Erik Erikson And The Effects Of Early Childhood Trauma On Healthy Psychological Development

Psychologist Erik Erikson is best known for his theory on psychosocial development, which outlines the various stages of development and highlights their key characteristics and associated conflicts. However, another area that Erikson extensively researched was early childhood trauma and its effects on healthy psychological development.

Early childhood trauma refers to any adverse event or experience that a child experiences before the age of six. This can include various forms of abuse, neglect, loss of a loved one, violence and other experiences that can negatively impact a child’s healthy psychological development. Erikson was keen to address the effects of such trauma on child development, noting how they can affect an individual’s psychological makeup well into adulthood.

One of the key areas of early childhood development that Erikson focused on was the development of trust versus mistrust. According to Erikson, children pass through this stage within the first 18 months of their life, and its central conflict is between trust and mistrust. In this stage, children require consistent care and affection from their primary caregivers to develop a sense of trust in the world around them. Parents and caretakers play a crucial role in shaping the child’s perception of the world through their daily interactions and responses to the child’s needs. If these needs are not met due to early childhood trauma, mistrust may develop, leading to further psychological problems later on in life.

Erikson also emphasized the importance of a child’s autonomy during the second stage of psychosocial development, which occurs between the ages of two to three years. This stage is marked by toddlers’ assertion of their autonomy as they seek to assert control over their immediate environment. Children who experience early childhood trauma may find it challenging to develop a sense of self-trust and autonomy, leading to lower self-esteem, anxiety and feelings of inadequacy that can be long-lasting.

Early childhood trauma can also have profound effects on a child’s social and emotional development, affecting their ability to form secure relationships and attach healthily to others. Erikson posited that children pass through the stage of intimacy versus isolation during young adulthood, where they seek to develop genuine connectedness with others. However, individuals who lack a sense of trust and self-autonomy may find it difficult to establish such connections, leading to social isolation and feelings of disconnect.

Erikson was also concerned about the effects of early childhood trauma on academic achievement, given its critical role in shaping later-life outcomes. He argued that children exposed to traumatic experiences may develop cognitive and behavioural difficulties that can hinder their academic progress. Such difficulties can have long-lasting effects on their future career prospects, social mobility and overall well-being.

One of the most severe consequences of early childhood trauma is the risk of developing mental health issues such as anxiety or depression. This is because such experiences can leave a lasting impression on a child’s psyche, leading to unresolved emotional conflicts and feelings of vulnerability. The effects of childhood trauma can manifest in adulthood, leading to the development of low self-esteem, trust issues, difficulty forming relationships, and a host of other psychological difficulties.

Erikson was keen to emphasise the role of caregivers and parents in providing support and guidance to children exposed to early childhood trauma. Through supportive care, counseling and therapy, individuals can better work through such traumas and minimise their impact on their psychological development.

In conclusion, Erikson extensively researched the effects of early childhood trauma on healthy psychological development, noting how it can negatively impact a child’s perception of the world and their place in it. From issues of trust versus mistrust, autonomy, academic achievement, and social-emotional development, early childhood experiences profoundly shape later life outcomes.

Caregivers and parents play a crucial role in providing support and guidance to children experiencing traumatic events, which can minimise the impact of such events on their psychological well-being. Erikson’s work reminds us of the importance of a supportive and nurturing environment for children to develop healthy psychological development and highlights the long-lasting consequences of early childhood trauma.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Religious Trauma Syndrome And Christianity

Christianity, being one of the world’s largest and most widespread religions, has also played a significant role in causing Religious Trauma Syndrome. The ways in which Christianity can cause Religious Trauma Syndrome are vast and vary widely depending on the denomination and intensity of the beliefs in question.

One of the ways in which Christianity causes Religious Trauma Syndrome is through the belief in original sin, the idea that all humans are born with sin because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Children are taught from a young age that they are inherently sinful and that needs to be ‘saved’ through faith in Jesus Christ.

This teaching creates an intense amount of guilt and shame within the individual, as they feel that they have done something wrong even when they have not committed any particular act. Believing that humans are inherently flawed can lead to self-loathing and negative self-talk, which can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s mental health.

Another way in which Christianity may lead to Religious Trauma Syndrome is through the concept of hell. Many Christians believe in a very literal hell, a place of eternal punishment for those who live a life of sin or do not believe in Jesus Christ. The idea of a literal hell can cause immense anxiety and fear in an individual, especially when coupled with the belief in original sin.

The fear of going to hell, not only for themselves but also for their loved ones, can cause significant psychological damage and can result in individuals living their lives in constant fear and worry about death and the afterlife.

Furthermore, Christian teachings around sex and sexuality can often cause immense harm to individuals who subscribe to them. Many denominations teach that sex is reserved for marriage, and anything outside of that context is considered sinful.

