Social Generativity

An Introduction

Mauro Magatti

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351672245
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The 2008 economic crisis called into question the sustainability of the individualistic consumer society. However, for better or for worse, this long-term crisis represents an opportunity for the creation of a new model of growth to reform capitalism, structurally as well as culturally.

As a contribution to this debate, Social Generativity offers a much-needed and original conceptual synthesis, within a unique anthropological focus on the forms of selfhood sustained by the historical and economic conditions of the present day. Encompassing four years of interdisciplinary empirical research based primarily on a sample of social groups, organizations and firms in Italy, this volume redefines the notion of "Social Generativity" from its pyschological origin (as formulated by Erik Erikson) to that of a social action that can be implemented during daily life and in different spheres of existence.

A critical analysis of contemporary capitalism, this volume will appeal to postgraduate students and policy makers interested in fields such as Organisational Studies, Anthropological Theory, Social Change, Economic Sociology, Public Affairs and Business Ethics.

Part I
On social generativity

1
Social generativity

An introduction¹

Chiara Giaccardi and Mauro Magatti

Closeness and virtue are the natural causes that engender love.

(Dante, Convivio [The Banquet])

Introduction

Since the second half of the 20th century, capitalist consumer society – based on individualization, financialization and the indiscriminate exploitation of resources – has become the dominant mode of social and economic organization in advanced countries. In spite of the criticism it continues to receive, homo consumens still dominates the contemporary imaginary of freedom.²

The financial crisis of 2008 made evident the unsustainability of a socioeconomic model that bases subjective freedom and self-realization upon consumption. Yet, in the absence of compelling alternatives, proposed solutions to the ongoing crisis mainly entail a revitalization of the same dynamic. Ten years later, the time is now ripe to conceive a way forward without simply resorting to the normative alternative of ‘we must consume less’. Instead, by recovering dimensions of social life de facto excluded by neoliberal capitalism, we suggest a different and, hopefully, more convincing way out of capitalist consumer society.

Criticizing the passivity of the homo consumens,³ as Zygmunt Bauman and others have done, is a helpful start. But, to go a step forward, a more creative idea of action is required: one that is able, in Hannah Arendt’s words, to bring something new into the world⁴ and, at the same time, to go beyond the idea of a ‘sovereign self’. This latter notion, besides being unrealistic, has proved historically to be either harmful or doomed to failure.

Within this framework, we propose ‘social generativity’ as a possible way out of the cultural as well as economic stagnation in which we have been stuck since the 2008 financial crisis.

The origin of the term ‘generativity’ is in psychology, where it denotes a form of realization of the self in which an active and creative subject, in tune with the dynamism of life, offers a contribution to the surrounding context which fosters the autonomous self-realization of others. Accordingly, social generativity identifies a pathway that neither disregards nor substitutes consumption, but rather balances it with a complementary and equally original mode of relationship with reality and others: giving, not simply taking; ‘excorporating’, not simply incorporating.

Etymologically, ‘generating’ is linked to a range of derivatives, such as ‘generosity’, ‘geniality’ and ‘genitor’, all of which share the same root, gen (produce, generate), whence also derive meanings such as ‘giving birth’, ‘germinating’, or, in other words, ‘bringing into the world’ in an enduring manner, ‘giving life’ and ‘causing to be’. In all of these cases, generating is not the effect of a moral imperative from above; rather, it flows from an inner force that opens people to the world and to others, so that they are able to act effectively while creatively contributing to their contexts. It thus brings individual satisfaction while enriching the social context at the same time.⁵

In order to ground our proposal theoretically,⁶ in the following chapters we will discuss some relevant concepts in classic and contemporary sociology and anthropology, such as Simmel’s life/form relationship (Chapter 3), Arendt’s natality (Chapter 4), Mauss’s gift theory (Chapter 5) and Weber’s life conduct (Chapter 6). Standing on the shoulders of these giants, it is possible to propose social generativity as a distinctive social phenomenon that aptly illuminates the relationship between personal development and social change and that is actualized by specific courses of action that we call ‘generative social action’ (GSA). Drawing on speech-act theory, we will clarify in this chapter the multiple dimensions of GSA as well as their dynamics. Specifically, we view GSA as a ‘talking action’: a meaningful and purposeful activity which integrates the instrumental-effective and the communicative aspects of action within concrete strings of acts, thus setting in motion complex social processes.⁷

