Stage Theory and Faith

[Anonymous]

The Idea

We make a great deal of use of James Fowler’s “Stages of Faith” in helping to think through our issues and for very good reasons. Especially when we are in the midst of our own “dark night of the soul”, full of doubt and questioning our faith, our Church and often our God we can think that our situation is unique. We feel that there is no one to talk to, that all those other members in our ward can’t or don’t want to understand and we are completely on our own. Of course this is incorrect and what James Fowler does for us is to explain that this crisis of faith is a very normal process for people of all religious traditions.

I want to explore in a bit more detail the kinds of help that we can derive from the whole theoretical framework of Stage Theory moving beyond the more narrow concentration on just James Fowler. The process will perhaps be a bit more detailed than we want to get into in this kind of an environment and I will understand if Ray gives me another kick in the butt and tells me to stop.

However in order to keep things shorter and more focused here is my plan over the next month or so. I want to consider the following theorists in order to look at how their insights into human development can help us work out our own issues and also help us to help others.

The Theorists

(note each of the links is to a Wikipedia article if you want to follow-up on your own):

1) Jean Piaget: Piaget is the “father” of all the stage theorists and did his work on the cognitive development of children looking at how they move from an infancy of simple sensory response to abstract thinking. Though I will make some suggestions that some of the angrier post Mormons could well be at least partially stuck in the concrete operational phase and truly quite incapable of abstract thinking (at least in regards to faith) Piaget will be discussed just to give us the groundwork.

2) Erik Erikson: Erikson took a broad look at the whole social/psychological development of a human being and rather than just stopping at early adulthood took his stages through to death. The real value of Erikson is that he frames each stage in terms of the challenge it presents to the developing adult. So for example many of our 20-30 year olds are hitting their faith crisis at a time when they also have to negotiate the challenge of “Intimacy vs. Isolation”. At a simple level this is just the job of finding a life mate and a place in a social order but the faith crisis can threaten to undo a great deal of already developed intimacy and throw one into major isolation. More is at stake than just whether you are going to go to church on Sunday.

3) Lawrence Kohlberg: Kohlberg was a student of Erikson and a colleague of James Fowler, they often talked about their work together. Kohlberg focused on the stages of moral development which compare fairly closely with Fowler’s stages. So for example Fowler’s Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional faith) lines up with Piaget’s Formal Operations phase and Kohlberg’s Conventional – Authority and Social Order maintaining orientation. We can see more clearly why many people can remain happily in a Stage 3 Faith condition, it works and it is heavily reinforced by the community.

4) James Fowler: there is lots of information on the site about Fowler so we won’t spend a lot of time explaining his stages except from the point of view of how they interact and inform what is happening when we look at these other stages, especially Erik Erikson’s stages.

5) Carol Gilligan: Carol is the dose of common sense in all of this paternal theory making that focuses almost exclusively on cognitive type developments. Her argument is that Kohlberg’s theory in particular is focused on an ethics of “justice” whereas it can be much more fruitful to look at issues from an ethics of “caring”. She has a 3 stage system much like Piaget’s but more focused on relationships. Bringing Carol’s viewpoint into the discussion provides a much more active and thoughtful look at how important relationships are in our lives.

That’s the plan. If you feel that you are up for writing up one of the reviews on these theorists and how they affect our faith please feel free to do so. If there are other theorists that you want to bring into the discussion, do that as well. I personally expect to basically develop about one theorist a week so it will take me about a month to work though the plan here. Join in if you think it has any value.

[Anonymous]

Bill,

I am so glad you introduced this. I am excited and fascinated to discuss these theorists. This should be a valuable addition to the community. I hope to explore more later.

Tom

[Anonymous]

Sounds great! I know essentially nothing about the theories, but I look forward to learning a lot.

[Anonymous]

Jean Piaget “>[/color]

Piaget, starting in the 1920s, completed a great deal of direct research on how children develop by providing a series of tasks for them to complete. For example in order to study if children understood the idea of conservation they would be presented with a tall glass of water. Then the water would be poured into a shorter, wider glass and they would be asked which glass contained the most water. Invariably children under five or six years would say that the tall glass contained more water. Somewhere around this age students moved on cognitively and could recognize that both glasses held the same amount of water. With a whole host of such tasks Piaget came up with the following stages of cognitive development.

Sensorimotor Stage (birth to 2 years)

In this stage children learn through using their senses and learning to move. They gradually control their own bodies and are very egocentric. They do not recognize, for example, that objects continue to exist when they cannot see them.

Preoperational Stage (2 to 6 years)

Children begin to manipulate images and symbols. A broom can be turned into a horse and pretend games begin. Language is learned and they still consider the world entirely from their own perspective.

