Web www.exploremyspace.com

OUTLINE THE MAIN ELEMENTS IN THE         

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE OF ERIK ERIKSON, AND CRITICALLY ASSESS THE THEORY.

        The phenomenon of the religious experience has attracted a many philosopher, scholar, and even scientist.  It certainly represents the experience that is unique to humans.  Throughout the years its ungraspable character has enthused a growth of innumerable theories all offering insights into what a religious sentiment might be.  Erik H. Erikson belongs to the 20^th century psychoanalysts who with no less vigor attempted to comprehend at least portions of it.  Fascinated as he grew with the development of individuals’ identity as well as its relation to larger communal institutions, his approach to religion took a somewhat biological-social path.  He created a concept of the life cycle-a development process activated by life stages each characterized by different virtues to be integrated into the personality.  He argues that social institutions including religion provide vitality to each of the qualities emerging at every stage.  As such, Erikson contends, religion fills the role of the provider of faith- a basic human need of trust developed at the infancy stage.  This essay’s goal is to present the summary of Erikson’s philosophy in order to help understand how he arrived at the above mentioned view.  It will be consequently argued that his approach to the religious experience as the ‘filler” of the infantile need, even upon admittance that “there could be more to it”, [1] constitutes a somewhat limited, and at times an utterly boring and even frustrating outlook on the expansive and transcendent quality of the spiritual sentiment.   

        In order to reach the phase of the essay where the criticism of Erikson’s theory can fervently begin, the somewhat unfortunate news is that the introduction into his general background and ‘life cycle’ philosophy must be undertaken first.  No criticism will ever have a lot of sense if the clear understanding of the theories criticized is not primarily obtained. 

        Born in 1902 in Germany, [2] Erikson implements in his teachings a lot from the Freudian psychosocial perspectives as well as biology.  As Coles tells us, he is a great observer and student of life, [3] immensely interested in processes of life and the enfoldment of things.  His fascination with sequences as well as with the development of communal institutions such as religion drew him to write a ‘religious biography’ [4] of two great spiritual leaders, Martin Luther as well as Mahatma Ghandi.  Although never approaching the subject of religion anywhere directly, Erikson’s writings are officially recognized as having made a great contribution to the field of psychology of religion.  As a matter of fact, he is referred to as one of four most influential psychologists of religion of the 20^th century. [5]

        To understand why this is so, let us look at one of his most famous concepts, that of the ‘life cycle’.  It is here that he discovers an avenue to understand more the phenomenon of religion.  According to Erikson, life develops according to the observable patterns.  Be it an individual or a country, everything grows following a certain sequence. [6]   He enumerates eight stages of the cycle, of which the oral-sensory phase experienced at infancy represents the first one.  The other ones are: muscular-anal, locomotor-genital, latency stage, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood, and finally old age. [7]  

        Each stage is marked by the specific polarity of virtues that one learns and must harmoniously absorb.  The basic attitude developed at the infancy stage is trust; trust in the protection that comes from the world outside especially a mother.  However, equally important for the infant to learn is mistrust-the anticipation of discomfort, disappointments, as well as unfulfilled needs.  At the age of 2-3, the young child experiences the emergence of another set of opposite feelings-autonomy versus shame.  As s/he grows up, it is initiative along with guilt, industry and inferiority, and at adolescence stage-identity versus role diffusion that s/he must struggle with.  Intimacy and isolation, generativity and stagnation, and finally ego integrity versus despair represent the virtues the emergence of which one must face at later subsequent stages. [8]

        Erikson believes that the rudiments of these traits begin each at the specific stage and continue to grow throughout life. [9]   The integration of them harmoniously into one’s being or, in Heraclitus’ words, “the attunement of opposite tensions”, [10] represents to him a true goal of life. [11]   Furthermore, he is the advocate of the ‘epigenetic principle’, [12] which states that everything grows out of the ground plan and the particular phases that emerge out of the plan can only begin growing upon the successful integration of the one before it.  He bases his theory of life stages on precisely this concept.  Finally, he states that each stage is marked by the accompanied crisis, a turning point that pushes one to higher unity and, eventually, integrity. [13]

