George Lakoff
Raising Real Children by George Lakoff (Rockridge Institute)
Chapter 21 of Moral Politics: Attachment Theory
What is it that leads to disturbed family relationships, to child abuse, to alienated, dysfunctional adults who have little stake in society? There are many lines of research into this question. One of the principal ones is attachment theory. It was first developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth thirty years ago, and has now become a mature, well-respected, and far-flung research endeavour. For an excellent popular survey of this research, see Becoming Attached by Robert Karen (see References, BI, for introductory material). The final answers are not in, but here is what attachment theory indicates at present.
Attachment theory indicates the opposite, that ‘getting love reliably and consistently makes the child feel worthy of love; and his perception that he can attain what he needs from those around him yields the sense that he is an person effective who can have an impact on his world’ (Karen, p. 242).
Self-discipline and self-denial are not what makes children self-reliant. Nurturance does not spoil children. As Mary Ainsworth says, ‘It’s a good thing to give a baby and a young child physical contact, especially when they want it and seek it. It doesn’t spoil them. It doesn’t make them clingy. It doesn’t make them addicted to being held’; (Karen, p. 173). This is supported by longitudinal studies. Babies cried less at twelve months if their cries had been responded to conscientiously when they were younger’ (Karen, p. 173). ‘Whatever relationship advantages secure attachment does tend to confer persist through age fifteen’; (Karen, p. 202), which is as long as the studies have been carried out. The latter is a remarkable finding; secure attachments developed early have a lasting effect.
The basic claim of attachment theory, considerably oversimplified, is this: A child will function better in later life if he is ‘;securely attached’ to his mother or father or other caregiver from birth. That is, he will be more self-reliant, responsible, socially adept, and confident. Secure attachment arises from regular, loving interaction, especially when the child desires it. Letting a child go it alone and tough it out, denying him loving interaction when he wants it does not create strength, confidence, and self-reliance. It creates ‘avoidant attachment’ — lack of trust, difficulties in relating positively to others, lack of respect for and responsibility toward others, and in many cases antisocial or criminal behaviour and rage. Alternate unsure experiences of attachment and avoidance by parents create a third type of attachment: ambivalent attachment, which results in ambivalent behaviour towards others in later life, a dread of abandonment and an inability to see one’s own responsibility in relationships, and continuing feelings of anger and hurt toward one’s parents. Ambivalent attachment might arise, for example, from painful punishment (to enforce obedience) followed by extreme affection (to show daddy loves you).
These results appear at present to support the values of the Nurturant Parent model over the Strict Father model.
Importantly, it is not just Strict Father family values that harm children. Consider a young, impoverished, uneducated single mother who does not know how to nurture a child properly and who hits or ignores her child when he needs attention. The effect may be avoidant attachment coming from a source other than Strict Father parenting, namely, neglect. In the American context, it is a bit ironic that the Strict Father model applied in a two-parent family may have effects that are similar to those of families with inattentive or violent single mothers, where there is no father, strict or otherwise. The issue is not one parent or two. The issue is the quality of nurturance.
Critiques of attachment theory are varied: Some critics suggest a greater role for genetic predisposition and some suggest that the results are culturally relative. But no major body of research supports the Strict Father model on this issue. So far as present results show, the denial of secure attachment does not build self-reliance and responsibility for others, as advocates of Strict Father parenting imply.
One important critique of attachment theory is that it focuses mainly on early childhood. Yet, as of 1993, the results hold up to the age of fifteen (Bl, Smote et al, 1992; Karen, p. 202).
George Lakoff
