Case analysis from ego psychology perspectives
Introduction
This paper, divided into two parts, is intended to understand April’s case in a “thoughtfully eclectic” way from a social work perspective by applying human behavior theories. The first part shows the use of Ego Psychology to illustrate how loss from April’s father’s death interrupted her development by disrupting her ego function. The second part shows the assessment of April’s biological, psychological, and social-emotional development, the ecological factors which affected her development, and the cultural stereotype expectation on normal development.
Question One:
April’s arrival was not expected by her mother; this unexpected pregnancy may have caused stress to the mother (Joy) while she carried April. This was compounded by April’s premature birth followed by other challenges, such as her father’s frequent absence due to deployment and the family’s constant movement and relocation every three years because of the father’s military profession. These pre-tragedy stresses may have impacted her ego function, especially in building up object relation. Still, despite these challenges, April’s caregivers provided her with an “average expectable environment,” which was reasonably protective and gratifying (Hartman, 1939). As a result, she grew up as a normal, even developmentally advanced, girl in many areas.
Then tragedy struck. Her father committed suicide.
The impacts of the experiences in April’s short life affected how she dealt with this loss. As Corr and Corr (2004) stated, four primary variables influence a child’s course through the grief process following the death of a loved one: meaning and power of relationship with the deceased, unique circumstances of the death, unique character of the child, nature, and availability of support received from the child’s environment. Clearly, the death of her father was a profound loss to April, the primary loss of an attachment figure. Even though her basic needs might have been met by other family
This paper, divided into two parts, is intended to understand April’s case in a “thoughtfully eclectic” way from a social work perspective by applying human behavior theories. The first part shows the use of Ego Psychology to illustrate how loss from April’s father’s death interrupted her development by disrupting her ego function. The second part shows the assessment of April’s biological, psychological, and social-emotional development, the ecological factors which affected her development, and the cultural stereotype expectation on normal development.
Question One:
April’s arrival was not expected by her mother; this unexpected pregnancy may have caused stress to the mother (Joy) while she carried April. This was compounded by April’s premature birth followed by other challenges, such as her father’s frequent absence due to deployment and the family’s constant movement and relocation every three years because of the father’s military profession. These pre-tragedy stresses may have impacted her ego function, especially in building up object relation. Still, despite these challenges, April’s caregivers provided her with an “average expectable environment,” which was reasonably protective and gratifying (Hartman, 1939). As a result, she grew up as a normal, even developmentally advanced, girl in many areas.
Then tragedy struck. Her father committed suicide.
The impacts of the experiences in April’s short life affected how she dealt with this loss. As Corr and Corr (2004) stated, four primary variables influence a child’s course through the grief process following the death of a loved one: meaning and power of relationship with the deceased, unique circumstances of the death, unique character of the child, nature, and availability of support received from the child’s environment. Clearly, the death of her father was a profound loss to April, the primary loss of an attachment figure. Even though her basic needs might have been met by other family