This paper will examine the psychosocial identity development theories of Erik Erikson, William Cross, Vivienne Cass and Linda

Critique of Cass’ Theory of Homosexual Identity Development

One of contributions of Cass’ theory of homosexual identity development, vis a vis the disability community, is that it provides a compelling description of a process of coming to identify openly and positively with an aspect of one’s self that society has traditionally required that one hide (or attempt to eradicate). Unlike racial identity development theories, this theory of homosexual identity development charts a process of a movement towards a “built” community, rather than an identity developed within one’s family or community of origin. Many disabled writers have noted a parallel between the experience of the gay and lesbian community and the disability community, even using the language of “coming out” to describe their own process of identifying positively with the disability community and incorporating their disability into their sense of self (Brown, 1992; Hillyer, 1992; Rousso, 1984; Zola, 1993a; Corbett, 1994). As Bennett (1992) found among lesbians, all of these writers speak of the necessity of interaction with others like themselves in constructing their positive personal identities while acknowledging that the opportunity to experience such community outside of large urban centers is rare for both groups (Thompson, 1995; Zola, 1993a). Another contribution of Cass’ theory is that it charts the integration of a developing sense of self with others’ perceptions of that self, essentially by requiring others to come to terms with that part of one’s self that has traditionally been hidden. Such is the challenge of disabled people who must also construct a positive disability identity in the midst of fa4milial and cultural environments that deny there is anything good that can be associated with disability and who may have been actively engaged in attempting to distance one’s sense of self from that disability.

Some of the limitations in Cass’ theory are reminiscent of other theoretical models in the European-American scientific tradition. The primary one being that a linear stage model does not truly reflect the complexities the identity development process can present homosexuals and that such a theorized linear process can lead to perceiving the stages in a hierarchical and judgmental manner (Bennett, 1992). For Weinberg (1984), the theorized “uniformity” of the theorized process ignores the human capacity for fluidity throughout the lifetime. Others question whether the theorized “identity synthesis” stage is even possible given the violent realities of the current political climate, which has been underscored by recent fatal violence directed at gays in different parts of the country (Minton & McDonald, 1984; Lee, 1977). Cass’ theory is also seen to be limited as it primarily describes the “coming out” process, rather than the lifelong process of managing a homosexual identity (Walters & Simoni, 1993; Bennett, 1992). We can find similar issues of complexity and fluidity in the disability experience when self-identifying as disabled, as a member of the disability community given the broad range of types and qualities of people’s disability experiences. From a radical feminist perspective, Kitzinger (1990) sees Cass’ theory as limited because its “gay affirmative” approach “depoliticizes” the process of identifying as lesbian, emphasizing personal development over political change or seeing political consciousness as merely a stage one moves through (DeLois, 1993). Such identity tensions can also be found within the disability community, as radical liberation politics, disability culture, disability studies, etc. are all generating different approaches to challenging society’s ableist beliefs about and responses to the disability experience.

Linda James-Myers Optimal Theory of Psychology

In the preceding discussion of theoretical approaches to identity development, we have seen many conceptual contributions to understanding the identity development process of particular groups within American society. In each theoretical approach, limitations arise primarily from the fact that the approach does not or cannot encompass the complexity of the human or group experience within its scope. Such limitations have all been ascribed to methodological problems, a dominant/minority power differential, a political/personal dichotomy, individual/collective emphasis, single/multiple intersections, “zeitgeist”/lifetime timeframe, universal/in-group markers, etc. Myers (1988, 1991, 1998) and Myers, et al. (1991) see all of these limitations arising from the dichotomous, “either/or” Eurocentric worldview that is the underlying framework of all of these theories. The very oppositional thinking of the Eurocentric worldview is seen to be “suboptimal” because it generates alienation, competition, exploitation, and the oppression of all peoples who ascribe to it (Myers, 1988, 1991,1998; Myers, et al., 1991). Within this suboptimal worldview, individuals construct a sense of self that is dependent on external factors for validation; ultimately self-alienated and fragmented, this sense of self requires a constant proving of worth (Myers, et al., 1991).

Myers (1988) proposes a theory of “optimal” psychology grounded in an Afrocentric worldview that acknowledges the spiritual essence of all reality, unifying all forms of life and the spiritual/material dimensions. Within this optimal worldview, an individual’s worth is intrinsic, self-knowledge is the purpose of being, and individual identity is linked to the ancestors, future generations, the community, and nature (Myers, et al., 1991). In this worldview, relationships are marked by interdependence and cooperation (Myers, 1998), leading to “peace, joy, harmony, and the increased well-being of the whole” (Myers, et al., 1991). The six-phase model of Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development (OTAID) describes a spiraling and expanding process of identity development within the optimal psychology theory (Myers, et al., 1991):

0. 
   Absence of Conscious Awareness – person lacks awareness of distinctions between the self and their environment.
   

0. 
   Individuation – person is only aware of a view of self-derived from the immediate surroundings; reinforcement from society can block awareness of other views of the self.
   

0. 
   Dissonance – person begins to be aware of negative views of some aspect the self. Emotional re-evaluation of the self can lead to greater awareness of socially constructed dominant/devalued status or a denial such valuations exist/devalued aspect exists.
   

0. 
   Immersion – person has increased identification and bonding with others who share common devalued status. Negative feelings may result in withdrawal from dominant group and its values and norms.
   

0. 
   Internalization - person develops a secure sense of self, with all salient aspects of the self valued as an aspect of the whole self, with an increased tolerance of other
   

0. 
   Integration – as self-knowledge grows and the true nature of oppression is understood, person experiences greater inner peace that extends to relationships with others. Sense of community with more people marks a shift in worldview.
   

0. 
   Transformation – the self is defined by its spiritual awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, including the ancestors, the yet unborn, community and nature. One’s culture and history are fully appreciated as part of the whole of humanity and all forms of life are valued. Even the negative consequences of suboptimal systems can be seen as opportunities for growth in self-knowledge.
   

Myers, et al. (1991) outline a process of identity development that is characterized as an expanding of awareness of the self – from an initial lack of awareness of distinction from the whole of life, through a dawning awareness of and subsequent honoring of unique markers, to a conscious awareness of the unity of all life forms and things. It is a development process that echoes the spiritual wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which speaks of the “ten thousand things” (distinct manifestations) arising from the universal oneness of the Tao and ultimately returning to that “childlike” state of cosmic oneness (Feng & English, 1972).