Masking as Boundary Collapse

What Happens When the Self Learns to Override Itself

There is a moment in the developmental history of many autistic people when the calculation becomes clear, even if it is never conscious, even if it is never put into words. The moment when the accumulated evidence of moving through environments that do not receive the authentic self well enough becomes sufficient to produce a conclusion: the self, as it naturally is, is not safe to bring into this space. Something else is needed. Something more legible, more acceptable, more closely approximating what the environment has demonstrated it can receive without correction or rejection or the particular social costs that follow from being consistently misread (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

That conclusion, and the behavioral pattern it produces, is what the research calls masking or camouflaging (Cook et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017, 2019). And it is one of the most consequential things that can happen to an autistic person's development, not because it is a failure of the autistic person, but because it is the self's reasonable response to a developmental environment that has not been built to hold it well (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

This post is about what masking actually is, where it comes from, and what it costs. It is also about what it would take to make it less necessary, which requires understanding not just the behavior but the developmental history that makes it feel, for so many autistic people, like the only available path to belonging (Bradley et al., 2021; Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Perry et al., 2022).

What Masking Is, and What It Is Not

The research defines masking, or camouflaging, as the effortful suppression of natural autistic responses and the conscious or semiconscious performance of non-autistic social behavior in order to appear more socially acceptable (Cook et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017, 2019). It includes hiding stimming behaviors, forcing eye contact, monitoring and adjusting one's own speech and body language in real time, memorizing and applying social scripts, and performing emotional responses that match what the social environment expects rather than what is actually being felt (Bradley et al., 2021; Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Hull et al., 2017).

What this definition captures accurately is the behavioral content of masking. What it can understate is the developmental weight of it, the fact that masking is not a strategy that autistic people choose from a menu of available options. It is what the self produces when the menu has been consistently organized around one message: the authentic self is not quite right, and something more acceptable is required (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Perry et al., 2022).

Understood developmentally, masking is a boundary phenomenon. It is what happens when the boundary between the self and the environment's demands collapses inward, when the self stops asserting its own limits and begins organizing itself around the limits the environment has imposed (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). It is the lived consequence of developmental environments that could not hold the autistic self where it actually was, and of a social world that has consistently signaled that the authentic self requires modification before it will be welcome (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

This is not a small thing to name. It means that masking is not primarily a communication strategy or a social skills phenomenon. It is a self-suppression phenomenon, and the self being suppressed is not a collection of behaviors. It is the developmental foundation on which identity, autonomy, and genuine relationship are built (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Evans et al., 2024; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Where Masking Comes From

The previous posts in this series have traced two failure modes of the developmental environment: the over-control environment that chronically corrects and overrides the autistic self, and the over-support environment that removes the calibrated challenge the self needs to discover its own genuine limits and the genuine limits of others. Post 4 proposed that both failure modes can produce narcissistic behavioral patterns through different developmental routes. This post proposes that both failure modes also contribute to masking, and that understanding masking requires holding both in view.

The over-control environment contributes to masking most directly. The autistic child who has been chronically corrected, whose natural expressions of self have been redirected toward non-autistic norms, who has received consistent feedback that the authentic self produces negative social consequences, is learning something that the developmental environment is teaching whether or not anyone intends to teach it: performing a more acceptable version of the self produces better outcomes than being genuine (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021). That lesson, absorbed across thousands of interactions across years of development, becomes the developmental soil in which masking grows (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Hull et al., 2017; Perry et al., 2022).

The over-support environment contributes differently, and the contribution is subtler and less often recognized. The autistic child whose environment has organized itself around their comfort and preference has often been protected from the very social encounters in which they might have developed a robust enough sense of self to bring that self into contact with the wider social world without needing to hide it (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017). When that child encounters the wider world, which has not been organized around their comfort and which will not automatically accommodate their way of being, the gap between what they have been prepared for and what the world actually requires can be experienced as a sudden and disorienting demand for performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Masking, in this context, is not the product of years of correction. It is the product of a self that was never quite built for the encounter it now faces, reaching for the only available strategy for managing it.

