Series VI, Article 3: Generativity Across Both Pathways

The question that generativity asks is different from all the questions that came before it. Trust asked whether the world could be relied on. Autonomy and initiative asked whether the self was allowed to act from itself. Identity asked who the self actually was. Intimacy asked who could genuinely know it and be known by it in return. Generativity turns in a different direction entirely: what does the self offer to what comes after it? (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997).

Erikson placed this question in middle adulthood, though like all his stages it is not rigidly age-bound. Its concern is contribution: the investment of the self's knowledge, care, creativity, and attention into people, ideas, and structures that will continue after the self is gone. Its virtue is care in the developmental sense, not simply the feeling of caring but the active, sustained investment of the self in something beyond itself. And its failure state, stagnation, is the condition in which that investment does not occur: the self remaining organized around its own concerns, its energy circling inward rather than offered outward (Erikson, 1963; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992).

What generativity looks like, and what stagnation looks like, differs meaningfully across the two developmental pathways. The channels through which contribution flows are shaped by the same pathways that have shaped everything else in this series. Understanding generativity across both requires understanding not only what each pathway offers, but what conditions allow that offering to find its way out into the world.

Generativity Along the Spiral Pathway

For people on the non-autistic pathway, generativity tends to flow through the relational channels the spiral has been building all along. The social oscillation continues to run as it always has, with the person's care and attention directed through it toward the next generation, toward the community, toward the people and relationships and institutions that will continue when this particular life is over (Erikson & Erikson, 1997; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992).

The forms this takes are varied: parenting and the deliberate shaping of the conditions a child grows up in, mentoring and the transmission of knowledge and experience to people earlier in their developmental journey, community involvement and the investment of care in the shared life of the people around them, creative and professional contribution and the leaving behind of something that will be of use to others (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). What these forms have in common is the relational architecture the spiral produces: the continuous, socially-embedded orientation toward others that the non-autistic pathway has been developing since the trust stage first established whether the world was safe to reach toward.

The virtue of care, in this context, is the developmental achievement of turning that relational orientation outward in a way that genuinely serves what comes next rather than simply managing the immediate relational field. The person who has navigated the spiral's developmental arc and arrived at generativity with a stable identity, genuine intimacy, and a well-calibrated oscillation brings to this stage a particular readiness: they know who they are, they know how to be genuinely known, and they have enough relational surplus to direct care toward what comes after rather than requiring all of it for the management of the present (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997).

For the high body empathetic in MacMillan's theoretical framework, the generativity stage presents a specific challenge that the series on boundaries and identity has traced from different angles. The nervous system that organizes itself so readily around others' experience, that offers care continuously and often without reserve, may find that by the time generativity's question arrives, much of the care that was meant to flow outward has been consumed by accommodation: organized around the needs of a specific close relationship rather than offered more broadly into the world. The transition from that kind of care, care as absorption in another person's experience, to generativity's care, the outward investment in what comes next, is a specific developmental movement that the high body empathetic's nervous system does not make automatically. It requires the same assimilative work the identity and intimacy series described: staying in one's own experience clearly enough to know what one actually has to offer, and then offering it outward rather than inward.

Generativity Along the Staircase Pathway

For autistic people, the generative impulse takes many forms: parenting, teaching, mentoring, specialized professional contribution, advocacy, creative work, community building. What the staircase pathway brings to those forms is often distinctive in character, and it also opens generative channels that the conventional developmental template has not yet adequately named (Kapp, 2020; Kapp et al., 2013).

The staircase builds deep, specialized, sequential understanding of whatever it concentrates its attention on. That understanding becomes genuinely available to others when it is offered explicitly and directly, in the form the staircase naturally produces, rather than translated into the ambient social language the non-autistic pathway uses by default (Baron-Cohen, 2009; Happé & Frith, 2006). It brings honesty to communication that cuts through the layers of social indirection, and carries, for many autistic people, a particular orientation toward justice: the recognition of systemic wrong, the drive to correct it, the commitment to building conditions that are better for the people who come after (Kapp, 2020; Kapp et al., 2013).

These capacities are generative in Erikson's fullest sense. The autistic parent who raises a child with explicit attentiveness to that child's developmental needs, naming what they observe and building what the child requires rather than relying on ambient attunement to carry the work; the autistic teacher or mentor who transmits what they know with a precision and directness that reaches people the conventional mode would miss; the autistic person who contributes specialized knowledge to a field or community, who advocates for the structural changes that would make environments more hospitable to autistic development, who builds the community resources that earlier autistic generations did not have: all of these are generativity (Erikson, 1963; Kapp, 2020; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). The concern for what comes after the self, the investment in conditions and people and structures that will outlast the self, is precisely what Erikson described. The channels through which it flows are the channels each person has found.

