Psychodynamic: Can't we just burn S. Freud out and keep E. Erikson?

• Psychosexual versu Psychosocial: Psychoanalysis/Psychodynamic

Stating "Sigmund Freud versus Erik Erikson" matches asserting "Psychosexual theory versus Psychosocial theory". Both are substratal theorists of "Human Development". While the second has been tremendously influenced by the first, psychosocial developement differed in many ways. Both believe that personality develops in a series of predetermined stages. Unlike Freud's theory of psychosexual stages, Erikson theory describes the impact of social experience across the whole life course.

• Freud advanced a theory of personality development through five stages that centered on the effects of the sexual pleasure drive on the individual psyche. At particular points in the developmental process, he claimed, a single body part is particularly sensitive to sexual, erotic stimulation. These erogenous zones are the mouth, the anus, and the genital region. The child's libido centers on behavior affecting the primary erogenous zone of his age; he cannot focus on the primary erogenous zone of the next stage without resolving the developmental conflict of the immediate one.

• Erikson's stages of psychosocial development explain eight stages through which a healthily developing human should pass from infancy to late adulthood. In each stage the person confronts, and hopefully masters, new challenges. Each stage builds on the successful completion of earlier stages. The challenges of stages not successfully completed may be expected to reappear as problems in the future.

• Criticism of Freudian Theory of psychosexual human development

Although it is true that Freud was the earliest scientist to focus on the impact of the family on human development and to have been one of the most positive proponents of good mental health, his overall theory didn't resist to fierce criticism. (1) Research does not support either the existence of his theoretical constructs or the effectiveness of his therapeutic method; concepts used were too abstract. (2) there's an incredible lack of clarity in many of his ideas for instance the mecanism of resolution of his "boy's Eodipus complex", same thing for the "girl's Electra complex. (3) The importance given to sexual instincts and drives to explain everything occuring in human lifetime appears to be problematic. (4) Returning to the electra complex, women never attain an equal either an equal or a positive status through the Freudian theory. Essentially and finally, women are left disadvantaged feeling perpetually a grief of NOT HAVING A PENIS! Oh my goodness!!! Then, our lovely females are found to be suffering eternal inferiority with respect to men, and "being doomed to the everlasting limbo of inability to resolve their Electra complexes" [Caharles Zastrow, et, al]. (5) Finally, the famous "Sofa" critical instrument during Freudian's hypnosis sessions with clients sounds amusing.

• The missing social component

In the rubric introducing this reflection, I have, by provocation, asserted "Why not to burn Freud out and to keep Erikson?" This is not to indermine Freud. His contribution remains paramount. However, he needs to be considered as a thinker of the past. Alot has changed since the time. Erikson who emphasizes the social context to explain internal psychological factors seems to be more accurate. So are those seeing themselves as Freud's successors abandoning, however, one of the cornerstone argument of the psychosexual theory that is the role of instincts and libido preferring to deal with the surrounding social environment. Amongst these "Neo-Freudian" theorists, might be cited Carl Jung, Erich Fromm, Alfred Adler, and Harry Stack Sullivan.