Erikson's theory refers to 'psychosocial crisis' (or
psychosocial crises, being
the plural). This term is an extension of Sigmund Freud's use of the word
'crisis', which represents internal emotional conflict. You might also describe
this sort of crisis as an internal struggle or challenge which a person must
negotiate and deal with in order to grow and develop.
Erikson's 'psychosocial' term is derived from the two source words -
namely psychological (or the root, 'psycho' relating to the mind, brain,
personality, etc) and social (external relationships and environment), both at
the heart of Erikson's theory. Occasionally you'll see the term extended to
biopsychosocial, in which bio refers to life, as in biological.
Each stage involves a crisis of two opposing emotional forces. A helpful term
used by Erikson for these opposing forces is 'contrary dispositions'. Each crisis
stage relates to a corresponding life stage and its inherent challenges. Erikson
used the words 'syntonic' for the first-listed 'positive' disposition in each crisis
(e.g., Trust) and 'dystonic' for the second-listed 'negative' disposition (e.g.,
Mistrust). To signify the opposing or conflicting relationship between each pair
of forces or dispositions Erikson connected them with the word 'versus', which
he abbreviated to 'v'. (Versus is Latin, meaning turned towards or against.)
The actual definitions of the syntonic and dystonic words (see
Erikson's
terminology
below) are mainly irrelevant unless you have a passion for the
detailed history of Erikson's ideas.
Successfully passing through each crisis involves 'achieving' a healthy ratio
or balance between the two opposing dispositions that represent each crisis.
For example a healthy balance at crisis stage stage one (Trust v Mistrust)
might be described as experiencing and growing through the crisis 'Trust' (of
people, life and one's future development) and also experiencing and growing
a suitable capacity for 'Mistrust' where appropriate, so as not to be hopelessly
unrealistic or gullible, nor to be mistrustful of everything. Or experiencing and
growing through stage two (Autonomy v Shame & Doubt) to be essentially
'Autonomous' (to be one's own person and not a mindless or quivering
follower) but to have sufficient capacity for 'Shame and Doubt', so as to be
free-thinking and independent, while also being ethical and considerate and
responsible, etc.
Erikson called these successful balanced outcomes 'Basic Virtues' or 'Basic
Strengths'. He identified one particular word to represent the fundamental
strength gained at each stage, which appear commonly in Erikson's diagrams
and written theory, and other explanations of his work. Erikson also identified
a second supporting 'strength' word at each stage, which along with the basic
virtue emphasised the main healthy outcome at each stage, and helped
convey simple meaning in summaries and charts. Examples of basic virtues
and supporting strengths words are 'Hope and Drive' (from stage one, Trust v
Mistrust) and 'Willpower and Self-Control' (from stage two, Autonomy v
Shame & Doubt). It's very useful however to gain a more detailed
understanding of the meaning behind these words because although Erikson's
choice these words is very clever, and the words are very symbolic, using just
one or two words alone is not adequate for truly conveying the depth of the
theory, and particularly the emotional and behavioural strengths that arise
from healthy progression through each crisis. More detail about basic virtues
and strengths is in the
Basic Virtues
section.
Erikson was sparing in his use of the word 'achieve' in the context of
successful outcomes, because it implied gaining something clear-cut and
permanent. Psychosocial development is not clear-cut and is not irreversible:
any previous crisis can effectively revisit anyone, albeit in a different guise,
with successful or unsuccessful results. This perhaps helps explain how 'high
achievers' can fall from grace, and how 'hopeless failures' can ultimately
achieve great things. No-one should become complacent, and there is hope
for us all.
Later in his life Erikson was keen to warn against interpreting his theory into
an 'achievement scale', in which the crisis stages represent single safe
achievement or target of the extreme 'positive' option, secured once and for
ever. Erikson said (in Identity and the Life Cycle):
"...What the child acquires at a given stage is a certain ratio between the
positive and negative, which if the balance is toward the positive, will help
him to meet later crises with a better chance for unimpaired total
development..."
He continued (in rather complicated language, hence paraphrasing) that at no
stage can a 'goodness' be achieved which is impervious to new conflicts, and
that to believe so is dangerous and inept.
The crisis stages are not sharply defined steps. Elements tend to overlap and
mingle from one stage to the next and to the preceding stages. It's a broad
framework and concept, not a mathematical formula which replicates
precisely across all people and situations.
Erikson was keen to point out that the transition between stages is
'overlapping'. Crisis stages connect with each other like inter-laced fingers,
not like a series of neatly stacked boxes. People don't suddenly wake up one