Carlos Figueroa

January 31, 2015

Midterm Exam
Question 3
Eriksons theory of identity development and the Navajos theories of identity
development through the observations of Chisholm are very distinct from each other, yet
are not completely contrasting or contradictory toward one another. Eriksons theory of
identity development claims that the development of a self identity is based on the
overcoming identity crises and conflicts, through overcoming such conflicts one will
become an autonomous and industrious individual who can leave something behind for
the world, look back in old age and be satisfied with ones life experiences. The Navajo,
viewed the pinnacle of identity development as reaching an ultimate state of peace,
happiness, or beauty. Identity development was conceptualized by the Navajo as a
process of moral maturation. The Navajo also had great respect for and valued being
autonomous. Like Erikson, the Navajo highly valued ones freedom to make ones own
decisions. For example, Chisholm (1996) writes Signs of this huge and abiding respect
for individual autonomy are everywhere. The Navajo language for example, possesses a
fourth person for reference to the behavior or beliefs of another person who is within
hearing of the speakerwhich enables the speaker to avoid any impression that he or she
might be trying to control another. (page 179) describing just how much respect they
had for the idea of individual autonomy. Erikson describes autonomy versus shame in the
second stage of development. Erikson (1988) writes (referring to the second stage of

development; autonomy versus shame) The positive attributes that can be gained during
this stage are pride, control, self-assurance, autonomy, self-certainty, and the will to be
oneself. (page 4) depicting how being an autonomous individual can be positive because
of other characteristics that may be developed by practicing being an autonomous
individual. One key distinction between these two conceptualizations of identity
development is the Navajos belief in the Holy Wind which according to Chisholm (1996)
is the force that drives and directs development, the Holy Wind is said to only prepare
the individual to take responsibility for himself (page 171). The theory that Erikson
provides implicitly contradicts the notion of the idea of a Holy Wind because Eriksons
theory implies all the power is in the individual to develop something of the like of good
thought. In other words, Eriksons theory doesnt recognize the influence of an outside
supernatural source in the identity development of an individual. Noting the similarities
and differences between these two theories of identity development points to the lack of
objectivity when studying the social sciences, the diversity of the human experience, and
supports the orienting concept that no way is the best way. The concept of
understanding human development may not have an objective truth or reality. Different
cultures define human development differently. Yet, there are many shared perspectives
throughout cultures about identity development.

References
Chisholm, J. (1996). Learning "respect for everything": Navajo images of
development. Images of Childhood, 167-183.
Muuss, R. (1968). Chapter 3: Erikson's Theory of Identity Development. In
Theories of adolescence (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.