I am somewhat ashamed to admit that until @NotMaryP over at Daycare Daze made this post, I had no idea that attachment parenting was so despised by the very people who practised it.
I read Daycare Daze specifically because I admire her excellent authoritative parenting style and wish desperately that I lived close enough to send Babby to her daycare when he is a year old. But I recently found out that to her, Attachment Parenting is four-letter phrase. Since my foundation is in Psychology and Biology, I learned about Bowlby long before I ever heard of Dr. Sears and so I missed the whole attachment parents = permissive hippies connection.
My understanding of attachment theory comes psych courses, rather than from popular culture. I’ve always been a bit of a shut-in, so this isn’t the first time I’ve realized that I missed something big (I found out when I was 14 that there had been this guy named Kurt Cobain, who was now dead, and that his band Nirvana had started a whole movement called “Grunge” and I was like “What happened to the Beatles?”).
Apparently, to most people, “Attachment Parenting” as considered to be the name for what Perfect Husband and I call “Please Parenting” – the kind of parents who beg their tiny children to behave and alternately scold or coddle during tantrums rather than calmly enforcing proper boundaries.
Ironically, this actually violates attachment theory.
This is how I feel when I encounter Fundamentalist Christians. As a child, I learned about Christian forgiveness, about the dangers of wealth, and about accepting the differences of others. The fact that Christianity is now largely associated with Republican mysogynist, homophobic, and capitalist agendas baffles me… because it seems completely in opposition to the whole point of Christianity.
Daddy loves me, this I know
Now here I am, being told that Attachment Parenting is associated with Please Parenting, and I can only shake my head in disbelief.
So now I am here now to explain Attachment Theory and debunk this bizarre misunderstanding once and for all.
…at least, among the 200 people or so who happen on my blog every day.
What is Attachment Theory?
Attachment Theory is the result of some rather cruel developments in the early to mid 20th century, in which mothers were increasingly separated from their infants in hospitals, hospitalized children were not allowed parental visitation, and other instances of maternal deprivation ran rampant. Parents were seen as somewhat unsanitary and ultimately inferior to the hospital model which was clean, clinical, and scientific. John Bowlby and other researchers discovered that constant affection is as vital to child development as food and safety are. Yes, back in 1951, this was a shocking discovery. Extra! Extra! Children Need Parents! Read All About It!
*eyeroll*
Further investigations revealed several key facts:
- That at least one significant parent figure is necessary for healthy physical and mental growth of a child
- That parenting style can affect the style of bond between the parent and child
- That the type of bond between parent and child has a significant effect on the personality of the child later in life
- That the type of bond between parent and child is highly predictive of the child’s relationship style in adulthood
A researcher named Mary Ainsworth described several key “attachment styles”, which were based on how a toddler behaved when a parent left the child alone in a new room with a stranger.
- “Secure” toddlers explored the strange room confidently with their mother present, became upset when their mother left the room, greeted her joyously when she returned, and went right back to playing.
- “Insecure Avoidant” toddlers explored the room freely, appeared unmoved when their mother left the room (but sensor readings of the child showed that the child was experiencing a great emotional disturbance which he was simply not displaying) and did not show much reaction to her return.
- “Insecure Ambivalent/Reactive” toddlers became extremely disturbed when their mother left the room, and remained very upset even after she returned, clinging to her leg or sometimes displaying anger at her for leaving.
- “Disorganized” toddlers showed no consistent style at all – they behaved alternately like an avoidant child, and other times like an ambivalent child. They displayed a lot of anger and resistant behaviour.
Now, this “Strange Situation” test seems a little pat, so it is remarkable how well it predicts two things: the child’s future relationships and their attachment with their own children.
- “Secure” people grow up to trust others easily and enter into long-term, committed relationships with ease. They are much more likely to describe themselves and others in a positive fashion.
- “Insecure Avoidant” people grow up to have difficulties with intimacy. They are highly independent and show no particular desire for closeness with others. They have poor opinions of their romantic partners, and their relationships rarely last long.