In addition, many denominations hold strict gender roles and homophobia, teaching that individuals should adhere to binary gender roles, and that same-sex relationships are morally wrong. The shaming and ostracizing of individuals who explore sexual possibilities can cause deep emotional and psychological trauma, leading to feelings of self-hatred, worthlessness, and isolation.

Finally, the concept of spiritual warfare is another aspect of Christianity that can cause Religious Trauma Syndrome. Many Christians believe in a literal devil that actively seeks to deceive and ensnare individuals into sin. Actions that can be deemed as following the devil’s path range from anything from watching certain movies to exploring other religions.

Believing that spiritual warfare exists can lead to a constant state of fear and anxiety, with people struggling to feel safe in the world around them. Individuals can become paranoid about every situation in which they find themselves, never sure if they are following the right path.

In conclusion, Religious Trauma Syndrome is a real and important phenomenon that can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s mental health. Christianity, and the ways in which it is often taught, can play a significant role in causing Religious Trauma Syndrome in individuals who have had these beliefs forced on them.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Battle Of The Now: Nothing Is Anything vs. Some Things Are Something

The Western World seems on the brink of civil war. The factions appear to be two completely different conceptions of reality, or how to approach reality. One faction contends, essentially, that nothing is anything. Their opponents assert that some things, in fact, are something. As with many historical battles, it’s fundamentally a battle of masculine vs. feminine.

The feminine side states that nothing is anything. No truths can be known for certain. All is flux, therefore nothing is permanent for long enough to substantiate its existence. Because nothing is certain, there’s no point in being too strict about borders or boundaries. This side is what Alan Watts used to call “gooey” people.

The masculine side, by contrast, states that some things are something. There are such things as objective truths, and they can guide our lives. These truths are often fixed ideals. Such people often react with outrage to Nietzsche’s suggestions that there are no moral truths. This side is what Alan Watts used to call “prickly” people.

In the Clown World of 2023, these are the battle lines of the culture war.

The feminine side has no issue with the trans phenomenon. If nothing is anything, then women are not exclusively those with XX chromosomes. Therefore, femininity is a matter of what gender you “identify as”, or which gender you “represent”. Trans people are whatever they say they are, and the rest of us have to follow along.

The masculine side comes into opposition with this view. To the masculine, gender is fixed, and it’s more or less fixed to sex. Men are men and women are women. It doesn’t matter what you identify as, because there’s a determined and objective reality which itself reveals what you are. Thus, there is a particular bathroom to which you belong, and one to which you don’t.

A similar situation exists with nationality. To the ideologically feminine, nationality is like a mask, that can be put on, taken off, and replaced at will. It’s possible to become a member of a different nation simply by living there. Such a view sees no contradiction in having two or more passports and claiming to belong to more than one nation.

To the ideologically masculine, nationality is rooted in blood and soil, and therefore even people who have lived in a new country for 50 years aren’t members of the nation (although their children might be). Nationality, like gender, is fixed and not fluid. It’s comprised of kinship links that are as real as family ties.

In fact, this division is replicated in attitudes to biology. The feminine reject biological determinism, preferring to believe that anyone can become anything if given the right environment while growing up. Success is primarily a matter of will, and natural talents can be shaped in virtually any direction. This ties in with the modern globalist mindset.

The masculine, by contrast, reject Blank Slate Theory. They support hereditarianism. The masculine approach ties in with the modern nationalist mindset, because it’s concerned with the long-term effects of (e.g.) immigration on the nation’s genetic infrastructure. When some things are something, it tends to be permanently that way.

Complicating matters, sometimes one of the two sides is more correct than the other.

For instance, the masculine side is right when it says that intelligence is mostly genetic, but wrong when it says that mental illness is also mostly genetic. As such, it errs towards exclusion. The feminine side, for its part, is right when it says that mental illness is mostly environmental, but wrong when it says that intelligence is mostly environmental. As such, it errs towards inclusion.

Those who cannot overcome an inherent, entrenched masculine or feminine bias are why public discourse has now degraded to such a low level. Rather than talking to uncover the truth, people now talk to further the interests of their team. Those with the strongest biases are incapable of even perceiving their opponent’s position.

The correct course of action is to stop thinking in crude, black-and-white terms, and to try developing some intellectual nuance. Masculine thinking is useful when it’s necessary to delineate and discriminate, and feminine thinking is useful when it’s necessary to draw similarities. To have a bias towards either is a cognitive weakness.

In order to psychologically survive Clown World, it’s necessary to stand above forced, artificial battles that are designed to destroy your will and waste your mental energy. The simplest way to stand above is to not get sucked into inconsequential masculine vs. feminine debates that have been created by the mainstream media. Try to be, as the Confucianists say, the unwobbling pivot between yin and yang.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Mythologising Retirement

Such a great portion of our human lives involves paid work. There is an important sense in which we have been convinced that the ultimate goal of work is to pay off our debts, only to then retire. There is value in challenging the assumptions beneath this kind of myth, because so much of our lives are invested in what is at stake. Unless we come to a very clear understanding of what it is that we feel and what the outcomes are of our participation in this life, we will never arrive at any kind of satisfactory point, nor will we have divined any beneficial understanding of our place in the world.

