Theories Surrounding Child and Adolescent Development

Three Developmental Theories

A child’s development during the first few years of life is shaped by several factors. Their surroundings as well as other external influences in combination with many “internal” influences that span their DNA make-up to the more simple in nature but not to be over-looked—nutrition. The environment plays a very big role during this time as well as the more prominent hereditary genetic predispositions that they may receive from their parents post-conception. Environmental effects are malleable in the sense that they can differ during the youth’s younger years. From these understandings, theories have arisen in the past epoch and a few are still forming in our current age. The trinity discussed in Three Developmental Theories is maturation theory in relation to physical development, the psychoanalytic perspective of growth exemplified by individuation, and the contrasting theories surrounding psychosocial development.

Much of a child’s development happens naturally, over time, spanning the first years of infancy through adolescence. It is said that children reach the stages of maturation through their physical development naturally due to their own internal biological “clocks” which cannot be controlled by any outside external influences. As affirmed by Ronald A. Mossler in Child and Adolescent Development, “According to maturation theory, children have an inner timetable for development… exemplified by the study of physical development, which is mostly determined by genetics. Genes are inherited from parents…” (Mossler, 2011) Physical development during the time of puberty is partial to the “blueprints” received from the mother/father combination which has a direct affect on the health of the child. Genetic predispositions, however, are not entirely set in stone as “fate” would put it. Maturation theory also leaves room for environmental influences to effect a child’s growth and development, parallel to nature versus nurture. With further analysis of physical and psychological development we come to a more “advanced” doctrine of studies.

The psychoanalytical theory of psychology was developed by Sigmund Freud in the early nineteen-hundreds. Freud is known for his literary allusions and analysis of some very popular and sophisticated works, “He cannot, however, resist mentioning some works… the very greatest works of literature: Sophocles’ tragedies, Goethe’s Faust, and Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth.” (Frankland, 2000) Graham Frankland gives us much history of the founder of psychoanalytical theory with his description of Freud’s literary taste, as the previously mentioned works of literature are some of the most influential pieces of work in the history of the world.

Sigmund Freud is most popular for his id, ego, and superego which are very prominent in the world of psychology. In his studies of the unconscious of the psychoanalysis he determined that there are several functions within the psyche that are not consciously controlled by any individual, man or woman, hence leading to a variety of neuroses which inhibits growth of positive human nature(s): “The ‘defense mechanisms’ are designed to protect the ego, but, because they tend to overact or to become reactivated when they have outlived their usefulness, they are also instrumental in generating neurotic symptoms.” (Frankland, 2000)

Freud’s psychoanalytical theory of development stemmed mostly from his encounters with adult patients which, seemingly, don’t pay attention to the initial stages of development that maturation theory covers. In addition to this, Freud’s theories were also derived from interpretation of works of literature; he has even been referred to as having an “ambivalent attitude” towards creative writers though his disposition was on the opposite of the spectrum: “…it will be first necessary to elucidate the sophistication of Freud’s readings of literature and to establish the extent of his genuine reverence towards poets.” (Frankland, 2000) Overall, his theory and interpretation is very convoluted, not only in the sense that it dismisses many of the instances of maturation, but also in the sense that it is confusing—What exactly is Sigmund Freud’s position? In some works, it is difficult to distinguish where exactly he stands on subjects such as human nature, Oedipus, and Freud’s hermeneutic.

On the other hand, Carl Gustav Jung, a pupil and partner of Freud’s until their separation due to differences in psychological foundation, developed his own analytical theory surrounding the conceptual psychology coined by Jung as “individuation”—the process of maturing through adolescence and, in a sense, “finding” one’s self through life experience. Simply put, individuation refers to an individual growing up into an adult. In Carl Jung: Darwin of the Mind, individuation is a completely autonomous function, one that essentially “pushes” one through layers of conscious and unconscious layers, “Something within the unconscious guides and pushes the individual, first towards a full differentiation of consciousness, and later towards individuation.” (Lawson, 2008) As per Lawson, Jung also viewed the unconscious mind as teleological in nature which was viewed as “unscientific” by much of the scientific community, not to mention Sigmund Freud. Cultural, religion and spirituality included, as well as social influences played a big role secondary to Jung’s so-called “autonomous” psyche in his developmental theories.