- “Insecure Ambivalent/Reactive” people grow up to have poor opinions of themselves and a mistrust of others. They are often clingy, jealous, and dependent in relationships and need constant reassurance from their romantic partners. Think Bella Swan.
- Disorganized people can be messed up in a huge variety of ways, but they generally have severe difficulty forming relationships and trusting others.
Also, the attachment a child has with his/her caregivers is largely predictive of the parenting style being used.
- “Secure” children are almost always being raised by authoritative parents. The parents encourage independence and enforce consistent expectations within a framework of love and empathy. The parent is a firm authority figure but the child’s feelings are always acknowledged and considered important. The parent models appropriate ways to control difficult emotions such as anger, frustration, and fear.
- “Insecure Avoidant” children have authoritarian parents who scold or punish negative emotional behaviour such as anger, frustration and fear. The parent does not comfort the child when he is upset and enforces strict rules, harsh consequences and high expectations. The child does not learn empathy and does not learn how to share his/her feelings with others.
- “Insecure Ambivalent/Reactive” children are often associated with a permissive and inconsistent parenting style. The parents are usually extremely reactive and sympathetic to the child’s emotional responses, but do not model or encourage the control of these emotions. The parent does not enforce consistent rules, so the child often feels confused by constantly shifting expectations. The child does not trust the parent to react in a predictable manner and learns that the world is a worrying and unpredictable place.
- “Disorganized” children are associated with abuse, changes in caregivers (such as institutionalized care) or simply a parent who cannot correctly identify a child’s emotional cues (the parent chases the child in a fun game of tag, but does not notice or stop when the child’s laughter turns to real terror). The child both loves and fears the care giver simultaneously, or has not had the opportunity to bond to a specific person.
This is why it surprises me so much to find out that “Attachment Parenting” has become a pseudonym for “Permissive parenting” – because permissive parenting does not foster a secure attachment, which is what Attachment Parenting is supposed to be all about! The goal of Attachment Theory is to foster secure attachments with the caregiver so that the child will grow into an emotionally healthy, happy, and confident adult! Permissive parenting does no such thing.
Do you understand my bewilderment more, now?
Coming up next time: The difference between an authoritarian parent, a permissive parent, and an authoritative parent, or, why Amy Chua and Mayim Bialik are both wrong.
If By Yes 
THIS was fascinating, and I’ll be returning to read this again, I know. To clarify, though: I *used to* view attachment parenting as a negative; now I realize that many of the parents I know who claim to be practicing attachment parenting are not applying the principles properly, and are not attachment parents at all. In fact, I discovered (to my surprise, some years ago) that *I* am an attachment parent! Who knew??
Thank you for this really informative look at the concept, much clearer and more science-based than the books I’ve read on the subject to date. Some of this I’d picked up in the handful of psychology courses I’ve taken, but if I’d seen it put together so neatly before, I’ve forgotten. Very nice!
If By Yes, debunking myths since 1982!
Glad you found it informative, I hope others do too.
I feel about the phrase “attachment parenting” the way I feel about the word “feminism” – it’s what I do, it’s not how I identify myself. Because yeah, everyone I know (present company excepted) who self-identify as “attachment parents” are overly permissive wishy-washy people who mean well, but are raising rotten children.
One friend, lovely girl, practices what she calls attachment parenting, and her kid is so completely out of control that we don’t have playdates any more at James’ request, because the other kid is “always mean” to him.
Yup.
Interesting post. I don’t know if you can take back the label, but I applaud you for trying.
I damn well ought to be able to. I’ma hit you with a sneak peak from the next post: a recent study found that of people raised in a “permissive” parenting style, ZERO had a secure attachment. ZERO! That means that lax parents who call themselves “attachment” parents are actually the WORST at fostering a secure attachment.
And that’s stupid.
Yup, Attachment Parenting usually gets lumped in with permissive styles of parenting/discipline like Unconditional Parenting, “Free-Range” Parenting, and so on. And anyone who labels themselves such is often thought of as, well, whacko. Maybe because some actually *are*, but also because they tend to gravitate to similar things, like babywearing and breastfeeding and co-sleeping, even if those are the only similarities. (Often, AP parents favor a lot of “natural” parenting choices as well — homebirths, cloth diapers, eating organic, elimination communication, etc. — but, again, these aren’t the same thing. One can be all of these things or any combination, or none at all.)