Firstly, we have inherited a cultural premise that tells us that ultimate well-being can be postponed to the future. This is a very large assumption with far-reaching implications.

Your learned capacity to be happy in the future is a clear reflection of how you have learned to be happy now. Obviously, when the future seems to have arrived, that will also be ‘now’, so your appreciation of your present environment must be managed skilfully.

Have you ever come across people who are retired who cannot stop for one moment? The garden, the housework, the motorhome. These people are continuing the education of a lifetime of work, which is an ethic of keeping busy. People will object: ‘What is wrong if this is what they want?’, but do we really know what we want? Do we know what is best for us, and where we may have misunderstood?

For example, there is hidden assumption that many people have accepted which is that a lifetime of work is also a lifetime involved with suffering, therefore retirement from working life will also equate to retirement from a lifetime of suffering. Just how true is this assumption? It is true that much work, being the expenditure of effort under often physically or mentally stressful conditions, can promote much in the way of personal suffering.

What a lot of people fail to see is that leaving daily work behind is allowing the departure of only one source of suffering, it is not a salvation from suffering as a whole. In fact, the point at which we are accepted to have earned the right to withdraw from a lifetime of work is also the same point at which our mind as well as our physical body is beginning to deteriorate, marking the onset of all kinds of potential physical and medical challenges.

Suffering still follows at our heels from other sources, most notably the illness and death of friends, peers and loved ones who are also subject to the ravages of time. In this respect, retirement enjoys the benefit of a kind of afterlife mythology, in which all of our pain and effort on a daily basis will one day be ultimately vindicated and returned in full measure.

This raises an alarming question: just how much daily tolerance of misery does this mythology support? How many of us are laboring under the illusion that all of our effort is guiding us toward somewhere ultimate where we will have eternal peace and we can finally kick up our heels?

I share a couple of examples of this from my own life which I believe touch upon something relevant here.

I have a friend whose father is in his seventies, and despite remaining reasonably physically fit, he still works himself to the bone every day of his life. He is still in full time employment, despite that fact that he has been given the nod of approval that he could leave his work if he wanted to. Now, you might say ‘If he is doing what he wants to, why not?’ And I would naturally agree, except that all he ever seems to talk about is how much of a welcome change it is going to be when he finally retires.

This poses an odd kind of paradox in which he is on the cusp of retirement, and really past his culturally accepted retirement age, but the actual notion of stopping work seems to terrify him. His insistence on the myth of retirement has been well noted – he has waxed eloquent about the benefits of not having to get up in the morning, to not have to do anything, to have the freedom to kick back with a beer in his hand and watch TV (incidentally, this mythology is also recounted in minor form in the notion of the weekend, almost like a mythic foretaste of Valhalla).

The sad irony is, these are things he has not given himself the permission to enjoy. He may literally never arrive at the point at which he is comfortable with letting go of the ethic of early rising and hard work before he dies. To have lived this way for over seventy years, with no substantial appreciation for being able to allow himself to get a real break, is quite a confounding and yet exceptionally ubiquitous social phenomenon.

We could surmise it comes down to a person’s character and their ethos of being a hard worker, which unsurprisingly is a highly respected social value in any country. It could also be that like the rest of us, he has been successfully indoctrinated into a program of lifelong drudgery, being strung along by an imaginary dangling carrot.

Another example I will give was when I was working out of town one day, an older man came up to me struggling to walk with a stick and specifically wanted to tell me his story. We were the only two people around for at least a kilometer, and he specifically made the effort to approach me from a distance of about three hundred meters.

He told me that he was a keen hunter and fisherman, and that shortly after retiring, he had experienced a stroke which meant that there was no aspect of his retirement he felt he could enjoy. He told me that he worked his whole life, expecting to be able to retire and do what he wanted, except now he felt he had been cheated out of it.

While I don’t believe there is nothing he could have left of value in his life, the fact remains that we do place an inordinate amount of good faith in the application of effort over decades of our lives hoping to have something tangible to show at the end of the process. How does this contribute to us putting off our lives now, and how are we foregoing our responsibility to live wisely and skilfully today?

Are we collectively so enamoured by the prospect of the future holding some form of salvation, either material or spiritual, that we can justify subjecting ourselves to misery today? What would we do differently today, what changes would we be willing to allow in our lives if we discovered the possibility that our imagined future with its ease, relaxation and distance from suffering would never eventuate?

Simon P Murphy is a Nelson-based esotericist and philosopher, and author of His Master’s Wretched Organ, a brilliant collection of weird fiction stories.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!