Hanna Liberska Waiting for new solutions in understanding and explaining human development

Artykuł jest dostępny na warunkach międzynarodowej licencji 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Introduction: development vs. regression

Human development can be based on many theories and models by various psychological approaches. Research on the mechanisms and factors of human development sought in psychoanalytic, behavioral, and humanistic approaches, in ecological, ethological or evolutionary psychology indicate both differences and similarities. Since the middle of the last century, the life-span approach has gained many supporters, according to which developmental changes can occur from birth (or conception) to death (Reese, Overton, 1970). It replaced the view that developmental changes – understood (here) as progressive changes, manifested in the replacement of lower, less complex processes, structures and activities – by more complicated, more perfect processes, structures and activities enabling more effective coping with tasks – occur in the first periods of life, especially in childhood and adolescence. They are an indicator of achieving psychosocial and biological maturity and a condition for adaptation to the requirements of adult roles. Rejecting the “strong” or “hard” model of development rooted in biological changes (including morphology, anatomy and physiological processes) associated with the maturation of body structures preceding readiness for reproduction and reproduction is the essence of a new view of human life. The competitive approach assumes the so-called “weak” development model. It limits, but does not reject, the criterion of developmental change understood as the achievement by a structure, process or activity of a higher level, more complicated, more complex, and therefore more perfect. In the weak model, the indicator of development is simply a change, including one that involves simplification, limitation of activity, or transformation of a structure or process. Changes of this second type, however, should not be reduced to regression. Its essence, as in the case of a change defined as progressive, maybe both quantitative and qualitative change. Regression, however, means the return of the state of structure and process to an earlier state, which in the case of living forms, such as humans, is at least questionable. In the course of everyday activity – as a result of acquiring new information (and exchanging substances) – there is a constant reconstruction of mental structures (and biological structures), which means quantitative and/or qualitative changes. Even traumatic events, which may destroy the psychological structure or its reduction and the occurrence of behaviors that resemble those manifested earlier, in earlier years of life (e.g. in childhood and adolescence), do not prove a regressive change – understood as the withdrawal of a state of a structure or process – since at no point in psychosocial development can one return to the starting point.  

Acquiring new information or generating it by working through previously collected information can be treated as a generator of development. Limiting such possibilities may result in inhibition or slowdown of development – it may have an adaptive value in unfavorable conditions.

Development and its context

Therefore, not only changes involving the transfer of structure and process to a higher level of organization (classified as progressive) but also changes indicating simplification of the organization (sometimes incorrectly classified as regressive) constitute development. All of them are aimed at adaptation to the current and future context (Lerner, 2006) and the degree of adaptation depends on the capabilities of mental processes and to some extent on the somatic condition, as well as social support. 

According to both the strong and weak models, the course of biological changes can be presented in the form of a curve rising for over a dozen years, sometimes longer, to a certain point, after reaching which it remains relatively constant for a longer or shorter time and then decreases until loss of activity (end of life indicator). Psychosocial changes, however, can be presented in the form of curves with a more diverse course – individualized and interdependent with changes in the ecological context. Individualization results from the interaction of the genetic program, sociocultural influences and the natural environment and manifests itself in activity. Development can therefore be viewed as a sequence of directional changes that determine their further course in time within the limits set by interaction with the broadly understood context (Zamiara, 1988). Blocking change results in inhibition of development – and due to changes in the external environment (social and natural) – it has a maladaptive effect. Change processes are therefore a necessary condition for adaptation. 

Even a slow pace of change allows for adaptation to relatively stable conditions. Adaptation to quick and/or large changes in the broadly understood context requires quick, large transformations in the subject’s activity and, above all, transformations in the structures of his or her mind. The pace and scope of context changes reflect civilization changes. (Adaptation to them involves changes in balance processes: within the structures of the psyche, between them and between the structures of the psyche and external conditions.) Nowadays, the dynamics of context changes are intensifying and, as a consequence, adaptation requires more and more dynamic changes in psychosocial functioning. Balancing these changes is becoming – for many individuals – more and more difficult, which may manifest itself in mental and psychosomatic diseases, suicides, and addictions, as well as in the rejection of certain events considered either as “milestones”, critical events or normative events in human life. This illustrates the costs of cultural change for individuals and communities. The consequences of the inability or difficulty in balancing individual and contextual changes throughout life – making psychologists, sociologists, educators, doctors and politicians anxious- also result in unfavorable demographic trends and, in the long run, an economic crisis. This proves the need to analyze an individual’s behavior and its changes in connection with the socio-economic and natural context. 