Exhibit A (a video posted by a facebook friend yesterday): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSEPA6TIgzc
THAT is how Attachment Parenting is looked at by the general public.
Of course, like anything else, there’s a wide spectrum of parenting styles and choices and one can be in many, many places in the middle somewhere rather than only on the far opposite extreme ends. But you know that all the comments on her posting were basically: “LOL! So true!” Personally, I wanted to say: “Really? So true? You actually know people this extreme? I don’t. Or maybe y’all think *I’M* that person because I do some of those things?”
I didn’t say a word, of course. Why bother.
Anyway, the point is, AP has a bit of a bad rep, so be careful how you label yourself. 😉
Another thing that’s not quite black or white is how kids will grow up, despite the way they are parented. No matter how much we foster independence in Liam, for example, he has anxiety issues so he may never feel as secure as a “secure” child is described. Theories are great, but real life has unpredictabilities we can’t necessarily predict or plan for, as you know. Do your best. It’s all we can do. 🙂
I seriously feel like AP has been commandeered by mindless morons, the way Christianity has been commandeered by conservatives.
It’s just shocking.
And yeah, it’s not that simple, because NOTHING is that simple. Human beings are a mixture of culture, genetics, biology, and life experiences and all of them have an effect on how we turn out.
For example, I am confidant that I was raised with a secure attachment. I never doubted my parents’ love for me, or felt the need to cling to my mother lest she disappear. But my behaviour in many ways falls under Anxious-Ambivalent categories in adulthood. I worry that my friends don’t like me, etc etc. I think Junior High messed me up a bit.
It just aggravates me when people who are actually damaging their children’s attachment style walk around saying “I’m an attachment parent”.
You wouldn’t have been scorned. I came out right at the beginning as an “Attachment Parent”. I did all the things on that list: breast-feeding, co-sleeping, baby-wearing… I don’t see those things as extreme, at all. The point of the post was supposed to be that those out-of-control kids are NOT examples of attachment parenting, and that attachment parenting, as it is commonly defined… isn’t really attachment parenting.
(Though in fact, sadly, I do know people that extreme. One of them lives six doors down on my street.)
Carol has done an far better job than I did of making the distinction between what is and what is not attachment parenting. I had no idea before I read this post that there was such a divergence between the science and the colloquial practice of attachment. Really, really interesting.
Oh, don’t get me wrong: *I* don’t see anything wrong with all those things, and I do them too. 🙂 But (and maybe, especially, as a military wife raising my kids on a base) I’m really not around other AP parents AT ALL. So I just do my thing and keep quiet about it most of the time. 😉
I’d like to point out that “Free Range Parenting” – at least, the book by Lenore Skenazy – does not advocate slack-assed parenting by any means. Instead, it talks a lot about helping your children build self-esteem and self-reliance by allowing them to stretch their wings a bit. Again, I think part of the problem here is with people mis-identifying certain methods… “free range” implies letting your damn fool kids run wild all over the neighbourhood without consequence, and that’s not at all what it is. Instead, it’s teaching your children to assess and manage risk, so that you can (for example) let them play in the front yard without parental supervision when they are of a reasonable age to do so.
I get what Shelly says too – about all of this being too theoretical for the real world. And I quite agree. Each child is diffferent. Anyone who deliberately sets out to raise their child to a particular philosophy is doomed to fail, IMO.
Whoops! I was using the term “free range” loosely, without realizing there was a book by that name. Sorry to be confusing!
