Help
Sign In
altitude
August 2008 
Psychosocial Stages vs Vertical Stage Models: An AQAL Approach
Eric
I was recently looking at the graphs at the end of Integral Psychology (by Ken Wilber) and noticed something: Wilber places Erikson's stages in line with other vertical stage models. But Erikson's "stages" aren't so much structural stages as "forks in the road," or rites of passage (my guess is that, since writing that book, Wilber no longer places Erikson's psychosocial stages along side other vertical stage models).
Yes, they are chronological in nature, but there is a big difference between Erikson's psychosocial stages and other developmental stage models. For example, if we were to take 100,000 people, ranging from sixty to eighty years of age, and test them to see where each one is developmentally on the Spiral Dynamics model, the results would be all over the place. We'd have a broad spectrum ranging from maybe Red to possibly Turquoise. However, when applying Erikson's stages to each of these 100,000 people, each and everyone of them (except for possibly some severely mentally hanicapped individuals) would be at Erikson's "Integrity vs Despair" stage (with individuals having negotiated this stage either successfully or unsuccessfully) simply by virtue of being 60 - 80 years of age (or whatever the age range is, I forget).
So his stages seem more like "critical moments of decision" (these decisions being made either consciously or unconsciously, or both) that unfold chronologically in time (i.e., biological aging; UR) within a cultural setting (LL) and social system(LR), rather than actual structural stages of development (UL). For example, while you might be able to say that a person is at the "Intimacy vs Isolation" stage, this really only speaks of a specific juncture in life that this person has come to face, which can be interpreted from virtually any altitude in the UL; it speaks of the age-related (UR) critical decisions and culturally (LL) and socially (LR) influenced challenges a person might be facing; it says nothing of his or her developmental schema or altitude (in the UL), other than what general age he or she might be (UR). No particular developmental line or capacity is involved, other than maybe physical age and the social and cultural dillemas that appear at specific ages.
So it would seem that although there is a vertical developmental nature to Erikson's stages, it might be more appropriate to classify them as horizontal critical-junctures that arise chronologically with biological aging within cultural and social settings. For example, it is possible for someone to stay at amber for a lifetime and yet pass through everyone of Erikson's stages. In other words, his critical juncture stages can happen at any of the vertical stages: take the 70-year old alcoholic who sleeps on the bus-stop bench, for example, which would be Infrared/Magenta at the "Integrity vs Despair" critical juncture.
Come to think of it, developmental stage models (or vertical stages) are specifically Zone #2 realities(in the UL), while Erikson's psychocosial stages are probably more like Zone #3 realities (definitely in the LL, whether Zone #3 or #4), since they involve the shared feeling-experience of such critical junctures. These critical junctures are also a Zone #6 reality (UR), since they unfold in time with biological age-markers. And they are also Zone #8 realities (LR) because their impact upon individuals will vary in part due to the dominant social system in which the individual is immersed.
So while Erikson's psychosocial stages can emerge at any altitude, these critical junctures will be interpreted according to the center of gravity (or vertical stage) at which the indivudal resides. What we are looking at is the UL Quadrant (with its developmental lines moving through vertical stages) arising simultaneously with the LL (with its culturally shared meaning and shared feeling-experience of the psychosocial junctures), along with the social-systems-influence of the LR and the biological-aging-influence of the UR. So Erikson's psychosocial stages are actually arising in the UR, LR, and LL Quadrants, and are experienced and interpreted in the UL in accordance with whatever altitude the UL may be at.
Access: Public
Hey Eric,
Interesting perspective on Erikson's model. I'd like to add my own perspective to the conversation.
I think Erikson's model belongs in Zone #2. He is looking at development of individuals through time, a Zone #2 methodology.
Erickson, IMO focuses on horizontal health from a Zone #2 perspective. 'Trust vs Mistrust', 'Autonomy vs Shame', 'Initiative vs. Guilt', etc. define horizontal health at different stages of development. The vertical component is implied through the age bracket. An infant will be horizontally healthy if he/she trusts that life is good rather than has deep seated mistrust in the world. The infant doesn't have the 'Autonomy vs Shame' issue until 18 months or the next level in development. Because of the transcend and include nature of development, a 2 year old going through 'Autonomy vs Shame' horizontal health struggle may have 'Trust vs Mistrust' issues, but not vice versa.