Concrete Operations Stage (6 to 11 years)

Children begin to be able to perform logical operations but only with concrete objects. They learn conservation of length, mass, area etc.and for example can sort things into categories. They begin to lose their egocentric focus and are able to understand situations from another’s viewpoint.

Formal Operations Stage (12 to 20)

Now children can think logically about abstractions like justice. They can test theories and understand cause and effect. They can reason and speculate. Recent cognitive research indicates that the frontal lobe of the brain in which reasoning occurs reaches maturity at about 25 years old.

Piaget’s stages are important for us here at Stay LDS for several reasons:

1. They outline the fundamental cognitive development of people. Of course the ages of each stage are variable and it has been argued that in less technological cultures most people do not in fact learn to deal much with abstractions.

2. Though the transition period between concrete operations and formal operations is seen as about 12 years old it is important to realize that early teens and all younger children really aren’t prepared for concentrated theological discussions. They are still in a “story stage” and are not cognitively able (though they might be able to say the words you want to hear) to really deal with abstract issues like the characteristics of God or the implications of the atonement. So an adult who is going through a crisis of faith should not be routinely talking to younger teens and children about complex religious issues, they simply aren’t cognitively ready.

3. These underlying cognitive abilities by definition are the mental processing equipment that underlie all the other stage theories of moral choice or the development of faith.

[Anonymous]

This is great stuff, Bill! I remember this from Stages of Faith. I hope we can keep this up.

[Anonymous]

Absolutist Mormon attitudes

As I alluded to in the first post, I suspect that at least some of the people who are extreme anti-Mormons, former members of the Church who are very angry and seem to be stuck there for a long time, may well people who have not made the full transition from concrete operations to formal operations. The emphasis in this statement should be on the words “at least some” – and it should be noted that this characterization is true of both members and ex-members. This is not exclusive to those who leave a church. I don’t see this as a “poorer brain” or as an issue of less “intelligence” simply a factor of differing neurological development. Iow, some people simply think differently than others.

Therefore when dealing with disaffected or “post Mormons – ex Mormons” who are under 30 years old there needs to be some awareness that one of the underlying factors may be an inability to think in abstract terms – which too often is developed in their formative years by an encouragement of black-and-white, absolutist approaches. This means that careful reasoning and studied debate are not going to have much effect on ANYONE who sees things strictly in literal, absolute terms. In practical terms it means that there is little to be gained from trying to engage people on ex-Mormon sites – and in staunchly orthodox Mormon settings, including some wards simply because such people may not currently have the capacity to see things in abstract ways.

When a person does discover some of the issues in Church history and feels betrayed and deceived it is quite normal for them to be angry and emotional about it. This can be greatly increased if in their reaching out they are shunned, ignored or disciplined. However for most people the anger will simply run its course and the person will be able to engage in rational discussions about the issues. A perpetually angry ex-Mormon and a perpetually defensive member is in a different category, and it may well be that each simply sees the world in similar, but opposite, ways.

[Anonymous]

“They begin to lose their egocentric focus and are able to understand situations from another’s viewpoint.”

I resent that remark! I believe it’s only been in the last few years I’ve started to reach this point.

This discussion brings to my mind the “personality colours”, mine being bright red (Type A personality to the point of narcissistic).

I wonder how much influence the mentioned cognitive development stages might also have on the developing personality. Just how much of that personality come with us at birth?

[Anonymous]

timp, you might be interested in the following post about Briggs-Meyers personality classification:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=568

[Anonymous]

Bill Atkinson wrote:

Extreme Anti-Mormon attitudes

As I alluded to in the first post, I suspect that at least some of the people who are extreme anti-Mormons, former members of the Church who are very angry and seem to be stuck there for a long time, may well people who have not made the full transition from concrete operations to formal operations. The emphasis in this statement should be on the words “at least some” – and it should be noted that this characterization is true of both members and ex-members. This is not exclusive to those who leave a church.

I gotta say, I LOVE the moderation here! It has always bothered me when members call questioning or lapsed members “angry.” I’ll tell you what, anybody who has spent any time on the “MAD” Board really knows what an angry TBM looks like. As long as you toe to the line there, they are sappy friendly. If not, they’ll chew you up and spit you out in no time!

😆

[Anonymous]

Oops, sorry all.

I thought Piaget was going to be the dull one but I guess I overstepped in analysis.

Sorry Tom, I did not mean to offend anyone and I guess I am beyondmy capacity to communicate. Again sorry. I think Ray’s moderated messages were brilliant but I am again sorry that he was forced into that much work. I honestly did not feel that I was saying bad stuff about people just noting that for some people it would be important to think about their cognitive development (at this particular stage in their life, not meaning that it is permanent or bad or incapable to moving to a different level, just different but a difference that requires some caution.)