Personal, unconscious, manifestations have the ability to arise physically in the body, commonly referred to as psychosomatic symptoms. Jung believed, like many other doctors and health care providers today, that some physical illnesses are “birthed” from regions of the subconscious mind, commonly over-looked in medicine. In addition to incorporating his studies of manifestations oblivious to the conscious mind, he also included interpretation of religious symbols into his depth psychology precipitating images of the “self”—individuation—which is extraordinarily similar to the physical model of maturation but in more of a psycho-metaphysical sense. Lionel Corbett, a neo-Jungian, states, “…any religious tradition reveals a particular image of the Self, and there are many such images. Religious traditions are also based on particular experiences objective to the psyche which have become clothed in particular images…” (Corbett, 1996) Societal influences play a big role in how the developing psyche interprets cultural and religious images and symbols.

C. G. Jung’s analytical theory has been adopted by many within the psychological community, namely Michael Fordham, dubbed “the last of the founders of the movement in analysis”—preceded by other influential Jungian analysts—Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, Wilfred Bion, all of which provided essentials in the foundation of the analysis of the psyche (Casement, 2000). Fordham disseminated much of Jung’s theories during the post World War II period which, previously, was of little mention within the psychological community. Even today, there are few and far in between that are aware of Jung’s clinical influences and understanding of the developing adult.
Fordham understood the so-called “instability” of the human mind, as much as Jung, through the periods of infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Ann Casement, author of “Who Owns Jung?” writes,

“The self, as Fordham conceived it, was the instigator as much as the receptor of infant experience. This conception gave rise to the particularly Jungian theory of ego development in which the interaction between mother and baby ensured the uniqueness of the situation, a uniqueness created as much by the infant as by the mother.” (Casement, 2000)

The environmental influences that a child undergoes, specifically motherly affects, have a very powerful sway over the development of the soon-to-be adolescent through their childhood, even into early adulthood. Essentially, the interactions with the infant were the precursor to their psychological development in relation to their actions with the outside world. In this instance, Fordham uses the term “self” as a derived term from Jung’s individuation. The mother-child relationship is held in the same respects as many other psychosocial theories.

Steering away from analytical psychology we come to the psychosocial developmental theory. In contrast to Freud’s findings in his psychoanalytical theory, psychosocial development incorporates more data from societal influences and cultural assimilation in the individual, whereas Freud’s theory was birthed mostly from his counseling of adults and biased interpretations of literature. Erik Erikson, a neo-Freudian, argues, “Freud misjudged an individual’s interaction with society and the motivation for humans to be immersed in social customs. He believed that humans were both formed and challenged by the environment.” (Mossler, 2011) According to Erikson, Sigmund Freud’s analysis of human development seemed to neglect the powerful influences of the individuals’ environment. The environment that an individual experiences through their lifetime has a very many power effects on their “self” during their period of maturation or individuation.
Carol Hoare published a book through Oxford University Press titled Erikson on Development in Adulthood: New Insights from the Unpublished Papers detailing Erik Erikson’s ideas on human development. Once over, Erikson’s views on development differ in many profound ways from Freud’s psychoanalytical theory. According to Hoare’s documentation of his unpublished papers, Erikson believed that Freud missed several important areas of human growth,

“First, Freud had conceptualized adulthood as a barren terrain for development. In the Western world, this viewpoint has taken root. Second, based on the idea that the many years of adulthood were post-developmental, there was a tendency to think of adults as though they are solely physically developed children. Third, and related to this problem, was an apparent inability to consider adulthood as separate from its origins in childhood… Fourth, when development in adults was entertained, concepts showed their dependence on chronology and marker events within the adult years instead of on qualitative differentials in development. Fifth, concepts of adulthood depicted very limited, established parameters of adult normalcy. And sixth, developmental thinkers and the general public in the United States tended toward middle-class and ethnocentric biases. They devalued modes and expressions of adult behavior that did not fit within the American mainstream.”

