When the Self is Not Allowed to Choose

Over-Control and the Autistic Developmental Pathway

Every child arrives in the world with a will. Not a fully formed one, not a sophisticated one, but a genuine one: a set of preferences, aversions, impulses, and reaching-toward-things that belongs to that particular child and no other. One of the most fundamental tasks of early development is learning what to do with that will. How to express it. How to negotiate it against the wills of others. How to discover, through the accumulated experience of being in relationship with the world, that the self is real, that it has edges, and that those edges are worth something (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Erikson called the successful navigation of this task autonomy, and he placed it immediately after trust for a reason (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The child who has built enough trust in the responsiveness of the world to begin exploring it now faces the next developmental question: is my self allowed to be itself? Is my will something the world will reckon with, or something it will simply override?

When the answer is reliably the latter, what develops is not autonomy. It is shame and doubt: the orientation toward the self as something that gets things wrong, that needs to be corrected, that must defer to external authority because its own judgment cannot be trusted (Erikson, 1963, 1980). And shame and doubt, once established, do not stay in the toddler years. They travel. They show up in every subsequent stage of development, shaping how the person approaches initiative, industry, identity, and eventually intimacy. They become part of the working model, the internal map through which the person navigates every relationship that follows (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Erikson, 1963, 1980).

For many autistic children, the developmental pathway toward autonomy runs through an environment that is, often with the best intentions and the deepest love, oriented toward correction (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021). This post is about what that costs.

The Correction Environment

The autistic child moves through the world in a way that is genuinely different from the way the environments around them are designed to receive. Their way of communicating, of seeking connection, of expressing distress, of showing interest, of regulating their nervous system, of navigating sensory experience: all of these may look unfamiliar, unexpected, or wrong to the non-autistic adults and peers whose own developmental pathways have primed them to expect a different set of signals (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

And when something looks wrong, the natural human response is to correct it.

This is not malice. Most of the correction that autistic children receive is offered in the spirit of help, of preparation, of love. The parent who redirects an autistic child's unusual greeting behavior is trying to protect them from social rejection. The teacher who discourages stimming in the classroom is trying to help the child fit in. The therapist who works to bring autistic social behavior closer to non-autistic norms is operating from a framework that has told them, for decades, that this is what helping autistic children looks like (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

But the accumulated experience of being corrected, whatever its intention, sends a developmental message that lands below the level of conscious processing. It lands in the body, in the working model, in the developing sense of whether the self is allowed to be itself. And the message it sends is consistent enough, across enough interactions, across enough years, that it becomes something the child knows without knowing they know it: the self, as it naturally is, is not quite right. The self requires adjustment. The self must be managed, shaped, and brought into closer conformity with what the environment expects, or the environment will not receive it well (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

That is the beginning of shame and doubt in the Eriksonian sense. Not a single moment of humiliation, but a developmental orientation built from thousands of small corrections, each of which, taken alone, might be entirely reasonable, and all of which, taken together, constitute an environment that does not confirm the autistic self where it actually is (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

Autonomy and the Autistic Toddler

The stage at which this pattern begins is earlier than most people recognize. Erikson's autonomy stage runs roughly from eighteen months to three years, the period in which the child is developmentally primed to discover and exercise their own will (Erikson, 1963, 1980). For non-autistic children, this is the stage that gets called the terrible twos, the period of fierce insistence on doing things one's own way, of no being the most important word in the vocabulary, of the self announcing itself loudly and repeatedly against the limits of the world around it.

For autistic toddlers, the expression of autonomy may look different, and that difference matters enormously for how the environment responds. An autistic toddler's insistence on a particular routine, a particular food, a particular way of entering a room or completing a transition, is an expression of will and preference that is just as genuine as any non-autistic toddler's defiant no (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). But it may not be recognized as such. It may be read instead as rigidity, as a symptom, as behavior to be managed and reduced rather than a self to be reckoned with and gradually, carefully negotiated (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

When the autistic toddler's expressions of autonomy are consistently met with redirection, management, or the subtle message that their particular way of willing things is less legitimate than the non-autistic norm, the developmental foundation of boundaries begins to be laid on unsteady ground (Dieleman et al., 2019; Erikson, 1963, 1980). The child is not learning that the self is real and its edges are worth something. The child is learning that the self's particular way of being real requires modification in order to be acceptable.

