DEVELOPMENTAL CRISIS IN EARLY ADULTHOOD: A ...

“Where such a Dream exists, we are exploring its nature and vicissitudes over the life
course. Major shifts in life direction at subsequent ages are often occasioned by a
reactivation of the sense of betrayal or compromise of the Dream. That is, very often
in the crises that occur at age 30, 40, or later a major issue is the reactivation of a
guiding Dream, frequently one that goes back to adolescence or the early 20’s, and
the concern with its failure. We are also interested in the antecedents and
consequences of not having a Dream, because the Dream can be such a vitalizing
force for adult development.” (Levinson et al, 1976, p.23)
Levinson considered the model that he developed to be a conceptual aid to
understanding structural regularities in a life course in modern day Western society,
but added that each life is unique and that individuals could violate the sequence
completely if they desired, but might have to extract themselves from conventional
society so to do. Life seasons and life structures, Levinson considered, are cultural
templates to which we can adhere or not. Life’s regularities are created as much by
the opportunities afforded to us in society as our own maturation or personality.
The life structure concept includes both inner and outer structures, which
evolve in harmony during stable phases, and are dissonant or in conflict during
transitional phases. An emphasis on the mutually formative development of self and
world, and the interdependence of inner and outer changes, distinguishes his model
from phase theories such as those of Piaget or Kohlberg, the phases of which relate to
the development of internal structures only. In line with this, Levinson has a
particular take on the process that Jung called individuation. He saw individuation as
the aim of development, but was clear that an individuated state is not a purely
internal affair, but is rather an optimal balance of person and world. He put forth an
extensive description of individuation, which I shall leave in his own words:
“Individuation is often regarded as a process occurring solely within the self. In my
view it is broader than this: it involves the person’s relationship both to self and to
external world. With greater individuation of the self, we have a clearer sense of who
we are and what we want. We draw more fully on our inner resources (desires,
values, talents, archetypal potentials). We are more autonomous, self-generating, and
self-responsible. The self is more integrated and less wrent by inner contradictions.
Individuation occurs as well in our relation to the external world. With more
individuated relationships, we feel more genuinely connected to the human and
natural world. We are more able to explore its possibilities and to understand what it
demands and offers. We give it greater meaning and take more responsibility for our
personal construction of meaning. We are capable of mutual relationships, without
being limited to a narrowly “selfish” concern with our own gratification or to an
excessively “altruistic” concern with the needs of others.” (Levinson, 1996, p.32)
12