Serious critique of Erikson's psychological theories?

[nomadreid]

This is asking for suggestions for freely-available serious on-line sources (with links) for criticism of the theories of Erik Erikson.

Details: The neo-Freudian psychologist Erik Erikson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson was and remains quite popular. However, looking through his theories, I find that they seem to be very unscientific, often baseless, with the kind of generalization (with ill-defined terms) based on personal reflection that was characteristic of Freud, except that Freud had the excuse that he lived before such things as rigorous statistical analysis, neurological research, and other standards now required of any decent science even existed. OK, psychology is not a hard science, but when an acquaintance recently gushed about how wonderful the man was and used him as a source to justify a highly dubious claim, I wished to give the acquaintance a good critique from a respected source. To my surprise, an Internet search turned up nothing!

Any constructive suggestions would be highly appreciated.

 

[berkeman]

The neo-Freudian psychologist Erik Erikson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson

I'm of little direct help, but scanning over the "Further Reading" list at the wikipedia article, it looks like a few of the links could be to works that may be critical of Erikson...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11615797/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11623367/

 

[Klystron]

Details: The neo-Freudian psychologist Erik Erikson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson was and remains quite popular. However, looking through his theories, I find that they seem to be very unscientific, {snip}

When I studied psychology at university, Erikson was discussed in several contexts but often dismissed for the same reasons the OP noticed, even as Sigmund Freud was undergoing a revival of sorts particularly among child developmental psychologists (1990's).

As a STEM major, I found Erikson's contemporary Abraham Maslow more grounded in scientific methodology with a superior framework for realizing identity and motivation for acquiring and internalizing knowledge. I read Erikson's anthropology texts on Northern California native tribes, chiefly remembering his emphasis on religion as a socialization method in conflict with coauthors and ethnologists noting the importance of family lineage.

For constructive discussion of "Yurok" and Erikson's contributions to cultural anthropology in Northern California consider reading related textbooks published and written by Malcolm Margolin. Margolin and associates describe facial tattoos and other permanent body modifications common among these tribes such as head flattening and cicatrization strongly connected to lineage and identifying acceptable mates but with little relation to religion.

 

[nomadreid]

Thanks to both berkeman and Klystron for your contributions.

The articles cited by berkeman are unfortunately not freely available online.

Klystron's recommendations to check out Maslow and Margolin look interesting, and I shall pursue them.

I threw out this question about Erik Erikson to several acquaintances, and I have now some sources that will be appropriate for my purposes. So that line of inquiry can be closed, with my thanks. However, this accidentally brought up another question, just a "by the way" question -- one person got Erik Erikson mixed up with Milton Erickson, so I looked up the latter. I found only notes about his practice, but nothing substantial about his theory beyond "well, this seems to work", and the fact that he talked about the subconscious without ever really saying what it was. Was he purely in applied psychology and absent from theoretical psychology?

 

[Rive]

they seem to be very unscientific, often baseless, with the kind of generalization (with ill-defined terms) based on personal reflection that was characteristic of Freud, except that Freud had the excuse that he lived before such things as rigorous statistical analysis, neurological research, and other standards now required of any decent science even existed.

Psychoanalysis in general is not exactly science as we now understand science, so no wonder. It's more like some kind of a self-reflection guide. In therapeutical usage it heavily relies on a kind of master-pupil relation, which also implies that this relation should at least function (so not all therapeutist for all patient and consequently: not all school of thought for all therapeutists too).

Since it's not really science, 'good critique from a respected source' will not really work. Some overreaching claims might be refuted and the nature of the field can be highlighted again and again, but it's still like talking about good marriage: while you can make some general (and generally useless) claims, at the end it should work between two people (well, mostly two).

 

[Evo]

I threw out this question about Erik Erikson to several acquaintances, and I have now some sources that will be appropriate for my purposes. So that line of inquiry can be closed, with my thanks.

Thanks nomadreid, the thread is now closed.