Since changes in the life course of individuals and changes in the context, as already emphasized, are interdependent, the approach of ecological psychology and the systemic approach may be useful in their analysis. Both of these approaches are integrated into Bronfenbrenner’s concept of ecological systems.

Does psychological theory follow or precede changes in individual life paths and their context? 

In the specialized literature, we find models of life stages or life cycles proposed by S. Freud (2012/1916), C.G. Jung (1960), E.H. Erikson (1982), concepts of changes in the structure of life by D.J. Levinson (1986), changes in the structure of activities by Z. Pietrasiński (1990) or the cycle of changes in the social structure what is the family proposed by E.M. Duvall (1957) or M. Ziemska (2005), M. Tyszkowa (1996) H. Liberska (2014), models of career changes by D.E. Super (1957), D.C. Miller and W.H. From (1951), E.H. Schein (1971) and others. Although the analysis of the several above-mentioned proposals for scientific approaches to human development indicates a certain agreement among their authors regarding the cyclicality or stage nature of life, differences can be noted regarding the number and length of stages or periods or developmental phases as well as change indicators. Developmental dilemmas, social roles or life goals are considered indicators of change – treated as developmental tasks or challenges, which are often given the status of normative ones. The above-mentioned models and concepts regarding the development of an individual human being focus not only on its different aspects – psychological, family or professional (see Burack, 1984) and link them with supra-individual processes.  

A different approach to development is proposed by J. Arnett (1999), who questions the universality of goals, tasks or social roles. As a consequence of the above, they cannot constitute the basis for distinguishing periods or development phases or for describing the life cycle. The mentioned researcher emphasizes the individualized course of human development and points to the increasing number of examples of individuals deviating from certain aspirations (or activities), treated as developmental challenges (standards, social roles, tasks or life goals). An individual’s resignation from including at least some of them in his/her self-concept results in their absence from life plans. As a consequence, the content and temporal structure of life plans change. The absence of certain values ​​in the center of identity translates into the absence of goals and tasks in life plans that direct and organize life activity in subsequent stages of individual development. As a result, an individual’s life course may differ from the cultural prototype. In a more distant time perspective, the likelihood of weakening and disappearance of certain social expectations that (so far) determine the aspirations and life tasks of people of different ages increases. The disappearance or rejection of social expectations may result in a lack of social indicators for self-other comparisons. As a result, there may be difficulties with self-definition, achieving identity, and constructing a life path. Internalized social expectations are the basis for an individual’s evaluation of activity. A positive assessment of self-efficacy is important for achieving a sense of self-fulfillment and well-being. Reducing the pool of internalized values, norms and social expectations, on the one hand, may make it easier for a person to achieve a sense of self-fulfillment and well-being, but on the other hand, it may be associated with the simplification or impoverishment of his/her activity, which is considered a factor of development. Failure to meet the few expectations introduced into the concept of oneself and one’s life path may have negative consequences for one’s life balance, self-assessment, self-esteem, and sense of well-being. This can lead to a loss of meaning in life, lower psychosocial health indicators, and even to taking one’s life. 

In the case of success in the implementation of a few life tasks present in the concept of one’s own person and life path, as in the case of failure, a feeling of confusion and loss of meaning in further life may occur due to the lack of other goals and tasks. 

Failure to notice the importance of giving up some life tasks perceived as indicators of activity – as already signaled above – may, although not necessarily, lead to the impoverishment of activity, as well as to the expansion of its preferred forms in selected areas. The latter option – if successful – may have positive consequences for individual development. In these considerations, primarily tasks approved by the so-called general public are taken into account.  

Lack of commitment to the implementation of certain aspirations resulting from social expectations is almost becoming a new norm or a new standard. J. Arnett’s concept is appreciated by some researchers and criticized by others. One can discuss the idea of ​​a noticeable absolutization of the individualized life course and the consequences for social development of the simplification of the content and temporal structure of life. If we assume that the structure of life, the structure of activity – available to external cognition – reflects the life of the internal, psychological structures, a disturbing reflection arises regarding their reduction. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case, because by the previous considerations on the strong and weak development model – it may be a manifestation of achieving a new quality structure. 

In societies with a simpler structure, sometimes referred to as primitive ones, it is possible to recognize basic goals and life tasks specific to gender, age, and socio-economic status. Socio-cultural evolution led to significant changes in the organization of social and individual life, including the expansion of expectations directed by society at large towards smaller groups and individuals present in it. Some of them (expectations) concern compliance with cultural requirements, while others include the criterion of uniqueness, exceptionality and independence. It could be said that modern people live in beautiful, and at the same time difficult times/conditions.

