The emerging theme in this symposium is the proposal that there are underlying motivational forces which operate to predispose adults in general and, in the context of these papers, men in particular, to adopt certain behaviours which may be seen broadly within the context of the re-creation of the self in another younger human person, who will (usually), not only outlive the particular creator but also take forward, extend and modify the world in which their creator lived and which was passed on to them. This may not be a particularly fullsome description of Erikson’s notion of generativity but it is one which helps continue the discussion so elegantly initiated in our opening paper by Annette Holland. In this paper I will examine some selected aspects of interpersonal relationships and employment contexts which have the potential to enhance or inhibit this generativity.

Recent moves to consider fatherhood from a developmental perspective rather than from within social role theory enables us to consider not only how fathers vary in their fathering, and why, but also to explore whether there are constants and whether there are underlying universalities of fatherhood, and motherhood, and how and where these might also differ. The social construction of fatherhood is explored for example by Dougherty and colleagues (1998) in their overview and conceptualisation of "Responsible Fathering". They comment that fathering (post - insemination) is basically a social construction and that the cultural ideals of fatherhood are shaped and moulded by the conditions existing at that particular time. LaRossa (1997) in the same theme proposes that conceptions of fathering change from decade to decade in response to changes in prevailing social and political conditions. As an example of this social construction, Pleck and Pleck (1997) argue that fathers today should best be considered as "equal co-parents" (reflecting a particular prevailing view of ‘fairness’ in the distribution of domestic work), in contrast to their role in the mid 20th century as ‘the genial dad and sex role model’.

Some proponents of a different view of fatherhood also argue against the social role construction of fatherhood. Mackey (1996) decries the trend he sees emerging which suggests that the benchmark for what fathers should do, is that which is established by what mother do. He argues that what fathers do is unique, that they are the other parent, he says that fathers are not mothers; fathers do other things, not mother things. Mackey proposes a biocultural approach to better help us understand what fathers do and suggests that

and that the environment provides the stimuli or trigger, in the form of a child, for appropriate fathering behaviours to appear. He argues further that if there is no trigger, ie no child, then fathering behaviours will not occur. In this claim Mackey is at odds with generativity theorists who see that fathering (broadly interpreted) is a universal motivation rather than one, which ethologists such as Lorenz would imply, needs a trigger to be evidenced. Mackey dismisses Erikson’s conceptualisation of ‘generativity’ because the

Mackey may well have set a challenge for ‘generativitists’ with these claims, and set directions for future research and debate to examines those assumptions. In some small way that is the purpose of this symposium.

I have for some time been attracted to Eriksons’s blueprint for the life cycle and his notion of generativity, ie the moving out from oneself to, and for, others. Erikson explains that in our youth we begin to find out about ourselves, who we ‘care to be’, while in young adulthood we learn whom we ‘care to be with’. As we move into middle adulthood we then begin to learn who we can ‘take care of’ ie we become truly generative. (in Kotre, 1996, p8). While I was attracted to Eriksons’s ideas I also had the feeling that his concept of generativity in the sense of "who I can take care of’ came too late in the life cycle, to me it seemed that generativity flows out of intimacy and that generativity starts with young children and young parents and not in the age period that Erikson seemed to be suggesting. But that was before I read John Kotre (1996). Kotre defines generativity for us as

a desire to invest one’s substance in forms of life and work that will outlive the self (p. 10)

and then moves on to explain that Erikson wasn’t really providing us with a prescriptive, age-related stage theory, but rather with a tool for thought. Generativity is seen as the process of caring for the product of creative acts, for once something has been created that process ends and it is then that generativity takes over. Generativity thus extends right through adulthood and the key to this understanding is that there are different types of generativity, linked to different ‘tasks’ both within the family, and more broadly in the community and society at large. McAdam and de St Aubin (1992) also posit a more gradual and developmental model of generativity itself, one that sees changes in generativity through adulthood and which also sees generativity responding to or being driven by cultural and social demands and forces.

Another feature of Erikson’s conceptualisations of generativity further helps us understand variations we might observe among fathers and their involvement in fathering. Erikson proposes that there are potentially both successful and unsuccessful outcomes of the challenges which present themselves at different points in the lifecycle. Those who are successful in crisis resolution or overcoming of barriers in these transitions develop positive ego strengths while failure may result in stagnation, introspection and self absorbtion. In turn this may lead to the individual gaining less satisfaction from the parenting role, not feeling that it is important, or not feeling confident about close, intimate involvement with young children.

Typology of generativity (Kotre, 1996)

Kotre’s typology of generativity provides a continuum along which it is possible to plot a trajectory of fatherhood, beginning, as we have heard today from Annette with the transition to parenthood (generativity begins) following initial creativity. I will pick up some aspects of this theme and attempt some interpretation of generativity within the context of my study of men’s involvement in domestic work, which includes many aspects of the fathering role. In particular I will look briefly at some of the social and structural factors which appeared to affect men’s involvement with their children. It is acknowledged that while the quantity of parental involvement is often not what matters for children as the receivers of ‘generative’ acts, some quantity is important if quality is to follow.

