Natasha Kaufman

10/05/08

“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”

Obstacles, crises, change. All words usually associated with unpredictability and

resistance. Words and challenges we don’t wish to face. Yet, is it possible, that these

challenges could be good for us. Is it possible that these challenges could define who

we are? And, that with each obstacle we are defined even further? “Strategic in this

interplay are developmental crises- crisis- here connoting not a threat but rather a

turning point, a crucial period of increased vulnerability and heightened potential.”(A Erik

Erikson, “The Human Life Cycle”, 598) With each conflict succeeded we have

determined further who we will be.

Our beliefs, goals and aspirations are ever changing. As a child, one may want to

be a veterinarian, or a firefighter, and years later change their mind and decide to

become a lawyer instead. Can our goals as a child so dramatically change? In the TV

series seven “UP”, these very ideas are encased in a documentary originally created to

analyze how childhood socio-economical background affected a child’s future. Would a

child who was given a better academic education be more successful? Later as the

show matured it delved even further than just socio-economical backgrounds and went

deeper into the challenges presented throughout life and the mechanisms with which

people dealt with them. In it people’s lives were documented every seven years, looking

into the challenges, hopes and dreams that each person faced and the changelessness

or very much changing nature of them. Furthermore, did their childhoods and previous

success or failure in the former stages of life affect that of the later ones.
 Andrew, John and Bruce proved the notion that childhood conditions fostered the

future, with privileged backgrounds breeding their success in Oxford. Implying that to

some extent the roles they were designated at birth did influence beyond a doubt their

success in life. However what about Suzie, who grew up practically in a boarding

school environment, lacking personal connection with her parents and Neil who was a

fun, hopeful young child. Both deviated from the theory that childhood circumstances

predicted later success or failure when suzie later on becomes the mother she had

always wanted and Neil becomes a nomad, homeless and lost. Both grew up in

environments that should have produced otherwise. In this way it can be seen that

childhood conditions didn’t necessarily predict the future. .

In general, however, the children from the elite prep schools continued in their

elite circles, though Andrew did not marry a woman from that circle, which his wife

comments upon in one segment. The children from the working classes have by and

large remained in those circles, though Tony seems to have become more middle class.

Nick has perhaps had the most radical change, due to his intelligence, for which he

received several scholarships to elite schools. Paul, through moving to Australia, also

experienced great changes. Paul and Symon grew up in a children’s home. Tony

wanted to be a jockey at seven years old. Jackie, Lynn and Sue all grew up in working

class families. Neil, full of life and hope at seven, at 28 wanders the lands of Scotland.

All of them grew up with different educational and socio-economic backgrounds yet

years later they encounter the same real-life obstacles and challenge. Is this just by

coincidence? Through Erickson’s life cycle theory the argument can be made that

although we may not know the choices we will make, we do know the conflicts that we
will all encounter. Establishing a common background and process among all humans,

Erickson generalized that everyone encounters obstacles designated to that specific

moment in time and age group. And that a person must ultimately overcome a specific

conflict and develop a certain life characteristic without which the person would not be

able to move forward. For example, at the school age stage the basic conflict is initiative

versus guilt, where the child must develop a sense of competence with the world around

him, While later on during the adolescent stage the conflict is identity versus confusion

whereby one must develop a sense of reliability on the social structure and society. Yet

with each new stage, a new choice was encountered, emphasizing the unpredictability

of this process.

However the problem with Erickson’s theory and its relation to the movie is that

Erickson did not take this unpredictability into consideration, making nice neat packages

of people he did not take into account that life’s processes are usually continuous and

take gradual time and change. He also generalized his studies and observations to all of

humanity, taking no social influences or cultural standards into account. The movie 42

and up also had many criticisms due to the fact that it didn’t show enough of the

childhood of the people, it showed more of an adult viewing point and not as much

comparison between the adult and child.

Born into an individualist society, we all think of ourselves as independent human

beings that can function outside society and make their own decisions. We think of

ourselves, personality and character traits. However from readings authored by

Erickson, Berger and Lichman we can infer that we really are a product of our

socialization, ultimately accomplished primarily by our parents and secondarily by our

friends and societal influences. And according to Erickson the choices we make and the

conflicts that we overcome truly make us the people we are. These are the influences

that truly define us.

After all is said and done, what the movie really showed was that what might

matter to us at seven truly changes later on, and that we all seem to have the same

conflict and instinctual desires and certain points in time. But while Paul may have

lacked security as a child and still craved that security later on, Suzie broke out of that

shell and provided the inner warmth and parental support that was lacking in her

childhood. we all have choices and we all have character traits and strengths that help

us to succeed in overcoming those common conflicts.