In her book, Theories of developmental psychology, Miller
notes that an ideal theory of
psychological development aims at forming a coherent story from the onset of
infancy to old age (Miller, 2002). In
order to form such a story, Miller argues that four key questions influence how
we ‘build’ theories of human development, these are: The question concerning
the basic nature of humans; whether development is a qualitative or
quantitative process; how nature and nurture combine and drive development; and
finally the nature of what develops itself.
This essay will compare Freud’s theory of psycho-sexual development with
evolutionary theory and analyse how both theories attempt to explain
psychological development in light of Miller’s four points, and will conclude
with a brief evaluation of them before suggesting what need to explain further.
I
Freud’s central thesis of
human development hinges on what he called ‘a sort of economics of nervous
energy’ (Jones, 1953). For Freud, much
of the developmental process is largely determined by the desires of the
libido, the energy of Eros, or sexual instinct, that constitutes part of an inherent biological drive that inadvertently
cries out to our psyche for immediate satisfaction. These inner desires form the largest part of
our unconscious mind known as the Id, which form the darkest ‘inaccessible part
of our personality’ (Freud, 1933a).
Since young infants have not fully developed a conscious appreciation of
the world, through maturity they learn to deal with their sexual energies by
controlling the Id through parental training and subsequent development of the
ego. Freud proposed a stage theory of
development to show how, at various stages in a human’s life, sexual energy is
directed to a certain part of our body (mouth, anus, phallic, genital), and
reasoned that human development depended on how we resolve conflict within
these areas. For example, Freud proposed
that the libidinal energy first invested itself during infancy in the oral
erogenous zone (Miller, 2011) and claimed that fixations can occur if the
preferred object such as the nipple is either absent or withdrawn early which
can result in detrimental development.
How infants learn to deal with
conflicts such as these therefore determines the basis of personality expressed
later through the unconscious.
Freud’s theory attempts to
explain development through a series of disturbances hinged on the notion of
sexual energy that targets different body parts. Personality development will occur whether or
not we have successfully passed each
conflict as determined by its corresponding stage, so we can only develop in
‘degrees’ of detriment. There is no such
thing as ‘normal’ development since, according to Freud, our unconscious mind
still has the ability to leak out repressed thoughts and feelings from the past
even if each stage of development has been successfully passed. Problems only occur when we have not learned
to handle them sufficiently, resulting in anxiety related problems, stress, and
of course Freud’s favorite, neurotic and compulsive disorders. Thus Freud sees the nature of human beings as
an organism whose spends their lifetime trying to balance out conflicting
thoughts of unconscious sexual drives from an early age.
Freud’s assumption that
development is stage-like implies that human development is predominately
qualitative since the nature of sexual energy changes from location to location
within the body. Indeed, the notion that
infants come to learn to control
these impulses implies that Freud’s conception of ego and superego strengthens
over time. This indicates a quantitative
change. So Freud’s theory explains that
the nature of development is both qualitative and quantitative.
Freud’s position on the
question concerning nature versus nurture is very much inline with modern day
theories; namely, that their exists a complex interaction between our
biological predispositions and the environment.
This interaction is expressed in the notion of biological sexual energy
being tamed by external factors, predominately parental rules. The result of this interaction is expressed
through degrees of anxiety related behaviour such as neurosis and obsessive
compulsive disorder. Though Freud
expressed interaction taking place between biology and the environment, his
theory does little to explain the intricate mechanisms of how and why this
interaction takes place. This is no
fault of Freud per se, since he took no real scientific interest in this area.
The question concerning the
exact nature of what is developed in
Freud’s theory is largely dependent on the ‘mind’. Freud argued that over time, humans develop
the Id, ego and superego (in that order) to tackle the inherent sexual
conflicts driven by the Id and the Oedipus complex (infants desire for their
mother). Thus what is primarily
developed according to Freud is ones emotional states and their associated
thought patterns (Miller, 2011).
