Conversations, Critiques, And Reflections

Photo by Maria Oswalt

By Sterling M. Hawkins, MSW, LCSW-C, LICSW

At the end of last year, I found myself contemplating as I often do about what matters most. And how this manifests in my personal life. Like others in the behavioral health community, I look for similarities that define what is considered normal or uniquely characterize developmental stages in the human life cycle. The late psychologist Erik Erikson, a name familiar to most, identified eight stages of psychosocial development along with their relative age range: Trust (0-1), Independence (1-3), Initiative (3-5), Accomplishment (5-12), Identity (12-18), Relationships (18-40), Contribution (40-65), and Reflection (65- +). The theory maintains that personality develops in a predetermined order through each of these stages from infancy to adulthood. Through each stage, a person is said to experience a developmental “crisis” that could have a positive or negative outcome on personality development. According to Erikson, the successful completion of each stage throughout the life-cycle results in a healthy personality and the acquisition of basic virtues. A crisis results when the psychological needs of the individual are in conflict with the needs of society.

While I like Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development I find the developmental progression to be too rigid because the theory implies a failure to develop at any given stage is a lost opportunity for growth that is no longer accessible. According to Erikson, I am at the tail end of the seventh stage labeled “Contribution”. The opposite of Contribution is withdrawal or stagnation. The key features of this developmental phase are giving back to society, raising children, being productive at work, getting involved in community activities and organizations, and seeing myself as part of the “larger story.” If I fail to contribute to the larger story or if my voice is silenced, I will become disconnected and uninvolved with society as a whole and remain undeveloped.

This brings me to another question that prompted this contemplative exercise. If what matters most in life can be defined according to Erikson’s model, what happens when my personal needs conflict with those in society? Can they coexist as equals or is there a constant state of disequilibrium? I believe when using terms like “crisis” and “failure” to describe psychosocial development, one must use caution. Erikson’s theory while helpful can also be harmful if the definitions used to define the needs of society (inclusive) are counterintuitive to my individual needs (exclusive).

Let me explain my dilemma by outlining the stories of others and what I have learned from them. Ivan Illich (1926-2002) was an Austrian priest, theologian, philosopher, and social critic. He was best known for his institutional critiques and revolutionary perspectives. He authored or co-authored over eighty books, along with numerous articles. One book, in particular, catches my attention. “Tools of Conviviality” (Harper & Row, 1973) is a book that provides us with a broad examination of the institutions that dominate modern life and the need for fundamental technology reform. Illich defines “conviviality” as the opposite of industrial, autonomous productivity. Rather, it is the creative dialogue among persons and between individuals and their environment. Illich argues for the multidimensional balance of human life which should serve as a framework for evaluating a person’s relation to their tools because modern technologies often serve politically interrelated individuals rather than the common citizen,

In the mid-1990s the tech revolution was just beginning to take off, and I had already begun to feel the pain of the feeding frenzy looming on the horizon. A frenzy of never-ending voices, words, pictures, and sounds. Unaware of the insatiable appetite that would ensue or where technology would lead, I decided to limit my exposure to television and radio media for reasons related to mass marketing and the pressure to buy into what was dubbed the Internet, then known as the World Wide Web. In the beginning, the Internet served neither my needs nor my interests. Now I can barely imagine life without it. This was for me a crisis. One that replaced the search for material in the stacks of public libraries, and databanks, pieced together from collected notes and conversations from multiple print media. I believed then as I do now that our inability to control our appetite and dependence on technology would result in mental obesity. As computers and automated technologies became more accessible to the average citizen, I made this decision because my attention to detail and ability to focus was becoming fragmented. In short, I began losing the ability to question opposing views and manage the push from those who promoted what they wanted me to believe- that more is better and that if I’m not looking at or listening in, I’m missing out. Therefore, according to Erikson, my individual needs were at odds with those of society, or at minimum the needs of the social media giants.

