In Reply to: Blast from the Past (Repost) posted by Reposter on June 08, 2004 at 09:20:56:
The business about Family members being stuck in a phase of childhood development is an interesting observation, Acheik. I'm a big fan of Erik Erikson's model of psychosocial development. (For more detail, see http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/erikson.htm)
There's quite a lot to Erikson's model that might explain Zerby, Peter, & Berg's behavior, but what I find more interesting are the implications for adult development in people who join TF. I've been somewhat surprised at the number of exfamily I've talked to lately who first joined when they were 16 years old. The developmental task at that stage in life has a lot to do with identity development--figuring out who you are and where you fit in. One way adolescents do this task is by trying on different faces and roles--as in, I'm Goth, I'm a brain, I'm a jock, etc. Trying on faces & roles connects to what group I'm trying to belong to. Also, figuring out likes & dislikes--I like this style of clothing, I don't like that style; or, I really don't like how I feel when I drink; or, I like having enough money to buy the things I want.
In TF, that normal identity work gets stifled. A lot of ppl in TF simply don't know who they are--they don't know if they're more inclined to be socially conservative evangelical Christians or socially liberal freethinkers and iconoclasts. What I've described here are two basic worldviews held by many people who develop their identity in the context of western cultures. The whole point of this identity task is figuring out where you fit in to a very complex society, otherwise known as The System.
Once ppl leave TF, they start to work through basic identity questions that begins in adolescence and continues throughout life. It's hard work figuring out where your niche or place in a complex society will be. It's often much easier to give up and go back to the relative ease of TF where the rules for fitting in are all laid out with great specificity.
Also, in TF you don't have to make difficult choices, because they're made for you by someone else. At a certain point in my mid-adult life, it was very hard for me to choose between my identity as a feminist and my identity as a Catholic Christian, for example. For a very long time I didn't see these two identities (or places I "fit in") as mutually exclusive, and many people would argue that they're not. However, for me personally, there came a time when I could not in good conscience identify as both feminist and Catholic Christian.
Something that influenced the evolution of my identity is changes in my relationship with my mother. If I thought of Zerby as "Mama," I would not define myself as I do now. Calling her "Mama" is a bit presumptious, anyway. She didn't raise me, nor did she pass on her genetic heritage to me. When I look in the mirror, I see the eyes of my biological mother staring back. When I think about why I feel so strongly about women's issues, I hear my mother's voice speaking to me as a little girl about what I would have to face as I grew into a woman and grew old.
Coming to terms with my mother's legacy, which was an abusive, complex relationship fraught with years of conflict, has not been easy. It would have been easier to pretend I was someone else's daughter and make up a fantasy about who I am and pretend I'm really the daughter of a King & Queen.
Well, that's enough about being stuck in the identity development phase of adult maturation. The intimacy/isolation task of Erikson's developmental model has a lot to say about people who are into three-somes, flirty fishing, sharing, etc. When I have time to work out how my understanding of that developmental task relates to Family pathology around intimate relationships, I'll post something on the Academic board.