the considerations raised at the end of the last chapter we must recognise both the sexual and the individual aspects of development were somewhat in the nature of a digression. such a digression was however inevitable, for the questions involved in the controversy between the psychological schools of vienna and zürich (whose leading exponents are freud and jung respectively) are of fundamental importance for our present inquiry. our whole attitude towards the psychological problems presented by the family relationships must to a very considerable extent depend upon whether we believe, as the more extreme exponents of the zürich school would sometimes seem to do, that the whole significance of these problems lies in the fact that they are intimately concerned with the development of the vital energies and independence of the individual, or whether (following the vienna school) we feel bound to recognise also the existence of a number of highly important sexual aspects which, directly or indirectly, play a fundamental r?le in the psychology of the family.
our short review of the principal points concerned in this controversy (so far as they touch our present purpose) has led us to the conclusion that the sexual aspects with which we were dealing in chapters ii and iii possess more than a mere symbolical significance—that they must in fact be looked upon as, for the most part, actually being that which they appear to be, i. e. manifestations of (relatively) infantile tendencies which, as regards their nature and origin, are continuous with, and comparable to, the fully developed sexual tendencies of adult life.
[41]
we concluded also, however, that besides these sexual aspects there are other important aspects of family life, which may legitimately be looked upon as fundamental factors in the psychic growth and development of individuality. these factors it is now our duty to study somewhat more closely, before we pass on (as we shall do in the next chapter) to consider the variations and abnormalities that may occur in the development of the individual's mental attitude towards the other members of his family.
apart altogether from the questions of mysticism and difficulties of individual development symbolism, with which jung and his followers have tended to surround the whole matter, it is i think, abundantly clear that normal psychic development involves a gradual emergence from a condition of dependence on parental authority and care to one in which the individual is dependent to a greater or less extent upon his own efforts as regards his livelihood, and upon his own judgment as regards his conduct[29]. failure in such development will result in a relatively feeble adult personality—one which still seeks the support of its parents (or their substitutes), when it should have learnt to stand alone. such failures are, however, (as all psycho-analysts will admit) of very frequent occurrence. normal development in this respect appears to be at least as difficult as in the case of the sexual tendencies we have already considered, and is liable, as in their case also, to arrests and retardations at various points and to regressions to earlier stages of development, whenever serious obstacles and difficulties are encountered.
it would seem possible to distinguish two main aspects of self-preservation this process of development, though in real life these two aspects are, it is almost needless to say, throughout intimately connected with one another. the first, and more primitive[42] aspect, is that which is concerned with the actual manifestations of vital activity for the purpose of self-preservation and for bringing about the fulfilment of the individual's aims and desires. during babyhood the child is almost entirely dependent on his parents or other grown-up persons for the accomplishment of these objects: at best he can only indicate by cries or gestures the nature of his wants, in order that others may satisfy them. as he grows older however, he has to learn to fulfil an ever increasing number of these wants himself—to feed, to wash, to clothe himself and to satisfy his other bodily needs, to walk abroad without the protection and guidance of his elders, and generally to attain his desires by his own efforts rather than to wait for the attentions of others. to keep pace with the ever growing wants and desires of the individual, a continuous output of energy is required, and it will sometimes happen that the motive force immediately available (the strength of the conation) is not sufficient to overcome the obstacles which prevent the fulfilment of a want. when this is the case, the individual may react in a variety of ways. if the conation is a relatively weak one, he may abandon his attempts to attain the desired end, at least in its original form; or he may content himself with an imaginary fulfilment of his desire. if the conation is sufficiently strong, however, it may continue to manifest itself in different ways; if the first means of approach is unsuccessful, other means will be tried, until the end is eventually attained. of these other means, one that is frequently among the most effectual is to call in the assistance of others. especially is this the case in infancy when many feats that are difficult or impossible to the child are easily performed by its parents or other adult persons, and when such persons (especially the parents) often take a delight in assisting the child in this way. that the child should receive such assistance is natural and inevitable at a certain stage of development, but it is easy to see that help thus given may constitute a source of danger to the child's development, if it is granted not only in cases of real difficulty (having regard to the child's age and capabilities) but in cases where, by the expenditure of a little additional effort, the child could attain his end unaided. if assistance is given indiscriminately the child may acquire the habit of relying upon the help of others whenever any difficulty[43] arises; and this habit may persist throughout life, rendering the individual a relatively useless and helpless member of society, incapable of any prolonged or intensive effort[30]. normal development, however, implies that the occasions on which assistance is required should grow fewer and fewer as ability and experience increase, so that the adult should finally be able to transact the ordinary business of life and to maintain himself, entirely by his own efforts, except of course in unusual or exceptionally difficult circumstances, or where the economic principle of the division of labour makes it desirable to call in the assistance of other persons possessing ability or training of a different nature to his own.
the other main aspect of the principle of development self-determination that we are considering, is concerned with the matter of self-guidance rather than with that of self-help. in this respect also, normal development implies a change from dependence upon others to dependence upon self. in infancy a very great part of the individual's mode of life is determined by others, and especially by his parents. just as he is dependent upon the efforts of his parents for the necessaries of life, so is he also dependent upon their decision as to how and when he shall enjoy these necessaries. he feeds, walks, sleeps, works and plays very largely according to their pleasure. at most the nature of his play activities is left to his own discretion. later on during the school period the authority of the parents is to some extent exchanged for that of his teachers, but it is not till a comparatively late stage of development that an individual is allowed to dispose of the bulk of his time as he himself thinks fit.