I think Illich knew where unregulated technology would lead us. With all the modern and time-saving conveniences we enjoy, we have become slaves to the machine. It’s not that technology is bad, but our inability to control it is. Illich talks about the desire for speed, which is essentially at the root of most technologies. By contrast, the absence of technology made us more socially interdependent and required that we exert ourselves physically, which had a more humbling effect. When work is not abusive or used as a means of punishment it is a reward in itself. The quality of human capital has depreciated in the age of automation. Formal education, the college degree has replaced or revised the role of apprenticeship and participatory education in what is often referred to as blue-collar trades. Even in higher education, before the 19th century, those professions where mastery of science or the arts was largely determined by book learning, the human element of mentorship was key to one’s success. This can be observed in ancient Greek literature where various schools of thought grew up around noted teachers and scholars. Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, and the like all had a following, much like the students of the 1960s whose liberal icons formed the backdrop for political thought. Even the university is not sacrosanct. Illich in the book describes the effects of technology in the classroom. “A certain type of reading skill is disappearing- in effect physical intercourse between reader, printed text, and the world beyond.” He compares book-based learning to electronic media. “When the sensual, textual, actual book-as-body goes, so goes a form of human interaction.” I believe Illich is correct and think that this trend affects social relationships. He goes on to say “The embrace, the kiss, the face-to-face conversation are celebrations of sense in a senseless world of artificial intelligence and electronic communities.” What I conclude from Illich’s thesis is that technology cannot replicate the characteristics that define those aspects of personality responsible for our humanness. The very essence that makes each person unique in form and character. That our interpretation and interaction with each other and the world around us make us human. The social narrative for development is that what is good for society is good for the individual, but if this is true why should I feel stagnate and undeveloped for eschewing technological advances that produce more alienation than cohesion and exclusion among communities? Particularly communities of color.

Let me explain. While technology is not directly to blame, individuals and companies that create algorithms that allow their social media content to incite individuals toward acts that promote injustice and inequality appeal to the lowest common denominator- hate, discrimination, exclusion, greed, intolerance, extremism, and misinformation. Companies that fail to exercise good business ethics have unfairly tried to silence those critics who have spoken out against them. Appealing to the lowest common denominator affects every member of society. However, the African American community and other marginalized groups like women, and the LGBTQ community have suffered the most. This I believe is primarily the result of greed and the exploitation of “gig” workers who are employed on demand by large tech companies Most of these companies are more beholden to their shareholders than their consumer base. Therefore, social media monopolies (you know who they are) want to generate money. Tech investor and activist Ellen Pao in her book “Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change” (Random House 2017) highlights her own experience as a corporate executive who experienced and fought against exclusion by predominately white men. Pao explains how corporate culture often creates bad actors and bullies that ignore many of the policies that govern their businesses and use their platforms to discriminate against women and minorities.

Make no mistake. The failure of big tech corporations to protect the civil rights of their employees or those who use their platforms is not about free speech or the suppression of First Amendment Rights. It’s about the creation of poorly defined standards or their (corporations’) failure to enforce them. We see this where certain politicians will get a pass for posting misinformation or extremist views on their platforms. This is a soft endorsement by social media executives who choose to look the other way and fail to restrict or ban the type of content or practices that create addiction, misogyny, and racial and ethnic bias that results in polarization among social classes. The reality is that the business model used by most corporations is quite lucrative and designed to keep us as consumers staring at our screens and becoming more outraged or entertained rather than informing us. In short, exploitation.

