Interesting Quotes, Vol. 13
A Theoretical and Empirical Approach to the Study of Development
Today’s quotes come from Dr. Michael M. Piechowski’s 1975 monograph, A Theoretical and Empirical Approach to the Study of Development. We talked about this work in Episode 48. It’s the one he called “totally overlooked. Forgotten.”
This was one of the first things I read from Michael when I began studying the theory. Because it’s a monograph, it’s long, and I found it a little overwhelming. It took time to get through everything he was saying, and I returned to it a couple of months later and reread it. On Christmas 2016, I spent hours reformatting it in QDA Miner while building the first Piechowski project file. I’ve learned to love this piece, and I’m glad to share excerpts here on Substack.
It begins with a foreword by Dr. Dąbrowski that you won’t want to miss. Here’s a link where you can read it in a browser.
Let’s begin with the summary, which introduces this document in a nutshell:
“Developmental psychology, in spite of its dynamic growth, has not, thus far, generated a general theory of human development. Present developmental theories are either cognitive or ontogenetic, or both. All are descriptive. Their powers of explanation are limited. None of them include emotional development.
It is argued that a theory of development in order to claim generality must (a) include emotional development, and (b) offer means of explaining, rather than only describing, developmental transformations. A nonontogenetic theory of development, called theory of positive disintegration, appears to fulfill these conditions. It is built on Jacksonian principles of evolution of levels of functioning.
The central concept of the theory is that of multilevelness of developmental phenomena. Development is seen to be a function of the level of behavioral organization. The theory defines five levels. Each level constitutes a distinct structure. The dynamic elements of the structure of each level are identified. Positive disintegration is the name for the process by which the structure of a higher level replaces the structure of a lower one.
The theory explains different developmental patterns by introducing the concept of developmental potential (DP). Although DP is a purely logical notion, it is given observable dimensions designated as dimensions of mental functioning. There are five of these and they correspond to psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual, and emotional modes of functioning.
The first half of the monograph is devoted to the conceptual structure of the theory. The second half to empirical tests of the theory. Three such tests were made on data generated from an atomistic analysis of autobiographies.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 239)
I’m going to share excerpts out of order and begin with these paragraphs describing the challenges Dąbrowski faced while developing his theory:
“The invasion of Poland in 1939 eliminated the possibility of any research or publication during the war. The postwar conditions, initially very difficult because of the devastation of the country and irreparable losses in highly educated and trained cadre, improved briefly only to deteriorate again because of political changes and pressures. In consequence, systematic research to test the developmental paradigm of the theory was not possible until 1969 when Canada Council awarded a three-year grant to Dr. Dabrowski, who at the time was a member of the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. The empirical studies described here relate a portion of the results of that three year research period.
In 1969 the constructs of developmental dynamisms and levels existed only in Dabrowski's description. One of the goals of the research was to relate the conceptual categories of the theory to verbally expressed behavior. To do this self-reports of subjects were submitted to complete analysis rather than being scrutinized only for typical expressions corresponding to the theoretical categories. Only in this way could one hope to demonstrate how to recognize a given dynamism or level of functioning in a variety of behavioral expressions. (Piechowski, 1975, p. 267)
The monograph offers a complete introduction to the theory of positive disintegration, supported by research. There is nothing else like it in the literature on Dąbrowski’s theory, which is sad to realize, considering that it was written fifty years ago.
If you want a fuller understanding of the theory of positive disintegration, I strongly recommend downloading this monograph and reading it carefully.
On Multilevelness
“Making multilevelness the central concept in the approach to development means that we now have a new key, or paradigm, with which to approach human behavior and its development. It becomes less meaningful to consider, for instance, aggression, inferiority, empathy, or sexual behavior as unitary phenomena, but it becomes more meaningful to examine their different levels. Love and aggression at the lowest level of development differ less than the lowest and the highest level of love, or the lowest and the highest level of aggression; at the highest level aggression is replaced by empathy.
At the lowest level of development different behaviors have a fairly simple underlying structure. With the progress of development toward higher levels the process of differentiation becomes so extensive that the differences between levels are by far greater and far more significant than differences between particular behaviors.
The concept of multilevelness is thus the starting point for the analysis of all forms of behavior and their development. It represents a “new system of thought,” suited to represent developmental approach on the official map of psychology.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 246)
Positive Disintegration
In the next section, he discussed positive disintegration as a general developmental principle.
The importance of inhibition can be found here.
“In the process of individual evolution conflict with one's milieu and with oneself plays a decisive role in inhibiting primitive impulses. Internal conflict appears as a factor of control. The conflict is more complex than the impulse it inhibits. The impulse represents a lower level of functioning, while the internal conflict, by virtue of its complexity and controlling effect, represents a higher level of functioning.
