Fifty Years Since “Identity: Youth and Crisis”: A Renewed Look at Erikson’s Writings on Identity

ABSTRACT

This introductory analysis presents the content of the special issue entitled “Fifty years since ‘Identity: Youth and Crisis’: A renewed look at Erikson’s writings on identity.” The authors of the nine thought pieces that compose this special issue were invited to direct the attention of readers of Identity to aspects of Eriksonian thought that they believe have been left undeveloped or underdeveloped. A number of powerful and relevant topics were raised in this collection. Authors call upon identity scholars to engage more fully with the relational, contextual, interactional, and cultural components of Erikson’s theory, including analysis of identity development within the context of important relationships; the advent of the Internet as a context for identity development; and greater acknowledgement of the impact of forces of marginalization and oppression on identity development. In addition, articles in this special issue explore difficult or problematic aspects of identity development that have been relatively neglected in previous research, including negative identity, identity crisis, and pseudospeciation. A deeper analysis of epigenetic processes of development is offered, as is an analysis of Erikson’s implication of the unconscious in identity development. Together this collection of essays provides a framework for moving research based in Eriksonian theory forward.

This special issue of Identity was inspired by the semicentennial of Erikson’s landmark book “Identity: Youth and Crisis,” published in 1968. Erikson wrote on his concept of identity both before and after 1968. This particular book, mostly comprising previously published essays, was not compiled in order to present a systematically organized exposition of the concept of identity (Friedman, 1999). Nevertheless, it has historically served to consolidate identity as a central construct in developmental psychology, tying it to adolescence in both professional and popular circles, and is thus a milestone worth commemorating. Indeed, Erikson’s voluminous writing on identity and its development across the life-span, in this publication and in others, has inspired a lion’s share of the extensive and diverse research in the field of psychology devoted to identity in the past 50 years. However, rather than taking the opportunity that this round date provides us to review the important work previously done, we instead chose to invite identity scholars to reflect on Eriksonian concepts that were relatively overlooked or underdeveloped (see also Hoare, 2013; Hoover, 2004). We were interested in examining and highlighting Erikson’s continued generative legacy vis-à-vis the future study of identity.

As is apparent to anyone familiar with Erikson’s theory who rereads his writings, there are many issues he related to that have not been taken up in popular presentations of his work and even in later academic theorizing and empirical research. Rereading Erikson is an eye-opening experience. We see it not only as an opportunity to discover new depths but also as a source of surprise at how ideas that were plainly in sight have been overlooked in previous readings. Erikson’s theory is rich in insight, broad in scope, and complex in detail. Perhaps this enables readers to capture only a few ideas at a time. Perhaps also translating Erikson’s complex ideas into customary academic research designs is extremely difficult, which has resulted in researchers picking up on certain concepts rather than others, often overlooking what might seem at first glance to be less important or hard to measure. Advanced students, when assigned to read Erikson, often express their surprise at the difference between Erikson in the original and what they have learned about his theory from introductory textbooks. This suggests that even after having read Erikson more than once, it is well worth the time every so often to take a fresh look at his writings, with the hope of learning something new.

We therefore invited authors to direct the attention of readers of Identity to aspects of Eriksonian thought that they believe have been left undeveloped or underdeveloped. We specifically requested authors to discuss broad ideas and concepts that have the potential to generate further research in the years to come and that are potentially applicable to contemporary psychosocial contexts. The submissions we received were quite diverse and attest to the fact that a half-century later, Erikson’s theorizing is recognized for its continued relevance to contemporary sociocultural contexts. The submissions also validated our premise that indeed there are quite a few ideas, concepts, or aspects of Erikson’s thought that have not yet been fully fleshed out. In this introduction, we orient readers to several topics that emerged in this collection of thoughtful analyses of Erikson’s contributions.

First, several authors highlighted the ongoing applicability of Eriksonian theory in contemporary social contexts, with specific attention to evolving cultural and societal influences on youth development. For example, Côté (2018) commented on changing cultural conditions, such as today’s historically unprecedented delay in the transition to adulthood that aggravates and prolongs identity crisis for many youth. Shifting conditions for youth in higher education likely cause problematic person–context fits and hinder young adults’ active meaningful engagement in identity processes. Kay (2018) explored the Internet, and particularly social media, as a uniquely modern identity developmental context, while noting that the opportunities and challenges afforded by modern technology share a clear conceptual link to the technological advances that Erikson identified in his writing decades before. Other authors addressed contemporary structural and contextual issues that, although certainly not unique to contemporary society, have become increasingly visible and relevant to identity scholars, for example, issues related to globalization and migration. Syed and Fish (2018), Rogers (2018), and Alberts and Durrheim (2018) all, in different ways, addressed Erikson’s consistent and thoughtful analysis of cultural influences on identity development, with particular emphasis on the forces of power, privilege, and oppression that constrain opportunities for identity resolution for youth from marginalized backgrounds. Such issues were central to Erikson’s work. While others have previously pointed out that Erikson’s complex twining of the personal and the social is not sufficiently reflected in neo-Eriksonian identity research (see special issue of Identity, Côté, 2005), the authors above attempted once again to contend with this formidable challenge for researchers and endeavored to provide concrete guidance for moving research and theory forward in this regard.

