Almost the exact opposite of what The Life and Times of Frida Kahlo represented, this show represented how children should act. They should be open, accepting of their peers, seeking what is on the inside versus what is on the outside. Unlike Saving Faces, it downplayed the role of physical appearance in personal identity, but also unlike The Life and Times of Frida Kahlo, it is a strict example of correct social development, and plays up the role of social interactions in development, which can be understood since the audience would consist of younger children who are not quite at a point yet to take true conscious control of their development.
[...] But she chose the person she saw when she looked in the window. She was not some byproduct of unconscious drives. While cognitive psychologists believe that behavior is designed to achieve a state of mental equilibrium, that when trauma causes disequilibrium the mind searches only to return to its original state, Frida lived for that imbalanced existence, feeding disequilibrium with only more disequilibrium. Her art, her therapy, rarely made her feel any better. On the other hand, the Saving Faces exhibit portrays individuals who, unable to cope with disfigurement, seek operations to save normality. [...]
[...] In conclusion, it is obvious that no one developmental theory explains all. If anything, the surface of understanding humanity can only be scratched with the aide of all theories. Yet at the same time, almost every developmental theory seems to lack acknowledgment of the role of conscious thought in development, condemning individuals to a pre-planned life either as healthy members of society or failures. But the truth is, both outcomes are choices left solely to the individual, as are the infinite possibilities in-between. [...]
[...] How can psychological theories limit humans to two destinations? For example, Erik Erikson divides the lifespan into stages, each with two possible outcomes, one positive and one negative, one considered adjustment and one considered maladjustment. Children will either learn to trust or learn to distrust, and elders will either look back on their lives with pride or look back with resentment. But along with such extremes exists also a middle ground, and not to say that everyone will fall in this gray area, because some will reach the drastic outskirts, but each individual's place on the spectrum of development is his or her individual choice. [...]
[...] The role of the unconscious mind is often overlooked in developmental theory, but only through choice is the unique person forged from universal disaster. For the most part, much of childhood development does happen unconsciously. Mental and physical maturation are innate, necessary for survival, remnants of more animalistic existences. Even when tragedy occurs, children cope, in many ways more adequately than adults, because the brain is programmed to protect above all costs individuals of such immature mental capacities: defense mechanisms are initiated automatically. [...]
using our reader.