Autonomy and Interrelatedness through the Life Cycle

Marilyn Charles engagingly addresses the delicate balance between autonomy and interrelatedness in the path of human development. She discusses the challenges faced by each generation in this process—parents and other caregivers as they raise children to healthy levels of independence and young adults as they find their voices and positions in society. She has also recognized the impact of historical and economic changes on the family and on cultural patterns of separation and attachment.

At various points in Charles’ article, I was reminded of classic theories of development in psychology. Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development provides a relevant structure within which to consider some of Charles’ arguments (Childhood and Society, 1950). In infancy, children need to feel that they can trust others to care for them, or they learn distrust. A stable, healthy personality requires a foundation of trust that personal needs will be met. Charles emphasizes the importance of caregivers that are attuned to their children, and provide care when needed.

Ideally, parental attention and care are provided within a context of social support and the construction of relationships within the family unit; yet optimal development requires opportunities for movement toward autonomy as well. This form of parenting, authoritative as opposed to authoritarian or permissive, is more

Page 269

likely to produce healthy attachment in children. Children who have secure, healthy attachments to their parents or caregivers have greater confidence in exploring the world around them because they feel they can do so safely. Lack of trust and insecure attachment can lead to distress, which may manifest as cold detachment or eventual unhealthy dependence on other people or behavioral habits. Once again, Erikson’s metatheory comes to mind.

As children grow beyond infancy and begin to physically explore the world under their own power, they deal with the issue of autonomy versus doubt, hopefully learning that they have some agency within themselves. In a healthy developmental course, children learn to successfully take initiatives and develop a sense of personal competency. Erikson’s theory then follows the individual throughout a lifetime, identifying developmental issues that arrive along the way, with both healthy and less than healthy possible outcomes. If Erikson’s stages are considered fluid, rather than having an invariant sequence, they support the points that Charles is making about autonomy and interrelatedness in young adults as well as in childhood. The development of an individual identity, while still maintaining a healthy interrelationship with others, is a challenge that arguably persists through old age.

I offer two examples of this lifelong challenge. When my daughter was seven years old, she was securely attached to her family yet clearly demonstrated her move toward independence. It was a time period in which she threatened to run away when she was displeased. The first two times that she threatened this, her father and I stopped her from leaving the house. But one evening, after she had gone upstairs and packed her Minnie Mouse suitcase, we let her walk out the front door. Keeping her in sight, we followed at a distance as she started to walk down our block, and through a nearby park, on her way to her elementary school. It was dark and there were no other people around, but this child felt secure—at some level—that we would not let her be hurt. She was free to assert herself because she felt safe in doing so. Her plan, we learned, was to sleep on the lawn of the school, so that she could go to school the next day because, as she said later, she couldn’t miss school!  Needless to say, we brought her back and she slept in her own bed that night, safe and secure yet pleased with her venture.

A second example involves my mother, in her late 80s, living alone in her home, healthy but with significantly failing eyesight, and still driving. My mother valued her independence, never

Page 270

marrying again after being widowed. She was proud of her ability to live completely on her own. Because of her poor vision, her adult children, including myself, had asked her to stop driving. Her inner struggle about giving up her car was painful. She cared that her family wanted her to stop driving, she cared about the larger community that she was endangering by driving without full sight, yet she dreaded the loss of physical independence. Equally distressing, she disliked the implied loss of autonomy in having this decision made for her by her children. This was her decision to make as an adult, and she asserted that autonomy by continuing to drive for longer than her family thought wise.

As I contemplated Charles’ arguments, one aspect that struck me was the need for parents and caregivers to often put themselves second in order to raise children with healthy psychological outcomes. However, parents need to maintain their own autonomy as well. Both children and parents are developmental beings, seeking to create or maintain autonomy while at the same time caring for family. Children hopefully grow to have self-esteem, confidence, and an independent self along with a sense of being a part of a larger community of people, be it family or another social group providing inter-member support. These children grow to adolescence and adulthood, and may well become parents who now simultaneously need to maintain their autonomy, while also focusing attention on their own children’s needs. To complicate this more, parents are often caring for elders at the same time—elders who are also dealing with issues of autonomy versus dependency. Healthy outcomes for all involve very finely choreographed dances between children, young adults, parents, and elders.

Charles has pointed out that historical change in society impacts the process of developing healthy autonomy while maintaining interrelatedness. Much of this argument is culturally located, of course. Some cultural subgroups have greater expectations of family unity, for example, with less perceived value to autonomy. In such groups, economic viability may require greater family interconnection. Other subcultures have long held autonomy as the ultimate goal. In each case, however, we can examine the historical influences of industrialization. As societies move toward mechanization and increased technological innovation, young adults move both psychologically and physically further from parents and other elders. As Charles discusses, the norm of vocations being passed down from generation to generation diminishes in a technological

Page 271

economy.

The impact of these changes on autonomy and interrelatedness within families is profound, I believe, particularly as societies now have entered the digital age. In an increasingly computerized society, young adults may or may not physically leave the family unit for work opportunities. Although high-level young professionals often move during their career trajectories, young adults in lower positions may continue to live at home. The latter group may stay economically dependent on family support for longer than was once the norm. However, young adults who are highly immersed in new digital technologies may intellectually separate from the family unit regardless of whether or not they physically leave. Ironically, digital communication technologies can afford easy social connection with distant others, while inhibiting social connection with people in the same physical space, including family members. What, then, are the impacts on interrelationships within the family?

Parents and elders, who were once respected as the holders of vocational knowledge as well as wisdom about life, are not always viewed as such. Older generations often have to deal with feelings of inadequacy in facing a digital age; they may sometimes feel less respected by their children or grandchildren because they lack familiarity and competence with day-to-day technologies. Elders still hold knowledge about the consequences of larger life decisions; they have lessons to teach and positive interrelationships within the family invite those lessons. However, elders do not always hold knowledge relevant to the day-to-day lives of their children and grandchildren. For example, elders may not understand all of the ramifications of a workplace grounded in new technologies. Young adults, while still emotionally tied to parents and elders, now face the fact that they have greater knowledge in technological realms than their elders. Young adults may also have quite different normative modes of communication than their elders. Relationships must be renegotiated within this structure in order to maintain positive interrelationships that are inclusive and respectful of all members, while supporting possibilities for autonomy.

In striving for healthy personality development in offspring, parents must face the challenge of facilitating autonomy in their children, while still maintaining a secure structure of relationships for them. They also face the dilemma of wanting to be valued and respected, yet accepting that autonomy means that their children may move in directions, and develop beliefs, attitudes, and behav-

Page 272

ioral patterns, that are at odds with their own perspectives and values. Finally, parents and grandparents are increasingly faced with a changed sense of knowledge hierarchy. Marilyn Charles has insightfully given us a great deal to think about.

Page 273