DEVELOPMENTAL CRISIS IN EARLY ADULTHOOD: A ...

acceptance of genuine possibility, and therefore of a free future in which there is more than one path.
(for freedom is nothing more than having more than one path available into the future). This is an
interesting commonality, and perhaps is bound into the issue of autonomy that rears its head so often
too. Is the move through the crisis from the confines of necessity to the flourishing bloom of
possibility?
Something else is that the move from necessity to possibility requires a separation of some variety. So
far it has been from husbands or job. Necessity is what is moved from, and necessity must be impinged
on the person in question by something or someone. Someone or something must be doing the
coercing, or must be perceived as that which one is obliged to commit to or stay with.
1/2/05
Deci and Ryan’s typology of regulation and control – external, introjected, internal, etc, might be a
good way of looking at issues of control and want vs should.
16/2/05
I would say that a number of persons I have spoken to – Mary, Violet, Angela, Jonathan, Gemma, and
others, are fairly unconventional, or at least creatively orientated and not conventionally aspirated. So
for them conventional roles will compromise the self, while for other more conventionally wired up
people appropriating and inhabiting socially or corporately defined roles will present less of a problem.
It is always from procedural and structured to creative and fluid, the developmental process through
crisis, not vice versa.
17/2/05
Dan focuses less on being a career person – like Lynne, like Mary. But there is more of an emphasis
on provision for the family, on the financial side of crisis, like Patrick. Being a career person meant
career-based aspirations, for self-concept feeds goals and vice versa.
Crisis as catalyst – something that is worth mentioning in analysis as its own theme.
His new life is more balanced, less lucrative, more stable. Probably the most interesting feature of the
interview is the clear shift away from proving himself by corporate milestones and working every hour
god sends, to a more relaxed life with more time with family, more control over his career and more
alternatives if things go arse over tit, more identification with relationships rather than with career. On
page 8 he implies that proving self comes from having a recognised high profile job, high salary, and
high other things upon which human beings are consensually ranked to ascertain ‘status’.
18/2/05
“If it wasn’t for the crisis, I wouldn’t be the person I am today, because I would probably have gone on
the road of least resistance, if you like, I probably wouldn’t have been aware of the other talents and
strengths that I had. So the crisis did help me in that respect in that I am a much stronger person now
than I was then, much, much stronger.” 9 (Patrick/Steve)
This reminds me of Neitzsche in many ways – the diamond and charcoal analogy. The importance of
suffering for refining the human being to a sharp and hard point. Might be worth digging out the
diamond and charcoal analogy.
For diamonds are forged under immense pressure. And it also links into the transparency thing. It also
links into the hardness thing (assertiveness).
256