My Portrait - Personal Statement Example

Personal Portrait Introduction Taking reflections of one’s own life is an important activity in every individual’s life. In taking such reflections,it is important not to take it just from a personal point of view but also from a social point of view. This is because as much as we are individual beings; we have been created among other people and therefore remain social being for as long as we live (Konadu, 2001). Taking reflections of our lives give us the opportunity to build the right personal and social character. It also gives us a sense of direction to lead our lives. Taking reflections are however best done when done against certain yardsticks. For this reason, theories of psychologists such as Kohlberg and Erikson have for a very long time served as reference points when taking stocks of our lives. This personal portrait has therefore being taken with these two psychologists in mind. My life stages according to Eriksons developmental theory Infancy – Trust versus Mistrust This was a more receptive stage of my life where I barely had any knowledge of what was going on around me. This not withstanding, it was an important stage that has contributed greatly to my current stage. This is because Erikson observes that this is the stage of a person’s life when he or she is nurtured either to build trust or distrust in life. At this stage, “the most significant relationship is with the maternal parent, or whoever is our most significant and constant caregiver” (Harder, 2002). Luckily, my mother played her part well to ensure that I came out of this stage, having built trust for life. Early Childhood – Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt This period accounted for my formative years of 18 months to 3 years. At this stage, I was tried to free myself from overdependence on my parents to learn and master skills such as speaking, eating, walking and other fine motor skills. Through the autonomy I built, I was able to develop a lot of high self esteem for myself. My little shortfalls had to do with when I stated saying no to parents and other relatives in a bid to me a master of my own. Play Age – Intuitive versus Guilt From the ages of 3 to 5, I started building a lot more relations with adults around me. This attempt was taken perhaps because of the feeling that I had started mastering basic activities that these adults could. I therefore started learning intuitively. Out of what I learnt, I started to “make up stories with Barbies and Kens, toy phones and miniature cars, playing out roles in a trial universe, experimenting with the blueprint for what I believed it meant to be an adult” (Harder, 2002). The other side of my learning that influenced some guilt was when I began questioning ‘why’ things were done the way they were done. School Age – Industry versus Inferiority It was at stage that I developed more interpersonal relations as I started school at age 6 and remained in the stage till 12 years. I was expected to be “capable of learning, creating and accomplishing numerous new skills and knowledge, thus developing a sense of industry” (Harder, 2002). Objectively, my level of achievement in this regard was 80% and this score was supposed to influence the remaining parts of my development. To a large extent also, I mastered inferiority among colleagues but there remained much I needed to do about building superiority. Adolescence – Identity versus Role Confusion From the ages of 12 to 18, a started developing adolescence features. Before this stage, I thought I had learnt enough about myself and this world but this was actually a stage that I had so much more learning to do about myself and the world around me in order to help me build identity in this world. I must confess that I fumbled a lot during this stage; especially at the hands of friends. This is quite understandable as Chapman (2011) notes that the stage “itself this is a big dilemma, aside from all the other distractions and confusions experienced at this life stage.” Young Adult – Intimacy versus Isolation I got married within this stage, which span from 18 years to 35 years. Preceding marriage, I had had the strong need to build intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex. I feeling and attraction towards the opposite sex ad actually started as an adolescent but it was within this stage that I learnt to do a lot of things right. For instance I had had three love relationships that failed at the early times of this stage. I used these experiences to learn to be a more loving person towards the opposite sex and my children because I came to appreciate that in order to gain love, I had to give love. Middle Adult - Generativity versus Stagnation Within the ages of 35 and 65, I was obliged to give back to my children, what my parents gave to me. I was tasked to help start another person’s processes of life. Indeed, I was expected to build a generation and continue it and this is still the stage I am in now. Chapman (2011) notes that “generativity potentially extends beyond ones own children, and also to all future generations.” To this effect, I have tried to be a responsible adult to a lot more people who are not my own children so that my life would not experience stagnation but growth. Late Adulthood - Integrity versus Despair I remain very hopeful of this stage in my life. This is because of the factors I have put in place. This last moment is supposed to be a reflective moment of one’s life – a moment that we begin to enjoy the integrity of our achievements. I am very optimistic that with the education that I have acquired and the one I have given to my children, this final stage is going to be a stage that I can peacefully close the chapter to this whole life. My life stages