Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory and Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Over the centuries, various thinkers have tried to solve the mysteries of human development, which succeeded in the last couple of centuries. Several theories have been developed that began to bear the names of their creators like Freud’s psychosexual theory, Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, Bandura’s social cognitive theory, and so on. All of them have different approaches and their development was influenced by an uncountable number of factors like era, political system, and personal experiences of a scientist. All this diversity of views allows us to explore the similarities and differences, in this case, of two quite different theories of human development. The first one is Erikson’s psychosocial theory and the other one is Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This essay deal with the comparison and contradistinction of these two theories. The general ideas as a whole will be compared, the epochs in which theories were developed and what factors influenced this, the nature-nurture debate, and the periods of development.

Today Vygotsky’s ideas are considered mainly within the framework of general psychology, defectology, and pedagogy. During his short life, the scientist has repeatedly witnessed epoch-making events in the political life of Russian society: the revolution of 1905 and 1917, the First World War, and the global transformation of the political regime. The post-revolutionary events in Russia - tragic, crucial, inextricably linked with the search for the answer to the question “how to live further” - could not but leave an imprint on the development of Vygotsky’s ideas, which had never been a passive observer of history, but, on the contrary, had an active life position. (Paveliev, 2017)

It seems that there can be no doubt that Vygotsky’s views were influenced by Marxist philosophy (in the form, of course, as he himself interpreted it). However, those readers of his works who have become acquainted with them through the English translation of his work may not agree with this statement and will do so for obvious reasons. The fact is that in preparing of translation most of the references to the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism were omitted, and as for the references to Lenin, they disappeared completely. At the same time, obviously, the translators were convinced that the references to the works of the classics of Marxism are opportunistic in nature and therefore can be omitted without prejudice to the scientific content of Vygotsky’s works (Hanfmann & Vakar, 1962). As a result of this operation, for the historian of psychology who does not speak Russian, it becomes practically impossible to understand the initial premises of Vygotsky’s approach to the problems under consideration. Meanwhile, acquaintance with the Russian original gives a clear idea that in this work Vygotsky tried to demonstrate the connection that exists between Leninist epistemology and his own views on the development of thinking in children. He talks about the “unity of opposites”, which are “imagination and thinking in its development ... and their bifurcation” in the process of cognition (Vygotsky, 1962, pp. 92, 101). As we will see later, Vygotsky was very critical of the epistemological dualism inherent in the theory of language put forward by Jean Piaget, and in particular to what Piaget called the 'autistic' use of language by children. Vygotsky emphasized that the Marxist approach to studying the problems of language allows us to reveal the 'social character' of its appearance. (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 174) We can observe how Vygotsky’s ideas intersect with the ideas of socialism, where the community is presented as an unsanitary force capable of fomenting a world revolution. In the same way, in his sociocultural theory, the author presents society as an ultimatum force capable of nurturing and educating the younger generation. It is cooperation with other people that is the main source of development of a child’s personality, and dialogue is the most important feature of consciousness. (Paveliev, 2017)

The emergence of the personality theory of the American psychoanalyst Erickson contributed to the work on psychoanalysis. Erickson adopted Freud’s personality structure and created a psychoanalytic concept of the relationship between the self and society. He drew particular attention to the role of the 'I' in the development of personality, believing that the foundations of the human 'I' lie in the social organization of society. He came to this conclusion by observing the personality changes that occurred with people in post-war America. People became more anxious, harsh, prone to apathy, confusion. Accepting the idea of unconscious motivation, Erickson in his studies paid special attention to the processes of socialization. Erickson's work marks the beginning of a new method of researching the psyche - psychohistorian, which is the application of psychoanalysis to the study of personality development, taking into account the historical period in which she lives. Carrying out field ethnographic studies of parenting in two Native American tribes and comparing them with parenting in urban US families, Erickson found that each culture has its own special style of motherhood, which every mother perceives as the only correct one. However, as Erickson emphasized, the style of motherhood is always determined by what exactly is expected from the child in the future of the social group to which he belongs (his tribe, class, or caste). (Hilko, 2014)

We can observe that two authors developed their theories in the conditions of the so-called social crisis and the need for revising old views. Thus, the similarity of the views of the two authors on the influence of society in human development is clearly traced. However, Vygotsky was obviously inspired by the ideas of Marxism and his predecessor Piaget, when Erickson was evidently by the ideas of his fellow opponent Freud.

