Vaillant (2012, p. 155) indicated that: “Guardians are caretakers. They take responsibility for the cultural values and riches from which we all benefit, offering their concern beyond specific individuals to their culture as a whole; they engage a social radius that extends beyond their immediate personal surroundings.” The domain of concern for guardians is no longer just their family (our first type of generativity), their organization (second type of generativity), or even their community (fourth type of generativity). While this third way to express generativity can be identified as a form of resistance to change, or as an overdose of nostalgia, it also can be seen as an expression of deep caring for that which remains valid in contemporary times and which continues as a source of wisdom regardless of its date of origin or the quaint way in which it is stated, painted, or sung.
As noted by Erik Erikson, generativity is about caring for that which should be cared for, and this includes the ongoing presence of critical societal values. It is about caring not just for a specific person, organization, or community. It is about caring for an idea, for the history of action and achievement, for a particular artifact (e.g., painting, building) that represents a lingering value or exemplifies an ideal of beauty. When engaging like Bach’s sons in this third form of Generativity we are guardians of something that already exists – or existed in the past.
McAdams (McAdams, Hart, and Maruna, 1998, p. 15) hints at this third generativity role when identifying the way in which cultural demands serve as an external motivating source of generativity. Specifically, like Quehl and myself, McAdams and his colleagues suggest that the extension of time places an important role in generativity: “In its linking of generations, generativity links past and future time.” McAdams believes that generativity is about our desire to outlive our self. It is about stretching time beyond the boundaries of our own lives. Gary Quehl and I (Bergquist and Quehl, 2020) specifically suggest that this extension of time often takes place by honoring our heritage and preserving that which we most value and about which we most care. For the sons of Papa Bach, this would mean outliving themselves by preserving not only their own musical compositions, but also those written by their father.
Safeguarding a Tradition
Safeguarding a tradition seems to be at the heart of what George Vaillant means when writing about “guardianship,” although we suspect that he did not intend to limit himself to this often-reactionary motivation. While the safeguarding function can be nothing more than hesitancy to accept change and a reaction against anything new, it also can be founded in a strong commitment to keeping what is good in a society.
In essence, a tradition is safeguarded in one of five ways. First, it can be preserved by ensuring that nothing changes in the system; we set up a fortress, buttress it, and make certain nothing will “pollute” or “water-down” the tradition; we see this form of safeguarding in the policies of many countries that place severe restrictions on immigration. We also find in the constant monitoring of theological and ideological conformity by some religious sects and political groups. Strict enforcement often leads to the splintering of these groups over minor differences of opinion. Unfortunately, this form of preservation often results in not just splintering, but ultimately the death of the system itself. Theorists tell us that systems which are closed and have very heavy boundaries cannot survive; there must be openness and permeable boundaries if a system is to remain viable. Diverse input (ideas, products, sources of energy) must be available to the system, especially if it is to remain creatively adaptive (Stacey, 1996; Page, 2011)