So Ray, thanks for the moderating. I guess what I have to suggest is that I will stop work on this thread because as I move along I am very likely to hit the raw nerves again because all of these stage theories place people into some kind of category or other that might offend people.

So consider this shut down from my point of view. I will try to not cause any more trouble.

[Anonymous]

Bill, please don’t stop. I mean that. I value what you are contributing highly. Notice, I didn’t delete anything at all. What you are adding is significant and important – and I hope you can see that I am sincere in my request that you keep these coming.

Frankly, we don’t like to moderate very much, but everyone needs to realize we moderate for a specific reason that is VERY different than most group blogs. Most do so to censor those things with which they don’t agree. We really don’t do that. We moderate in order to maintain the mission of the forum (helping people stay LDS) and to avoid insults. That’s about it.

Again, I’m cool with what you contribute – really. I think you have added substance and thoughtful analysis. Please take the moderation in the spirit in which it was intended – and learn from it.

[Anonymous]

It would be a shame if this thread died.

Heck Bill, my second post was moderated, I was chastised and it was locked. Looks like Ray is going to be busy moderating/educating me …. RUN with it buddy, run!

[Anonymous]

Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages of Development

Erikson’s book Childhood and Society was first published in 1950 and formed the core explanation for his stage theory that has proven to be a stable and useful explanation of personal development. Along with Piaget he forms the core theory that people like Fowler and Kohlberg worked from in order to develop their own stages of faith and moral development. The real contribution of Erikson’s work has been the therapeutic understanding that can come when a client understands that their current adult difficulties have their origin in an earlier stage of development that was not successfully completed.

Though the stages are presented in chronological order even the earliest stages may need serious attention for a troubled adult. So though we expect people to more or less progress through the stages in the chronological order indicated it is more accurate to think of the whole process as a spiral that can repeat itself, especially if a person is thrown into a very different environment than they are used to.

The importance for working on faith questions here at Stay LDS is once again the understanding that underlying the symptom (the faith crisis) may well be a developmental stage that hasn’t been successfully resolved and that needs as much attention and work as the particulars of the faith issues.

The Stages

Infancy: (0 to 2 years) : Trust vs Mistrust

Since children are completely dependent on their parents in the first years of life their basic attitude or approach to life will be determined by the kind of care that they receive. If a child is loved, cared for, given affection, provided with appropriate play, fed and cuddled they will have a basic sense of trust in the world and in Erikson’s terms they will approach life with hope, with the sense that things will generally turn out fine. If on the other hand the infant has a chaotic early few years they will have a basic mistrust of all human interactions.

Toddler: (18 months to 3 years) : Autonomy vs Doubt

As a child begins to explore their world and control their excretions they become separated especially from their mother. Parents are still the base for exploration but the child needs to be encouraged to make choices and explore. If that occurs they will begin to develop a sense of self and a sense that they can made decisions, it is their first taste of free agency in LDS terms. If parents are too controlling or too restrictive the child will emerge with a sense of doubt and an over powerful dependence on parents.

Preschool (3 – 6 years) : Initiative vs Guilt

The developmental tasks here have to do with learning to plan and carry out actions. With decision making skills comes the need to think through to a successful conclusion. There may be some tendency towards risk taking behaviors as the child tests the limits of both their own planning and their parents control. The guilt can develop if they are too restricted and do not learn to take some initiative or may be a by product of the frustration when they can’t accomplish things and go into aggressive behavior to protest their situation. It can also come when they feel guilty about doing something most would see as successful and useful. The successful child at this stage will feel a sense of purpose in their activities.

Childhood (6 to 12 years) : Industry vs Inferiority

Children at this stage are more self aware and more able to cooperate with others and share. They become more logical and can work to complete a goal and feel good with accomplishments. In LDS senses we see them as finally being able to make a valid choice, they get the initial capacity for free agency. If they do not get these successful experiences they may instead begin to feel inferior.

From this point on the tasks can begin to form the spiral pattern already discussed where when placed into an entirely new situation each of the tasks needs to be worked through again. Moving in just about any sense, from one town to another, or one level of school to another, or to a different family may trigger what amounts to a regression to an earlier stage of behavior and the need to rework abilities that had already been learned before in a different situation.

