Returning to Earlier Ground

Series VI, Article 2: Returning to Earlier Ground

Returning to earlier developmental ground is not the same as going backward. The person who revisits the trust stage at forty is not regressing to infancy. They are doing, for the first time with adequate conditions, the developmental work that infancy and early childhood were supposed to produce but couldn't (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997; Winnicott, 1965). The stage becomes available again not because the person has failed to progress, but because the conditions that stage requires have finally arrived.

This is what makes the insight at the center of this series genuinely hopeful rather than simply accurate: the stages do not close. The developmental work they contain can be done later (Erikson & Erikson, 1997). And the moment at which autistic identity is accepted, with or without formal diagnosis, is often the moment at which the conditions for that work begin to become available for the first time (Kapp et al., 2013; Leedham et al., 2020).

What It Means to Return

Each stage in Erikson's framework required something specific from the environment in order to be genuinely navigated (Erikson, 1963; Winnicott, 1965). Trust required environments reliably responsive to the specific nervous system needing to trust them. Autonomy required environments that could receive authentic self-expression without requiring it to be adjusted. Initiative required environments that responded to the self's reaching out as something worth responding to. Industry required feedback accurate enough to build genuine competence rather than performed competence. Identity required access to the authentic self. Intimacy required two people who each knew who they were.

For many autistic people, those conditions were not present when the stages were supposed to be navigated. The environments of childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood were calibrated to the non-autistic developmental pathway. The feedback they returned was shaped by neurotype bias rather than accurate reception of the autistic person's authentic expressions (Milton, 2012). The correction environments the series on boundaries described, the masking the identity series traced, and the intimacy mismatch the most recent series examined: all of these represent the expected outcomes of environments not calibrated to the pathway they were meant to support (Hull et al., 2017; Kapp et al., 2013).

When the conditions change, what was not resolved becomes resolvable. This is not a promise of easy work or rapid transformation. Every stage still requires what it has always required: genuine holding environments, accurate feedback, adequate time, and the specific conditions calibrated to the particular pathway navigating it (Erikson & Erikson, 1997; Winnicott, 1965). What changes is not the difficulty of the work but its availability.

Along the Spiral Pathway

For people on the non-autistic pathway whose earlier developmental work was incomplete or distorted, the return to earlier ground runs through the same oscillating mechanism the spiral has always used. The trust stage, for example, can be reworked when the oscillation meets environments that return accurate and genuinely responsive feedback: relationships in which the self that reaches outward actually lands somewhere, is genuinely received, and can curve back having been changed by the encounter in the way trust formation requires (Erikson, 1963; Winnicott, 1965). The specific distortions that earlier environments introduced can be addressed when more accurate environments become available.

For the high body empathetic in MacMillan's theoretical framework, returning to earlier ground often involves a specific quality of new relational experience: being in environments and relationships where the perspective coming back through the oscillation is genuinely their own rather than organized around someone else's. The oscillation that has always run continuously, seeking feedback from the social field, now meets a social field that reflects back the high body empathetic's own experience with sufficient clarity that the assimilative phase can genuinely complete itself. Trust, for the high body empathetic, may be less about trusting the world in general and more about trusting their own ground within it: the felt reliability of a self-concept calibrated by something more accurate than the distorted feedback of earlier environments.

The spiral's particular asset in this reworking is what it has always been: the integrative capacity of the oscillation itself. Each cycle between going out and curving back, done now in conditions that are more accurate, produces a small correction in the self-concept. Over time, repeated cycles build the developmental resolution that earlier environments didn't support. The spiral doesn't rework a stage all at once. It reworks it the way it builds everything: through accumulation, over time, through the continuous oscillation that is its characteristic structure.

Along the Staircase Pathway

For autistic people, the staircase pathway's characteristic structure turns out to be particularly well suited to the sequential reworking of earlier stages. This is not a coincidence. The staircase rises through concentrated vertical rises of genuine new learning followed by horizontal surfaces of consolidation and application. That is precisely the structure that deliberate, explicit developmental work requires: take in accurate new information, consolidate it genuinely before moving on, then take in the next piece (Baron-Cohen, 2009; Happé & Frith, 2006).