Opportunities and threats for human development at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries 

Changes in researchers’ approach to human development are consistent with the idea of ​​the postmodern era and postmodern society, characterized by computerization, overproduction of goods and its consequences in the form of consumerism, commodification of culture and multiculturalism, globalization (Szacka, 2003), prominent to the top of the hierarchy, the need for autonomy, relativism and a moratorium on identity supported by the cult of youth, striving for freedom from obligations and at the same time gaining a sense of fulfillment and success. The rejection of at least some of the social expectations inscribed in the cultural tradition – and, on the other hand, the search for support in social capital to achieve a sense of self-fulfillment – can be considered contradictory and/or considered an indicator of embedding individual development in the conditions set by a changing society. This would therefore be a manifestation of balancing the relationship between an individual and a social group/community.  

The question arises whether it can be assumed that on a global scale – the risk (attributed to modern society (Beck, 2004)) related to individualization, the threat of loneliness among people, the weakening of social relationships, including intimate and family relationships (which may result in the loss of social support) is balanced by tendencies towards radicalization or minimalism. Both solutions seem to assume a reduction of identity, sense of freedom or independence. (If there is no reference point for the scope of one’s autonomy, when the limit of freedom cannot be seen in the future or it is very clear, rigid, and close to the present – then there is a problem with experiencing it.) 

In the works of K. Obuchowski (2000), we find the idea of ​​a human subject who has a chance to gain a sense of autonomy by focusing his or her activity on achieving the goals he or she has set and implementing the concept of the world he or she has created. This raises the question of the relationship between autonomy and responsibility for oneself and responsibility for or towards others – significant to the subject – at least for some time. The quoted researcher seems to notice a certain limit to an individual’s autonomy, which is respect for the sense of subjectivity of others. Being a human subject is determined not only by the declaration of a sense of responsibility not only for oneself and for the fate of the world, but above all by taking it. The consequence of this development path of modern man, leading him or her to obtain the status of a human subject, is the attribute of new individualism, otherwise known as neo-individualism. Narrowing human activity to the pursuit of goals unrelated to the goals and needs of other people may be an indicator of detachment from the environment (social and natural) and a false belief in autonomy. Drawing a boundary between the real world and the fictional world and locking oneself in the latter may be a predictor of maladaptation. Isolation from the real world makes creative adaptation impossible, because the lack of exchange and mutual relations results in the inability to influence the environment, i.e. to transform it by the concept of oneself and the concept of the world. The balancing process that determines adaptation, especially creative adaptation, is disappearing. The main goal of (creative) adaptation is to obtain the meaning of life, which involves the relative stability of goals over time and the development of long-term tasks – but many modern people have difficulties with this. In recent decades, due to, among other things, the progress of digitalization and the increasingly stronger interference of artificial intelligence in people’s lives (although perhaps it would still be more justified to talk about the increasing reliance on media messages and solutions suggested by artificial/machine intelligence), the faint or fluid boundary between the real world and the fictional world seems to be disappearing, disturbing K. Obuchowski (and others). Therefore, the question arises of relating the adaptation process and the difficulties experienced by humans in adapting to both worlds: fictional, virtual and real, social and natural – existing objectively. 

The dynamics of the ecological (life) context and balancing processes resulting from the reciprocity of the relationship between the individual and the context (real and virtual) – although they may disturb the stability of the content and hierarchical structure of goals and aspirations, including distant tasks, nevertheless influence changes, although not all of them can be granted developmental change status.

Development and balancing processes 

Let us return to the basic issue indicated at the beginning, which is the understanding of the concept of development and developmental change. The condition for recognizing a change in structure at various levels of its organization and a change in functioning as developmental is its adaptive significance. It is not about the subordination of an individual (human) to the conditions or requirements of the external environment, but rather about balancing external and internal conditions, which is more a process than a state. Balancing covers all levels of life organization, from the most basic (the level of biochemical processes) to the most complex – supra-individual. Changes in a biological, psychological, social and finally spiritual nature are interconnected, and this connection is dynamic and individualized. The dynamics and individualization of changes are the result of the interdependence of genetically programmed variability and environmental variability regulated by balancing processes occurring over time (see Piaget, 1981; Liberska, 2020). The environment is broadly understood as the internal and external environment, including natural (intraorganismal and extraorganismal) and social (family, school, professional, neighborhood and others). This connection can be seen in a holistic approach. In the life of a human (as an individual) and society, not only the physical dimension of time is important, but also the cultural and historical dimensions, which are significant for the individual perception of psychological time (see Trempała, 2000). A proposal for a comprehensive approach to the multitude of interdependent environments in which human life takes place is provided by the systemic approach and ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1981; Bronfenbrenner, Morris, 2006). 