Both routes arrive at the same place: a self that has learned to override its own signals in order to navigate environments that are not calibrated to receive it as it actually is (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

The Developmental Arc of Masking

Masking rarely appears fully formed. It develops across time, becoming more elaborate and more effortful as the social environments the autistic person moves through become more complex and more demanding (Cook et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017, 2019).

In early childhood, the earliest forms of masking are often responses to the correction environment: the autistic child learning to suppress a stim because it attracts negative attention, to force a greeting they do not feel naturally inclined to offer, to modulate an expression of intensity because the environment has signaled that the intensity is too much (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017; Leadbitter et al., 2021). These are small adjustments, but they are developmentally significant, because each one teaches the self something about the relationship between authentic expression and social safety (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

In middle childhood, as the social world expands and the peer environment becomes more evaluative, masking tends to become more systematic. The autistic child who has been accumulating social rules across years of observation begins applying those rules more consciously and more comprehensively, building a performed self that is increasingly distinct from the self that exists below the performance (Cook et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017, 2019). The gap between the two selves is not yet named. But it is felt, as a kind of effort, a kind of monitoring, a kind of never quite being able to relax entirely into any social situation (Bradley et al., 2021; Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019).

In adolescence, the gap widens and the effort intensifies. The social environments of adolescence are more complex, more evaluative, and more consequential than anything that came before, and the stakes of being visibly different feel higher than they have ever been (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Perry et al., 2022). Research by Pearson and Rose describes autistic masking as the suppression of natural autistic responses in the context of stigma and the social pressure to conform, and it is in adolescence that both the stigma and the pressure tend to reach their peak (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Perry et al., 2022). Many autistic people describe adolescence as the period in which masking became the primary mode of social existence, the performance so sustained and so comprehensive that the self beneath it became genuinely difficult to locate (Bradley et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017).

And it is in adulthood, often, that the cost of that sustained performance becomes impossible to ignore (Bradley et al., 2021; Cook et al., 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

What Masking Costs

The research on the costs of masking is consistent and sobering. Camouflaging is associated with significant mental health consequences including anxiety, depression, and suicidality (Bradley et al., 2021; Cook et al., 2021; Khudiakova et al., 2024; Zhuang et al., 2023). It is associated with autistic burnout, the state of physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion that follows sustained periods of overextension beyond the self's actual capacity (Mantzalas et al., 2022; Raymaker et al., 2020). It is associated with identity confusion and difficulty knowing what one actually wants, feels, or needs, because the machinery of self-monitoring that masking requires operates by overriding exactly those signals (Bradley et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2024; Hull et al., 2017).

These costs are not incidental. They are structural. They follow directly from what masking is and what it requires: the chronic suppression of the self's own signals in order to produce a performance that the environment will receive more favorably (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021). A self that has been organized around suppressing its own signals for years does not have reliable access to those signals when it needs them. The boundary between the self and the performance blurs. The authentic self becomes harder to find, not because it has disappeared but because the layers of performance that have been built over it are thick enough, and have been in place long enough, that locating the self beneath them requires deliberate effort that daily life rarely provides the conditions for (Bradley et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2024; Hull et al., 2017).

Mantzalas and colleagues, writing on autistic burnout from autistic adults' own perspectives, describe burnout as the consequence of chronic overextension, of a self that has been asked to do more than it can sustain for longer than it can sustain it (Mantzalas et al., 2022). Burnout is not simply tiredness. It is the self's systems failing under the weight of a sustained demand that was never calibrated to what those systems can actually bear (Mantzalas et al., 2022; Raymaker et al., 2020). And it is, in the deepest sense, a boundary phenomenon: the consequence of a self whose boundaries have been overridden so consistently, from so many directions, for so long, that the self can no longer hold them at all (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Mantzalas et al., 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Masking and the Boundary Self

Returning to the framework this series has been building: healthy boundaries require two capacities that develop together, the capacity to assert the self's own limits and the capacity to recognize the limits of others (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Masking disrupts both.