There is something specifically powerful about autistic generativity directed toward other autistic people. The knowledge that comes from having navigated the autistic developmental pathway, from having experienced the correction environments and the masking and the identity confusion and the intimacy mismatch and the process of reworking earlier stages with accurate information, is knowledge that cannot be provided by anyone who has not been on that pathway (Hull et al., 2017; Kapp, 2020; Kapp et al., 2013). The autistic adult who supports a younger autistic person through the moratorium that identification initiates, or who builds into a professional or creative context the explicit accommodations the staircase needs in order to contribute fully, or who adds their voice to the literature that makes autistic lives more accurately described: that person is offering something that generativity in the traditional template has not quite named but that is unmistakably what generativity points toward.

When the Channels Are Blocked

Stagnation, the failure state of generativity, looks different across the two pathways and requires two different accounts (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997).

For people on the non-autistic pathway, stagnation in the Eriksonian sense is the failure of care to turn outward: the self remaining organized around its own concerns when it has the capacity and the resources to invest in what comes next (Erikson, 1963; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). For the high body empathetic, stagnation may take a particular form: care that has been so thoroughly organized around another person's needs, in the over-accommodating relational patterns the series on boundaries and identity traced, that the outward turn of genuine generativity has never been made. The care is present but pointed inward, toward the management of the immediate relational field, rather than outward toward what comes after.

For autistic people, stagnation requires a different account entirely. The Eriksonian concept implies a self that has turned inward by choice or failure of development, a self-absorption that has prevented the outward investment of care. That account does not fit many autistic people's experience of what prevents generative contribution. For many autistic people, the capacity and the desire to contribute are genuinely present. What is absent is not the will to give but the channels through which giving is possible (Kapp, 2020; Milton, 2012).

Employment barriers, social exclusion, the absence of environments that can recognize and receive autistic contributions, and the accumulated depletion of autistic burnout: these are not stagnation in the developmental sense but obstruction in the environmental one (Hedley et al., 2017; Hirvikoski & Blomqvist, 2015; Raymaker et al., 2020). The person whose specialized knowledge and pattern recognition and systematic care have never found a channel through which they could be received and used is not failing at generativity. They are being failed by environments that have not built the channels generativity requires. That distinction matters for how we understand what autistic adults need at this stage: not encouragement to stop being self-absorbed, but access to the conditions and communities and structures through which their genuine contribution can actually flow.

What Generativity Looks Like When It Flows

When the conditions are right and the channels are available, what generativity produces across both pathways is recognizable as the same thing despite looking different in each: the sense that the self's work in the world is not only about the self. That there is something being built, or transmitted, or protected, or made possible that will continue when the builder is gone. That the developmental work of all the previous stages has accumulated into something that can now be genuinely offered beyond the self (Erikson & Erikson, 1997; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992).

The virtue of care, expressed through whatever forms of contribution each person has found, is not a feeling but a practice: the ongoing, sustained investment of what the self has developed into what comes next (Erikson, 1963; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). And what it makes possible, in turn, is the final question that Erikson's arc asks: whether the life that has been lived, with all its difficulties and its particular shape, can be looked back on as genuinely and irreversibly one's own.

That is where the next post turns.

Next in this series: Integrity Across Both Pathways, what looking back on the life and finding it one's own requires along the spiral and staircase pathways, the different forms the life review takes, and what both pathways are reaching toward when they ask, at the end of the arc, whether the life was worth having lived.


THE SERIES

Article 1: The Arc That Does Not End
Article 2: Returning to Earlier Ground
Article 3: Generativity Across Both Pathways
Article 4: Integrity Across Both Pathways
Article 5: The Destination

References

Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x

Botha, M., Dibb, B., & Frost, D. M. (2022). “It’s being a part of a grand tradition, a grand counter-culture which involves communities”: A qualitative investigation of autistic community connectedness. Autism, 26(8), 2151–2164. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221080248

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, J. M. (1997). The life cycle completed: Extended version. W. W. Norton.

Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: Detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0

Hedley, D., Uljarević, M., Cameron, L., Halder, S., Richdale, A., & Dissanayake, C. (2017). Employment programmes and interventions targeting adults with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Autism, 21(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316661855

Hirvikoski, T., & Blomqvist, M. (2015). High self-perceived stress and poor coping in intellectually able adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 19(6), 752–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314543530

Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5

Kapp, S. K. (Ed.). (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0

Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028353

McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1003

Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., Kapp, S. K., Hunter, M., Joyce, A., & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079