Last night I had a long conversation with Hannah, later my husband too, about some of the places where traditional "AP" (attachment parenting) philosophy falls short. The spark of the conversation: the book Hold On To Your Kids by Neufeld and Mate, plus a DVD seminar by Neufeld under the title The Power to Parent.
I wish I could get into the details of Neufeld’s thesis in a blog post. Neufeld’s work is, like typical "AP" (Dr. Sears-type) parenting philosophy, grounded in attachment theory. But it picks up where AP leaves off and goes a lot deeper. AP is missing some important stuff.
Where AP has it right is in stressing early sensory bonding with the infant and the young child (through practices like babywearing, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, and caring for your own children); and training your children through modeling the behavior you’d like to see. But these can only get you so far. Once a child hits five or six or seven years old, they need more. And it’s at this point that a lot of AP parents run into behavior problems — relationship problems — that hugs and co-sleeping and gentle modeling can’t solve.
Some think that they just haven’t given enough closeness and love. Some, certain they’ve done everything right, figure that they have an exceptionally "high needs" or "difficult" child — and can’t think what to do next. Some decide that AP was a bunch of bunk and switch gurus from Dr. Sears to somebody else.
Meanwhile, some (not all) people who were raised (horrors!) by mainstream parents who may have spanked, used coercive discipline, put their kids in cribs, etc. etc. etc. seem to have turned out healthy, happy, and whole. How can this be if we’re so certain that spanking is wrong? That breast is best? That cribs are nothing but cages? Etc. etc.
The ends don’t justify the means, so if you’re convinced spanking (or anything else) is wrong, then don’t do it, even if you think it will work. But judging purely on results: Could it be that it’s not quite so simple as "Spanking is bad and won’t work" vs. "Spanking is good and will work?"
Neufeld’s research, according to the book and the video course, indicates there’s six kinds of attachment. And that attachment is the most important factor in their maturation and character development. As children mature, they need to pass through the stages in sequence:
- Through nearness and the senses (easiest but also the most superficial kind of attachment);
- Through imitation and identification (deeper);
- Through belonging and loyalty ("I’m on your side; I want to obey you")
- Through a feeling of being significant, important;
- Through a feeling of love and affection;
- Through being secure in the knowledge that they are known and understood (the deepest and most persistent and mature level of attachment).
AP is great for the earliest two stages, what with all the cuddling and bonding and closeness and modeling ("You can clean up just like me!"), but stops partway through. The stories we hear of successful mainstream parenting, and we all know some, are the stories of people who grew up in a family that fostered, especially, the latter four kinds of attachment as the children grew through older childhood and their teen years. The stories of people whose parents were confident in their work as parents.
The kinds of attachment can, to some extent, be formed independently of each other. It’s not hard to imagine that in a family with very strict rules and harsh punishments for rule-breaking — the kind of stuff that "gentle parenting advocates" and AP experts decry — there might still be a strong sense of belonging and having a place in the family; a strong sense that Dad and Mom are on the same side as the kids; great love; the sure knowledge that the ties among them can never be ruptured.
What Neufeld presents in the book and seminar (at least what I’ve seen so far) provides a lot of what traditional "AP" is missing.
There are other aspects of it that I haven’t touched on. One: By "power to parent" Neufeld means the ability to wield influence (not leverage, not force) on your kids by virtue of their attachment to you, their love for you — many have lost this power over their kids, and it’s not as simple as the continuum between permissive/authoritarian. Nor is it as simple as the superficial kinds of attachment that AP parenting promotes. Two: The whole job of parents is complicated by children’s propensity to attach to other people, not just parents, if it’s what they need to do to maintain emotional and physical safety. Good or bad? Depends who they attach to. A kind, helpful teacher at school? Good. An abusive boyfriend or a neglected young peer? Bad.
I’m looking forward to watching the rest of the seminar sessions.
UPDATE: More thoughts.
bearing blog 