5.05.2006
loving and leaving
Over at Crooked Timber, Harry Brighouse asks why the British book Why Love Matters by psychotherapist Sue Gerhardt hasn't gotten more attention here. And it does sound provocative, from his read of it:
Gerhardt is very clear that what is best for very young children is that they are looked after by their parents; securing their emotional health requires that their carer be attuned to their emotional states not just at a particular time but over time, and be sufficiently attached to them to involve themselves in the emotional work that the baby needs... .
He then quotes this passage, which I think is worth repeating:
They need continuous care from adults who can attune to their states, regulate them, and feed back to them who they are. The capacity to do this develops through an ongoing relationship. Babies who are looked after by strangers cannot expect to enjoy lasting emotional attachments to them, building up a mutual emotional vocabulary and understanding; by their nature, these relationships are transitory. Babies looked after by people who are not ‘in love’ with them are often socialised into emotional life, with corresponding biochemical pathways in the brain, without the responsiveness and sensitivity that produce emotional confidence and competence. We know that there is a high rate of avoidant attachment in these looked after populations- ie a form of attachment behaviour which attempts self-sufficiency and not needing or relying on others. These tendencies perhaps lay the groundwork to produce the workaholics of the future labour force.
This somewhat flies in the face of what I've read of the research--and in what I have come to believe through experience. (If you follow the link you will see what others have been saying in response to Brighouse's post.) It seems to me that a good caregiver who is not a parent but who has a stable, longterm relationship with the baby can provide exactly the things that child needs--can be "in love" with the baby, in other words. And further, I think that there are a good many parents who wouldn't be very good at being a baby's daily carer, and are in fact doing the best thing for their babies by finding someone else who is very good at it.
Which brings me to something I've noticed more than once: Why are parents so upset by those instances when their children accidentally call the nanny or babysitter "mommy"? They should be delighted that the child has such a strong, loving attachment to this person! Instead, of course, the grown-up's ego gets bruised. In other words, we never grow up.
Gerhardt is very clear that what is best for very young children is that they are looked after by their parents; securing their emotional health requires that their carer be attuned to their emotional states not just at a particular time but over time, and be sufficiently attached to them to involve themselves in the emotional work that the baby needs... .
He then quotes this passage, which I think is worth repeating:
They need continuous care from adults who can attune to their states, regulate them, and feed back to them who they are. The capacity to do this develops through an ongoing relationship. Babies who are looked after by strangers cannot expect to enjoy lasting emotional attachments to them, building up a mutual emotional vocabulary and understanding; by their nature, these relationships are transitory. Babies looked after by people who are not ‘in love’ with them are often socialised into emotional life, with corresponding biochemical pathways in the brain, without the responsiveness and sensitivity that produce emotional confidence and competence. We know that there is a high rate of avoidant attachment in these looked after populations- ie a form of attachment behaviour which attempts self-sufficiency and not needing or relying on others. These tendencies perhaps lay the groundwork to produce the workaholics of the future labour force.
This somewhat flies in the face of what I've read of the research--and in what I have come to believe through experience. (If you follow the link you will see what others have been saying in response to Brighouse's post.) It seems to me that a good caregiver who is not a parent but who has a stable, longterm relationship with the baby can provide exactly the things that child needs--can be "in love" with the baby, in other words. And further, I think that there are a good many parents who wouldn't be very good at being a baby's daily carer, and are in fact doing the best thing for their babies by finding someone else who is very good at it.
Which brings me to something I've noticed more than once: Why are parents so upset by those instances when their children accidentally call the nanny or babysitter "mommy"? They should be delighted that the child has such a strong, loving attachment to this person! Instead, of course, the grown-up's ego gets bruised. In other words, we never grow up.