What changes when autistic identity is accepted is the raw material available for the vertical rises. Before identification, the feedback the staircase was incorporating was distorted: shaped by neurotype bias, by correction environments, by the accumulated message that the authentic self required adjustment (Hull et al., 2017; Milton, 2012). The self-concept being built was built from those materials, which is why it so often produced what the identity series described: a self-concept uncertain, incoherent, or built on the performed self rather than the authentic one (Hull et al., 2017; Leedham et al., 2020).

After identification, accurate information becomes available. The vertical rise of the trust stage can now incorporate the genuine experience of being received as one actually is, in autistic community, in accurate relationships, in environments that do not require the performance of a different self (Kapp, 2020; Kapp et al., 2013). The autonomy stage can be reworked with the discovery that the self is allowed to choose and to act from itself, now confirmed by environments that can receive those choices without correcting them. The industry stage can build genuine competence in areas aligned with the actual shape of the autistic person's capacities, rather than in areas the non-autistic environment happened to value.

Each of these is a vertical rise followed by a horizontal surface. The autistic person takes in accurate new information about the self and the world, consolidates it through experience and application, and then moves to the next stage. The staircase rises, now on solid ground.

The sequential nature of the staircase matters here. The developmental stages build on each other, and the staircase's characteristic respect for sequence, its natural tendency to complete one stage before moving to the next, means that the reworking happens in the right order (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997). Trust before autonomy. Autonomy before initiative. Identity before intimacy. The work is done in the sequence Erikson described, because that is the sequence in which each stage creates the conditions the next requires.

What the Reworking Requires

What the reworking of earlier stages requires, regardless of which pathway is navigating it, is what every developmental stage has always required: accurate conditions, genuine holding environments, and enough time (Erikson & Erikson, 1997; Winnicott, 1965).

Accurate conditions means, above all, accurate information. For autistic people, this means a clear and honest account of how the autistic developmental pathway works, what it needs, what it has been navigating, and why the experiences of earlier life took the shapes they did (Kapp et al., 2013; Leedham et al., 2020). Without that framework, the reworking cannot be deliberate. With it, it can be intentional: the person understands what stage they are reworking, what it requires, and what genuine resolution of that stage looks like.

Genuine holding environments means relationships and communities actually calibrated to the pathway doing the reworking. For autistic people, autistic community is often the single most important holding environment for this work (Kapp, 2020; Kapp et al., 2013). It provides the neurotype-matched feedback that earlier environments withheld, the experience of being received as one actually is, and the accumulated understanding of other people who have navigated the same developmental territory and can offer what no non-autistic environment could: the particular knowledge that comes from shared experience of the same pathway.

Time means what it has always meant in the context of the staircase: the horizontal surface genuinely long enough for consolidation to occur before the next rise is attempted. The reworking of earlier stages cannot be rushed without producing the same incomplete resolution that rushed development always produces. Each stage needs to settle before the next one is attempted.

What This Opens

The insight that developmental stages can be reworked at any age is not simply theoretically interesting. It is the foundation of a practical framework for supporting autistic and non-autistic people through the developmental work they were not given adequate conditions to do when those conditions were supposed to be available (Erikson & Erikson, 1997).

That framework, as a structured and deliberate practice, would move through Erikson's stages in order: beginning with trust, moving through autonomy, initiative, and industry, addressing identity and intimacy, and arriving at generativity and integrity at whatever pace each stage genuinely requires (Erikson, 1963; Erikson & Erikson, 1997). It would be calibrated differently for people on the staircase and spiral pathways, because those pathways require different conditions and work through different mechanisms. And it would be built on the understanding that has run through this entire inquiry: that the developmental destination is the same for everyone, and that getting there requires knowing which pathway one is actually on.

Generativity and integrity are not stages reserved for older adults. They are available to anyone who has done the developmental work that precedes them (Erikson & Erikson, 1997). The posts that follow examine what those stages look like when the pathway that has been navigating the work finally arrives at them, having returned to whatever earlier ground needed returning to, and having built something solid enough to contribute from and eventually to look back on.

Next in this series: Generativity Across Both Pathways, what contributing beyond the self looks like along the staircase and spiral pathways, what autistic and non-autistic forms of contribution actually are, and what happens when the channels for generativity have been blocked by environments that could not receive what each pathway was trying to offer.


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. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. 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

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

Leedham, A., Thompson, A. R., Smith, R., & Freeth, M. (2020). “I was exhausted trying to figure it out”: The experiences of females receiving an autism diagnosis in middle to late adulthood. Autism, 24(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319853442

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

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. International Universities Press.