        So how does precisely a phenomenon of religion fits into this theory of life cycle and what is Erikson’s view of role of religion here?  As any other human expression, religion to Erikson “means more than it seems to say-and much more than it is consciously intended to say”. [14]   Whether this “more” represents truly more or rather less will be interpreted in the second half of the essay.  For now it is important to stress that what Erikson is fundamentally interested in when it comes to religion is its function in the development of individuals.  He regards every human institution, including religion, as the provider and the outlet for all the basic virtues activated at each particular stage of the life cycle.  This way the individual’s life cycle virtues and the larger cultural cycle continue to co-exist and replenish each other. [15]   Each element of the epigenetic development appearing at every life stage becomes the essence of some major institution. [16]   For instance, the virtues of autonomy versus shame learnt during the second life phase represent the “judicious” [17] element that becomes manifested and expressed in the larger adult reality of ‘law and order.’  Erikson explains it better this way:

          The…stages of childhood and adulthood are,…, a system of generation

          and regeneration-for into this system flow, and from this system emerge,

          those social attitudes to which the institutions and traditions of society

          attempt to give unity and permanence. [18]

        The institution of religion represents to Erikson, this way, an ‘entity’ that aids in keeping alive and replenished the basic instinct of trust taught at infancy.  The infant’s trust in the protection coming from outside grows to become religious faith. [19]  Just as the young baby looks up to his parents, so do the religious believers continue to look up to gods in hope of receiving protection and comfort.  Hope constitutes a basic virtue; a very first virtue developed out of the infant’s crisis between trust and mistrust, and religion serves to nourish and restore it.  Humans continue to bring to the religious institution the “remnants of infantile needs” [20] and receive from it in return strength and vitality.  Both parties remain fulfilled and able to reach its goals.

        The basic trust instinct is what contributes greatly, according to Erikson, to understanding the ontogenetic origin of the religious experience. [21]   It is the fundamental need that the whole notion of religion could not maintain its existence without.  Vice versa, he explains, out of all institutions functioning in society, only religion fits best the role of the Provider filling the earliest sense of trust and hope and replacing the part of the parental protection. [22]

        Erikson goes on to connect religion with the first stage of the life cycle in other ways.  He analyzes the infant’s experience of mother’s recognition and affirmation, a feeling that he calls “numinous” or “hallowed presence.” [23]   He is of great conviction that religion provides the believers with the sense of the numinous experienced originally at the infancy. [24]   Apart from the numinous, the infant must, however, go through the painful stage of disappointment, separation, and loss.  As Erikson explains, it is the loss of the “oral paradise”-the growing separation from the mother and her breasts as well as discomforts emerging in his/her mouth upon the teeth beginning to grow-that contributes to the “universal nostalgia”; [25] nostalgia consequently manifested and expressed through the religious sentiment.  In his study of the religious leaders, Erikson “discovers” how young Luther finds in the Bible the reaffirmation of the numinous quality experienced at the presence of his mother when he was an infant. [26]

        Furthermore, religion, according to Erikson, fulfills the role of the ideology provider and, hence, supplies the needs of the adolescent stage.  He holds that “the development of an effective adult identity involves the acquisition of an ideology.” [27]   Elsewhere he states that the refining, modifying, and applying one’s ideology represents a vocation of any homo religious. [28]   This need to establish one’s own autonomy represents the unrecognized, according to Erikson’s view, nostalgia after the guiding figure of the father. [29]   Religion here functions as a form of ideology fulfilling the paternal role again, this time that of the father.  

        A great number of readers praise Erikson for his theories.  Some even conclude that, despite some lack of criticism he displayed, nothing he observed can be questioned. [30]   Nevertheless, such will not be Erikson’s fate in this essay.  His conception of “father churches” and “mother religions” [31] certainly would not connect with how some spiritual people would perceive their experience.  At the face of the depth of their relationship with the spiritual dimension they would not appreciate Erikson’s approach to it solely from the bio-social-historical perspective.  His view of the religious sentiment based primarily on the “infantile needs” [32] stimulates disaccord and definitely stirs a lot of emotions.  His equation of faith with childlike surrender to God [33] puts him on the same platform with other religious reductionists.