Research on autonomy-supportive versus controlling parenting in autistic children suggests that caregivers, often under significant stress and with limited support themselves, may tend toward more controlling parenting patterns with autistic children, not because they love their children less but because the autistic child's behavior is harder to read, harder to predict, and harder to respond to with the relaxed confidence that autonomy-supportive parenting requires (Dieleman et al., 2019). The holding environment that Kegan describes, the one that simultaneously confirms the child where they are and challenges them toward where they are going, requires that the caregiver can accurately read where the child actually is (Kegan, 1982). When the child's signals are arriving on a frequency the caregiver has not yet learned to tune to, that accurate reading is genuinely difficult, and the gap between what the child needs and what the environment provides begins early (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Dieleman et al., 2019; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

Initiative and the Cost of Being Stopped

Erikson's third stage, initiative versus guilt, runs through the preschool and early school years, the period in which the child begins reaching outward: trying things, proposing things, leading things, discovering through action what they are capable of and what kind of mark they can make on the world (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The child who navigates this stage successfully develops a sense of purposefulness, a confidence that their ideas and actions have value and that reaching toward new things is worth the risk of not always succeeding.

For autistic children, the initiative stage is where the correction environment begins to compound. The reaching outward that initiative requires brings the autistic child into more sustained contact with a social world that is not designed for their way of reaching. Their ideas may be unusual. Their play may be solitary or structured in ways that peers don't easily join. Their attempts at social initiation may not land in the way they were intended. Their enthusiasm for particular interests may be received as odd or excessive rather than as the genuine intellectual and relational reaching that it is (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021).

And each of these mismatches produces feedback. The child who reaches and finds that their reaching is not received, or is corrected, or is redirected toward a more normative form of expression, is accumulating evidence about what kind of initiative the world will reward and what kind it will not (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Leadbitter et al., 2021). Over time, that evidence shapes not just behavior but the developmental orientation toward initiative itself. The child begins to learn that their own natural impulses toward action are not reliable guides, that the self's way of reaching is likely to require adjustment before it will be welcomed, and that the gap between what feels natural and what is acceptable is something that must be managed rather than simply expressed (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

Erikson named guilt as the developmental risk of this stage for a reason. Guilt, in his framework, is not just a feeling. It is a developmental orientation: the sense that the self's natural impulses are wrong, that initiative itself is something to be wary of, that reaching outward is likely to produce consequences the self will have to apologize for (Erikson, 1963, 1980). For autistic children who have moved through a correction environment, guilt in this developmental sense can become a deeply familiar experience, not because they have done anything genuinely wrong but because the feedback they have received has consistently located the problem in the self rather than in the mismatch between the self and the environment (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

Industry and the Wrong Measuring Stick

Erikson's fourth stage, industry versus inferiority, runs through middle childhood and into early adolescence, the years of school and structured learning, of developing skills and discovering competence, of finding out what one is good at and building a sense of the self as someone who can produce things of value in the world (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The child who navigates this stage successfully develops a sense of industry: the quiet confidence of someone who knows they can do things, that their efforts produce results, and that they have something to contribute.

The measuring stick against which competence is evaluated in this stage is rarely neutral. It is the measuring stick of the school environment, of the peer group, of the social and academic standards that the surrounding culture has decided matter. And for autistic children, that measuring stick is almost always calibrated to non-autistic developmental norms (Leadbitter et al., 2021; Shogren et al., 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022).

The autistic child who processes information differently, who communicates differently, who relates to peers differently, who learns differently, is being evaluated throughout this stage against standards they were not built to meet in the ways those standards assume (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021). Their genuine competencies, which may be considerable, may be invisible to the measuring stick being applied. Their difficulties, which are real but context-dependent, may be highly visible and may define how the environment sees them and how they come to see themselves.

Research consistently shows that autistic children experience significantly higher rates of bullying victimization than their non-autistic peers, with some studies reporting that between 70% and 90% of autistic children experience bullying at some point during their school years (Cappadocia et al., 2012; Humphrey & Hebron, 2015; Little, 2002; Maïano et al., 2016). This is not incidental to the industry stage. It is the most damaging form of distorted feedback the social environment can offer during the years when the child is trying to build a sense of what they are worth and what they can do (Erikson, 1963, 1980). Bullying does not simply cause distress. It actively teaches the child something about where they stand, and what it teaches tends to be organized around the child's difference rather than their competence.

The developmental consequence of moving through the industry stage against the wrong measuring stick, in an environment that sees the autistic child's differences more readily than their capacities, is inferiority: the orientation toward the self as someone who falls short, who cannot quite meet the standard, who is always slightly behind or slightly wrong in ways that seem to follow them regardless of how hard they try (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Shogren et al., 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022). That orientation, once established, shapes the boundary sense in a particular way. A person who has learned to experience themselves as inferior does not develop a robust sense that their edges are worth defending. They develop, instead, a practiced readiness to accommodate, to defer, to make themselves smaller in order to avoid the consequences of taking up the wrong kind of space (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

What Optimal Development Actually Requires

MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ is precise about what the autistic developmental pathway needs in order to move upward: clear, accurate, and calibrated feedback from the environment, challenge that is genuinely matched to current ability, and confirmation of the person where they actually are rather than where a non-autistic developmental framework expects them to be.

