You know, reading about Erikson's life stage for middle adulthood makes me think that Hitler, Stalin and other famous people in history should be proud that they managed to maneuver their 'crises' to become generative in mid-life.
The 7th stage of Erikson's life stages theory, Generativity vs Stagnation, says that "generativity encompasses adults' desire to leave legacies of themselves to the next generation"(Peterson, 2002). On the other hand, stagnation happens when individuals sense that they have done nothing for the next generation. Hitler has certainly left a legacy behind, and who says he hasn't left behind valuable lessons for us?
1) League of Nations was a failure, without the co-operation of the superpowers of the world (US and Britain) (As a sidenote, don't you think this sounds incredibly reminiscent of a particularly significant event in 2002?). Anyway, from the League of Nations grew the United Nations, which learnt from the mistakes made by their predecessor (?).
2) The world of politics is DIRTY. Hitler and Stalin could play this game well I'll admit... Imagine, each agreeing with the other on what they want from the other, but all the while planning attacks.
3) And who has forgotten the extermination of 2 million (or was it more?) Jews in WWII?
Hitler has immortalised himself, all right. Ok, so to pinpoint Hitler in this post seems unfair, coz the whole History thing has more than one players, and of course, we are forgetting the roles played by heroes, like... Mother Teresa, Ghandhi (though I know some feel it's debatable whether he's actually a hero) etc. I'm just feeling a tad bitchy today, so humour me, ya? ;)
Oh, yes, if you look at it from another perspective, we could probably also say Hitler was stagnated (self-absorbed). He didn't contribute anything to the next generations except horror. So, yah, I guess you could say Hitler was stagnated. But to be fair to him, he wanted to restore Germany's pride, and restore his homeland, so to a certain extent he probably wasn't very self-absorbed. Ah well, I still stand by my first opinion that he's generative. =)
Ahh.. and I realise I can probably never manage to become a great psychologist who practices what she preaches, coz I have gotta face reality. I can't always look at the situations when making attributions to behaviour. I'm a victim of the Fundamental Attribution Error! *GASP*
The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) is the tendency for observers to overestimate a person's behaviour as his/her disposition, and neglect the situational causes of that behaviour. Let's say we see this father smacking his daughter in a shopping centre. The first thought we have might be that the father is cruel, and neglect the possibility that his daughter was probably making a ruckus a while ago.
I realised that if one always takes into account the situational factors before getting angry or making judgments, that person must be a truly understanding person who never ever gets angry, because that person would be able to understand that the actor's behaviour may not be his intention. OK, some of you may be thinking, if there is a consistency to this person's behaviour and a lack of distinctiveness in the types of situation this behaviour is exhibited, we probably have a right to get angry. Well, I would not disagree with you, but I think somehow the observer's anger may be attenuated?
I don't think I can be as understanding and as good-tempered as that. Much as I would want to be, and try hard to be, sometimes I just don't wanna look at the situational factors. Sometimes the same behaviour may occur again and again, to make it seem far-fetched that the situation is causing it. Though I said before that the observer's anger may be attenuated, I think I'd feel even more frustrated at that, because I think I'm justified in feeling that anger or frustration. BUT, to be really angry or frustrated, wouldn't I be spoiling my own self-concept as a good, understanding person? Ahh... and now here comes cognitive dissonance, as I try to justify my anger, and if my self-justification goes in the selfish direction, I probably would carry on in my way of thinking that the person is always wrong.
Oh, and all these are hypothetical, of course, in case you're wondering.
And in hindsight, I realise that this entry may seem rather illogical and I may have gotten my concepts wrong. Haha... Somehow I had it straight in my head, but once I typed it out they seem to have gone a funny way..... =S