The Concept of Self Portrait - Eriksons Development Theory - Research Paper Example

Self Portrait: Integrating Developmental theory, Moral Development and Environmental Influences on a Personal Development Abstract How portrays him/herself determines how the society and the people around perceive or view him. Various developmental theories hold that a person is all he/she believes he is and will talk, behave, and interact with others based on his own self-concept. Various theories, such as those on personality and human development hold that people are the way they are because of innate genetic makeup that they inherit from parents while others hold people are defined by the environmental influences and life events that they undergo in the course of their development. While no single, theory can conclusively explain the complex nature of human self-concept and people’s self-portrait, a mix of environmental and genetic factors determine what an individual become. This paper will discuss the concept of self-portrait from my own point of view while in- cooperating Erikson’s development theory and Kohlberg’s model of morality Introduction Self-portrait entails the way an individual presents himself to the society, and the way the society perceives the individual. Defining an individual and trying to understand why people talk, or behave the way they do is a complex endeavor. Many people conclude that others are the way they are due to inheritance and others believe that life events develop people (Weisner, 2002). Many scholars have examined self-portrait as they try to attach meaning to people’s behavior and beliefs. In a bid to illustrate my self-portrait, I will base my development on two theories: Erikson’s development theory and Kohlberg’s model of morality. Erikson’s Development Theory The first stage of development is Infancy: Birth to 18 months. The Ego development outcome at this stage is Trust vs. Mistrust. The child seeks attention and affection from her mother and affection is generated at this stage. This is evidenced by clinging and inability to cope with withdrawal from the mother at this age. A child who receives affection is able to trust people in the latter life as compared to one who did not receive attention and thus has mistrust. This is clearly emulated in my self-portrait since having grown with my parents and having received the affection and attention of my mother, I am able to trust the world and my colleagues, and show affection to them (Harder, 2002). The second stage of development is Early Childhood: 18 months to 3 years. The Ego outcome development at this stage is Autonomy vs. Shame. The child learns how to say NO to the parents in search for autonomy. In cases where the child’s autonomy is reprimanded, the child develops shame and doubt. This is portrayed in my self-portrait as autonomy I developed at this stage gives me the courage to carry out complex task. It brings out the risk taking personality in me. However, the self-control is not evidently outlined in my self-portrait, as I am an emotional person (Harder, 2002). The third stage of development is Play age: 3-5 years. The Ego outcome of this stage is Initiative vs. Guilt. Initiative is evidenced by the question WHY as she tries to understand why things are done the way they. This stage is also characterized by oedipal struggle as the child tries to identify with the parent of the opposite sex. This is resolved by social orientation. This was evident in my growing up I used to love sitting on my father’s sit so that when he came to sit down, he would hold me. Till to date, I am very close with my father as this was nurtured during my early childhood days (Harder, 2002). The fourth stage is Play: 3-5 years. The Ego outcome of this stage is Industry vs. Inferiority. In relation to my childhood, because of my autonomy, I was able to become industries as was evidenced by the activities I engaged in. I was mainly the first in my class and did not suffer from inferiority complex. This enabled me to learn many new things and relate with others (Harder, 2002). The fifth stage is Adolescence: 12-18 years. The Ego outcome of this stage is Identity vs. Role confusion. This has been the most challenging stage of my life. This is since I have had to lose majority of my friends and engage in needless wrangles with my parents all in a quest to understand myself. The search for my identity and the discovery of whom I am though challenging has been worthwhile since now I know what I am working to be (Harder, 2002). The sixth stage is Young Adult: 18-35 years. The Ego outcome at this stage is Intimacy and Solidarity vs. Isolation. At I hope that by this age, I will not subject myself to solidarity and isolation but will rather enjoy the intimacy of lifetime relationship. I have always longed to have a family and children, a dream I hope to fulfill when I become of age (Harder, 2002). The seventh age is Middle Adult: 35-55 years. The Ego outcome at this stage is Generativity vs. Self-absorption or Stagnation. At middle adult because of accumulation of knowledge and wealth, an individual is able to prepare for his future. I foresee that to avoid stagnation, I will need to invest and be aggressive at my younger ages (Harder, 2002). The eighth age is Late Adult: 55 years and above. The Ego outcome at this stage is Integrity vs. Despair. This are the terminal years of an individual’s life. They are characterized by enjoying the proceeds of younger years. To set me apart from despair in these years, I will advance my knowledge and be a woman of integrity in my greater years (Harder, 2002). Kohlberg’s Model of Moral Development Theory Kohlberg model of moral development was an advancement of Jean Paget’s two theory of moral development. Kohlberg was able to develop a six model of moral development through the presentation of dilemmas to individual and children, and consequently evaluating their moral development (Krebs & Delton, 2005). He outlined three levels: Pre conventional morality, Conventional morality, and post conventional morality. At each level, he outlined two stages of moral development. Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment is evidenced by obeying the rules in order to avoid punishment. Rules are portrayed as fixed and hence obedience is not an option. This was evidenced in my younger years as being afraid of punishment and being grounded, I used to obey my teachers and my parents (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange. Moral development at this age is based on personal interest. An individual obeys the rules in exchange for personal benefits accrued by doing so. This is stipulated in my self-portrait as pertains to the relationship with my friends. Majority of my peers will only agree to obey a rule that benefits them (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Stage 3: Interpersonal relationship moral development kicks in when an individual tries to meet the expectations of the society. I discovered that as I grew up, the society expected me to be disciplined, industrious, and concentrate on my studies. This is since at every stage in life, the morality of an individual is bound by the society’s expectations (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Stage 4: Maintaining social order. This is moral development evidenced by respect to authority. This occurs when an individual grows up and realizes that social disorder