Teenage (12 to 20 years / neurological evidence indicates final brain structure maturity at about 25 years which may be a more realistic end point in modern culture) Identity vs. Role confusion

Clearly the main questions of this stage are “Who am I?” and “What am I going to become?” or alternately “What am I going to do?”. There is much greater awareness of other people and a need to conform as one way of solving the identity issue. If parents exert too much control over decision making at this stage the teen may have difficulty in developing a personal identity, taking on their parent’s ideal but not finding a good fit and becoming frustrated and confused. In practical terms any major life crisis from this point forward can trigger this kind of questioning in adults. This whole bundle of issues is of course doubly difficult for teens struggling with a sexual identity that does not fit the norm. Particularly in a religious situation that has official sanctions or moral rules about homosexuality this can be a very dangerous time for teens, literally life threatening.

Young adult (20 to 35 years) : Intimacy vs Isolation

In a standard sense this crisis is generally solved by marriage whereby two people agree to share their lives together and build a family within their established community. If the teenage crisis of identity has not been particularly well solved or not solved at all it will be difficult for a person to become intimate with another and there is the danger of both psychological and social isolation. To successfully negotiate an intimate relationship a person must be willing to to open up their ego, open up their “heart”, to another person and that does entail the possibility of rejection and pain. Often enough people will choose to avoid that pain and remain somewhat isolated all their lives.

This stage should not be assumed to be “solved” with the marriage and the early years of living together. The stresses of life and other ongoing problems can bring this issue up again and again as a person matures. Of course if one intimate relationship fails for whatever reason then the cycle can begin again.

Middle Age ( 35 to 65 years) Generativity vs Stagnation

This is often framed in the sense of a person, a couple, guiding and teaching the next generation. However it has a much broader application. No matter what the family composition the adult members of the family need to feel that what they are doing is useful, productive, and accomplishing something that is important to at least themselves if not also the community. All of this goes on within the context of getting older, seeing children leave the family and strike out on their own, and continuing to literally “find a reason for living”. If that reason is not found then stagnation, a sense of despair and rejection can come to dominate the personality. Negotiating this crisis is wrapped up in many “dark nights of the soul” that faithful people can face. If their commitment to a faith tradition is questioned and perhaps rejected it can be very difficult for the person to work their way back to a sense of generativity and they can sometimes stagnate, focusing on past hurts and problems rather than moving forward into new possibilities.

Old Age (65 years plus) : Integrity vs Despair

This final stage of life has a lot to do with the imminence of death. The person who has solved the generativity by solely focusing on their career can often find retirement a minefield of despair and desperation because they can find nothing useful to do. The development of integrity at this stage of life requires that the person continues to find and develop projects and relationships that provide a reason for getting up in the morning. Many people solve the problem by focusing on their role as grandparents and once again helping to raise and train both their married children and their extended families. It is not sufficient to view retirement as one long vacation and it is all too easy to give in to despair. The problem is most acute for older women whose husbands have died and who find themselves largely alone in the world.

General Comments

Erikson’s stage theory, like all stage theories should not be assumed to be a lockstep, one stage at a time that everyone goes through at the same age. Though research tends to be quite strong for the teenage “identity crisis” the actual timing and development of the adult stages is much more variable. What I feel is important is that as we work through our own faith issues or work at helping others we need to be aware that these more general social-psychological elements are also in the process of being worked on by all people. Whether a person fits the profile or gets stuck at “identity crisis” is a very important point to consider. From a personal point of view it is also important to consider that everyone whether they have a religious faith or not is also going through this process and needs to come up with a reasonable solution or the isolation, stagnation and despair will accumulate and become dominant in a life.

Further Exploration

Wikipedia: Erik Erikson biography : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson

Wikipedia: Stages of psychosocial development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development

Erikson Institute : http://www.erikson.edu/

[Anonymous]

KOHLBERG’S SIX STAGES

Modified from: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.

Kohlberg’s stage 1 is similar to Piaget’s first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking “preconventional” because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange.

At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests.

At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child’s mind with wrongness; punishment “proves” that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid. Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors–“If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

Children at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.

At this stage children–who are by now usually entering their teens–see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in “good” ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.

As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg’s first three stages and Piaget’s two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.

Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other’s feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.

You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, “It’s wrong to steal” and “It’s against the law,” but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole–a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.

At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, “What makes for a good society?” They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations.

Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about “morality” and “rights” that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the “right to life,” but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like.

Stage 6: Universal Principles.

Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage–stage 6–which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.

Kohlberg’s conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience .

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one’s own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

Stages of Faith and Kohlberg

Though I have just begun to consider Kohlberg’s stages in terms of a “dark night of the soul” it seems clear that one possible component of a crisis of faith (the move from Fowler’s Stage 3 into Stage 4 and 5 ) is part of a larger change in moral development. At this point I am going to leave that open for discussion while I think about implications myself.

[Author]

Posts