Erickson's model is a good starting point to look at horizontal health through the stations of life. AQAL can flesh out the model in several ways. First, Erickson's critics suggest that his model applies to males more than females. Perhaps there are feminine correlates to each masculine horizontal stage in the model. For example, a 18 month - 3 year old boy could define horizontal health as 'Autonomy vs. Shame'. Perhaps a 18 month - 3 year old girl would define horizontal health as 'Connectedness vs. Loneliness'.
We can flesh out the model more by applying the horizontal component to specific altitude's. Using age as an implied altitude works for the most part during childhood, but loses steam in the adult stages. So each horizontal stage can be given a color or altitude. Magenta for 'Autonomy vs Shame', Red for 'Industry vs Inferiority' etc. This will help carry Erickson's model from childhood into adulthood more gracefully.
What line is Erickson referring too? Probably the Self line “Who am I?”
In AQAL space/map, Erickson's model defines masculine horizontal health through stations of life/altitudes in the Self line from a Zone #2 perspective.
Thanks for writing this blog. It's helped me think through (perhaps not fully) these issues.
Frank
Hi Frank -
Thanks for the valid comments. Since Erikson's stages are referred to as “psychosocial,” I believe that they are actually “felt and shared critical junctures” (almost like rites of passage, so to speak) that arise within Cultural and Social contexts, the successful or unsuccessful negotiation of which directly influences Loevinger's “ego/self-concept” line of development.
The problem with assigning altitude to Erikson's psychosocial stages is illustrated by pointing out that as long as an indivudal lives to be seventy or older, they will virtually always reach the Integrity vs Despair juncture (barring severe mental disability, revealing that in a very real sense, the ego/self-concept line has to develop to a certain stage to even be aware of these critical junctures as they arise), regardless of their center of gravity. I believe this is so because these junctures are shared and felt meanings which the self-concept/ego then interprets, which in turn affects development in that specific line.
In other words, a person's center of gravity can come to Orange and stay there for a lifetime, yet as long that person is of average mental ability and lives to seventy years of age, they will always hit Integrity vs Despair, which would be something like Tourquoise if you tried to assign altitude to it. But altitude doesn't work, because as long as a person is of relatively normal mental capacity and lives to be seventy, this would mean that this “line” would always go to Tourquoise every single time, regardless of where the individual's center of gravity is. This just doesn't work.
Also, to call it a horizontal line doesn't work, because it does indeed arise vertically, but mainly in the UR and Lower Quadrants, where it is interpreted within the ego/self-concept line, which itself (i.e., the self-concept) does develop vertically. In other words, Erikson's psychosocial stages are not so much a developmental line of intelligence as they are shared and felt critical junctures (rites of passage) that just so happen to be experienced chronologically in awareness, which have more to do with Cultural expectations regarding age-related responsibilities and competencies within a given Social System, each of which the self-concept line then intreprets and is affected by. However, the self-concept line doesn't have to be that far along in order to be aware of these critical junctures. As mentioned, someone's COG can be at Magenta and still be aware of the Integrity vs Despair juncture, as long as they've lived to be a certain age.
Even if not consciously intepreted, I believe these junctures are still largely intepreted at least in an unconscious or semi-conscious manner, which in turn directly shapes the self-concept. These are really Cultural and Social influences (that more or less arise chronologically in time with physical aging) that shape the self-concept, so they don't qualify as horizontal stages of interior health. They are simply shared and felt critical junctures, the intrpetation of which affects interior health in the self-concept line.
Thanks so much for your comments, as they have helped me to really think this out….
Eric
Good post, Eric. Very informative and clearly written. At the same time, however, I feel Frank's (earlier commenter) approach is the more elegant solution to the questions you raise for putting Erickson into the AQAL model. If I read Frank correctly, he uses the notion of “stations of life” (referenced by Wilber in Integal Spirituality, btw, to talk about states and how they seem to correspond to various seasons of life. By using a concept like a station, signpost, or season instead of either state or stage, as Frank says, we can link Erickson's “stages” to an implied altitude. To put it into my own words, I would say that Erickson really isn't measuring stages at all, but stations of life (i.e., states seen from a wider perspective of time, not just short-term, transitory states) at various altitudes. Although your approach has some benefits recommending it, I don't think it would prove to be useful. Most of the arguments you made for throwing Erickson's stages out of Zone 2 and into Zone 3 (and then suggesting it really belongs in three quadrants) would arguably apply not only to Erickson's work but to all stage models. An unorthodox psychologist could argue that SDi is not really about stages at all but “horizontal critical-junctures” or “critical moments of decision” through which we all must pass with various degrees of failure or success. Most 13 year-olds have passed the hedonistic Impulsive (red) stage of development, but when red tendencies manifest in adults these persons could be said to have failed to make the earlier adjustment and are revisiting the dilemmas posed at that “critical-juncture” later while going through a different season of life.
