Trent Lowder

Ways of Knowing
4/28/2015
FRINQ Mid-term
1.

The social sciences as a label encompasses so many different views, theories,

experiments and subjects. Holding a view that one way of studying or one theory is the correct
way is another way of suffocating another individuals cultural background and concepts. In
mentor session, we drew pictures to represent how we see our own development, loosely basing
the concept of illustrating development how Erikson did in his piece. No one in the class had the
same exact drawing because no one develops in the same exact way; sure, there were many
similaar themes or common images but the ideas behind them were immensely different.
Even Erikson v. Chisholm demonstrates a clear reason why having tunnel-vision is so
restricting when talking about the social sciences. They clearly have their own ideas (or in
Chisholms case, are articulating a cultures ideas) that differ from each other, and no one can
necessarily say whether one is right or wrong because it would diminish a whole cultural
standpoint. One might identify with a theory over another, but cannot truthfully claim that a
theory regarding a subjective concept is necessarily right or wrong. In every reading that we
studied so far this term, a common theme was respect. Some articles advocated for respect of
peers and parents more than others, but even Erikson in his rigid article promotes the natures
which entail respect and good relations.
Respect for others is a natural factor in the development of humans because it really does
enhance an individuals chances at reaching the three goals that Levine proposes in his piece.
Whether it happens abruptly or takes some time, respecting anothers culture and keeping an

open mind regarding culture and the social corners of life will not only benefit others but it will
benefit the individual as well.

2.

Levine states that obedience is not characterized as one thing throughout different

cultures but its generally characterized by some sort of following of commands or of responsible
ideas (Levine, 1974). In a parental setting, obedience could be seen as a following of orders or of
adhering to ideas that a parental figure might think noteworthy or even necessary to push upon
an adolescent to help them better their lives. Many cultures across the world oppose the ideas
that Westerners hold on how to correctly parent a child, namely independence, and prefer to
instill in their children a good sense of obedience at an early age so that they will conform to the
values that the parents hold.
In agricultural settings, it is seen that obedience will be preferred over a more middleclass Westerner philosophy of taking initiative because it will develop a more useful skill-set for
that area. Levine states that in the African and other non-Western cultures that he has studied,
obedient and responsible children can contribute to food and craft production and food
processing by participating in cultivation, herding, fishing...or indirectly by baby-tending or
other domestic work that frees their elders for subsistence activities (Levine, 1974, pg. 236).
Child labor, in these cultures, set the adolescent up for more work as they get older. This is
important to child development in these cultures because, unlike in Western development,
children will be constantly working to support themselves and their families.
Levines three goals for parents, which include (1) the physical health of the child, (2) the
ability of the child to support itself economically as it gets older, and (3) the childs ability to
feed its other moral values as it gets older, all rely on obedience in some cultures. Even the

Western working class values obedience as a trait in children because theoretically it will lead to
better health, economic stability, and truer values. In some cultures, like those in Africa,
obedience is something that parents want from their children, while in cases like that of working
class American children, its something that parents want for their children to help them in the
long run (Levine, 1974). Levine seems to think that throughout the regardless of cultural
differences, obedience is most important in coming through on the second parental goal about
economic standing and stability. He writes, parents see obedience as the means by which their
children will make their way in the world and particularly to establish themselves economically
in young adulthood (Levine, 1974, pg. 237). Obedience, when used as a factor in childhood
development, is most important to the second of Levines goal because its necessary in certain
workplaces and schools, which often secure a childs future financially.

3.

Erikson theory of development and the Navajo developmental theory as explained by

Chisholm differ in a variety of ways. First off, Chisholm wrote his piece on the Navajo theory of
development in 1996 and Erikson wrote his piece in 1964. The time gap may not seem
significant but when put into perspective, cultural ideas can change immensely in 32 years.
To a more substance based degree, the work differ in that, plainly put, the Navajo theory
of development seems a lot less rigid in its basis than Eriksons. A main concept of the Navajo
theory is that children are given the ability to choose the path on which their life goes. Their
development is in their own hands, and although people are given this freedom and these
choices, another key aspect is a persons indirect effects on other people. The Navajo greatly
believe that a persons actions and decisions can very much affect others and as Chisholm states,
far from being opposed to cooperation, freedom is seen as the only true source of cooperation

