But sometimes I feel like these walls drive me crazy.
I’ve been re-watching chunks of WatXM to get back in to canon for my andthexmen Christmas exchange.
This has involved me remembering that WatXM!Scott was unconscious for two years. Two. Years.
I am now wondering about what kind of impact this would have had on him psychologically. Losing two entire years of emotional and psychological development had to have had some sort of negative impact on him.
My gut instinct as an educator is to pull on Erikson’s theory of development. Smart money says Scott is about twelve, thirteen when he wakes up, and that has a whole bunch of ramifications.
Quick Psych class...at least in a portion of Erikson’s theory of developmental stages. He suggested that for each period of life, there’s an oppositional conflict that each person faces. The outcome of that conflict is significant to the way that the person develops as a human being.
School age is the period from 6 to 12 years, in which the conflict is defined as being ‘industry vs. inferiority’. This is where an individual will either develop the capability to learn new skills, create, and accomplish things, or develop severe feelings of inadequacy.
The next period is adolescence, which lasts from ages 12-18. There, the conflict is ‘identity vs. role confusion’. The teen either develops and solidifies their personality through social interaction, or flounders and ends up unsure of who they are as a person.
I keep thinking about this, and it actually begins to make sense. Scott would have missed out on some development in both these periods, which could explain a lot about his character. His tendencies towards inadequacy are evident in his reaction to the loss of the Mansion: his ‘blue period’ in that crappy little apartment. It could also explain why he ends up willing to serve under Logan after (presumably) being leader of the X-Men. He doesn’t feel like he’s fully capable of it anymore.
The being unsure of who he is can be seen there too, especially in the fact that he comes back to the team and (admittedly, grudgingly - but remember, he would only have missed out on a little of the adolesence period) accepts Logan’s leadership. This, to me, suggests role confusion. Is he a leader? A good soldier under higher command? I would suggest he doesn’t even know.
Obviously, since it was only two years, a relatively short period of time in Erikson’s timeline, this inferiority and role confusion would be present but not absolutely defining characteristics. Plus, standard disclaimers about psychological theories all apply.This background knowledge could, however, explain why when I write WatXM!Scott, he comes out the way he does - a little socially stunted, hyper-defensive, and butting heads with Logan a LOT. Huh.
Anyone else with some background in psychology who can comment on this? I get the feeling I’m being very pretentious and treading on ground that I’m not especially familiar with right now. If I’ve butchered Erikson, please say so. Anyone at all want to tell me if this makes any sense whatsoever? Perhaps inform me that instead of attempting to pathologize fictional characters, I should be reading my frigging stupid science instruction textbook?
However, while we’re on the subject, please welcome the addition of a new tag - badass!Scott is badass: the new tag for all your Summers-lovin’ needs. It's going to be added to all appropriate previous entries over the next little while.
This has involved me remembering that WatXM!Scott was unconscious for two years. Two. Years.
I am now wondering about what kind of impact this would have had on him psychologically. Losing two entire years of emotional and psychological development had to have had some sort of negative impact on him.
My gut instinct as an educator is to pull on Erikson’s theory of development. Smart money says Scott is about twelve, thirteen when he wakes up, and that has a whole bunch of ramifications.
Quick Psych class...at least in a portion of Erikson’s theory of developmental stages. He suggested that for each period of life, there’s an oppositional conflict that each person faces. The outcome of that conflict is significant to the way that the person develops as a human being.
School age is the period from 6 to 12 years, in which the conflict is defined as being ‘industry vs. inferiority’. This is where an individual will either develop the capability to learn new skills, create, and accomplish things, or develop severe feelings of inadequacy.
The next period is adolescence, which lasts from ages 12-18. There, the conflict is ‘identity vs. role confusion’. The teen either develops and solidifies their personality through social interaction, or flounders and ends up unsure of who they are as a person.
I keep thinking about this, and it actually begins to make sense. Scott would have missed out on some development in both these periods, which could explain a lot about his character. His tendencies towards inadequacy are evident in his reaction to the loss of the Mansion: his ‘blue period’ in that crappy little apartment. It could also explain why he ends up willing to serve under Logan after (presumably) being leader of the X-Men. He doesn’t feel like he’s fully capable of it anymore.
The being unsure of who he is can be seen there too, especially in the fact that he comes back to the team and (admittedly, grudgingly - but remember, he would only have missed out on a little of the adolesence period) accepts Logan’s leadership. This, to me, suggests role confusion. Is he a leader? A good soldier under higher command? I would suggest he doesn’t even know.
Obviously, since it was only two years, a relatively short period of time in Erikson’s timeline, this inferiority and role confusion would be present but not absolutely defining characteristics. Plus, standard disclaimers about psychological theories all apply.This background knowledge could, however, explain why when I write WatXM!Scott, he comes out the way he does - a little socially stunted, hyper-defensive, and butting heads with Logan a LOT. Huh.
Anyone else with some background in psychology who can comment on this? I get the feeling I’m being very pretentious and treading on ground that I’m not especially familiar with right now. If I’ve butchered Erikson, please say so. Anyone at all want to tell me if this makes any sense whatsoever? Perhaps inform me that instead of attempting to pathologize fictional characters, I should be reading my frigging stupid science instruction textbook?
However, while we’re on the subject, please welcome the addition of a new tag - badass!Scott is badass: the new tag for all your Summers-lovin’ needs. It's going to be added to all appropriate previous entries over the next little while.