according to Kohlbergs model of moral development theory Obedience and Punishment Orientation I was more of a passive learner at this stage. Unquestionably I took instructions and adapted to moral norms. I was naïve about laws and only thought of the implications of breaking laws – punishment. I was more or less a good person not because I judged the result of being good as a positive thing but then I was good to help me avoid punishment. Kohlberg calls this stage of thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society (Crain, 1985 pp. 118-136). Individualism and Exchange I had started learning in a more active and personalized manner at this stage than the preceding stage. This is because I had become inquisitive and wanted a lot of answers to why there were several dos and don’ts. I was eager to get answers to questions and felt a little more aggressive towards adults and laws. Unlike earlier, I thought “punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid” (Crain, 1985 pp. 118-136). Good Interpersonal Relationships This was a stage that I was trying to be more appealing to society and people around me. For this reason, I was careful to be doing right things that would get me closer to other people. Actually, I was appearing to be good not because my moral judgment saw this as right but then it was a way of opening up to a lot of people. Building good interpersonal relationships was my maximum priority therefore. Maintaining the Social Order Unlike the previous stage, this was a stage that I opened up to a wider scope of people in terms of relationship. Again in contrast to the previous stage, my openness was not as a result to please them but because I had come to appreciate the need for being a socially adaptive person. I understood at this stage that I was a social being and needed not to please myself only. Social Contract and Individual Rights At this stage, I had a strong desire for upholding to individual principles, rights and freedom. I must however confess that I had gained the maturity to also understand other people. For this reason, I always made an effort to understand all other people and accept their values and opinions. Gradually, I was becoming more and more integrated into the wider society because I had gained better understanding for all people. Universal Principles As Cherry (2011) notes, “at this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.” indeed, I began having a feeling that people needed to be handed fairness in all issues of life. My morality had therefore grown from thinking more about myself to thinking about the welfare of other people. Comparison of Eriksons theory of development to Kohlbergs developmental model of moral development There are two clear similarities of the two theories; especially as they apply in my own life. In the first place, both theories are chronological. They are hardly haphazard as they have been orderly arranged to move from a lower age of a person’s life to an older age. At a person moved along the hierarchy of stages, the person acquired more maturity and development. The second similarity has to do with the fact that the two principles all serve as a guide for shaping a person’s life. This way, one could refer to these two principles as yardsticks in knowing the best ways to live each stage of life. In contrast however, Erikson’s theory talks more on general development and maturity whereas Kohlberg concentrates on moral development. How human development can be explained within the context of environmental and multicultural influences Though Erikson and Kohlberg have laid down general developmental theories, the application and workability of these theories have been judged by some psychologists as unempirical (Agyekum, 2009). Psychologists who argue this way explain that the stages of human development are not static in the lives of all people and that development is actually influenced by external factors such as environment and culture. Using two children living in America and Africa as examples, Agyekum notes that the multicultural system in Africa and the general environment, which is perceived to be characterized by hardship is likely to change the way of thinking of the African as compared to the American who grows under virtually a single cultural system. In my personal experience, my environment had a lot of influence on my personal life and for that matter development. This is because I was brought up in an environment that upholds education in high esteem and so tried to make me live life ‘as was written in books’. For this reason, I was exposed to a lot of principles and theories of living including the two discussed in this essay. I was virtually left with no other choice than adhering to the two theories. Conclusion In conclusion, the two theories affected me positively. I had had to live by live by them every since I started learning to read. They have become yardsticks for reflecting my own achievements and weaknesses and they will continue to play this all important role in my life. REFERENCE Agyekum F.R. D (2009). The Stages of Development Revisited. Global Publishers Limited: Washington Chapman A. (2011). Erikson’s psychosocial development theory. Retrieved September 11, 2011 from http://www.businessballs.com/erik_erikson_psychosocial_theory.htm Cherry K. (2011). Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm Crain W.C. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. Available on line from http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm Harder A. F. (2002). The Developmental Stages of Erik Erikson. Retrieved September 12, 2011 from http://www.learningplaceonline.com/stages/organize/Erikson.htm Konadu N.A.R (2001). Interpersonal Relationships. Global Publishers Limited: Washington Read More