Reexamining Gender Issues in Erikson's Stages of Identity and Intimacy

Abstract

A number of writers have argued that Erikson's stages of identity and intimacy do not address the experience of women accurately. Several have argued that in women these stages are reversed or fused. This article contends that such claims come out of a serious misreading of Erikson's work and shows that the stages as they stand are not incompatible with the idea that there are relational components of identity formation. New directions for feminist reinterpretations of Erikson's work and for research that reflects his theory more accurately are discussed.

Jung and Theories of Gender Development

“…A woman must learn how to understand feminine psychology-what it really means to be a woman and to recognize the masculine components of her personality. A man must learn what it really means to be a man and to recognize the feminine components of his personality (Johnson, 1974). In the quest for individuation, each must learn to live a life of love and to accept himself or herself and fellow soul-journeyers.…”

“…Counselors have the responsibility of guiding clients in the quest for wholeness as the sorting begins in their individuation process. Johnson (1974) has described in&viduation as the lifelong process in which a person increasingly becomes whole. This involves the individual in his or her psychological and spiritual journey.…”

“…Genderspecific archetypes may be identified by relating myths and archetypes and by using the metaphors to aid the inner development and the individual's quest for wholeness. Johnson (1974) recognized that men must identify and claim their feminine archetypes as well as their familiar, and often culture-based, male archetypes.…”

“…Women may follow a path based on a continuous relationship that does not require separation. However, one must be careful not to draw the faulty conclusion that women need others for their developmental journey but that men do not (Horst, 1995).…”

Developmental Trajectories of Women's Identity Development

“…Much scholarship has primarily focused on defining and operationalizing the identity construct itself (Cieciuch & Topolewska, 2007); by comparison, research elaborating specific processes of identity development has received less attention. Despite more than five decades of research, and numerous critiques that Erikson's conceptualization of identity was male‐centric (e.g., Horst, 1995; Josselson, 1987; Lytle, Bakken, & Romig, 1997; MacKinnon & Marcia, 2002; Wastell, 1996), Eriksonian‐informed research on women's identity development remains a point of scholarly debate both from a definitional perspective and from one of identifying developmental processes. One cannot simply “add women and stir” and expect similar outcomes for both genders.…”