The capacity to assert the self's own limits is disrupted most directly. The self that has organized itself around suppressing its own signals in order to remain acceptable has been practicing, across years of development, the opposite of boundary assertion (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023). It has been practicing self-erasure. And the developmental consequence of years of practiced self-erasure is a self that does not have reliable access to its own limits, that may not know where its limits are until they have already been crossed, and that has deeply internalized the message that asserting those limits is likely to produce social costs that are not worth paying (Bradley et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2024; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

The capacity to recognize the limits of others is disrupted more subtly. The autistic person who has spent years monitoring and adjusting their own performance in order to remain socially acceptable has been doing something that looks from the outside like social attentiveness but functions from the inside as something quite different: a constant scanning of the environment for signals about what is required of the self, rather than a genuine engagement with others as centered selves with their own needs and perspectives (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Hull et al., 2017; Pearson & Rose, 2021). The orientation is toward performance management rather than genuine encounter, and genuine encounter is what the recognition of others' limits requires (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982).

This is not a criticism of autistic people who mask. It is a description of what masking does to the self over time, and it is offered in the spirit of understanding rather than judgment. Masking has been, for many autistic people, a genuine survival strategy, sometimes the only available path to belonging in environments that offered no other (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Pearson & Rose, 2021; Perry et al., 2022). The problem is not the person who masked. The problem is the environment that made masking necessary (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

What Optimal Development Would Have Provided

MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ gives us the language for what the autistic developmental pathway needed in order to not arrive at masking as its primary social strategy.

It needed an environment that could read its signals accurately, that could distinguish between the expressions of autism that are simply different and the behaviors that are genuinely causing harm, and that could respond to the actual self rather than to a non-autistic approximation of it (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021). It needed the calibrated confirmation that says you are enough as you are alongside the calibrated challenge that says you are capable of more, held simultaneously rather than resolved prematurely in either direction (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

It needed, in short, the genuine holding environment that Kegan describes: a context that attends to the stage from which the person is transitioning and the stage toward which they are moving, that provides the safety that makes risk possible and the expectation that makes safety insufficient on its own (Kegan, 1982). An environment in which the authentic self was not merely tolerated but genuinely received, and in which the growth that followed from that genuine reception was guided by feedback that was accurate, calibrated, and offered in the spirit of genuine developmental support rather than correction toward a non-autistic norm (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In that environment, the autistic developmental pathway does not need masking. It can develop the actual capacities that masking substitutes for: the genuine social understanding that comes from real encounter with others, the genuine self-knowledge that comes from having the authentic self reflected back accurately, and the genuine boundary sense that comes from moving through the world as the actual self and discovering, through that movement, where the self ends and another person begins (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982).

Unmasking as Developmental Work

For autistic people who have spent years or decades masked, unmasking is not simply permission to stop performing. It is developmental work, and it requires developmental conditions (Cage et al., 2018; Cage et al., 2022; Crompton et al., 2022).

The autistic person who attempts to unmask without those conditions, who simply stops performing the social scripts and suppressing the natural responses without the support of an environment that can receive what emerges, often discovers that the gap between the masked self and the authentic self is wider and more disorienting than they anticipated (Bradley et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2024; Hull et al., 2017). The authentic self has not disappeared. But locating it, and learning to bring it into relationship with the world in ways that are genuine rather than performed, requires the same things that the development of boundaries always requires: accurate feedback, calibrated challenge, and the experience of being genuinely held by an environment that understands what it is holding (Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