Fathers and children and wives. (Being generative)

I will briefly present some data here from a larger study of men’s involvement in domestic work (childcare and housework) which examined a range of factors associated with higher and lower levels of involvement. These are presented to illustrate the kinds of things that have the potential to support or inhibit generativity in young adulthood, and which might be the focus of attention from others to ensure that those inhibitory factors do not overtake couples in their quest of generativity.

The factors examined here included the employment status of wife (the pragmatic explanation), husband’s work related factors (structural factors) and a number of personal and interpersonal variables including a couples emotional support for each other (psychological explanation). In this discussion today I will not differentiate between housework and childcare because they can both be considered as part of the generative act by which one partner contributes to the other and receives in turn, and through which each parent supports and ‘generates’ the child.

Data for this study were collected by way of interviews and structured questionnaires from 90 couples in metropolitan Brisbane (Australia). The employment status of wives was used as a principal selection criteria in order to achieve an equal distribution of women who were employed either full-time, or part-time or who were not in paid employment. The oldest child in the family was approximately six years of age. The sample was not representative as it contained a higher proportion of husbands in professional and managerial occupations. Involvement data was collected separately for weekdays and the weekend in order to analyse possible effects of paid employment at times when the participants would not be working ie at the weekends.

Evidence showed that those husbands who had to be involved because of their partner’s involvement in paid employment, did become more involved in domestic work, particularly in `female' tasks. The results also show that their level of involvement is dependent on the degree of their wives' involvement in the paid workforce. From a simply pragmatic viewpoint, men whose wives are not in paid employment or who are employed on a part-time basis seem to say that they do not need to be as involved in domestic work as those men whose wives are in full-time employment, so they match their involvement to the need that is perceived. This pattern is also noted in the differences in domestic involvement between men in single income families and those where the wife is employed on a part time basis. The pragmatic argument is also supported by the fact that this differential effect was found only for weekdays and not for the weekend.

A second explanation given to account for variations in husbands' involvement in domestic work was the `structural' explanation which proposed that men are not as involved as women in domestic work because of the constraints of their workplace and working conditions. In this arguement, husbands would claim that they do not have enough time to do more housework because of the demands of their work, and/or because there is too much pressure on them to gain promotion, or that their working conditions cause them stress and anxiety.

Results from the study showed that the negative or inhibitory aspects of men's employment served to reduce their involvement in domestic work, particularly in those areas that have traditionally been carried out by women. This was particularly the case during the days of the working week. Husbands who worked fewer hours, or who perceived fewer time constraints, took a greater share of women's work than those who worked longer hours, or who perceived a greater degree of time constraints in their lives. This effect was found to apply only for weekday involvement and not for weekends.

The 'psychological' explanation

The results showed a strong and enduring effect of the interpersonal aspects of the partnership. This factor alone predicted men’s involvement in ‘female’ childcare and housework on weekdays, and in housework on the weekends. These effects for the full week indicate that these underlying variables do provide consistent influence and are present at all times and not just during a particular time period, i.e. during the week when wife or husband are at work. By studying these patterns across the two time periods it was possible to examine for the effect of the pragmatic and the structural factors at times when logically no effect should operate ie at weekends and in effect to isolate them from the influence of the underlying psychological (interpersonal) factor. This latter cluster of variables reflect aspects of interactive relationships, one person showing concern and support for the other, one partner reacting to the wishes of the other, and one partner reflecting on and being affected by the actions of the other. They reflect also more deep-seated and enduring motivations for action than are reflected in the instrumental variables associated with employment conditions and hours worked, and which have their main effect only during weekdays.

And so to generativity. What I have found here, is that emotional support and a strong, mutually reciprocated, positive interpersonal relationship has the potential to enhance the generative act at least as it is exemplified in a man’s involvement in caring for his children and supporting his wife in her involvement in both paid and unpaid employment. What has been illustrated is that the developmental process which we call generativity is influenced by a range of factors some of which have the potential to enhance a successful ‘resolution of crisis’ while others are likely to inhibit the process and make a successful transition to full generativity more difficult.

Burdon, B. E. (1997). Explaining men’s involvement in domestic work. Doctoral dissertation, Flinders University of South Australia.

Dougherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F. & Erikson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 60: 277-292.

Kotre, J. (1996). Outliving the self: How we live on in future generations. New York: Norton.

LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood: A social and political history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mackey, W. C. (1966). The American father: Biocultural and developmental aspects. New York: Plenum.

McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self report, behavioural acts and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholody. 62:6. 1003- 1015.

Pleck, E. H. & Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed), The role of the father in child development. (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.