The Most Important Stage of Human Lifespan - Case Study Example

Social Work Number Department Introduction The area of lifespan that has been chosen is early childhood. Going by the definition by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, this age spans from birth, toddlerhood and upto age 8. Conversely, this stage is defined as the time period starting from 2 years until the age of 7. This means that roughly, this stage of development may be seen as encapsulating the time from birth upto 8 years. As such, this notion is sustained throughout the discussion that ensues forthwith. Introduction of a Chosen Life Span Theory This stage of human lifespan is usually characterised by three stages of development that occur simultaneously. These stages are the physical growth and development, cognitive growth and development and socio-emotional growth and development. That this group or stage of development is sensitive is a matter that scholars and theoreticians readily agree on. According to Erikson model of development, this stage of development can be split into four stages: the infancy stage which starts from childbirth to 18 months, the early childhood stage which begins from 18 months to 3 years, the play age, 3 to 5 years, and the school age, 6 to 12. Erik Erikson’s Model sees the infancy stage as the Oral Sensory Stage wherein the baby tends to feel the environment through the mouth. The importance of this stage is marked by the child either learning to trust or to mistrust, depending on the prevailing circumstances within the environment. At the same time, it is observed that passing successfully through this life’s stage is invitational of an inherent sense of hope and self-drive (Davenport, 1994, 65). This is then followed by the early childhood age where the outcome of the ego development begins to take shape. It is in this period where the child either becomes courageous or ashamed. The same stage also sees the child develop the knack for making initiatives instead of being accosted by feelings of guilt, if the surroundings are conducive. In the play stage, the initiative vs. guilt plays out. If the child is for instance raised under the tutelage of caretakers or parents who criticise and castigate the child, it may be impossible for the child to gain traits such as purpose and determination (Butler and Hickman, 2011, 22). In the school age period, the child learns to either become industrious or inferior. Eventually, the child gets to become more methodological and competent. It is at this stage that children are able to learn, create and accomplish an array of new skills and knowledge, and thereby developing a sense of industriousness. How the Knowledge Would Increases Understanding Of the Service User and How This Might Affect My Role as a Social Worker Just as Welbourne (2012, 21) posits, knowledge on early child development and its stages in respect to Erikson’s theory of development go a long way in facilitating the dispensation of (my) personal duties of a social worker. For one, a firm grasp on the essence of the early childhood development bequeaths me with the relevant knowhow on how to deal with children. For instance, given that all theoreticians and even Erik Erikson’s theory agree that the early childhood stage is the most sensitive due to its foundational nature, one readily appreciates the need to approach the child in this stage with care and sensitivity. Personally, children in this early stage are very perceptive and possess very strong instincts. The gravity behind this is that the need for complete maturity is a matter that cannot be sidestepped. Being an intelligent social worker who is deeply acquainted with different theoretical frameworks and approaches to personal development may not cover up for pride and other vices. Children’s instincts are sharp enough to detect malevolence, as a way of protecting them from adults’ malicious ambitions. The import of this is that the theories of early childhood development have compelled me to develop my intrapersonal and interpersonal strengths so as to better work with children (Davenport, 1994, 87). The same knowledge on the theoretical frameworks has helped me gain more competence in the detection or diagnosis of problems that may be besetting a child. This is because; the theoretical frameworks that explain the dynamics of early childhood are structured cogently to specifically assign each problem with a specific age bracket. For instance, the Erikson model of child development places the development of trust or mistrust and self-drive and hope, as taking place in the infancy stage (from birth to 18 month). This makes it plausible that when dealing with a child below 8 who has difficulty in trusting the presence of others, then the child’s penchant for mistrust may lead me to investigate the child’s infancy stage, if answers and solutions to the child’s problems are to be found. Likewise, dealing with a child who grapples with guilt when he makes personal initiatives may lead me to study the child’s play age (3-5 years). Knowledge on these theoretical frameworks has also helped inculcate meaningful knowledge on child development. The crux of the matter herein is that without proper grasp on the stages, realities and dynamics of the early childhood stage, it becomes virtually impossible to detect the problems bedevilling the child. This leaves the means of intervention subject to conjectures and failures, just as Welbourne (2012, 22) warns. Analysing the implications of relating developmental theories to your personal values and how this will support anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice outcomes Relating developmental theories to personal values has far reaching implications and goes a long way to support anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory outcomes in social work. Particularly, the major approaches to life-span development and dynamics combine in asserting that regulatory challenges that are encountered in life’s course demand that individual masters two basic regulatory challenges. These regulatory challenges are compensation of failure and loss and selectivity of resource. Anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice outcomes are supported by the fact that these two fundamental regulatory challenges cut across all the dynamics of life. The concept of selectivity of goal investment