Csikszentmihalyi's flow research gives us the same insight from a different angle: optimal development occurs in the narrow channel between overwhelm and stagnation, where challenge slightly exceeds current ability and feedback is immediate and accurate (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Too much challenge produces anxiety. Too little produces stagnation. And feedback that is inaccurate, feedback shaped by neurotype mismatch rather than genuine perception of the person's actual capacities and needs, cannot calibrate the pathway at all. It sends the staircase in the wrong direction, or it stops the staircase moving entirely.

The correction environment that many autistic children move through fails on all three dimensions. The challenge it offers is not calibrated to the autistic child's actual developmental position. It is calibrated to a non-autistic norm, which means it is sometimes overwhelming and sometimes entirely beside the point. The feedback it offers is not accurate. It is shaped by the environment's expectations of how a child of this age should behave, communicate, and relate, expectations built around a different neurological architecture. And the confirmation it offers is conditional: the autistic child is confirmed, welcomed, and rewarded when their behavior approximates non-autistic norms, and corrected, redirected, or overlooked when it does not (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021).

What the autistic developmental pathway actually needs, what Kegan would call the genuine holding environment for the autistic child, is an environment that can read this particular child's signals accurately, that can distinguish between the expressions of autism that are simply different and the behaviors that are genuinely causing harm, that can offer challenge calibrated to this child's actual capacities rather than to a non-autistic standard, and that can confirm the autistic self where it actually is while genuinely supporting its growth toward greater autonomy, initiative, and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Shogren et al., 2021).

That environment is rare. The research on what helps autistic people across the lifespan is unambiguous on this point: what helps is people, specific people who understood, accepted, and expected something of the autistic person at the same time (Leadbitter et al., 2021; Shogren et al., 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022). Not programs. Not correction. People who could hold both at once (Kegan, 1982).

What Gets Built, and What Gets Lost

By the time an autistic child has moved through the stages of autonomy, initiative, and industry in a correction environment, something has been built. It is not what was supposed to be built. Instead of a robust felt sense of where the self ends and another begins, a confidence in the legitimacy of the self's own will and judgment, and an orientation toward competence and contribution, what has often been built is something more defensive and more fragile (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Shogren et al., 2021).

A practiced readiness to defer. A deep familiarity with the experience of being wrong in ways that are hard to explain or predict. A working model oriented toward the expectation that the self's natural expressions will require adjustment before they will be welcome. And the first outlines of what will later become masking: the learned capacity to override the self's own signals in order to produce the presentation the environment seems to require (Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).

This is not destiny. The staircase continues to rise. Autistic people grow, develop, and build lives of genuine autonomy and competence and meaningful relationship (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Shogren et al., 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022). But the ground on which that growth happens has been shaped by what the earlier environments provided, and it is worth being honest about what those environments have typically provided, and what they have cost.

Because the goal was always autonomy. The goal was always a self that knows where it stands and is allowed to choose (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). And the goal remains reachable. But reaching it requires understanding what has gotten in the way, and building something genuinely different in its place.

Next in this series: When the Self Is Never Challenged, the over-support failure mode, and what happens when environments remove all challenge in the name of acceptance, and why this too deprives the autistic developmental pathway of what it needs to rise.

This was Article 2: When the Self is Not Allowed to Choose

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

Cappadocia, M. C., Weiss, J. A., & Pepler, D. (2012). Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1241-x

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

Dieleman, L. M., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Prinzie, P., Laporte, N., & De Pauw, S. S. W. (2019). Daily sources of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting in mothers of children with ASD: The role of child behavior and mothers’ psychological needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3726-3

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

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

Humphrey, N., & Hebron, J. (2015). Bullying of children and adolescents with autism spectrum conditions: A “state of the field” review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(8), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.981602

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

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

Little, L. (2002). Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger’s syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 25(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/014608602753504847

Maïano, C., Normand, C. L., Salvas, M.-C., Moullec, G., & Aimé, A. (2016). Prevalence of school bullying among youth with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autism Research, 9(6), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1568

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

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

Shogren, K. A., Mosconi, M. W., Raley, S. K., Dean, E. E., Little, T. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2021). Advancing the personalization of assessment and intervention in autistic adolescents and young adults by targeting self-determination and executive processes. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0010

Tomaszewski, B., Kraemer, B., Handen, B. L., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2021). Student, educator, and parent perspectives of self-determination in high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 14(10), 2164–2176. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2566

Tomaszewski, B., Kraemer, B., Handen, B. L., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2022). Self-determination in autistic transition-aged youth without intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(9), 3955–3968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05298-4

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

A note on the bullying paragraph: your post says “between 70% and 90%” in some studies. That can work if you cite high-end estimates such as Little (2002) and the Humphrey and Hebron review, which notes very high reported rates, including a highest reported rate of 94%. But for a more conservative overall statement, Maïano et al.’s meta-analysis gives a pooled bullying victimization estimate of 44%, and other reviews report wide ranges depending on sample and method.