Inhibition is a fundamental feature of hierarchical control in biological systems. It comes in many different and quite complex patterns. It appears, for example, in the control of movements in early development, where the level of control migrates by progressive inhibition of the brain stem and the mid brain to the cortex.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 246)
In Episode 8, Surviving Disintegration, I shared this excerpt from the monograph describing positive disintegration:
“Positive disintegration means restructuring of the organization of affective and cognitive functions. It is called disintegration because the lower levels of functioning must break down before it is replaced by a new organization of a higher level. The term positive is used in the same sense of when we speak of evolution from lower to higher forms of life. Rather than in terms of age or learning, development is measured in terms of structural and functional reorganizations. By this definition, if there is no restructuring, there is no development.” (Piechowski, 1975a, p. 247)
Here’s more on positive disintegration from that page:
“Individual development may follow the maturational stages of the life cycle without any profound psychological transformation (i.e., without change in the emotional-cognitive structure). In such case there is no development in the sense of reorganization, and this adevelopmental structure has been called primary, or primitive, integration. In such a life history an individual follows the path of environmental adaptation. He learns, works, and fits in, but he does not suffer mental breakdown or experience ecstasy. In contrast, when in a life history mental breakdown or true ecstasy does take place we have a disintegration.
Disintegration may be positive or negative. Development is associated with positive disintegration, dissolution of mental functions with negative disintegration, absence of development with primary integration. Levels of integration and disintegration constitute a hierarchy. Primary integration is at the bottom, then three levels of disintegration (one unilevel, two of multilevel) and at the top secondary integration.
The concept of development through positive disintegration means that development occurs when there is movement (i.e., restructuring) at least from one level to another. The least development occurs from primary integration to the first level of disintegration. Development is more extensive when it proceeds through several levels of positive disintegration. Development is most extensive when it reaches secondary integration.” (Piechowski, 1975, pp. 247-248)
What leads to positive disintegration, and how does developmental potential factor in?
“Dabrowski described and analyzed a wide range of phenomena of disintegration in relation to periods of life: e.g., adolescence or climacteric, particularly stressful experiences such as the loss of property, position, youth or beauty, spouse or child, or the event of a serious illness, and in relation to psychoneurotic, gifted, creative and eminent personalities. External events triggering periods of disintegration cannot account for the great individual differences in how these events and their consequences are experienced and handled. Even less can they be invoked to account for those instances where a person deliberately seeks frustration and stressful conditions so that he would not stagnate in his development. Such development, propelled, as it were, from within, is a function of a strong developmental potential, and is not bound or determined by advancing age or environmental pressures. Such development, called accelerated, is particularly rich in positive disintegrations.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 248)
The process of positive disintegration includes the dynamisms, which distinguish the five developmental levels. Figure 1 is included below the following paragraphs:
“Developmental dynamisms are defined as intra psychic factors which carry out the process of restructuring emotional and cognitive organization. Each level of development is characterized by a different set of dynamisms, depicted in Figure 1 and described in detail by Dabrowski.
The dynamisms are often referred to as the "forces" which carry out the process of positive disintegration, as if somehow they were apart from it. Actually they are the disintegration. If they are weak, the disintegration is weak and limited (partial); if they are strong, the disintegration is strong and all-inclusive (global).
Here we shall concern ourselves only with the overall picture of the constellations of these dynamisms at each level of development as a means of defining and identifying the construct of each level. The spindle shapes in Figure l are meant to convey the idea that the dynamisms appear gradually. The black shading denotes tension associated with the activity of each dynamism. This tension gradually subsides in level IV. Personality ideal (top line), whose activity intensifies with higher levels of development, is the only exception.
There are no developmental dynamisms at level I. There are, however, conflicts of self-centered interests against environmental blocking. Such conflicts, supported by the cohesiveness of the primary undifferentiated structure, are only external. The disintegration of this structure begins with the mobilization of dynamisms characteristic of level II. The vectors of change appear in sets whose different members come into operation more or less at the same time. This is featured in the transition from level I to II, and from II to III. The transition from level III to IV is less sharp. Level IV is more "constructive" than ''destructive" because it crystallizes and solidifies the hierarchy emerging in level III. This contrasts with the "destructiveness" necessary to move from level I to II, and from level II to III. The latter transition constitutes a shift from an ahierarchical to a hierarchical internal organization.
