Ok, so we want to take a look at what we have set up here. We have a biological self and four primary selves. There are two theories that we covered earlier that don't seem to fit with the others. The first of these is a theory of psychosexual development proposed by one Sigmond Freud. This is a critical theory that has dominated psychological research for a hundred years. It will appear that we have a Sexual self, which can be understood as our psychological development in relation to our biological procreative development.
The second field that has prominently featured throughout the history of psychology is that of ego development. A large portion of this field is built upon the work of Carl Jung, though most of his work focused on the process by which the ego proceeds from one stage to the next, Jane Loevinger has further developed the field to include a stage oriented description of the process. To try to stay with the naming convention we have established, let's call this our Self self.
So now we want to consider how these theories interact, given that they are all going on simultaneously. This is where we actually start making what will look like a framework for a developmental model, when what I'm sure feels like forever ago, is what we said we were setting out to do. Deep breath, the end is in sight. We can do this. What I have in mind is each of our four primary selves rising while leaning on their slightly opposed orientations, as we as human beings are pulled in both inward and outward directions along each of these developmental axis.
Let's start with Piaget. No real reason, apart from my personal affection for the work, and given the shape of our model and the interdependence of the lines, it just serves as a starting point for how we distribute the rest of the lines. If the model actually supports the theories, then it should bear out the same regardless of which line we start with. Um. In theory.
The way our cognitive development looks, as we described earlier, appears to be a representation of our ability to both remember, organize, theorize and imagine. This could well be described as our ability to exist as truly four dimensional beings, so we will call this our orientation towards time. So we now have our Cognitive self and our relationship to time.
When I first started building this model it didn't quite work, because I wanted to put the Emotional self across from the Cognitive self. That didn't really work out once we had a Time orientation, because nothing in any of the theories suggested that our Emotional self was in any way leaning away from Time. Daniel Kahneman actually showed up out of the blue to again give me a way to explain it when he suggested a distinction between the remembering self and the experiencing self, in how we weigh our action decisions. I realized that a lot of the behavioral development involved the experiencing self, and a lot of the cognitive development involved what he called the remembering self. So in our model, given our orientation in relationship to time, we can have a reason to place the Behavioral self across from the Cognitive self.
Which means our other two have to be our Emotional self and our Social self. It does not seem to be too much of a stretch to imagine these two selves as representing a similar polarity between out and inward influences. Given our model, it does not really matter which of these goes where, because they must link with each of the other two in a mirrored fashion, regardless.
The image we begin to see emerging kind of resembles a pyramid laying on its side, which is nice, but let's keep in mind it is just a representation of the theories we have already been discussing. It does, however, offer a great illustration of the dynamic nature of the process. (get four volunteers) This is very much like four separate people awakening on the floor, coming to awareness of their own existence and that of the others, discovering/establishing the defined unique nature of each other and their connections to the others, and then, holding hands, first standing up and then leaning back to their fullest expansion. This will represent our 3 phases of development: Phase 1, Emergence; Phase 2, Establishment; and Phase 3, Expansion.
Now what to do with the other two selves? Our Sexual self and Self self? Well, let us consider the nature of our Sexual self and how it relates to the other stuff. In the way that the model looks right now, all of these have a kind of relationship to the Sexual self, but it was not clear what. It was not until I considered the Sexual self in relation to the biological stuff of our frame itself, and I divorced myself of the context of the model that it seemed like this was a psychological representation of the experience that comes along with our biological, tremendously powerful, urge to procreation. The sexual self appears to be the translation of this biological impulse into psychological momentum. The sexual development starts this cycle of Relatedness and Strangeness, which appears to be the driving force of the forward momentum of the developmental process. On a fundamentally biological level we all understand that we did not get here alone and we can not continue to survive with out making more of us. This would then appear to be a grounding of our PsycheSelf in the idea of All-of-Us, or setting the field in which the development process happens. I represent this biological translation to psychological momentum in the model by modifying the thickness or strength of the different psychological aspects of development.
Our Self self seems to be a representation of how our other selves interact in relation to our self, this self-aware reflection that seems to unique to us alone, so we are going to put our Self self right here in the middle. Now as we consider this chart indicating the general chronological order by which we proceed through these phases of development, it looks something like this: