Running Head: MIDTERM

Ways of Knowing Midterm Final

Portland State University
Zoe Marie Andrew

Comparing Theories
In this section I will analyze three major developmental theories, discuss their
differences, alikeness, and essentially prove why development and human nature cannot be
reducible to a generalization that applies to all people. We have Eriksons theory, which applies
to westerners, the Navajo theory, as well as the Japanese theory.
Muus Ericksons Theory of Identity Development surrounds a very extreme idea that the
human development is binary. That, as one grows up, he will experience something and
overcome something one way or the other and that results in one of two outcomes. This theory is
a direct reflection of Western social values when analyzing the ins and outs of it. For example,
the conflict of Identity and Identity Confusion characterizes the American derivative of what is
expected, valued and accepted in their own culture. It emphasizes this empowerment of being
your own person, finding who you are, and understanding every piece of yourself, otherwise you
are left with regrets and stagnation.
Next well take a look into the Navajo conception of development. This is a theory
ingrained deeply in respect, responsibility, and an increasing outward focus on life. The Navajo
idealize the Holy People and spend their life working on moral maturation as to become like
the Holy People. This development is achieved through their actions over their lifespan by
working towards leadership. Unlike Ericksons theory, the Navajo develop with the intent of

Running Head: MIDTERM

morale for their people and how they can help their community and eventually the world. It starts
with the similar idea of finding ones place in the world but only momentarily.
Then we have the Japanese theory of development. This theory is most similar to the
Navajos conception in regards to the idea of empathy but does not focus so much on the
spiritual moral aspects. Here, the Japanese emphasize and extreme importance on how they
interact and affect other people. They drift extremely far from Ericksons theory because they
focus on a symbiotic harmony in relationships which is mutually beneficial to one another. The
Japanese focus more on unity, stability and the goodness of fit with others.
We have three extremely different theories here, they have their similarities but they are
packed tight with their own ideals, values, and goals. For this reason we, again, are unable to
reduce the human experience to one generalization that covers a broad spectrum. We must
understand that human culture directly shapes the human experience and there is not one culture
applicable to all. Communities literally conceive of the roles, purposes, and development of life
trajectories differently. With different desirable outcomes (Flynn, 2016, p.12).

Running Head: MIDTERM

Not One Best Way
Ive covered why the existence of human development being generalized into one theory
is irrational and merely impossible. But it is also crucial to note here, that there is not one best
way either. Humans tend to biases themselves to thinking their way or the highway. I will cover
B. Rogoffs Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human
Development in regards to P. Millers Teasing as language socialization, as to look deeper into
this idea that there isnt one best way (Rogoff, 2003, p.12).
First, its important to know Rogoffs 5 essential concepts in understanding human
practices. They are as follows: 1. Culture is not just what other people do. 2. Understand ones
own culture and take into account the perspective of others. 3. Cultural practices fit together and
are connected. 4. Cultural communities continually change as do individuals. And finally 5.
There is not one best way. This is a brief overview of the bulk, of course. We will focus on the
importance of 5. There is not one best way, because it opens our minds to a broader way of
viewing human practices.
There is not one best way. When we think about this concept we need to think, is the
practice beneficial to development, what does this practice make possible or what does this
practice hinder, constrict, or limit? This is called Affordance vs Constraint. We will take this vital
concept into Teasing as a language socialization.
In the first example we have 19 month old, Amy and her mother, Marlene. Amy had been
drinking Marlenes soda defiantly and exclaims, gimme cup. Marlene nudges her stomach with
a fist and says, Youre gonna get punched right in the gut. They continue to play fight in this
manner. Marlene threatening to fight and Amy holding a fighters stance kicking around and

Running Head: MIDTERM

such. In this sort of teasing act we need to think outside of the box as much as possible when
analyzing the possible affordances and constraints.
This is an affordance in a similar way its a constraint. This can teach Amy to toughen up
and to take what she wants using force if she wants/needs to. Depending on Amys
cultural/geographical setting this could be good or bad. If she comes from an impoverished area
in which its hard to get what you want/need shell know how to utilize violence to get it. But its
also constraining to her because she cannot always literally fight someone to get what she
wants/needs in life. If she is in an upper middle class setting this can damage her reputation in
the community.
This also impacts her relationship with her mother. This is an affordance because theyre
clearly laughing and playing around, making the two become closer and have a stronger bond.
But what if the mother uses force in more serious ways in different situations? This teasing can
limit a fruitful relationship because it can remind Amy of the real power Marlene has against her,
especially if Amy takes the play too far. Not saying this is occurring, its just good to note the
different angles.
In this way we can see that it is critical to understand how these practices make things
possible for development and the ways in which they may hinder, constrict, or limit
development. Instead of focusing on one best way, we must ask what the affordances are and
what the constraints are.

Running Head: MIDTERM

Obedience
I now move into the closest thing to a generalization of human development, according to
R.A. Levines Parental goals: A cross-cultural view. Levine theorizes that parents raise their kids
according to three main purposes. 1. Physical survival and health 2. Development of economic
self-maintenance and 3. Maximizing other cultural values. These priorities are environmentally
shaped and based on a key factor in achieving these goals. That is obedience. Obedience helps
parents of many different cultural backgrounds meet these three main goals.
Obedience allows the child an understanding of the hierarchical chain in society. This is
more prevalent in some cultures more so than others. A parent may want the child to respect and
listen to their commands because there will always be someone one step above them in their
society. For example, a Christian mother may raise their child in this way so he will understand
the importance of Jesus Christ and why he should live through the bible. In this way the child,
will maximize his cultural values by being obedient.
Obedience is important because it allows an immediate carry out of a parents request.
This can be vital to a child growing up in the Afar tribe of Ethiopia. It is hard to access waters in
these areas so when a parent commands a child to drink water when they have it, it is important
the child responds immediately. Otherwise the child will miss his opportunity and may become
dehydrated.
Carrying out a parental mandate is an important aspect for obedience as well. We can
look at Guerrero, Mexico where the poverty rate is 74% (INEGI). A parent may request a child
to go out and work for a friend in exchange for food. It is important the child arrives there on
time and work the full shift so he may receive what the family can eat later.

Running Head: MIDTERM

Explanation: These three essays are a perfect exemplifier of my knowledge in the Ethical Issues
and Social Responsibility goal because I show my understanding of important theories, conclude
there cannot be one best or one objective way, and explain what may be the most beneficial way
in the human development realm. The first essay is an overall analyzation of some major theories
covered in class and their key, conflicting points. The next essay goes along with the first in that
it explains this major theme that life is not deducible to an objective but there are ways we can
figure out the most beneficial solution. And the last essay explains the closest thing to the best
solution in the social sciences.