The C on the left-hand side at the bottom of Figure l stands for a group of dynamisms which by themselves do not characterize any given level but which find expression at several different levels. These dynamisms continue to develop their activity at several successive levels. For instance, empathy is defined by Dabrowski as a concern and understanding of others combined with genuine readiness to help. It finds sporadic expressions at level II; at level III, it is not only more frequent but may become one of the moving forces of development; and at level IV, it is a pervasive force, fundamental to the organization of development. Empathy can thus be considered a developmental gradient and a sensitive gauge of the level of development (Dabrowski, personal communication).” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 277)
The descriptions of the levels of development in the monograph include:
Level I: Is the least differentiated level of development. This is depicted in the first vertical column of Figure 1. We note the absence of developmental dynamisms. In the broadest sense primary integration is an organization existing prior to development (i.e., prior to a restructuring of the emotional and cognitive organization). It is characterized by externality, rigidity, lack of emotional relationships with others (others are treated as things), instrumentality of intelligence (absence of reflection), absence of internal conflicts but occurrence of external conflicts. Behavior is oriented toward the satisfaction of basic needs and is in all its aspects egocentric, such as striving for positions of recognition and power.
Level II: Unilevel disintegration denotes a radical departure from the cohesive undifferentiated structure of primary integration (second vertical column of Figure l). Externality is still very strong but there are deviations from it; rigidity is replaced by hesitation, doubt, wavering attitudes, and changing likes and dislikes. Emotional relationships with others exist but may have emotional components to excess (e.g., overdependence on others, jealousy). Patterns of thought are often circular, although they may appear sophisticated. Internal conflicts appear but are often more readily resolved by chance or superficial considerations than by internal struggle. When internal conflicts are severe, they lack the crucial possibility of developmental resolution. Behavior is essentially disoriented and conforming to external standards. It follows changing fads, ideologies, and leaders with little evaluation. When behavior is nonconforming, even rebellious, it is still without direction here—it is not based on autonomously developed principles. Because of the general looseness and lack of hierarchical structure at this level of development, it can result in the most severe mental disorders: psychosis, schizophrenia, phobias, psychosomatic disorders, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
Level III: Spontaneous multilevel disintegration is characterized by an extensive differentiation of psychological structures and functions (third vertical column of figure 1). Internal experiential processes begin to influence behavior more and more, wavering is replaced by a growing sense of “what ought to be” as opposed to “what is” in one's own personality structure. Emotional relationships with others become more selective and exclusive. Internal conflicts are numerous and reflect a hierarchical organization of cognitive and emotional life: “what is” against “what ought to be.” Behavior is guided by an emerging autonomous, emotionally discovered hierarchy of values and aims. Self-evaluation, reflection, intense moral conflicts, perception of the uniqueness of others, and existential anxiety are among the characteristic phenomena at this level of development. Outside of a developmental framework such reactions are considered psychoneurotic. To uncover the developmental multilevel nature of most psychoneurotic processes constitutes the major thrust of the clinical part of Dabrowski's work, as well as of his efforts to show that processes of the same nature operate in the development of creative personalities.
Level IV: Since level IV is also a hierarchical structure, and a further elaboration of that of level III, this accounts for overlaps between the two levels (Figure 1). But the distinguishing feature of level IV is conscious formation and synthesis directed and self-determined organization of development. In contrast to the spontaneity of level III, the establishment of an internal hierarchy occurs at level IV consciously. While tensions and conflicts are not as strong as at level III, autonomy and the internal hierarchy of values and aims are much stronger and much more clearly developed. Behavior tends toward self-perfection and service to others.
Level V: Secondary integration represents the highest level of development. At this level the process of developmental synthesis leads to a harmonious unity as a function of the “fullest dynamization of the ideal.” Those who achieve it epitomize universal compassion and self-sacrifice. There are no internal conflicts at this level, in the sense of opposition between “what is” and “what ought to be.” Developmental differentiation reaches here its full fruition. The lower “what is” is replaced by the “ought” of the highest level, which thus becomes the new and ultimate “what is.” The internal split disappears, but without it the ultimate synthesis should not have been possible. (Piechowski, 1975, pp. 260-262)
Understanding the Unilevel and Multilevel Processes
We’ve discussed unilevel and multilevel development on the podcast, but we don’t always take the time to explain what we mean in depth. Michael wrote about the structural differences between the unilevel and multilevel processes in the monograph.
“The structure of unilevel disintegration and the structure of multilevel disintegration are entirely different. In unilevel disintegration conflicts are horizontal, the opposing tendencies of equal value; everything is relative, arbitrary, governed by moment and circumstance. In multilevel disintegration the conflicts are vertical, the opposing tendencies of lower and higher value (“what is” and “what ought to be”): relativism and chance yield to a developmental hierarchy of autonomous direction and autonomous choice.
