Reflection paper on Bronfenbrenner’s and Erikson Theories on Social development

        

         Reflection paper on Bronfenbrenner’s and Erikson Theories on Social development

Two of the most famous theories that tackle lifespan development are Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Stage Theory and Erikson’s Psychological Development Theory.

Uri Bronfenbrenner, a Russian American psychologist, believed that the child’s development is influenced by everything that surrounds him/her. Therefore, his Ecological Theory emphasized on five systems that interact with the child’s development. The first system is the microsystem that includes the immediate environment that has direct significant contact with the child such as parents and siblings. The second system is the mesosystem that involves the relationships between the microsystem and the larger community such as schools and religions. The third system is the exosystem that includes the social settings that do not directly affect the child such as the political and economic situations that impact the economic behaviours of the individuals residing in the house. The fourth one is the macrosystem that consists of the cultural elements such as the beliefs and ideologies and how the child responds to them. The fifth and last system is the chronosystem that is related to the historical context where beliefs and circumstances has developed and their impacts on the child’s development, such as the change in cultural values transmitted from grandparents to children.

Thus, I think that Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory provides a framework for systematically examining social context and a model that helps us to understand the different environment factors that impact the child’s development, although it pays little attention to the biological and cognitive factors that affect the child through his developmental stages.

As for Erik Erikson, a German American psychologist, he developed the Life-Span Development Theory that has complemented Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory, and it includes eight stages that an individual passes through his lifespan. Each period has its unique challenges or psychosocial crisis, as Erikson states, which leave a positive or negative impact on the individual depending on the way he/she resolves them. The first stage is the infancy where the main crisis is trust vs. mistrust. The second stage is the early childhood with autonomy vs. shame/doubt conflict rises. The third stage is the preschool where the child has to face initiative vs. guilt challenges. The fourth stage is the school age with industry vs. inferiority crises in need to be resolved. The fifth stage is the adolescence with its identity vs. role confusion crisis. The sixth stage is the young adulthood where the individual has to resolve the conflict of intimacy vs. isolation. The seventh stage is the middle adulthood with the generativity vs. stagnation issues to be settled. The eighth and last stage is maturity where ego integrity vs. despair conflicts are checked to see the level of acceptance the individual has lived through his life.

So according to Erikson, the completion of one stage is necessary for the next crisis development, therefore, I believe it offers a rigid framework, where development may differ from one person to another, from one gender to another, and from one culture to another and at different levels.

In brief, I think both Bronfenbrenner and Erikson theories must be reread and undergo certain modifications, taking into consideration some drastic circumstances that may occur in our fast paced world, with its technological advance and recent pandemics, such as Covid 19 that has affected Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem and  has left its deep impact on children’s personality and way of interaction after this pandemic has rendered people helpless and locked down forced to deal with virtual online world and obliged to stand the severe consequences that have influenced many families.  I believe that Corona virus has also left its traces on Erikson stages, where proper development has failed to occur at most of the stages especially the early stages, where children, and for almost two years, have lacked the opportunity to develop in a natural way leaving negative unresolved compiling psychosocial crisis behind. So, a detailed revision for both theories are required for optimal and effective outcomes that help in better understanding of the social development of the individual.