A Comparison of an Existential Theory to Psychosocial Theory

Introduction

Comparing Existentialist Theory to the, comparatively speaking, “hard science” of human development theory developed by Erik Erickson can be challenging. On one hand, Erickson's stages of development are seemingly uniform and predict specific behavior and psychosocial tasks along a predictable time line (Newman and Newman, 2006). On the other hand, the Existentialist gives us what on the surface looks to be a highly philosophical theory of personality which emphasizes utter freedom, anxiety, and a seemingly unpredictable lifespan development based on how each individual experiences the commonalities of aloneness, meaninglessness, and mortality (Yale, 1989). To say that Existentialist Theory is not as straight forward and predictable as Psychosocial Theory is perhaps an understatement. Therefore, it is prudent to lay out in advance some specific areas with which to constrain this particular paper.

In this paper Psychosocial Theory is defined and compared with Existential Theory in general and with the specific “developmental” framework of Roll May, who is considered the best known of American Existential Psychologists (Bore, 2006). While there are many other Existential theorists who are extremely important, May’s work is preferred here because he was the only Existentialist who held that there were certain “stages” of development that could be observed during the lifespan (May, 1953). This similarity between the two is not surprising given that both May and Erickson had in common a Freudian influence (Newman and Newman, 2006; Reeves, 1977).

Next, the Existentialist concepts of Umwelt (the physical), Mitwelt (the social), Eigenwelt (the psychological), and Uberwelt (the transcendent), are examined and compared with the Psychosocial approach to the interaction of the biological, psychological, and societal systems, as presented by Newman and Newman (Newman and Newman, 2006; van Deurzen and Bantam, 2005). Here the expression “systems of being” is used in order to emphasize the Existentialist concept of “being” (Casein) while comparing the several “systems” used by both Erikson and Roll May (Headgear, 1927).

Finally, an examination of how both theories work reciprocally in Social Work practice is presented as a conclusion that while Psychosocial Theory tends to be highly descriptive of human development in a general way, Existential Theory tends to work best on the individual level as each person creates meaning within the context of their own experiences (May, 1953). This principle difference in focus suggests that the two theories are complimentary to one another rather than in every respect, different conceptual frameworks.

Theories Defined

When a definition for the term “Psychosocial Theory” is needed, one only needs to look at the work of Erickson and his students. It is plainly laid out and even has charts-- not so with Existential theory. The latter is an umbrella term which covers a wide variety of theories, only slightly different from one another, within a framework laid out during what many have called a “movement,” more than a school of philosophy (Existentialism, 2007). Nevertheless, Existential Theory does have its commonalities, just not in the uniform way that Psychosocial theory does. The principle reason for this is that Psychosocial theory is connected to the theory of evolution in a broad, yet fundamental way (Newman and Newman, 2006).

It was Julian Huxley, the grandchild of evolutionary protagonist Thomas Henry Huxley, who developed a construct termed “Psychosocial Evolution.” Psychosocial Evolution is the larger theory of human development wherein theorists hold that human persons are able to transmit a range of human knowledge and abilities from their ancestors to their children, and so on; or that Evolutionary Theory led to advances in human organization in many different aspects, not merely biological (Newman and Newman, 2006; Huxley 1953). For this reason, Erickson's psychosocial theory has a major distinctive philosophical assumption which distinguishes it from Existential Theory.

This distinction is summed up in the expression “progress without goal,” a saying used by J. Hugely in order to distinguish his teleology from the Aristotelean view, and is an admitted assumption of Psychosocial Theory (Newman and Newman, 2006; Huxley, 1942). While it is true that most Existentialists would say a human person's development is without meaning independent of the individual experiential, it does not assume that growth will occur by any “evolutionary” factors beyond a person's immediate control or beyond the will and freedom of that individual. It does not assume, for instance, what Newman and Newman, 2006, state as an assumption of their text on Psychosocial Theory: “Growth occurs at every period of life, from conception through very old age” (p. 5). Instead, Existential Theory predicts that every individual has the potential to create his own fulfilling meaning (“grow”) in a world of varied experiences by way of internal exploration and adaptation to his or her own environment (Krill, 1996).

Systems of Being

In order to further define Existential Theory it is important to give attention to what Existentialists might call “systems of being.” These dimensions, or “systems” of being are convenient for this paper because they mirror what Erickson understood as the “arenas” of human development: the biological, psychological, and societal systems (Newman and Newman, 2006). But for the Existentialist, the systems; namely: Physical (Umwelt), Psychological (Eigenwelt), Social (Miwelt) and Transcendent (Uberwelt), are inextricably linked to the concept of “Being” -- as defined by various Existentialist philosophers and Roll May as “[not] a collection of static substances or mechanisms or patterns but rather as emerging and becoming, that is to say, as existing” (Reeves, 1977; May, 1983). For most Existentialists, it is within these “systems of being” that human persons use their utter freedom, in the immediate moment, in suffering or in joy, to create their own meaning in life (Krill, 1996). In other words, to be a human person means to be continually “becoming” and environments are a necessity, without which, there is no person hood, no growth and development – it is simply one's orientation to the world that defines reality (van Deurzen and Bantam, 2005). For Erickson, on the other hand, there is growth, good or bad, within the separate reality of the “arenas,” which are also growing and developing, as a basic assumption of Evolutionary necessity (Newman and Newman, 2006).