The two structures appear to have nothing in common. Consequently, there is no way in which to produce a multilevel structure out of all possible unilevel ones. Unilevel times unilevel times unilevel remains unilevel just as unilevel superimposed on unilevel remains unilevel. On the other hand, once a multilevel structure appears in the form of a strong multilevel conflict, which means that the activity of multilevel dynamisms as determinants of behavior is strongly registered, it cannot be collapsed back to a unilevel structure. The transition from a unilevel to a multilevel phase of development is both the most crucial and the most unexpected developmental event. It can be observed in statu nascendi (section III, C., response unit no. 80) yet it cannot be readily explained.
One can think of integration and disintegration as opposite poles of a continuum between maximum of structure and total lack of structure. This gets us only as far as unilevel disintegration, which, in fact, may be temporary and may revert back to primary integration. However, unilevel and multilevel disintegration cannot be thought of as opposite poles of a continuum. The unrelatedness of these two types of structure contradicts the expectations of some theoreticians that lower levels of organization logically imply the higher ones or that to study development one has to have a conception of its end state. Indeed, one might well ask how is a butterfly logically implied in the larva, or a complete virus in the unassembled mixture of proteins and nucleic acids. Similarly nothing in the unilevel structure can imply a level hierarchy because multilevelness, by definition, is already hierarchical and multilevel. Therefore, it follows logically that the potential for multilevel development must exist already in the original endowment: i.e. in the developmental potential.” (Piechowski, 1975, pp. 265-266)
Developmental Potential and the Overexcitabilities
The next Interesting Quotes post will be all about overexcitability, so I’m not going to go into it in depth here. But there were a few excerpts I wanted to add to this post.
“The defining characteristics of DP are forms of overexcitability and developmental dynamisms. Dynamisms are intrapsychic processes of positive disintegration which shape development and the expression of behavior. Each level of development has a different set of dynamisms.” (Piechowski, 1975)
You can see in Figure 1 above how the dynamisms operate at the different levels.
“The forms of overexcitability can be observed and measured independently of the context of development. In this lies their value and significance as measurable developmental properties which do not enter into the description of development (like dynamisms do). When a given phenomenon can be accounted for in terms of factors which are not part of its description but whose operation can be measured quantitatively, then we are on the way to explaining the phenomenon. Thus, for example, we explain eye color in terms of pigments and genes necessary to make the organism capable of producing those pigments. Neither the genes nor the pigments enter into the description of eye color.” (Piechowski, 1975)
The fact that overexcitability can be observed and measured independently of the context of development connects with myth #3 from my post from NAGC. Beware of opinions from people who haven’t been trained to do research. Again, we’re reminded that the overexcitabilities predated the theory:
“The five forms of psychic overexcitability were discovered by Dabrowski prior to the formulation of his theory. In his 1938 paper are described "types of increased psychic overexcitabilities."1 Dabrowski noticed that many children, adolescents, and also adults, consistently overreact to external and internal (i.e., intrapsychic) stimuli. The important aspect of his observation was that while the stimuli were different, the overreacting appeared limited to certain dimensions. Dabrowski called this consistent tendency to overreact overexcitability; distinguishing five different forms: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 255)
An aspect of emotional overexcitability that is often overlooked is its relational connection, as described here:
“Emotional overexcitability is a function of experiencing emotional relationships. The relationships can manifest as strong attachment to persons, living things, or places. From the point of view presented here intensity of feelings and display of emotions alone are not developmentally significant unless the experiential aspect of relationship is present.” (Piechowski, 1975a, p. 257)
Concluding thoughts
Last year, the Dabrowski Study Group read this monograph and discussed it during two monthly meetings in the fall. While reading, I made some notes about things that we now know are not correct or that research has provided new insights on.
For instance, Michael would no longer say that a person can be limited to operating only from the first factor of development. We know that the influence of the social environment, or second factor, is inescapable. There’s no such thing as an individual operating only from the first factor or the biological or hereditary influences. I believe it would be worth doing a second post about this monograph and pointing out these issues that came up. I’ll have to check with Michael and see if he’d be interested in helping with that because I vaguely remember that he also made a list of errors and corrections.
If you missed the link at the beginning of the post, click here to download a PDF of the monograph.
Next, in the Interesting Quotes series, I’ll share excerpts from Michael’s 1979 chapter “Developmental Potential” from New Voices in Counseling the Gifted by Colangelo and Zaffrann (Eds.).
This paper, “Types of Increased Psychic Excitability,” was translated by Michael in 2018 and published in Advanced Development Journal.