I think that approach would have many arguments for it as does your approach and that there are different ways of resolving the tensions between stages and states. I don't think you can throw Erickson's stages out of Zone 2 quite so easily without tossing all sorts of stages models out of Zone 2. Better to simply acknowledge as you hve that there are certain oddities of using age as an approximate stage, and doing so seems illegitimate. That's a good point that I think can be resolved by using age as an approximate station.
Yes, I did initially think Erickson's stages might be horizontal at first, but I didn't include it in the blog because, as I thought about it, they seemed less and less like horizontal stages. Because they are psychosocial stages of identity formation, they are simply influences from the Lower Quadrants that arise chronologically in the UR (as the body ages).
In other words, they are Cultural expectations (LL) regarding *age-related* responsibilites and competencies (UR) that arise in a Social System (LR), which are then *interpreted* by Loevinger's self-concept/ego line (UL), thus influencing identity in that specific line of development.
The reason these stages (or rites of passage/critical junctures of cultural expectations and social influences) have a definite vertical nature about them is that they are specifically *age-related*, and thus more or less appear chronologically in time as the body ages (i.e., vertically). This is also the reason I don't think they can be seen as horizontal stages: becaue they are specifically age-related.
Let's take horizontal state-stages as an example: they're considered horizontal specifically because they are available *not only* at every stage, but also at any age. In other words, babies, as well as adults, can experience gross, subtle, causal and nondual states of consciousness (in other words, you can have a peak-experience at any age). But the same is not true with Erickson's psychosocial stages: a baby is not going to even be aware of Integrity vs Despair, much less be able to interpret it, precisely because it is age-related and the ego/self-concept line hasn't developed enough.
Therefore I think that his stages are critical junctures that arise in the UR, LL and LR, and are interpeted by the self-concept line in the UL. In other words, they are age-related Social and Cultural *influences/rites of passage* that directly shape the self-concept line of development in the UL.
wolfspirit wrote:
“I don't think you can throw Erickson's stages out of Zone 2 quite so easily without tossing all sorts of stages models out of Zone 2.”
My reply:
Again, Erickson's psychosocial stages are influences (or critical junctures) which are made up of cultural expectations regarding age-related responsibilities and competencies within a social system, which directly influence self-identity/self-concept.
My point is that these psychosocial stages are not a specific developmental line, but rather are Cultural and Social influences on Loevinger's self-concept/ego line, that just happen to be age-related. This is not the case with many other Zone 2 stage models. SDi is not specifically age-related. For example, you can have an eighty year old homeless man who happens to more or less have a Beige COG. While this may be due to a developmental schism at a young age, he is still able to discern and interpet Erickson's Integrity vs Despair, because it is arising as a felt and shared (though often unspoken) Cultural expectation within a Social System, and is more or less related to his age. While these age-related expectations (and his subsequent conscious or unconscious interpetation of them) have a direct influence on his self concept line of development, they say absolutely nothing at all about the fact that his COG is basically at Beige (which is a Zone 2 reference, and is directly related to altitude).
Erikson's stages, even by his own definition, are simply psychosocial (LL/LR) influences on identity formation (i.e., Loevinger's self-concept/ego line of development, which has a definite vertical trajectory, and is certainly a Zone 2 stage model) that just so happen to arise chronologically with age. Piaget's cognitive line of development, although initially age-related, is not so much age-related by the time formop is reached. A person can possibly reach formop and remain there until death at age eighty. The same is not true with the psychosocial stages. If you live to age eighty, you will always hit the Integrity vs Despair juncture. Always. Why? Because it simply is not part of a Zone 2 stage model.
It has nothing at all to do with altitude. And this is my main point.
