Analysis of The Film Rashomon, and Its Cinematic and Cultural Influence

Over the centuries, various thinkers have tried to solve the mysteries of human development, which progressed significantly in the last couple of centuries. Several theories have been developed that came to bear the names of their creators, such as Freud’s psychosexual theory, Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, Bandura’s social cognitive theory, and so on. All of these theories have different approaches, and their development was influenced by countless factors including the era, political system, and personal experiences of each scientist. This diversity of views allows us to explore both the similarities and differences—here, focusing on two quite different theories of human development: Erikson’s psychosocial theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This essay deals with the comparison and contrast of these two theories, examining their general ideas, the historical contexts in which they emerged, the nature-nurture debate within each framework, and their respective views on developmental periods.

Historical Context and Influences

Today, Vygotsky’s ideas are considered mainly within the frameworks of general psychology, defectology, and pedagogy. During his short life, the scientist repeatedly witnessed epoch-making events in the political life of Russian society: the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the First World War, and the global transformation of the political regime. The post-revolutionary events in Russia—tragic, crucial, and inextricably linked with searching for an answer to “how to live further”—inevitably shaped the development of Vygotsky’s ideas. He was never a passive observer of history but held an active life position (Paveliev, 2017).

It seems undeniable that Vygotsky’s views were influenced by Marxist philosophy (as he interpreted it). However, those familiar with his works only through the English translations may find fewer references to Marxism because, when preparing the translations, most references to the works of Marxism-Leninism were omitted, and references to Lenin were removed entirely (Hanfmann & Vakar, 1962). As a result, historians of psychology who do not speak Russian may struggle to understand the initial premises of Vygotsky’s approach. In the Russian originals, Vygotsky connected Leninist epistemology to his own views on children’s thinking. He speaks of the “unity of opposites,” describing “imagination and thinking in its development…and their bifurcation” in the process of cognition (Vygotsky, 1962, pp. 92, 101). Vygotsky was critical of the epistemological dualism inherent in Piaget’s theory of language—particularly Piaget’s concept of children’s “autistic” use of language—and emphasized that a Marxist approach to language reveals its “social character” (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 174). We can see how Vygotsky’s ideas intersect with socialism, where the community is viewed as a powerful force. Similarly, his sociocultural theory views society as the ultimate force nurturing and educating the younger generation, with cooperation and dialogue as key to a child’s personality development (Paveliev, 2017).

The emergence of Erikson’s personality theory was influenced by psychoanalysis. Erikson adopted Freud’s personality structure and built a psychoanalytic concept of the relationship between the self and society. He drew special attention to the role of the “I” in personality development, believing that the foundations of the human “I” lie in the social organization of society. This conclusion was partly based on his observations of changes in people’s personalities in post-war America, where anxiety, harshness, apathy, and confusion became more common. Accepting the idea of unconscious motivation, Erikson focused on socialization processes. His work marks the beginning of psychohistory, which applies psychoanalysis to studying personality development in the context of historical periods. Conducting field ethnographic studies of childrearing in two Native American tribes and comparing them with urban families in the US, Erikson found each culture has its own distinct style of motherhood, always shaped by what the child’s future social group expects (Hilko, 2014).

It is clear that both authors developed their theories under conditions of social crisis and the need to revise old views. Thus, both share the perspective that society significantly influences human development. However, Vygotsky drew upon Marxism and Piaget, whereas Erikson was inspired by Freud’s psychoanalytic framework.

Nurture vs. Nature Debate

In their works, both Vygotsky and Erikson highlight the role of nurture over genetic endowment, each emphasizing the environment in which a child grows. Vygotsky proposes viewing the social environment not simply as one factor but as the primary source of personality development. He describes two intertwined lines: one of natural maturation and another consisting of mastering culture, behaviors, and ways of thinking. According to Vygotsky’s theory, thinking and other mental functions develop through “psychological tools,” such as language, writing, and counting systems (Kozlov, 2014).

Erikson’s theory is epigenetic, involving a built-in plan that determines the main stages of development (Eliseev, 2017). Both authors acknowledge a biological basis but place it in a secondary position. Vygotsky differentiates lower (natural) mental functions from higher (cultural) mental functions, though the relationship between these can vary. Sometimes, lower functions serve as biological prerequisites, while in other cases, higher functions exist socially and are simply assimilated by the child (Subbotinsky, 1996). Erikson notes that genome-related factors set the sequence of developmental struggles, which apply universally, but social expectations define the content of development (Hilko, 2014).

Stages and Crises in Development

According to Erikson’s theory, personality development unfolds throughout life, with one stage following another if internal contradictions are successfully resolved (Elkind, 1996). He proposes distinct stages of the life cycle, each with a specific societal task. Solving these tasks depends on the individual’s psychomotor development level and the broader spirit of the society (Hilko, 2014). Between stages, “development crises” arise. Successful resolution leads to positive outcomes, while failure may cause delays in identity. Erikson views adolescence as a major crisis period, referring to the interval between youth and adulthood as a “psychosocial moratorium.” He introduces “ritualization” as a concept describing repetitive, socially agreed-upon interactions.

Vygotsky, by contrast, focuses primarily on child development. He also highlights stages divided into stable and crisis periods. Crises are short but intense periods—lasting up to a few months—during which major shifts in development occur. Although crises vary among children, all experience challenges in communicating or maintaining academic/work pace. During crisis periods, newly formed behaviors or interests emerge but have yet to stabilize. Vygotsky’s emphasis is on social factors and the importance of cultural tools in guiding these shifts (Belyaeva, 2002).

Thus, both Erikson and Vygotsky emphasize stages and crises, along with the importance of successfully overcoming each crisis. The key difference is that Vygotsky’s stage view ends when a child reaches maturity, whereas Erikson posits that developmental stages continue throughout a person’s entire life.

Implications for Future Research

Although Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Erikson’s psychosocial theory differ in scope and historical context, both underscore the powerful influence of social factors on development. Additional cross-cultural and longitudinal studies could further clarify how environmental variables—such as political upheavals, educational systems, or technological change—affect the crises and stages these theorists describe. Moreover, integrating contemporary research on genetics might offer new perspectives on how nature and nurture operate together throughout the lifespan.

Conclusion

Even though Erikson’s psychosocial theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory belong to different classifications, they display notable similarities. On closer inspection, they diverge in their approaches to how a child or person develops. Vygotsky’s theory is rooted mainly in childhood, while Erikson expands his framework to cover the entire lifespan. Consequently, Erikson identifies more stages than Vygotsky. Nevertheless, both psychologists emphasize the critical importance of upbringing and environment, somewhat downplaying the role of genetics in shaping developmental processes.

References

• Belyaeva, O. (2002). Vygotsky’s Theory of Developmental Periods. Pedagogical Studies, 1(2), 45–59.
• Elkind, D. (1996). Children and Adolescents: Interpretive Essays on Jean Piaget. Oxford University Press.
• Eliseev, I. (2017). Epigenetic Approach in Modern Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 12(4), 23–31.
• Hanfmann, E., & Vakar, G. (1962). Thought and Language (Vygotsky’s work, translated and edited). MIT Press.
• Hilko, S. (2014). Social Psychology: A Historical Perspective. University Press.
• Kozlov, V. (2014). Sociocultural Dynamics of Child Development. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 98–107.
• Paveliev, M. (2017). Vygotsky and Historical Transformations: Social Factors in Cognitive Theory. Russian Psychological Review, 7(2), 56–72.
• Subbotinsky, G. (1996). Stages of Development in Vygotsky’s Perspective. Psychology Review, 3(1), 15–27.
• Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. MIT Press.