A new virtual development context 

We are waiting for a new approach to human and social development. Have psychologists approached the limit of understanding change and the special category of developmental change? Recently, the above-mentioned discussion on rationality in human development research has been undertaken (Bakiera, 2023; Cieciuch, 2023; Niemczyński, 2023; Trempała, 2023). Will it initiate a new approach to human development in interdependent contexts: virtual and real?) 

The life-span approach has expanded the development process and, to some extent, freed us from anxiety about the negative changes associated with biological and psychological aging. On the other hand, it opened up expectations regarding development understood as achieving more perfect states. This may result – at least for some people – in anxiety about meeting changing social expectations and their high standards of “becoming better and better”.  

The only solution may seem to be embedding or enclosing life in a virtual world, which creates the impression of “fullness of life”, (almost) unlimited possibilities of experiences, and the satisfaction of all needs – at (seemingly) low individual costs. Does this mean that the structure of life actually becomes simplified or that many life goals are abandoned, or are they rather transferred to the virtual world (?), which in a moment – thanks to AI – may become the only one known to us. In this way, we come to confirm the continuing role of activity in adaptation to context. 

References 

Arnett, J.J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress. Reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54(5), 317–326. 

Bakiera, L. (2023). The need to believe in the power of reason and in a rational order polemical comment. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 28(3), 284–293. 

Beck, U. (2004). Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej nowoczesności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge – London: Harvard University Press. 

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley. 

Burack, E.H. (1984). The Sphinx’s riddle: Life and career cycles. Training & Development Journal, 38(4), 52–61. 

Cieciuch, J. (2023). Unexpected contexts of reason and belief in Janusz Trempała’s lecture. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 28(3), 300–305. 

Duvall, E.M. (1957). Family development. Chicago: J.B. Lippincott Company. 

Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York – London: W.W. Norton. 

Freud, S. (2012/1916), Wstęp do psychoanalizy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 

Jung, C.G. (1960). The Stages of Life. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), Collected works of C.G. Jung (vol. 8, pp. 387–403). New York: Pantheon.  

Lansbury, R.D. (2018). The changing world of work and employment relations: A multi-level institutional perspective of the future. Labour and Industry, 28(1), 5–20, doi: 10.1080/10301763.2018.1427425 

Lerner, R.M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (vol. 1, pp.1–17). New York: Wiley. 

Levinson, D.J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3–13. 

Liberska, H. (2014). Rozwój rodziny i rozwój w rodzinie. In I. Janicka, & H. Liberska (Eds.), Psychologia rodziny (pp. 221–242). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 

Liberska, H. (2020). Biologiczne podstawy wychowania i nauczania. In H. Liberska, & J. Trempała (Eds.), Psychologia wychowania: wybrane problemy (pp. 217–240). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 

Miller, D.C., & From, W.H. (1951). Industrial Sociology: An Introduction to the Sociology of Work Relations. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

Niemczyński, A. (2023). Temple of reason debatable summary of the discussion. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 28(3), 242–265. 

Obuchowski, K. (2000). Od przedmiotu do podmiotu. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Akademii Bydgoskiej im. Kazimierza Wielkiego. 

Piaget, J. (1981). Równoważenie struktur poznawczych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 

Pietrasiński, Z. (1990). Rozwój człowieka dorosłego. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. 

Reese, H.W., & Overton, W.F. (1970). Models of development and developmental psychology. In L.R. Goulet, & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 115–145). New York: Academy Press. 

Schein, E.H. (1971). The Individual, the Organization, and the Career: A Conceptual Scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 401–426. 

Super, D.E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction to vocational development. New York: Harper & Row. 

Szacka, B. (2003). Wprowadzenie do socjologii. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa. 

Trempała, J. (2000). Modele rozwoju psychicznego. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Akademii Bydgoskiej im. Kazimierza Wielkiego. 

Trempała, J. (2023). The need to believe in the power of reason and in a rational order. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 28(3), 259–272. 

Tyszkowa, M. (1996). Jednostka a rodzina: interakcje, stosunki, rozwój. In M. Przetacznik-Gierowska, & M. Tyszkowa (Eds.), Psychologia rozwoju człowieka (pp. 124–150). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 

Zamiara, K. (1988). Formalne cechy rozwoju w różnych ujęciach modelowych. In M. Tyszkowa (Ed.), Rozwój psychiczny człowieka w ciągu życia (pp. 21–43). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 

Ziemska, M. (2005). Rodzina współczesna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.