takes stock of the fact that no one can strive to attain all the goals simultaneously, and therefore the need to attain these goals sequentially becomes inevitable, just as OLoughlin and OLoughlin ( 2012, 77) postulate. One readily agrees with the postulations that Cocker and Allain (2011, 17) make, to the effect that compensation of loss and failure is important for developmental regulation, given that humans experience setbacks in their quest to achieve their goals, throughout their entire lifespan. This construct is comprehensive and fundamental enough to characterise life’s realities and dynamics universally. This attenuates considerably, the threshold that could have been left for oppressive and discriminative outcomes. In this case, the social worker is compelled to take on a comprehensive and objective approach that Webb and Drisko (2011, 43) advance when considering the implications of relating developmental theories. At the same time, developmental theories cover all age brackets and cogently explain how development takes shape in an individual’s life. Credence can not only be lent to these theories because they acknowledge early childhood as the most foundational stage in a person’s life, but also because they thus form the basic framework for analysing behavioural predispositions in an individual’s life. For instance, the Erikson model or theory of development cogently relates stages of development with their function in development, so that it becomes possible to determine the kind of a person a child is likely to be and the future he is likely to have, based on the kind of life he was extended during the early childhood stage. This leaves very little room for discriminatory and oppressive practice outcomes, since psycholinguists, sociologists and psychologists agree that early childhood is not only the most foundational stage in life, but also determines the future of all children. The universality of the scope of these theories therefore eliminates chances for discriminatory and oppressive practice outcomes (Bee, 2002, 75). Advantages and Disadvantages of Viewing Behaviour through the Life-Span Perspective for Social Work Practice Just as any human constructs are accosted by merits and demerits, so is viewing behavioural developments and dynamics of the early childhood stage. For one, the life-span perspectives help make the stakeholders in the child’s life more accountable. For instance, the motivational theory of life-span development posits that people are actively involved in shaping their lives and others’ lives. This is to the effect that people follow developmental paths that are coherent to their long-term goals, and/or disengage from those that are not consistent with life’s goals. Because of this motivational theory, social workers herein acknowledge that through their efforts, they help shape the child’s life towards a desired end. This is especially the case of a social who for instance is handling a possible case of child abuse within a family setting (Cocker and Allain, 2008, 11). The import of the foregoing is that even the place of the child as an individual actor is considered. This paves way for the consideration of the development of the child. The veracity behind this is that it is expected of children to exhibit traits of development, physically, cognitively and socio-emotionally. This is to the effect that a child’s plight can be succoured through the administration of corrective measures, just as Fatout and Fatout (1996, 17) propose. According to Heckhausen (2010, 44), the downside of viewing behaviour through the life-span perspective for social work practice is that it places limits on the social worker’s scope of operation and doing things. Placing emphasis on the theoretical frameworks prevents the social worker from being creative, independent-minded and being dynamic. The failure to be dynamic in thinking on the side of the social worker has serous pitfalls since injustices and problems that are meted out on children are dynamic and therefore require proactive and dynamic frameworks. Williams (2008, 10) and Dominelli (2009, 14) readily consent to this rationale. Theory and the Practice Implications to Formulate a Conclusion That Answers the Assignment Question In light of the foregoing, one can rightly surmise that the life of an individual is a culmination of an array of antecedent and triggering factors that form a complex interplay in the person’s day to day living. However, the implication of following through some of the developmental theories such as Erikson’s model or theory leads to the countering of the notion that an individual is a sum total of socio-economic realities and equity. This is the case since, Erikson theory insinuates that an individual born in a relatively meagre background but with decent and supportive parents can traverse the odds of life and become successful. Life’s reality has never discounted this postulation since people who have defied odds brought about by poor or repelling backgrounds to become paragons of success include people like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass and even Barrack Obama. References Bee, H. 2002. Lifespan Development. Collins: New York. Butler, H. & Hickman, Caroline. 2011. Social Work with Children and Families: Getting into Practice. London: Kingsley Publishers. Cocker, Christine & Allain, Lucille. 2008. Social Work with Looked After Children. London: Longman. Cocker, Christine & Allain, Lucille. 2011. Advanced Social Work with Children and Families. London: Kingsley Publishers. Davenport, G.C. 1994. An Introduction to Child Development. Collins Educational: London. Dominelli, Lena. 2009. Introducing Social Work. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Fatout, F. Marian & Fatout, Marian. 1996. Children in Groups: A Social Work Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Heckhausen, J. 2010. “A Motivational Theory of Life-Span Development.” Psychological Review, 117 (1): 32-60. OLoughlin, Maureen & OLoughlin, Steve. 2012. Social Work with Children and Families. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Webb, Boyd & Drisko, James. 2011. Social Practice with Children. London: Kingsley Publishers. Welbourne, Penelope. 2012. Social Work with Children and Families: Developing Advanced Practice. Oxford: OUP. Williams, Jane. 2008. Child Law for Social Work. Oxford: OUP. Read More