Faith Development: Stage Three

This article continues a series on faith development, begun several weeks ago.  First time readers are encouraged to read the earlier articles to put today's into context, beginning with the first week.

Stage 3/Synthetic Conventional Faith: There is a great deal of information from Piaget, Kohlberg and Erikson (on cognitive, moral and psychosocial development, respectively) that has bearing on the development of Synthetic Conventional faith.  It is difficult to condense it in a clear way.  I also had to ask myself how much relevance this information has in a Patch blog. I opted to include it, while trying to keep it to a minimum, because I believe those with the patience to read through it a few times will better appreciate the nuances of this stage of faith development. 

It is this stage of development Fowler's research found most people and institutions to be operating from, so today's article will be longer to include more information on this most important stage.  Finally, let me remind everyone that we are not simply talking about the kind of faith found in houses of worship.  This process depicts the kind of faith operating in political parties, food co-ops, armies or any type of affiliation in something larger than the individual.

I will begin this stage with Piaget, and what he terms the “formal operational” level of cognitive development.  This occurs in all of us beginning around adolescence, and is solidified by age 14.  It follows the “concrete operational” stage of the elementary school years, which was discussed in the last article in conjunction with the Stage 2/Mythic-Literal level of faith development.

It is easiest to understand the formal operational level of development if we compare and contrast it with the concrete operational stage that preceded it.  We said that the concrete operational child is very much occupied with understanding how the laws and structures of the outer world work.  The elementary school child is acquiring knowledge of different systems:  grammar, arithmetic, spelling, etc.  Their games become more real life and rule bound, with less use of fantasy than the games of the preschool child.

Ultimately, however, the concrete operational child is embedded in his reality, incapable of stepping outside it or himself and viewing his life from a distance or from a different perspective. If you were to ask a 10-year-old boy how he thought his life was progressing and what he thought of his future, you would most likely get a puzzled stare in response.

All of this changes with the formal operational stage. With this new level of cognitive development, the adolescent is suddenly capable of thinking in abstractions, to “think about thinking.”  We can readily see this in academics. For example, a fifth grade child could easily answer the question “What is 12 divided by 6?” but could not be taught, no matter how bright she is, how to solve: “6x = 12, what is x?”  The math is the same, but the fifth grader is not capable of the abstraction included in the algebra of the second problem. 

This ability to step back and think conceptually is a very exciting development for the teen.  They practice this newfound skill by manipulating ideas, values and concepts.  They create different notions of ideal worlds using peers, popular culture or their parents’ values as proving grounds against which to test their different ideas. The ability to see oneself from the outside in is also part of the intense preoccupation of teens with how they are viewed by others – it is the first time they are cognitively equipped to have an in depth awareness of being seen by an other.

Kohlberg writes of the implications for moral development that come with this ability to step outside one’s immediate experience and view oneself from the outside.  He describes it as a two-way process.  One direction is: “I am aware of how you are seeing me.”  The other direction is:  “I am aware you are aware of how I see you.”  This mutual perspective taking and awareness of it – that we are all, to varying degrees, concerned with how we are viewed, creates a morality where actions are to be judged based on how they might appear to others.  The “others” will be persons of significance in one’s life, or an institution that represents the ideals of significant people in one’s life, such as a church, political organization, or the PTA.

From one standpoint this is an impressive moral achievement. It is something the individual must construct for herself for the first time, vs. the more unquestioning stance of the concrete operational/elementary school years. At the same time, it is still an interpersonally based stance and is ultimately conformist, driven more by how something might appear than an individual decision of what is right. (There has been a feminist critique of the view that this represents a “lower” moral position by one of Kohlberg’s students, Carol Gilligan, who found that women operate at this stage more frequently than men because they more naturally tune in to interpersonal cues in deciding a course of action.) We usually think of teenagers as anything but conformist, but research shows teens form their opinions largely in response to the opinions of an admired group or individual, not as a result of their own individual searching.  More surprising is that it is their parents’ opinions and values that influence teens more than any other group or individual.

Erikson puts these changes in the cognitive and moral spheres into the broader context of adolescent development:  the teen is also changing in body and in social roles.  The ability to see oneself from the outside and for mutual perspective taking creates a situation where the teen constantly is seeing someone very different reflected back to him when he interacts with teachers, parents, peers, or his bathroom mirror.  Erikson talks of the teen needing to develop a stable identity, saying that the challenge of the teenage years is between “identity” and “role confusion.”  One way to get a sense of the incredible balancing act required is to remember yourself as a teen and to imagine you are in the same room with your grandmother, mother, an admired teacher, the girl on whom you have a crush, and a school bully you typically avoid.  How would you behave?