Most other Zone 2 stage models, though sometimes age-related, deal specifically with altitude. But saying that I'm at the Generativity vs Self-Absorption stage says very little at all about my worldview or actual level of interior development (i.e., altitude, which is always innate to Zone 2 stage models). All it actually tells you is that I'm roughly 40 years old or so, and that my self-concept/ego line of development is presently being influenced by my interpetation of Cultural expectations concerning where I should be developmentally at this age within my given Social context.
Again, Generativity vs Self-Absorption tells you nothing whatsoever about my actual altitude in any given line of development. It only clues you in that my ego/self-concept line of development is presently being shaped by my interpetation of this particular LL/LR influence/critical juncture simply because I'm 40 years old. It says absolutely nothing about altitude.
Anyway, I will allow all of this to bake in the oven for a while and just hold it all in mind. I trust clarity will emerge. Thankfully, it's just a perspective and not a law written in stone….
More Clarity
What sets Erickson's stages apart from other Zone 2 stage models? All Zone 2 stage models deal specifically with interior development (UL) in a particular development line, and many such stage models are also loosely age-related (UR). For example, Piaget's stages of cognitive development are most certainly age-related, up to Formal Operations. Stages postulated beyond that (in other stage models; pluralistic, for example) are not directly linked to age (i.e., the UR). So you can have an eighty-year old, a twenty year-old and a fifty-year old, all three of which generally have a COG at the pluralistic stage.
However, with Erickson's stages, that same scenario can never happen. For example, the twenty-year old will almost always primarily be both consciously and unconsciously feeling the Culturally shared fear (LL) involving Intimacy vs Isolation and interpreting his or her life in light of those possibe paths (or ”forks in the road,” as it were), thus both consciously and unconsciously shaping his or her self-identity/self-concept/ego.
Remember how we said that Zone 2 stages, though often being loosely age-related (UR), are always dealing with the altitude of interior development in the UL?
Here It Is
Erickson's stages are always more directly tied to age (UR) than to the altitude of interior development in the UR. Again, each of Erickson's stages are always related to age. Always.
However, Erickson's stages actually say very little about interior development (or altitude) in the UL. For example, while Trust vs Mistrust certainly does tell us that an individual is probably less than a year old, it doesn't directly denote altitude of development in any specific line. It simply says that the self-concept hasn't fully formed yet, but is being shaped and influenced either by a sense of Trust or Mistrust. It does denote some altitude, but only indirectly. Again, we're speaking specifically about Cultural and Social influences on the formation of Self-Idenitity.
The actual developmental line in question, I believe, is the ego/self-concept. Again Erickson's stages, though they do unfold vertically, do not themselves denote interior altitude. The unfold vertically because they are always directly tied to physical aging within a Cultural and Social context. They are really about how Social and Cultural contexts shape and influence the self-concept line of development. But I believe it is a mistake both to say that they denote interior altitude and that they are a legitimate Zone stage model.
Again, to make this clear (in reply to Wolfspirit's comment that I can't disqualify Erickson's stages as a Zone 2 stage model without having to disqualify other stage models that are also loosely age-related), though other stage models are loosely age-related (up to a point), they are always more directly tied to interior development. Erickson's stages are exactly opposite of that tendency. Though in the beginning, Erickson's stages seem to loosely denote altitude in the UL, at a certain point they cease denoting altitude in the UL and always speak in relation of a person's age-range, as well as the specific Cultural and Social influences (along with that person's interpetation of them) that are shaping his or her self-concept.
Once a person hits the Intimacy vs Isolation stage, for example, their COG in the Values line of development could theoretically be just about anywhere. Take a young Ken Wilber, for example, whose COG was almost certainly Second Tier. Erickson's Intimacy vs Isolation stage, if taken seriously as a Zone 2 stage model, would say that Wilber had a roughly Orange COG. And again, this hypothetical COG is not in any specific line, because it is actually dealing with both Cultural and Social contextual influences on the development of self-concept. Again, these are influences that happen to unfold in a stage-like manner precisely because that's how we age within Cultural and Social contexts. You have turn 30 before you can eventually turn 40.
Forks in the RoadSaying that a person is at Generativity vs Self-Absorption denotes the presently felt Cultural and Social influences that shape self-identity. It says nothing at all about that person's actual level of development (or altitude) in the self-concept line. Generativity vs Self-Absorption, as well as the other psychocosial stages, is simply a fork in the road:
a critical juncture where a fairly specific Cultural and Social pressure is felt, the interpretation of which directly influences my self-concept.