The issue of the relationship between the psychological and the social aligns with a closely related topic touched on by several authors, regarding the importance of acknowledging and incorporating Erikson’s theorizing on the interpersonal and interactional nature of identity development. Both Kerpelman and Pittman (2018) and Schachter (2018) discussed this issue with regard to identity formation within intergenerational and other close relationships. Rogers (2018) discussed different ways that Erikson’s relational emphasis is reflected in current transactional approaches to identity, and Alberts and Durrheim (2018) demonstrated a discursive approach to identity formation within a family conversation. Obviously, the challenge of creating concepts and measures that adequately capture the complexity of Erikson’s psychosocial and relational theory within an individual-oriented field of psychology will continue to engage identity researchers in the years to come.

While past identity research has extensively focused on predictors and indicators of both “optimal” identity development processes and outcomes (e.g., identity achievement) and problematic ones (e.g., diffusion or rumination), contributors to this volume discussed some of the relatively unexplored variations that Erikson had described regarding both adaptive and maladaptive identity development. Notably, Hihara, Sugimura, and Syed (2018) focused on Erikson’s concept of negative identity, a concept different from identity confusion or diffusion, which has not received much theoretical or empirical attention within our field. Rogers (2018) also touched on this topic. Schachter (2018) discussed Erikson’s references to the sinister aspects of unconscious identity formation and how undesirable or irreconcilable identity fragments come to be repressed and yet remain influential. Côté (2018) called for researchers to refocus on what Erikson meant in employing the concept of crisis. He pointed out the necessity that our social institutions entrusted with guiding youth correctly differentiate between possibly transient identity crises and more enduring mental disorders—and respond to these different categories accordingly. Both Kay (2018) and Hihara et al. (2018) addressed the ways that modern technology, along with a legacy of marginalization and oppression, creates an environment that engenders pseudospeciation, an Eriksonian concept that has seen little conceptual and empirical analysis, despite its possible importance in understanding contemporary negative social phenomena. In line with the emphasis of these contributors on the pseudospeciation concept, we believe identity researchers following Erikson need to face the conceptual challenge of clarifying this concept and differentiating positive, empowering authentic identities from pseudo-identities, both of which are inherently based in a sense of belongingness, connection to, and identification with, sociocultural groups. Regarding the adaptive and positive variations of identity development, Kerpelman and Pittman (2018) described how secure attachment within relational contexts is integral to Erikson’s understanding of a positive sense of identity. Schachter (2018) discussed Erikson’s references to the vitality and vigor afforded by identity and how Erikson viewed the relation between a sense of identity and feeling at home in the body.

Another theme raised by authors evaluates the relationship between the identity stage and other life stages or, put differently, with how identity relates to the personality as a whole. Often, identity research has focused on identity almost as a solitary concept—as an end to its own—whereas Erikson viewed identity as tied to other life stages and as functioning in relation to the broader personality across the life-span (see Syed, 2017). Kroger (2018) discussed Erikson’s concept of epigenesis and explored processes through which identity resolutions of adolescence invite particular variants of the subsequent psychosocial tasks of adulthood—intimacy, generativity, and integrity. Identity is then also integrated into and changed by these later developmental challenges. Kerpelman and Pittman’s (2018) discussion of the relationship between Eriksonian theory and attachment theory highlighted the importance of the interrelationship between identity and other developmental tasks such as trust versus mistrust and intimacy versus isolation. Schachter (2018) touched on possible relations and even codependence between adolescents’ identity and adults’ generativity, an issue also briefly discussed by Kerpelman and Pittman (2018) and Rogers (2018). These contributions suggest the importance of perhaps also looking at how identity functions “outside” the adolescent stage and as it relates to broader psychological issues.

Finally, we invite readers to consider some methodological and even philosophical challenges posed by the complex portrait of Erikson’s concept of identity as depicted in the articles in this special issue. How do we capture an essence that is both psycho and social; that is dynamic across the life-span involving multiple parties interacting simultaneously; that is partly unconscious and in different ways; and that is intergenerationally, interactionally, and discursively constituted? How do we capture identity processes in a digital age in which social interaction and identity performances have become more complex than ever before? How do we differentiate between problematic negative identity and critical attitudes toward problematic social institutions, how do we differentiate transient identity crisis from enduring disorders, pseudospeciation from healthy group identification?

In sum, the authors in this special issue have provided identity scholars with a collection of intriguing, provocative, and generative analyses of Eriksonian theory. We are grateful for their efforts to set an agenda for research on identity formation moving forward for the years to come, and we hope that readers of Identity will be stimulated and energized by their ideas.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.