But first, it is necessary to introduce the concept of ‘generativity’ as formulated by Erik Erikson in the field of psychology in the 1950s, as well as its development in the notion of ‘generative personality’ by Dan McAdams and others in the 1990s. Subsequently, we shall introduce the notion of GSA which, while rooted in classical traditions of social theory, presents an original perspective for interpreting the present and imagining the future in light of the legacy of the past.

Generativity in psychological studies

In modern social sciences, the concept of generativity received explicit formulation in 1950 with Erik H. Erikson’s publication of Childhood and Society,⁸ in which he analysed the relationship between individual and society within the framework of an evolutionary conception of human personality. Erikson described individual existence as a sequence of eight phases in the gradual maturing of the subject, who evolves from being the object of care to becoming a provider. This evolution, however, is neither linear nor automatic. It depends on the combination of various conditions (individual predisposition, familial milieu, socio-institutional contexts etc.). Moreover, according to Erikson, entry into each new stage is anything but safe, since it always entails a ‘crisis’, given that the subject stands at a crossroads between progress and regression.

The seventh phase is marked by the dilemma between ‘generativity’ and ‘stagnation’ (or self-absorption): the self-realization and flourishing of individuals requires a positive interaction between self and context. Thus, for Erikson, generativity is the same as ‘maturity’, a condition in which self-expression can offer a contribution to the surrounding context and is sensitive to future generations. Only if and when subjects overcome a self-centred orientation (typical of adolescence) are they able to open up and interact positively with their surroundings, within an intersubjective social and intergenerational framework. The risk of stagnation is avoided precisely by assuming an attitude “of care and concern for what has been generated by love, necessity or chance”.⁹

Thus, as the subject becomes an adult, s/he is able to ‘generate’, not only biologically¹⁰ but also, more broadly, symbolically, in the sense of being able to bring something new into the world and start a new process. Besides the action of ‘giving birth’, the generative process also involves taking care of what has been generated by oneself or by others, i.e., protecting, nurturing and improving the world for the benefit of present and future generations (McAdams and Logan, 2004, p. 16).

A notion of freedom is entailed here that cannot be reduced to making a choice among as many options as possible. Choosing is but the first (and not even the most important) step of a more complex process that also involves creativity, affection, projection towards the future, engagement and activation. Generativity is a long-term creative process that never reaches an ultimate, perfect form.

In Erikson’s view, mature freedom entails the decision and responsibility to bring something new into the world or to revitalize something by taking care of it. The obligation stems from the bond thus created, which, far from imposing an oppressive constraint, empowers the subject by fully connecting him or her to the surrounding reality and its challenges. Being responsible for someone/something else is a way to extract the best from oneself while being able to deal fruitfully with the external world.

Although generativity, for Erikson, constitutes the apogee of the evolution of human personhood, it is neither an automatic nor an irreversible stage in personal development. It is instead a potentiality that can always turn into its opposite: self-absorption which engenders closure, inaction and unproductivity. When this happens, subjects, locked within themselves, undergo a personal impoverishment. Instead of ‘spending themselves’ for the sake of what has been generated, they seek to ‘extract value’ from others and to exploit them.

It is also important to note that for Erikson, generativity is the inner movement by virtue of which human beings can fully flourish. In this perspective, freedom can hardly be reduced to its negative meaning (i.e., ‘being liberated from’). Once people have been able to free themselves, at stake is the positive challenge to motivate themselves toward something, assuming their responsibility towards the world as a source of creativity and self-realization. On the contrary, according to Erikson, if the subject looks at the world as something to be exploited, s/he is trapped in stagnation, in a recursive adolescent-type crisis.