(Chisholm, 1996, pg. 179). What Chisholm means is that people are given the freedom to choose
to cooperate or not, and if they are just blindly cooperating, they might not be doing so at all.
Erikson on the other hand is much more rigid and confident that his eight steps through
development are the way that children become adults. Theres less freedom in the development
of people and biological mechanisms seem to play a major role in Eriksons reasoning for his
theories. Development, to Erikson, has a lot to do with puberty, the bodily side to development.
Its puberty that shapes much of the mental development in children. Erikson describes how
there are eight stages of development in people, and each stage presents someone with a binary.
Trust v. mistrust, initiative v. guilt, intimacy v. isolation are a few of these binaries and the idea is
that when an individual reaches any given stage, the individual will either develop into the good
side (trust, initiative, intimacy) or into the bad side (mistrust, guilt, isolation). A good example of
how Erikson uses these stages to define the development of a person is in the intimacy v.
isolation state; he writes, the young adult, emerging for the search for and insistence on identity
is eager and willing to fuse his identity with that of others. He is ready for intimacy, (Erikson,
1964, pg. 263). Erikson has a no-nonsense way about his theory, that as soon as someone has
completed on stage, they are ready for the next and will not move on until they complete the
stage at hand. It very much contrasts the Navajo theory in that much more of development is
planned in Eriksons piece that in the Navajo way of thinking. With the Navajo there is only
good and bad thoughts and actions and the individual decides which path to take. Eriksons path
is already laid out and every individual follows it until they are fully developed.
The differences between the two pieces are interesting because the Navajo theory is
definitely that of a less Westernized culture than Eriksons. Culture, as we have learned in class,
is a very crucial part of development and the differences between the cultures in the pieces of

Erikson and Chisholm definitely display some possible differences. Its also worth noting that
Eriksons theory is his own, and Chisholms piece is on the collective ideas that a culture holds
dear, meaning that personal morals and traditions can have very major impacts on an idea of
development, and the more those ideas are filtered and built upon, the more credible they
become.

4.

Neil from 7-Up defnitely had a downward trajectory throughout his development. As a

child, Neil set high standards for himself and was surrounded by an upper-middle class
environment that seemingly would have set him up for the future, and probably would have met
the three goals that Levine discussed in his article.
The Navajo theory that Chisholm writes about states that, in Navajo theory thought
precedes and causes action and existence (Chisholm, 1996, pg. 169) and that good thought has
the power to cause good things to happen and bad thought has the power to cause bad things to
happen (Chisholm, 1996, pg. 169), and in Neils case, he seemed to have good thoughts about
himself, expecting to go to Oxford and be an astronaut (or a chauffeur if that fell through).
Regardless of what Neil wanted to do, as a seven year old child, he seemed to have confidence in
himself and be a happy enough child. In 21-Up, which we did not watch in class, we saw that
Neil had attended a university for about one term and then dropped out. From that point on, he
went downhill becoming homeless and somewhat mentally unstable.
The key to determining if Chisholms theory is accurate in Neils case is to know what
was going through his mind at the time of his departure from university. Rothbaum writes in his
piece, The Development of Close Relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of
Symbiotic Relatedness and Generative Tension, there are four stages at which different views
on relationships manifest within the individual. Rothbaum states that at infancy, the individual

processes separation and reunion in contrast with a relationship with another, at childhood an
individual starts to develop personal preferences in their relationships, and at adolescence the
individual starts to increase detachment from their parents and more comfortability and time
spent with peers (Rothbaum, 2000). It seems that at this point in Neils development, he started
his downward trajectory, his very prominent relationship with his family and his lack of
experience with other children, besides his best friend at the time, compared to the other children
in 7-Up probably contributed to his mental instability when he was separated from the few
things he knew very well. Neil even stated in 49-Up that his relationship with his dad had
somewhat deteriorated over his teenage years, which most likely didnt bode well on his state of
mind in his early twenties, and when he had repaired a piece of his relationship with his father
before he passed away later in his life, he seemed to also repair a somewhat broken piece of his
mind and get on track again.
As a general case study, Neil shows that a balance of venturing beyond early
relationships and environments and holding on to pieces of early life is a necessity when
developing from a child into an adult. Without experiencing new things along the way, a sudden
jump will result in Neils situation, but when losing touch with all you used to know, a mental
lapse and a sense of aloneness will develop within a person. Either one can turn into Neils
situation in his late twenties which, as seen in 7-Up, is not a necessarily fruitful and enticing
way to live.

Work Cited
Chisholm, J. (1996). Learning Respect. Images of Childhood, 167-183.
Erikson, E. (1964). 8 Ages of Man. In Childhood and society (2d ed.). New York: Norton.
Levine, R. (1974). Parental Goals: A cross-cultural view. Teachers College Record, 76,
226-239.
Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K. and Weisz, J. (2000), The Development
of Close Relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of Symbiotic Harmony and
Generative Tension. Child Development, 71: 11211142.
Seven up! [Motion picture]. (1964). United Kingdom: Granada Television.