It is obvious that in their works Vygotsky and Erickson extol the role of nurture over the genome since both write about the importance of upbringing and, above all, the circumstances in which the child grows. In his approach, Vygotsky proposes to consider the social environment not as one of the factors, but as the main source of personality development. In the development of the child, he notes, there are, as it were, two intertwined lines. The first follows the path of natural maturation, the second consists in mastering the culture, ways of behavior, and thinking. According to Vygotsky’s theory, the development of thinking and other mental functions occurs primarily not through their self-development, but the child’s use of “psychological tools”, through mastery of the system of signs, such as language, writing, and the system of counting. (Kozlov, 2014)

Eric Erickson's theory is epigenetic. Epigenesis - the presence of a holistic congenital plan that defines the main stages of development (Eliseev, 2017). We can say that both authors single out a separate niche for the role of nature in human development, the main role is played only on the primitive planet. Vygotsky in his works distinguishes between lower (natural) mental functions and higher mental functions. The relationship between these classes of functions in Vygotsky's book was not strictly designated. In some cases, lower mental functions were considered as biological prerequisites for constructing the corresponding higher mental functions (for example, involuntary memory of a newborn and baby can be the basis for the development of mediated and arbitrarily controlled memory), in other cases, higher mental functions can exist in an intersubjective form and simply be assimilated a child in the learning process (such as writing and reading skills). In both cases, Vygotsky saw the development of mental functions in the context of the Hegelian pattern of development, according to which any developing cognitive function exists initially 'in-itself, then 'for others and, finally, 'for-itself.' (Subbotinsky, 1996) Erickson, however, mentioned the influence of the genome only in predetermining the suffering of development, which are the same for everyone. “Erickson believed that the sequence of stages is the result of biological maturation, and the content of development is determined by what society expects from a person” – says Hilko in his book 'Social Psychology'.

According to Eric Erickson’s theory of personality development, personality development continues throughout life, where one stage in the case of a successful resolution of internal contradictions replaces the other. (Elkind, 1996)

It is impossible to argue that the concept of stages plays a vital role in Erickson's theory. Based on his works, Erickson singled out the stages of a person’s life path. Each stage of the life cycle is characterized by a specific task that is put forward by society. The society also determines the content of development at different stages of the life cycle. However, the solution to the problem, according to Erickson, depends on the already achieved level of psychomotor development of the individual, and on the general spiritual atmosphere of the society in which this individual life. (Hilko, 2014) Between each of the stages of development, there is a so-called development crisis. It is accompanied by the formation of all forms of identity. According to Erickson, the main crisis of identity falls on adolescence. If the development processes are successful, then an “adult identity” is achieved, and when difficulties arise in development, a delay in identity is noted. Erickson called the interval between youth and adulthood a “psychosocial moratorium”. This is the time when a young man tries by trial and error to find his place in life. The turbulence of this crisis depends on how successfully the previous crises were resolved (trust, independence, activity, etc.) and on the spiritual atmosphere in society. If the crisis was not successfully overcome in the early stages, a delay in identity may be noted. Erickson introduced the concept of ritualization into psychology. Ritualization in behavior is an interaction built by the agreement of two or more people, which can be renewed at certain intervals in repeated circumstances (a ritual of mutual recognition, greeting, criticism, etc.). Once a ritual has arisen, it is sequentially included in the system arising at higher levels, becoming part of the subsequent stages. (Hilko, 2014)

Vygotsky also highlights the stages of development of the child. The division occurs in stable and crisis periods as well. Vygotsky attached great importance to crises. Crises, in contrast to stable periods, last several months (reach one or two). These are brief but stormy stages during which a significant shift in development occurs, changes dramatically in many of its features. Development at this time can be disastrous. The crisis is the beginning and end of an inconspicuous exacerbation in the form of “difficult education”, affects, moods, conflicts, when performance decreases, interest decreases. However, in different children, crisis periods go differently: some are not tolerable; others are quiet and obedient, but they all experience difficulties in communicating with others, the pace of advancement in study and work is changing. The main changes during the crisis are internal: to the forefront - what has formed at the previous stage disappears, loses interest in what directed all activities yesterday. Along with the losses, something new is being created. But this is still an unstable neoplasm and then in a stable period, they transform into other neoplasms, dissolve in them and thus die off. In crisis periods, the main contradictions are aggravated: on the one hand, between the increased needs of the child and his still limited opportunities; on the other hand, between new needs and past relationships with adults. Crisis and stable periods alternate each other. (Belyaeva, 2002)

Thus, we can see that both Erickson and Vygotsky divide development into stages and crises. Both emphasize the importance of successfully overcoming each crisis. The difference lies in the fact that the Vygotsky stage disappears when a child reaches a mature age, while Erickson claims that periods accompany a person throughout his life.

Summing, we can say that even though the psychosocial theory of Erickson and the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky belong to different classes, it can be argued that they are quite similar. Of course, in a detailed analysis, the two theories are completely different in their approaches to the development of a child and a person. While Vygotsky’s theory covers only child development, Erickson has fattened his theory for the entire period of a person’s life. Thus, developmental stages will also be derived from the time period covered. Accordingly, Erickson has more stages than Vygotsky. Both psychologists attach vital importance to the direct upbringing of children, in some way neglecting the role of nature.