II
The ethological view of human
development, like Freud’s theory, emphasizes the importance of genetic
predispositions but unlike Freud’s theory, this view takes into consideration
that such genetic predispositions forms the basis of behaviour that are a
product of thousands of years worth of evolution. As a result, certain behavioral traits
observed in humans, as well as in many other animal species, are selected
because such behaviours are assumed to promote the chances of that species
survival. In terms of development then,
the theory aims to explain that behavioral traits, such as the attachment process
between infant and mother, carries an intrinsic value that not only sets the
groundwork for healthy development later, but suggests that such behaviours
will increase the chances of survival and hence reproduction of the genes. In light of the ethological approach,
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) suggests that infants are wired, or
pre-programmed, to seek out a secure attachment to their primary carer for
general protection food and comfort. The
mother, in theory at least, is also programmed to respond to the child’s needs
which results in a harmonious attachment between infant and mother that aides
future development and promotes the infants chances of survival.
How the theory attempts to
explain the basic nature of human beings is largely dependent on what aspect of evolutionary theory one
approaches. For example, if one takes
Bowlby’s idea that humans are animals that constantly seeks a parent or mate,
then this view implies that humans are an organismic entity (similar to Freud’s
theory). Where as on the other hand,
Lorenz saw the basic nature of humans as more of an automatic response to
stimuli as seen in his study of imprinting with goslings. Despite these contrasting views, any
evolutionary theory of human development must take into account the importance
of our ancestral past. Since what we are
is the result of thousands or even millions of years of constant adaptation to
our environment, one can conclude that our basic nature of humans is no
different to the basic nature of other animals.
Whereas Freud postulated that
human development rests on the successful completion of stages, evolutionary
theory rejects any form of stage development.
But this doesn't imply that development is not a qualitative process,
since one can argue that from our ancestral past to modern day man behaviours
have certainly changed. Whether this
change is continuous in the sense of making progress, however, is impossible to
answer. Regardless of this, behavioral
changes, in one sense or another, appears to have occurred for better or
worse.
As with Freud’s theory,
evolutionary theory also explains behavioral development in terms of complex
interactions between genetic predispositions and environmental stimuli. What appears to be a complex issue, however,
is how this theory explains such an intricate interaction. Is it the case that environmental stimuli
somehow select and dictate how genetic mutations occur? Or does the theory place emphasis on the
genotype as the entity that
predominately uses the environment to create such change? One might conclude that behavioral changes
constitute an equal share of the variance between genotype and the environment,
but the theory would still need to explain in detail how this share of the
variance explains subsequent development.
However this interaction takes place, the result seems to indicate that
change in both behaviour and thought has taken place over thousands of years.
There is great difficulty in
determining what exactly develops according the evolutionary theory. On the one hand, one can suggest that it is
the genotype, with its propensity for interacting with the environment, that is
the thing that develops. This view would give us a very general view
of development since it would account for all species (Miller, 2002). However, on the other hand it would explain
near enough nothing when it comes to specie-specific development. In which case the question posed is: what
develops in terms of the human species alone?
This can be a hard question to answer since the theory would need to
take into account important individual differences within humans of all
societies and cultural backgrounds.
Perhaps a rough answer is to suggest that what develops isn’t resolved
to a single entity or thing, but rather a whole range of things that encompass
our evolutionary past, our current environment, as well as genetic
predispositions.
To conclude, both theories
share a number of similarities – for example the genetic predispositions and
view that nature and nurture is one of interaction. Indeed, with Freud’s theory of biological
drives and sex, one can argue that he too borrowed heavily from evolutionary
theory. However, if one is to ask what
does Freud’s theory need to explain, the answer is that the theory needs a proper
explanation how and why our so called primitive thoughts clash with social
norms and parental teachings, and indeed, why this leads on to obsessive,
neurotic, or anxious behaviour. On the
other hand, what evolutionary theory needs to explain is how and why such small
intricate steps over thousands of years seem to generate behavioral change in
the first place. Indeed, one answer
suggests an interaction between nature and nurture. But, as previously mentioned, the theory
would need to explain coherently the degree of variance between our genotypes
and the environment.
References
Bowlby. J (1969). Attachment.
Attachment and Loss. Vol. I. London:
Hogarth
Sigmund Freud, New
Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis[1933] (Penguin Freud Library 2) p.
105-6
Jones, E. (1953). The life and work of Sigmund Freud. Vol I,
the formative years and the great discoveries 1856-1900. New York
Miller, P. (2002). Theories
of developmental psychology. New York
No comments:
Post a Comment