Running Head: DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FIDDLER
A Developmental Analysis of Fiddler on the Roof
Brett W. Pelham
Montgomery College
Word Count: 799
1
Running Head: DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FIDDLER
A Developmental Analysis of Fiddler on the Roof
Fiddler on the Roof (1971) has long delighted audiences with its bittersweet story of a Jewish family
coming to terms with uncertainty and oppression. Fiddler focuses on the family life and culture of
Russian Jews in the early 20th century. Tevye is the main character – a devout, outgoing farmer and
milkman. Tevye and his wife Golde struggle to survive, to rear five daughters, and to keep their religious
traditions alive in a Russia where being Jewish is as precarious as trying to play a fiddle on a rooftop.
The film’s dual story lines are (a) the marriages of Tevye’s three oldest daughters and (b) the simmering
oppression Tevye and his fellow Jews face from the government. A clear theme that unites these two
story lines is tradition, which is all important to Tevye. Traditions tell Tevye everything from how
marriage should work to how to deal with poverty and injustice.
Two key ideas in the movie are relevant to psychology. These are (a) the cultural transition from
collectivism to individualism and (b) Erik Erikson’s intimacy vs. isolation. Beginning with culture,
psychologists distinguish between collectivistic cultures which focus on cooperation, connectedness,
and a group identity and individualistic cultures – which focus on the rights, traits, and desires of the
individual. In collectivistic cultures, people are expected to put the needs of ingroup members ahead of
their own (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Historically most human cultures were
collectivistic. Even today, most cultures are collectivistic (most of Africa, Asia, and South America).
However, in wealthy countries, a decreased dependence on one’s family, ethnic, or religious group led
to an individualistic orientation, which emphasizes the individual person’s rights and wishes. In Tevye’s
rapidly changing world, the collectivistic values he cherishes are not endorsed by his three oldest
daughters – who all wish to marry someone of their own choosing. This tension between the daughters’
individualistic desires and Tevye’s commitment to tradition is a central theme of the film. At one point,
even Tevye himself comes to question whether he married Golde because it was arranged by a
matchmaker or whether Golde truly loves him. The song “Do You Love Me?” poignantly illustrates this
point.
Erikson’s developmental stage of intimacy versus isolation also offers a nice lens for the film. But if
the events in the film are realistic, they stand as a challenge to Erikson’s theory. Erikson stated that
during early adulthood, people become extremely concerned with the development of an intimate
relationship (Erikson, called this dilemma intimacy versus isolation). It is obvious that Tevye’s daughters
are all very concerned with finding a good husband. In Tevye’s world of 1905, adolescence was probably
truncated so that Tevye’s daughters were treated as very young adults soon after they reached puberty
(Arnett, 2010). It thus makes sense that they would be concerned with finding a desirable husband. It
also makes sense that Tevye would be more concerned with making sure they found a husband with
good financial prospects. In contrast, the three daughters didn’t seem to worry much about finding a
meal ticket. Instead, they worried about finding someone to whom they were personally – and
2
Running Head: DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FIDDLER
physically – attracted. If we breathe some common sense and evolutionary thinking into Erikson’s
theory, this is all perfectly consistent with his predictions.
However, Erikson’s theory would not predict that Tevye would question his own marriage. Tevye’s
seems to have reverted back to early adulthood, when we might have understood very well his concerns
about whether his wife really loves him. Erikson would have to predict that in middle adulthood, Tevye
should have been worrying about generativity vs. stagnation. Tevye was deeply concerned with
generativity (caring for others), whether this meant dragging his wagon to the village to sell dairy or
debating whether he should require his oldest daughter to marry a wealthy but aging suitor. So Tevye
was doing in these areas what Erikson said one should do in middle adulthood. Finally, if we assume
Tevye was getting old by the standards of 1905, it makes sense that he often expressed concerns about
integrity versus despair (Eriksons’ final stage). Tevye’s debates with others about the Torah and his
struggles about whether he should allow his daughters to marry as they pleased reflected his desire to
maintain a sense of integrity and meaning. Putting all this together, it is clear that Tevye shared the
Eriksonian concerns of most adults in his age group, but he also seems to have reverted back to an
earlier stage involving intimacy. This is inconsistent with Erikson’s stage model.
In the end, Tevye’s religious faith seems to have allowed him to find meaning, to appreciate his life,
and to accept the difficult fate that awaited him in a strange new country, where his grandkids probably
became playmates of Erik Erikson (who was born in 1902).
3
Running Head: DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FIDDLER
References
Arnett, J. J. (2010). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (4th ed.).
Boston: Prentice Hall.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96, 506-520.
4
Purchase answer to see full
attachment