Additionally, the “dimensions of being” under Existentialism are meant to philosophically transcend race and culture, and be sufficiently broad enough to encompass any human person (van Deurzen and Bantam, 2005). Whether or not they are that exactly is debatable; but the fact that Psychosocial Theory deals with these “arenas” by giving specific attention to race and culture, highlights how differently these two theories understand what the essence of “systems of being” is (Newman and Newman, 2006). For Psychosocial theory the point is that race, culture, sauce-economic status, matter a great deal when understanding how the societal aspect of human development affect development (Newman and Newman, 2006). In sharp contrast, for Existential Theory, it is not the specific place and circumstances of one's existence that shape a person's development, it is what the person makes of his or her circumstances (May, 1953)

“Stages” of Development

Even though Existential Theory insists that individuals are utterly free to create their own sense of growth, meaning, and development in the world, questions concerning how this freedom is accessed by people at various levels of maturity throughout the lifespan have not been frequently addressed by theorists (Bore, 2006). Nevertheless, psychiatrist Roll May did give some attention to certain Existential stages that further illuminate the differences between Psychosocial Theory and Existentialism while giving the two theories a clear common ground. Erickson saw eight stages of Psychosocial development along the course of the lifespan in contrast to May's four. For EEricksonon the stages were linear based on age while May understood his stages to be far less linear, at least beyond the first stage of Innocence (Newman and Newman, 2006; Reeves, 1975). Innocence, according to May, is that time in human development that is pre-egoic, wherein the infant is “like a wild animal” and has no concept or ability to access the essential quality “being,” which is freedom (Boeree, 2006). This is in contrast to Erickson's view that growth occurs at every stage of development and that human person activily contribute to their development (Newman and Newman, 2006).

The next stage for May is the stage of Rebellion, which includes children and adolescents, and even young adults. In this stage the the human person wants to enjoy the benefits of freedom, but has not yet fully understood its corolary, responsibility (Boeree, 2006). Contrasting this with the several stages outlined and elaborated on within the framework of Psychosocial Theory gives one a good idea of what could be considered a major weakness of Existential Theory: that is pays far too little attention to what many developmental theories consider to be an important, even foundational, period of human development (Newman and Newman, 2006).

May's last two stages, which are not intended to be completely linear in the way that Erickson's are at least, are the Ordinary and the Creative. For May the Ordinary stage is the normal adult ego, an orthodox confromist who hasn't accessed the Creative level, a level that requires a full embrace of the existentialist concepts of freedom, anxiety, and destiny (Boeree, 2006). Here May's lack of categories might be seen as a complimentary strength within the context of a Psychosocial framework, since, no matter what psychosocial stage a an adult might be in, moving from Ordinary to Creative is assumed to be a desirable therapeutic goal.

Implication for Social Work Practice

In Social Work practitioners deal with a very wide variety of clients and a framework, like Psychosocial Theory, is extremely helpful as a way to begin to understand a new client based on commonalities one might expect from group based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. This is the real strength of Psychosocial Theory as a foundational theory with which to work in as a context for helping. The role of Existential Theory (psychologically and philosophically) is wholly different, yet complimentary. Existential Theory speaks to a person's freedom and responsibility to develop, grow, and become what they want to be. Therefore, it seems that counseling is the natural fit for the for an application of the theory, withing the context of the understanding that is brought to by Psychosocial Theory. This is the right place for Existential Theory because first and foremost Existentialism is a philosophy posits that human person create the meaning and essence of their lives – a unqiue philosophical perspective in counseling that promotes the will to change for the better (Existentialism, 2007; Krill 1996).

Bibliography


Boeree, C. G. (2006). Personality Theories. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from Rollo May Web site: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/may.html


Existentialism. (2007). In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy [Web]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/


Krill, Donald (1996). Existential Social Work. In Francis J. Turner (Ed.). (1996). Social Work Treatment. New York, New York: The Free Press.


Heidegger, Martin (1927). The Basic Problems of Phenomenology: Introduction. In The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (pp. 1-23). Indianapolis Press, 1975. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heidegge.htm


Huxley, JS (1953). Evolution in Action. London: Chatto & Windus.


Huxley, JS (1942). Evolution: the modern sysnthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.


May, Rollo (1953). Man's Search for Himself. New York, New York: Norton and Company, Inc.


May, Rollo (1983). The Discovery of Being. New York, New York: Basic Books, Inc.


Reeves, Clement (1977). The Psychology of Rollo May. San Francico, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.


van Deurzen , Emmy and Digby Tantam (2005). Existential Psychotherapy. Retrieved November 27, 2007, Web site: http://www.existentialpsychotherapy.net


Yalom, Irivin D. (1989). Love's Executioner: And Other Tales of Psychotherapy. Canada: Harper Collins.