Among other psychoanalytic theories of development, Erikson’s theory stands as most comprehensive. It is substantial, and comprehensive about development stages from childhood to adulthood and beyond. Other theories, like Freud, Piaget’s, Gilligan’s, and Kohlberg’s provide a less substantial overview. Erikson’s theory provides a very accurate approach to moral development. In comparison to Piaget’s theory, Erikson’s theory traverses the trajectory of moral and social cognitive abilities development, while Piaget provides a complacent overview about contemporary moral development (Campbell, and Christopher, pp. 1-47).
Other theories conclude that development of a moral value begins at some point in time. Let us pit Erikson’s theory against Piaget’s. According to Erikson, moral development is progressive. It includes a set of stages, which eventual miss out would adversely affect future moral values of the individual. To quantify this, Erikson projects that, each stage marks a maturity, and if not passed, it will be passed at some point in life.
Compared to Freud’s theory, the Erikson’s theory is explicit about core development stages and the gradual acquisition of psychosocial skills. Freud explains the development stages from cognitive perspectives; Erikson thoroughly expounds on the progressive development and gradual acquisition of knowledge in the development stages. The oral stage is a broadening of Freud’s ‘trust and mistrust ‘concept which he explains as very important during early stages of growth and development.
Freud and Erikson phased growth and development into stages of psychosocial. The first stage of development is observed to trace its functionality from pregnancy throughout birth and the first year (Campbell, and Christopher, pp. 1-47). The anal stage is observed from the onset of the second year throughout to the third year. The stages of development in the human development trajectory coincide with other theories only that, there are variations in source of inspiration to foster moral perspective. Piaget argues that development is heteronomous, meaning, the development stages are adherence excerpts of superior character and enforced virtues, values and moral positions. Here Piaget’s objective is to project heteronomy as adherence to duty, rules, and obedience. Along adherence, the child acquires an ego and a perception or viewpoint of things (Jenks, pp. 327-329).
Piaget uses interaction as core in moral development, with age medians for such interactions determining the outcomes. Kohlberg argues that, in principal, moral development emanates from a convectional level of reasoning. Moral development seems premised in the social values, not the self-perception as per Kohlberg. However, this view dissents from one taken by Erikson. Erikson theory is more accurate about stage-based moral development and drawing the moral construct from a convectional level of reasoning (Jenks, pp. 327-329).
The oedipal stage, where sexual identity construct begins its manifest and the latency stage are core stages of moral and sexual identity development. However, many other theories fail to identify this in their context. Parenting and teaching during this stage is very important. It determines the outcomes of the future morality of the child. This makes this stage sensitive in context. Puberty follows the latency stage and the child’s sexual identity becomes apparent. The full development of sexual organs and their maturity is observed. The Gilligan theory does not not provide insight about development of moral construct rather compare development to adoption of values through phased orientation. Young adulthood comes as a very vital stage and peers play a great role in shaping the future of the individual. Many theories dwell on the moral construct observed in this stage and the subsequent outcomes of affiliations and orientation. Only Erikson remains a Freudian who phases the later life stages of human development. Summarily, Erikson’s theory is the most concise and comprehensive theory of psychosocial development and due to its accurate explanations about development is theoretically correct in comparison to others.
Works Cited
Campbell, Robert, and John Christopher. “MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY: A CRITIQUE OF ITS KANTIAN PRESUPPOSITIONS.” Developmental Review 16.1 (1996): 1-47. Web.
Jenks, Chris. Childhood: critical concepts in sociology. 1. New York: Routledge, 2005. 327-329. Print.