on the moral side, again, he is at first almost entirely dependent on the judgment of others. he hears certain tendencies, activities and sentiments condemned as wicked, others upheld[44] as praiseworthy, and even when he begins to pronounce moral judgments on his own account, these judgments must, for a long period, consist for the most part merely of fresh applications of the moral code that he has learnt from others.
this subservience to the will and opinion of others (and especially to those of the parents) is a necessary and natural condition of early childhood, but it is plain that the successful development of mind and character must demand a gradually increasing degree of autonomy as regards both thought and conduct, as capabilities mature and experience widens. success in adult life requires the capacity for determining for oneself the nature and course of the principal activities—indeed, the degree of success that is attained is to a very considerable extent dependent on the amount of such capacity. he who can only carry out the instructions of others, however obediently and skilfully, is only fitted to occupy an inferior position in the economic or the social scale. hence, one who has never progressed far from the infantile condition of dependence on the commands and opinions of others will be lacking in one of the character qualities which are essential for the attainment of any high degree of individuality or of social and economic responsibility.
on the moral side also, he is debarred from the higher autonomy and moral development levels of ethical development. at the best, his morality will be one of hard and fast rules, the dictates of parental, ecclesiastical, legal or social authority, incapable of enlightened growth or modification to suit the ever changing flow of circumstances and the widening experience of life. at the worst, he may grow up destitute of all true moral consciousness whatsoever, morality being regarded by him as a certain (usually unpleasant) kind of conduct, arbitrarily imposed by external authority, and only fit to be abandoned as soon as the pressure of this authority is relaxed.
sound moral development is characterised by an ever increasing degree of autonomy in place of the heteronomy which distinguishes the immature, and to some extent, the primitive mind generally. at first the child learns to act in accordance with the desires of its parents, as expressed in threats, punishments or rewards. thereafter, the idea of "good," as signifying conduct in accordance with these desires, becomes[45] operative as an inner motive force in the mind of the child, independently of the occurrence of the rewards or other incentives. this is the first stage of autonomy. as development proceeds, the ideas concerning right conduct (continually enlarged by the experience of new persons and new situations) become more and more dissociated from their original authoritative sanctions, new "inner" sanctions being substituted for the old "external" ones which are abandoned. these inner sanctions are themselves capable of many different levels of development, ranging from the simple idea of the individual's own benefit in the immediate future, to the desire for the ultimate benefit of humanity as a whole or the concept of action in conformity with the general principles of the universe. if the individual is to progress satisfactorily from the stage of outer sanctions to that of inner sanctions and to attain in due course to the higher levels of these inner sanctions, he must have opportunities for the gradual development of his own powers of initiation, deliberation and self-control; this implying a corresponding gradual emancipation from the jurisdiction of the parents and their substitutes in later life (teachers, advisers, superiors, etc.), until there is obtained at full growth the completest possible autonomy of thought and action that is compatible with the individual's position in the society to which he belongs.
in these considerations we have throughout laid the autonomy should come about gradually principal emphasis upon the desirability and necessity of the acquirement of self help and self guidance on the part of the individual. this has been chiefly because the results of psycho-analytic work have indicated that the danger lies most frequently in the direction of too great, rather than of too little, dependence on the efforts and guidance of the parents or their substitutes. this fact must not however be allowed to blind us to the existence of a danger of an opposite character—that of a too rapid or too complete emancipation from parental authority. such emancipation would, it is true, seem to occur seldom enough as a direct consequence of the unfolding of the child's individual capabilities and desires: the attitude of dependence necessarily adopted in childhood and early youth, together with the respect almost inevitably inspired in the very young by the greater power, knowledge and experience of the parents,[46] effectually prevents this in the majority of cases. but it may easily come about as the result of a reaction against a too and not suddenly as the consequence of a revolt against parental authority insistent or despotic use of the parental power. parents who are too severe, too repressive, or even too careful, as regards the upbringing of their children, will—especially if the latter happen to possess strong tendencies to self-assertion—often bring about a state of revolt against their own authority, in which all that may be good and wise in that authority is deliberately neglected or condemned, since the children have grown to look upon their parents as tyrants and taskmasters rather than as helpers and protectors. a stern or bullying father, a nagging or over anxious mother, will thus frequently produce a rebellious son or daughter, who will respect neither the advice or commands of the parents themselves nor those of their (mental) substitutes in later life. such children, as they grow up, may be prevented from profiting to the desirable extent by the wisdom and experience of past ages, as represented in the traditions and dictates of authority, and (what is worse) may even become unfit for taking their place in any scheme of harmonious social life, through inability to submit to the degree of individual subordination, which such social life inevitably demands[31].
these considerations with reference to the growth of the the wider social bearings of this subject individual personality in relation to the family environment are indeed, as we have already pointed out, for the most part of a sufficiently obvious character and, in their more general bearings at any rate, have for some time been commonplaces in certain schools of social, ethical, and educational thought. where modern psychology (and particularly the work of the zürich school) has been of service, is in drawing attention to the importance of the family as the environment in which the first steps in the path of self help and self guidance must take place—steps upon the direction and extent of which subsequent progress in the wider spheres of scholastic, social and political life very greatly depends. the rapidity with which, and the extent to which, a child attains to independence in relation to[47] his family, are to a large extent prophetic of the subsequent attainment of independence towards the world at large. a too close reliance upon the ideals, standards, conventions and protective power of the family circle may hinder all initiative and originality in individual thought and action. on the other hand, a too sudden or too complete revolt from the parental guidance and tradition may be productive of a bias against, and disrespect for, every kind of authority and convention, that will tend to prevent all use and enjoyment of the experience of the past and all orderly co-operation in the social life of the present. with these possibilities as the result of failure, the task of the proper upbringing of the child in relation to his family environment becomes indeed one the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.