No worries. It’s a great book – very funny, but really makes you think, too. Since I read it I’ve been giving Isaac more freedom and he’s never once disappointed me or done anything stupid / dangerous. In return, his maturity level has gone up by leaps & bounds. I highly recommend it as a read.
too bookish for me. i don’t think children come with a manual, or can be raised to the T of any “style”… if i only had 1 kid then maybe it would be easier, but with 2 it’s impossible to think that they could ever be raised under the same rules, or guidelines… they are similar, yet soooo different in personality.
i think i’m somewhere in the middle of it all, i love and cuddle and keep my kids close, yet i believe they need a little push into the unknown sometimes. they need to learn that even if mommy or daddy isn’t there, I can still do it. ya ya, my boy has had a broken leg and he’s only 2… but still, he’s learning his limits and boundaries.
also in my opinion, just because YOU label yourself one way or another, i don’t think your child will just fall into one of those 4 categories. if you notice that your child isn’t developing properly in a certain area, i don’t think you would just keep on keeping on because that’s what a book told you to do… you have a brain of your own. you figured out the sleep suit on your own didn’t you? you didn’t just let him scream and cry and not get any sleep, no, you found what works for your little man! so don’t put too much worry into the words “permissive” or “attachment”, we’re all searching for the proper balance of smother and independence. 🙂
I guess I’m still not explaining clearly, because the point is that attachment theory is about a goal, not a method. Attachment is something that IS, not something that is done. If you child feels that he is loved, and that he can rely on that love, and so on, then that is a secure attachment. Secure attachment is associated with a balanced parenting style – a hug here, a push there – which means that most people have a secure attachment to their parents – 65%, because most parents are a mixture of love and discipline, and a mixture is what you want. It’s only when you cut out the nurturing, or cut out the discipline, that you end up damaging the child. But Attachment Parenting has people thinking that they have to follow A, B, and C, otherwise their kid will be messed up.
In reality, it’s the opposite. You have to do everything BUT X,Y, and Z and your kid will turn out ok.
This is the problem – people think that you have to breastfeed, co-sleep, babywear etc in order to have an “attached” child, but actually all children have some form of attachment or another, and attachment is based on the secure love and encouragement of a parent, not on following strict points, rules or guidelines.
Even though children are undeniably different right from the moment of birth, most families do have an over-arching basic approach to parenting. I have three kids (and five stepkids), and though of course my response to each child reflect the strengths, weaknesses, and needs of that particular child, I also have a foundation of parenting principles and goals that don’t change.
As Carol says, the point is the goal, not the method. For one child, a certain response is called for to get to the goal; for another child, a different response is called for. The goal remains the same. I see it as a matter of thinking in terms of parenting *principles*, not rules.
I think the worst part is twofold – One, that because of the misconceptions, attachment parenting gets a bad rap. Two, that the people practicing permissive parenting are doing so out of a misguided desire to be good to their children. My mom was a permissive parent, and I definitely fall into the Insecure Ambivalent/Reactive category. And it’s hard. Because I know with all my heart she loves me to pieces and it would break her heart to know that any of the challenges I’ve faced in my life could be traced back to her.
…Apparently I have not yet finished ranting. You’re not the only one passionate about this topic, it seems. 🙂
I just hate this kind of misconception. Because in my experience, it tends to result in people going to the other extreme. It’s like the many times in my teaching career I was told that I needed to “yell more” in order to be a successful teacher. No. I do not. In fact, the research very strongly suggests that is EXTREMELY counter productive in the long run. It really bothers me that a lot of people can’t see the difference between setting and enforcing boundaries without needing to get hostile and letting kids run wild. Authoritarian styles don’t work out well either. Drives me nuts.
I know, eh? Extreme ANYTHING does not wash well.
I agree with you 100%. I wish I’d said it that clearly on my post. Attachment parenting is a good philosophy. The practitioners who turn it into permissive parenting are misunderstanding and misrepresenting it, and giving it, as you say, a bad rap. It’s unfortunate.
Pingback: Attachment Theory 101 Part the Second: Mediocrity for the win « If By Yes
I really enjoyed this. (Especially your mention of Bella Swan.) I am familiar with “attachment parenting” via Dr. Sears. Your description, however, seems to follow completely in line with what we’ve been practicing and how it’s been showing up in our lives and our daughter’s life. Makes me feel pretty good!
I’m glad!
Pingback: Finding peace in fence sitting | By Plan or Happenstance
Pingback: All About Tantrums – A Holistic View of Tantrums At All Ages | If By Yes