The concept of generativity initially did not encounter much resonance. Yet, more recently, it entered the lexicon of the social sciences, especially in social psychology. This greater interest is probably due to the growing concern about the side effects of a capitalist consumer society – such as the ‘demographic winter’, environmental exploitation and financial debt – whose consequences can be severe for younger generations.

Thanks to these studies, the multidimensionality of the concept and its analytical potentialities have attracted interest and favoured the development of a new research field, the ‘psychology of generativity’. In this perspective, McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) highlighted the social dimension of the concept by identifying the ‘generative personality’ and its distinctive traits, as able to produce a positive impact on social contexts. In particular, in their empirical research, McAdams and de St. Aubin have shown that the ‘generative personality’ is able to achieve an enormous leap towards productivity and social creativity in unpredictable ways.¹¹ Interestingly, this disposition can emerge both through a linear pathway of development in highly integrated personalities as well as in more complex biographies, sometimes as an unexpected effect of failures, traumas or even physical injuries. Not uncommonly, the overcoming of narcissistic individualism, with its predatory and dissipative implications, is achieved only when egocentrism crumbles in the face of hard reality.

To summarize, contemporary psychology uses the term ‘generative’ to describe a personality that is able to offer an original and positive response to events; a personality driven by a substantial faith in the future and in humankind, and by a desire to invest its energies in forms of life and work that will outlive the self (Kotre, 1984, p. 10). Accordingly, generative personalities widen their spectrum of action both temporally (considering not only the ‘here-and-now’ but also the ‘before’ and ‘after’) and spatially (beyond their close circles to other people and groups).

Generativity as a sociological concept

Studies in social psychology have shown that generativity produces effects across diverse social spheres.¹² Hence arose the idea to explore the sociological implications of generativity, beyond a psychological perspective, rather as a viable form of social action. To substantiate this intuition, we initiated explorative fieldwork looking for groups and organizations which demonstrated some elements of generativity as identified in psycho-social studies: a strong orientation towards future generations; an explicit pro-social purpose; and concrete, empowering actions towards members and other stakeholders have been the three main criteria for selection.

The purpose of this fieldwork was to verify the existence of social organizations adopting a generative logic of action in their ordinary activity and to understand more in depth the implications of that choice.

Over the period of four years, we identified more than 100 cases from among a larger number of potential candidates. We then conducted case studies and compiled them in a digital archive, the “Archivio della Generatività Sociale”.¹³ While an extensive analysis of the main results will be presented in Chapter 2, in this chapter we discuss the main theoretical implications of our fieldwork.

The first aspect to be stressed is that social generativity is a process activated by personal initiative. It is thus an entrepreneurial action (in the economic, social, political or cultural sphere) able to bring something new into the world or to restore/regenerate/recover something already existing but forgotten. This action sets in motion a generative process. Social generativity begins when concrete initiatives by social actors, producing recognizable consequences in the surrounding context, are put into the world.

And yet, the initiative per se is not enough. Rather, social generativity emerges in relation to the expressive drive which ultimately moves the actor. The instrumental dimension, though essential, is secondary to the meaning attributed to the action. As the empirical evidence makes clear, social generativity cannot be reduced to a private action. Rather, being not simply instrumental but also purposeful and open, social generativity is able to shape organizations, companies, social movements and communities which project into space and last across time.¹⁴

By proposing a different vision of the future, a solution to an unsolved problem or an original response to an unanswered need, the generative enterprise aims to offer a distinguishable and sustainable contribution to the surrounding social context. That is why it is usually able to mobilize new resources (human, instrumental, financial etc.) that are essential for the initiative to start and develop.

Unsurprisingly, being started by an individual or a small group, such an entrepreneurial initiative is usually marked in its pioneering phase by charismatic leaders. Once the generative enterprise is in place, a peculiar social relationship develops betw...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• PART I On social generativity
• PART II Classical theoretical sources
• PART III Contemporary intersections in theory and practice
• Index