It is now possible to approach Stage 3/Synthetic Conventional Faith with enough theoretical grounding to appreciate its component parts.  Again, it is easiest to approach this stage by contrasting it with what came before it. 

In the Mythic-Literal Faith of Stage 2, the individual is rule-bound and embedded in the faith system in an unquestioning way.  Recall the quote from Deuteronomy from the last article:  Do right and God will reward you, do wrong and God will punish you.  The achievement of this stage is the development of a more or less reliable code of behavior – right action leads to good and wrong action leads to bad.  But it is the faith equivalent of a child doing right because if she doesn’t she’ll “get in trouble.”  There is little internal ownership of the principles of right and wrong.  It is obedience, not right action.

In the Bible,  we get our first depiction of the move from Stage 2 faith in Genesis 3:6-11:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate.  She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.  Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

They heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.  The Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”  He replied, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”  Then He asked, “Who told you that you were naked?  Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?”

Adam and Even initially are living an “embedded” existence of perfect obedience and harmony.  They taste the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and their consciousness of right and wrong is born.  One aspect of this new awareness could be said to correspond to the shift to formal operations from the concrete operational world they lived in prior to tasting the fruit.  They are suddenly aware of themselves in new ways, and God knows they tasted the fruit because of this awareness (“Who told you that you were naked?”).  This consciousness of self brings new responsibility and new freedom.

Fowler’s depiction of Stage 3 Synthetic Conventional Faith suggests the first step we would naturally take with birth of consciousness of self is depicted in the story of Adam and Eve.  He applies the understandings of the teen years of Piaget, Kohlberg and Erikson to people at this stage of faith development. The person in Stage 3 is interested in constructing a personal story based on all the various identities consciousness of self makes possible.  Faith must provide a synthesis of these identities (this is the “synthetic” half of “synthetic conventional” faith).

Like teens, in Stage 3 we create this synthesis on the basis of interpersonally shared values. 

The “conventional” half of the term “synthetic conventional” derives from Fowler’s assertion that the tribal identity is based on conventional values.  We all tacitly agree to behave alike, to hold the same beliefs, even to dislike the same people.  For example, in the liberal Berkeley faith system we drive a Prius, eat organic food,  vote Democrat and support liberal causes.  (I have often wondered what would happen to me if I were to drive a Hummer with a Republican bumper sticker down Telegraph Avenue, smoking a cigarette out an open window.)  Just this depiction can give you a depiction of the Synthetic Conventional faith:  it is consensually based and validated and we know from a glance what camp you belong to.  We don’t stand outside our belief system and critically examine it though we do frequently criticize the belief system of others as a way of bolstering our own faith system.  I find this piece somewhat puzzling and not adequately explained in Fowler’s book:  the revolution in thought that happens by moving to formal operations should make this stepping outside possible.  But that doesn’t really begin to happen until Stage 4.

The anthropomorphic experience of God from Stage 2 is reworked.  God is no longer thought of as an old man with a white beard – essentially an all powerful parent figure more befitting the concrete operational elementary school child.  The mutual perspective taking and intense interpersonal connections of the formal operational stage find their formulation in a God who is capable of seeing and accepting us in all our multiplicity:  “It is not surprising that so many of the images of transcendence that appeal to persons in Stage 3 have the characteristics of a divinely personal significant other” (Fowler, p. 154).

Symbols at Stage 3 no longer have the magical quality from Stage 2.  At the same time, because of the largely tacit and conventional understandings of the Synthetic Conventional, the symbols are difficult to separate from what they symbolize.  Fowler used the example of the American flag, and what it triggered for the construction workers and the anti-war protesters who squared off against each other during the Vietnam war, with opposite but equally passionate responses to this red, white and blue symbol.

Fowler’s research found that the majority of people are predominately in the Synthetic Conventional mode of faith.  He also suggests most churches and synagogues operate at this stage.  This makes sense on a number of levels.  First, this level is very conducive to a large group being led by a few leaders – it is conservative, consensual and largely conformist.  Second, the formal operations cognitive level to which it corresponds is our final level of cognitive development, at least in Piaget’s schema.  Third, most people’s last formal religious educational experience happened in their teen years.  Finally, there is a dearth of cultural or media models for faith development beyond this stage.  Fowler concludes his description of this stage by saying that it is “frequently the experience of ‘leaving home’ – emotionally or physically, or both” that can lead to a transition to Stage 4, the stage we will examine in next week's posting. 

Do you have a question about your marriage or relationship? Is there a particular topic on relationships or individual psychological issues you would like addressed in this blog? Ask Josh in the comments below or email him at josh@joshgressel.com.

Josh Gressel, Ph.D., is a couples and individual therapist based in Pleasant Hill, CA. Visit his website at joshgressel.com.  He is currently accepting referrals.