Returning for a minute to Erikson’s model, I’m reminded of the delicate balance between growth and stagnation which is where I am at in my developmental journey. The reality is that some things are neither good nor bad. A thing can create growth or stagnation. It just depends on how it is used, who uses it, and the intended or unintended outcomes. William Treseder, a corporate entrepreneur and author captures my sentiment in his book “Reset: Building Purpose In the Age of Digital Distraction” (Lioncrest 2018). Treseder writes that humans do not respond well to an infinite supply of anything. Choosing quality over quantity is hard for us. He compares information to food and says that we aren’t all sufficiently wired to know when to stop. He writes- “We’re curious creatures and at some basic level we want to see it all. We enjoy the mental stimulation and the illusion that we’re learning something new. And, at times being focused and purposeful is one of the hardest things for us to do. In short, we choke. “We consume without exercising judgment or connecting to a larger purpose.” It is this illusion of learning created by the myriad of voices and their stories that I wish to avoid.

In addition to the social impact of technology, certain technologies restrict accessibility for specific segments of the population. Have you ever attempted to call a company business and needed to navigate the telephone prompts and filters in order to speak to a live person? When the selections provided by the virtual assistant don’t fit the category that you are calling about? This has become a part of the digital landscape and an unavoidable way of conducting business. I understand the rationale for using this type of technology and am not suggesting that virtual assistants be abolished. However, I do believe that an element of personality or humanness is lost when we are constrained by certain types of technology that limit the range of human interaction and/or expression.

Much of my work involves communicating with seniors. I do this using multiple modes: meetings, telephone, voicemail, email, text, and video conferencing. What happens when someone I am working with is unable to access or use the technology that can assist them with meeting a personal need? Many of my clients are in their 70s and 80s and were locked down like everyone else during the pandemic. Some are tech-savvy and managed emails and text messages on their phones and tablets with minimal difficulty. Others engulfed by users of technology remain isolated by limitations, whether by designs outside of their control, their own choice, or a combination of the two, and were literally cut-off from all but the most basic form of long-distance communication- the telephone. Some of my clients housed in assisted living facilities were not even in possession of their own mobile devices due to their health conditions. Those who were capable of using a phone but dependent on the availability of a single landline or the willingness of staff to assist them with making or receiving calls from loved ones suffered emotionally. The families of some clients were responsive during this period by purchasing a tablet or basic smart device for their homebound loved ones which increased their autonomy and ability to connect with those outside of their facilities. Other residents whose families lived out-of-state, who were without family, or whose families were economically incapable of making such accommodations were further isolated. Some of the smaller privately owned facilities with fewer than 10 residents were better able to pivot using their homes in ways that would allow for limited contact and connectedness when Covid-infection rates soared. Using a combination of quarantined indoor spaces with outdoor visitation when weather permitted, allowed a semblance of normalcy.

This, like most topics I wrestle with, is a complex one. There are other perspectives of this narrative that should be considered. This however is the lens I find most helpful in reflecting on challenges associated with living life in a technological age. Erikson, I believe if he were alive today would say that his model is helpful only when constructs used to define stages of development are well defined. We need to answer the question, what should each of these stages look and feel like? Their appearance has become blurred by generational influences that were not a part of today’s lived experience. For example, my present developmental stage “Contribution” differs as a baby boomer (1946-1964) from that of other generations- millennials (Gen Y. 1981-1996) or zoomers (Gen Z. 1997-2012). Because of this experiential gap, technology and my relationship with it will be different from those of past and future generations. What I believe doesn’t change over time is our fundamental need to be seen as singular, unique beings, capable of contributing something from oneself as “gifts” to the world. I’ve concluded that AI rather than enhancing individuality and creativity is often used to strip away those aspects of our personality that allow us to develop and reach maturity. Illich if he were alive would say that technology is being used to move us toward reductionism instead of a holistic approach. Illich would agree, that our failure to regulate technology has resulted in technology running amok. And, that the politicization of greed has changed the social fabric of the community to one that measures development and growth only in terms of profit and pleasure. These virtues- profit, and pleasure are toxic, addictive, and left unchecked soon become inseparable from life itself. These examples highlight both the benefits and limitations of technology when circumstances present barriers and users misappropriate their technology or weaponize it to do harm to those who look and think differently from them. And to others who lack the knowledge to implement such technology, lack accessibility, or the inability to separate fact from fallacy.