Erikson believed that there are several variations of development, specifically when speaking of adults. Hoare continues, “Erikson held that Freud had been far too influential. Not only had Freud believed that psychosexual development ended with entry into adulthood… Erikson held that by expressing only what was or should be absent, theorists had missed examining what adults are in their development, as well as what they might yet become.” (Hoare, 2001) The present-day adult is heavily dependent on their childhood experiences, not to mention the fact that development spans far past the typical years of marked “adulthood”—the seasoning and conditioning of people, not only Western people, but all peoples, continue until the end of their years. Hoare’s words are very powerful in depicting the comparison of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical theory and Erik Erikson’s psychosocial developmental theories.

Childhood experience, from infancy to early adolescence tends to be over-looked in psychological development. As previously mentioned in regards to the mother-child relationship, the parents’ role in rearing of a child is very important in examination of the present-day adult. Cultural assimilation, whether ethical or moral in the eyes of the parents or parental figures, holds much bearing in how the child becomes a young adult, to the eventual young and older adult. Especially in the Western world of America, the “melting pot of the world”, the process of understand cultural could never be so important. Effective early education is key in the understanding and compromise of socio-cultural differences in the Western world.

Culture, relative to Jung’s theories of individuation, religious, and cultural symbols, is surrounded by much controversy in the field of social sciences. Concurrent with the writings of Lotty Eldering, recognition of the most basic of cultural symbols is essential to child learning. Eldering states, “The idea of cultural ‘messages’ that are communicated… This perspective is vitally important for understanding culture change and individual variability within culturally defined groups.” (Eldering, 1999) During the period(s) of adolescence child/teens form groups or cliques in which they find similar interests or the less meta-, who they “look like” the most. During this period, the teen is beginning their transition into adulthood, trying on their own forms of persona to “see” which fits them best. This can lead to lack or susceptibility of cultural assimilation, especially if those are culturally inept in the idea of knowing other cultures, beliefs, looks, customs, etc.

Elderling outlines three subsystems that define socio-cultural assimilation: the physical and social setting in which the child lives, the customs or practices of care, and parental ethno-theories. Much like Erikson, Elderling believes that the physical and social setting, such as where the child sleeps and how many siblings may/may not have, was a persuasive component in adolescent development. In addition to their surroundings, how they are taken care of—whether by mother, father, sibling, or caretaker—is another power which holds sway in the anecdote of development. Cognitive and physical developments are shaped by many environmental factors such as nutrition or parental nurturing along with the respects of genetic elements comprising children. Parental views of culture adaptations were the final of Elderling’s subsystems which “open the doors” to further understanding of conceptual developmental theories much like Erik Erikson’s psychosocial model.

The schema of maturation, psychoanalytical theory, and psychosocial development are but a small sphere of developmental psychology in its entirety, as described in eloquence by Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Erik Erikson, and many other individual influences in developmental theory. Upon brief review of these exceptional works regarding human development, it is clear that there are many differences as well as similarities in said theories. Nevertheless, their notions present the psychological community with strong foundations to build future representations of the human developmental model.

References

Casement, Ann (2007). Who Owns Jung? Karnac Books. London, GBR.
Corbett, Lionel (1996). Religious Function of the Psyche. Routledge. London, GBR.
Eldering, Lotty (1999). Effective Early Education: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Routledge. London, GBR.
Frankland, Graham (2000). Freud’s Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. Port Chester, NY, USA.
Hoare, Carol Hren (2001). Erikson on Development in Adulthood: New Insights from the Unpublished Papers. Oxford University Press. Cary, NC, USA.
Lawson, Thomas T. (2008). Carl Jung, Darwin of the Mind. Karnac Books. London, GBR.
Mossler, Ronald A. (2011). Child and Adolescent Development. Bridgeport Education. San Diego, CA, USA.