces (Miller)”.  I believe this lends credence to the nuance of personality.  I have to disagree and say that each stage can be passed without wholly grasping the positive aspect before being able to level up.  For instance, lack of intimacy in Stage 6 may necessitate generativity in Stage 7 (isolation might stimulate an urge to protect future victims, e.g. becoming an addictions counselor after surviving childhood molestation at the hands of a drunk uncle).  Likewise, a basic mistrust in the very first stage of life may spur on autonomy in the second (stronger independent identity based on lack of consistency).

I also liked that Erikson’s theory spanned an entire lifetime.  Development may be most important in early childhood (for a solid foundation on which future expansion of identity will be based), but humans are by nature malleable.  The concept of adaptation does not dissolve with adolescence – it is human nature to broaden our knowledge of the world and internalize it in order to put it to good use.  His studies were also cross-cultural, and it was fascinating to note that cultural relativity did not erase phases of development necessary for maturation.

I don’t know how to apply Erikson’s theory to parents who aren’t willing to learn from their mistakes, teachers who are jaded by failing public school systems, and Congressman who are more interested in giving themselves raises than making sure the people that voted them in can eat.  Also, I got stung on the back of the hand by a mega-huge wasp and it’s killing me to type any of this.

The End.