That environment can be a therapeutic relationship. It can be a community of other autistic people, where the unmasked self is recognized and received rather than misread (Botha, 2020; Cage et al., 2022; Crompton et al., 2022). It can be a close friendship or an intimate partnership built on genuine understanding of what each person's nervous system actually needs. What it requires, in whatever form it takes, is the willingness to hold the autistic person where they actually are, not where the masked performance has been placing them, and to offer the kind of genuine and calibrated support that allows the staircase to rise toward the destination it has always been aimed at (Cage et al., 2018; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

A self that knows where it stands. A self that is allowed to choose. A self that can be in relationship with others without disappearing in the process (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

That is what unmasking is reaching for. And it is reachable. But the boundary story does not end with the self and its own limits. There is another side to the autistic boundary experience that is equally important, equally rooted in the same developmental history, and equally consequential for the relationships autistic people are trying to build and sustain. While the self has been learning to allow its own boundaries to be crossed, it has often, simultaneously and without awareness, been crossing the boundaries of others. Understanding how that happens, why it happens, and what it would take to address it, is what the next post is about.

Next in this series: The Other Side of the Boundary, how the same developmental gap that produces boundary collapse inward also produces boundary crossing outward, and what that costs, and what an optimal developmental environment could do about it.

This was Article 5: Masking as Boundary Collapse

This is Series III — Boundaries Across Neurologies: Autistic Development, High Body Empathy, and Neurodiverse Relationships

Articles in the Series:

1. The Boundary Gap
   What Developmental Psychology Has Never Quite Named

2. When the Self Is Not Allowed to Choose
   Over-Control and the Autistic Developmental Pathway

3. When the Self Is Never Challenged
   Over-Support and the Limits of Unconditional Accommodation

4. Narcissistic Behaviors, Autistic Development, and the Optimal Environment
   A Theoretical Framework for Future Research

5. Masking as Boundary Collapse
   What Happens When the Self Learns to Override Itself

6. The Other Side of the Boundary
   How the Same Developmental Gap Produces Two Problems at Once

7. The Other Architecture
   High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental Pathway

8. Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships
   When Two Architectures Meet

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

Botha, M. (2020). Autistic community connectedness as a buffer against the effects of minority stress [Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey].

Bradley, L., Shaw, R., Baron-Cohen, S., & Cassidy, S. (2021). Autistic adults’ experiences of camouflaging and its perceived impact on mental health. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0071

Cage, E., & Troxell-Whitman, Z. (2019). Understanding the reasons, contexts and costs of camouflaging for autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1899–1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-03878-x

Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3342-7

Cage, E., Cranney, R., & Botha, M. (2022). Brief report: Does autistic community connectedness moderate the relationship between masking and wellbeing? Autism in Adulthood, 4(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0096

Cook, J., Hull, L., Crane, L., & Mandy, W. (2021). Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 89, Article 102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102080

Crompton, C. J., Hallett, S., McAuliffe, C., Stanfield, A. C., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2022). “A group of fellow travellers who understand”: Interviews with autistic people about post-diagnostic peer support in adulthood. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 831628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831628

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

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

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.

Evans, J. A., Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. (2024). Autistic masking in relation to mental health, interpersonal trauma, authenticity, and self-esteem. Autism in Adulthood, 6(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0051

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

Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2019). Development and validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(3), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3792-6

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

Khudiakova, V., Klein, J. G., Duerksen, K., & Weiss, J. A. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health outcomes associated with camouflaging in autistic people. Clinical Psychology Review, 110, Article 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102434

Leadbitter, K., Buckle, K. L., Ellis, C., & Dekker, M. (2021). Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 635690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635690

Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What is autistic burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0021

Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043

Perry, E., Mandy, W., Hull, L., & Cage, E. (2022). Understanding camouflaging as a response to autism-related stigma: A social identity theory approach. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04987-w

Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Santos, A. D., 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

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Zhuang, S., Tan, D. W., Reddrop, S., Dean, L., Maybery, M., Magiati, I., & Whitehouse, A. J. O. (2023). Psychosocial factors associated with camouflaging in autistic people and its relationship with mental health and well-being: A mixed methods systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 101, Article 102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102257