Rod Hetzel wrote: > I recall some discussions on this list a while back about the lack of > empirical support for Erickson's psychosocial stages. Can someone point > me in the direction of articles on this topic? Thanks!
First a point to be cleared up about the spelling of the name. Erik H. Erikson, the psychoanalyst, should be distinguished from Milton Erickson, whose claim to fame rested on his use of hypnosis in psychotherapy. A search of the internet indicates that former's surname is frequently misspelled as "Erickson", so Rod's mistake is understandable. I don't know of any specific critique of Erikson's "stages" theory. But the trouble with this kind of theorising is that there is so little empirical input that you can take it or leave it -- and nowadays it seems the tendency is to leave it as far as Erikson is concerned. The history of psychoanalysis in the twentieth century might perhaps be summed up as follows: Never mind if disillusionment sets in about one theoretical schema in psychoanalysis, there'll be another one along soon (and often several run in tandem: you pays your money...). Aside from his theory of psychosocial stages, Erikson's greatest claim to fame probably rests on his psychobiography of Luther. An apt commentary on this kind of stuff is that of the theological historian Horton Davies: (http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1984/v41-1-booknotes4.htm) "Historical reconstruction is difficult for any biographer, partly because so much of the evidence has been eaten by the teeth of time, and partly because explanations of events differ from era to era. The danger of such interpretations was convincingly shown by Roland Bainton's critique of Erik Erikson's psychobiography of Luther. Erikson made much of a vision Luther supposedly experienced while in the bathroom and which his diary located by the abbreviation in clo (acis). Bainton pointed out that it could be in the cloister, or in clo (istro). Yet it was Erikson's insistence on Luther being an anal type that led to his interpretation of the abbreviation, at least in part." Characteristically for his profession, in his psychobiography of Luther Erikson made a psychoanalytic mountain out of an empirical molehill. This reminds me of Freud's psychobiographical essay on Leonardo. Leaving aside the unwarranted assumptions he made about the early life of Leonardo (of which almost nothing is known), the central core of Freud's analysis rested on an error in the translation of the Italian word for "kite" (as in bird). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