negatively influences his life. As a student, I understand that if I do not maintain social order, I can get jailed; this moral development sees to it that I maintain social order (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Stage 5: Social contract and Individual rights, is moral development acquired upon gaining knowledge. When I went to school and was taught about my rights, this has positively influenced my self-portrait since I observe not to violate other people’s rights and I am keen that my rights are not violated. The societal norms, culture, and beliefs I got exposed to will influence the social contract and my moral development (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Stage 6: Universal principles, is moral development that comes with exposure and learning. This is a product of abstract reasoning and ability to comprehend the principles of justice. Since I enrolled to high school, I was enlightened on the principles that govern humanity and morality. I have since worked towards molding my self-portrait to be an illustration of my adherence to ethical principles (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Comparison of Erikson’s Theory of Development and Kohlberg’s Model of Moral Development Theory Erikson’s development theory was based on the development life of a child since birth to late adulthood. It is a systematic process and the stages are arranged in a chronological order. The stages build on each other and stage 2 cannot precede stage 1(Harder, 2002). In contrast, Kohlberg’s model of moral development is not a sequence of maturation. He does not arrange the stages as per the life events of an individual and hence at any stage of development, and individual can portray more than one moral development stage (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Secondly, Kohlberg’s model of moral development is not a product of socialization of an individual. The significant others: siblings, parents, guardians and teachers do not play a major role in the moral development of an individual (Krebs & Delton, 2005). However, Erikson’s theory of development is because of socialization of the child from infancy. The affection and intimacy the child receives from birth influences the kind of an individual he will be in future (Harder, 2002). Subsequently, Erikson’s theory of development is based on the interaction of mind, the body, and the environment. A positive Ego outcome is the measure of a successful stage of development (Harder, 2002). In contrast, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was as a result an individual’s thinking about a moral problem. His stages were not compelled to a standard for of interaction but was based on individuals responses to morally significant challenging situations that could occur at any stage, to any individual, with no specificity to time (Krebs & Delton, 2005). Kohlberg’s theory of moral development integrated democracy in a child’s rule abiding trait. He emphasized that an individual is likely to abide to a law if he understands it and can support his stand when challenged (Krebs & Delton, 2005).This is contrary to Erikson’s theory of development where only the best outcome is tolerated. A child has no option to choose what he wants but the significant others impose on the child what they believe to be the best for the child. This is evidenced by role confusion in stage 5 since the adolescent has always had guidance and now he has to choose his identity (Harder, 2002). How the Theories Have Affected My Life from Birth to Adulthood Each theory has played its significant role in my life from birth to adult hood and has affected my life as it has largely influenced my self-portrait today. To begin with, stage 1 of Erikson’s development theory positively affected my self-portrait, as I am able to relate with other individuals positively and has given me a strong personality. However, the role identity stage has affected my life negatively since I was not well equipped for this stage. I have lost my friends and have faced wrangles with my family but at least stage 3 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory has enabled me to do what is right by meeting the societal expectations of me. In addition, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has enabled me to be a morally upright individual. It has given me an avenue to challenge the moral precepts and hence understand them comprehensively. I do not feel bound to follow rules, but I follow them become I understand what they entail. This stage of moral development has also evidenced to me the significant role morality plays in my self-portrait. This has indeed made me a morally upright and learned individual. How Human Development Can Be Explained Within the Context Of Environment And Multicultural Influences Environment is defined as nature and has a very high influence in the development of an individual. People modify their personalities as a result of the situations they go through in life. An individual who has grown up in a family whether there is no affection is likely to develop to be an insecure person in the future. In contrast a child who grew up in an environment surrounded by love is likely to show love and affection to other individuals when he grows up (Harkenss et al, 2005). Culture entails the practices, norms, myths, and beliefs of a particular society. Culture is passed down from one generation to another and hence greatly influences human development. An individual who has been cultured to going to church since childhood adopts this as a lifestyle and is difficult to change (Super & Harkness, 2002). Consequently, a child who grows up in a culture that does not condone gender-based violence grows up with respect for women and rarely abuses them. Culture is a way of life of a people and hence the impact it has on human development cannot be sidelined (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Conclusion Human development is influenced by multifaceted factors. However, they are diverse theories, they play a significant role in the development of an individual. My self-portrait is an illustration of the role they play in development. I attribute my great personality to the role played by Erikson’s stages of development. My morality is upright because of adherence to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. This illustrates that no theory is significant over the other, but they are meant to complement each other to develop a strong self portrait in individuals. Reference Harder, A, F., (2002). The Development Stages of Erik Erickson. Retrieved November 26, 2011 from http://www.learningplaceonline.com/stages/organize/Erikson.htm Harkness, S., Hughes, M., Muller, B., & Super, C. (2005), Entering the developmental niche: Mixed methods in an intervention program for inner-city children. In: Weisner TS, ed. Discovering successful pathways in children's development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Krebs, D. L. & Delton, K., (2005). Toward a more Pragmatic Approach to Morality: Critical Evaluation of Kohlberg’s model. Psychological Review, 112 (3) 629-649. Super, C. M. & Harkness, S., (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. Human Development; 45(4) 270-274. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Weisner, T. S. (2002). Ecocultural understanding of children's developmental pathways. Human Development; 45(4)275-281. Read More