The Epigenesis of Personality Development: Saint Thomas and Erik H. Erikson

THE EPIGENESIS OF PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT: SAINT THoMAS AND ERIK H. ERIKSON ONE OF THE many problems facing psychologists who are concerned with the question of human development , is the need to understand the relationship between the observable PHASES in the emerging personality and the institutionalized cultural forms of contrasting societies. One proposed solution is to be found in the theory of the social implications of the principle of EPIGENESIS presented by Prof. Erik H. Erikson/ of Harvard's department of Human Development . The application of this principle of epigenesis has also been predicated by Erikson,2 of psychosexual and ego-development as well· as of psychosocial development. By implication, we might say that there is an approach to consider the whole scheme of personality development within the framework of this epigenetic principle. We propose, therefore, to enquire of the philosophical validity of this principle, and in particular as it is applied to the personality development of man. Embryology is the place of origin for the epigenetic principle, and from that science it is borrowed by Erikson, in order to serve as basal law by which a greater insight might be gained into the human development of the entire life cycle. Whenever we try to understand growth, it is well to remember the EPIGENETIC PRINCIPLE which is derived from the growth of organisms IN UTERO. Somewhat generalized, this principle states that anything that grows has a GROUND ·PLAN, and that out of this ground plan the PARTS arise, each part having its time of special 1 Erikson, Erik H., "Observation on Sioux Education," in: J. of P81Jchology: 7:101-156, 1989. • Erikson, Erik H., "Childhood and Society," N. Y., W. W. Norton, 1950. !l45 246 NOEL A. KINSELLA ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a FUNCTIONING WHOLE.8 Etymologically the term ' epigenesis ' comes from the Greek epi =on or after) and from (genesis= generation) thus: ' after generation.' The biological theory of epigenesis was accepted by both Aristotle and Saint Thomas; and was introduced into modern science by G. F. Wolff in opposition to the theory of' preformism ' which was held by such men as Leibniz, Malbranche, Spencer, Haeckel, Malpighi, and others. As we are, in this article, interested in the philosophic worth of epigenesis as a principle, and less about its biologic significance let us now try and see what was the philosophical reasoning which Aristotle and Saint Thomas used to sustain this theory of epigenesis. In Book II of his "De Generatione Animalium" Aristotle holds that the development of a plant or animal is brought about by a gradual forming and organizing of the various parts of the future being, which are latent 'in virtute' in the egg. Such a conception is termed epigenesis. Metaphysically, the theory of epigenesis would rest for Aristotle, as well as for Saint Thomas, on a teleologic conception of the universe, wherein there is order and harmony, and things do not happen by blind forces of chance. The principles of ' hylomorphism ' and of ' potency and act ' provide the foundation for the philosophical understanding of the process of gradual growth and development. Aristotle begins his investigation by stating that everything that comes into being or is made must: (I) be made out of something, (2) be made by the agency of something, and (8) must become something.4 8 Erikson, Erik H., " Growth and Crises of the Healthy Personality " in: Psychological Issues, Monograph 1., vol. 1, no. 1 1959, p. 5!l. • Aristotle, " De Generatione Animalium," Bk. II, 7SSb 25. (For an excellent treatment of the philosophical and biological implications of epigenesis cf. published notes of Fr. M. Hudeczek, 0. P. of lectures given at the" Angelicum," Rome, 1957). THE EPIGENESIS OF PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT 247 That out of which something is made, is called by Aristotle the material. Aristotle sets himself the task of inquiring concerning by what agency are the parts of animals made. Either it is something external which makes them, or else something internal, and this something internal must be either soul or part of soul, or something containing soul. An external agency is ruled out, because one thing can only set up a motion in another by touching it, and...