        At this point Erikson’s defenders would surely stand up to support his position.  They would argue that he never really puts down religion nor speaks negatively of it.  True, Erikson does not regard religion as a regressive phenomenon. [34]   As his followers state-he knows there is more [35] but simply does not venture much into it.  It is only too bad.  He is remembered mainly from his writings and what he wrote of religion mostly is that it represents a “large-scale infantilization.” [36]   His claim that religious institution provides a compensation for the frustrated early wishes in the “currency of higher inspiration” [37] is simply a boring, old, and utterly frustrating theory itself.  It is boring and old since it was already Freud whose “genius” enabled him to connect the religious feelings to the primordial figures of the father and early childhood.  The whole “childhood” connection seems, quite frankly, not to hold any firm ground.  Could the feeling of love that we as adults feel and crave be explained solely in terms of the first love we received as growing babies?  If viewed in this manner, everything we believe in, do, and occupy ourselves with can be connected psychologically to the first years of life.  The very fact of Erikson’s books being written and his desire to analyze life might symbolize the unconscious drive to compensate for the lack of attention he received from his parents when entering the initiative life cycle stage; a stage to learn about new things in the world. 

         This form of interpretation of life phenomena in the light of some hidden connection with the unresolved childhood issues deprives the future life ideals, drives, and passions of their autonomy and value.  I strongly oppose Erikson’s theory that our “theocentric religious stance can be depicted in egocentric terms.” [38]   Luther’s spiritual tendencies or, for that matter, the religious inclinations of others as well have nothing to do with, as Capps puts it, neither anal fixations, constipation, parents, or toilet training. [39]   Enough, someone should finally cry out, of all the psychological jumbo.  After all, did it not occur to Erikson that the baby’s trust evolves because of the experience of the trust object-a mother- first?  Could it not be, according to his “life works in patterns” theory, that the religious faith gets activated in a similar manner with us experiencing some form of connection with the “outside” object before we develop faith in it?

        Speculations aside, this form of psychological and analytical reasoning removes life, the very subject of study, from being experienced fully, vibrantly, and in its autonomy.  Erikson might have, as Capps believes, “made aspects of religious consciousness accessible” [40] to some.  Those “some” are probably the ones who never attained any form of religious consciousness themselves so all there is left for them to accomplish is to analyze it ignorantly from without. 

        This essay aimed at presenting Erikson’s view on the psychology of human development with the special emphasis on his perception of religion.  It demonstrated his theory of life cycle stages, each with accompanying virtues to integrate and crisis to conquer.  It showed the connection Erikson makes between the particular qualities activated at each stage and the society institutions that nourish them.  Religion represents the cultural entity that, according to Erikson, fulfills the role of the maternal provider filling the basic need of trust.  It replenishes the early instincts developed at the first stage of infancy.  Approaching religion in this manner, he meets the criticism of those who choose to believe religious experiences to have higher aspirations.  Erikson can quite legitimately be accused of reductionism and ignorance of the true value and nature of deep spiritual sentiments.  His passion to connect the cultural institutions with different needs awaken at eight phases of life deserves a fair amount of applause but certainly not as much as some of his zealous followers wish.  Constant attempts to connect adult drives and occupations with the unresolved issues of the early childhood become boring and sheer frustrating.  Viewing life in such a manner, there simply is no life.  Instead of cherishing each phenomenon in its own beauty, mystery and richness, everything is understood to stand for something else experienced in the past.  Life becomes nothing but the scene for the childhood twists and dramas to unfold.  According to such a view, there is NO autonomy of experiences.  Life is simply the childhood relived, revisited, recried, resuffered, rejoyed.  Well,……..certainly not FROM WHERE I STAND, Mr Erikson.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ed. by Capps, D., Capps, W. H., Bradford, M. G., Encounter with Erikson; Historical Interpretation and Religious Biography, Scholar Press, Santa Barbara, 1977

Capps, D., Men, Religion, and Melancholia, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1997

Coles, R., Erik H. Erikson; The Growth of His Work, An Atlantic Monthly Press Book, Boston, 1970

Erikson, E. H., Childhood and Society, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1965

Erikson, E. H., Identity; Youth and Crisis, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1968

Erikson, E. H., Identity and the Life Cycle, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1980

Erikson, E. H., Insight and Responsibility, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1964

Erikson, E. H., Toys and Reasons; Stages in the Ritualization of Experience, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1977

Evans, R. I., Dialogue With Erik Erikson, E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1969

Zock, H., A Psychology of Ultimate Concern; Erik H. Erikson’s Contribution to the Psychology of Religion, Rodopi, Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1990

Also consulted:

Ed. by Erikson, E. H., Adulthood, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978

Introduced by Erikson, K. T., In Search of Common Ground; Conversations with Erik H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1973