In Praise of Attachment Parenting (Sort Of)
December 7, 2008 by Dr. Heather
Filed under Breastfeeding, Developmental Grab-Bag, Motherhood
Every week, I buy groceries at our grungy, local health-food store. My daughter affectionately dubbed it “The Stinky Market” — partly because of that characteristic “health-food store” smell, but also because of the bodily odors emanating from some of the motley group of customers frequenting the place — a weird combination of surfers, hippies, homeless people, backpacking travelers, and “Euro-Trash”. — Oh, and the occasional yuppie mom like me. (Except I hope I’m not one of the stinky types. In all honestly there aren’t TOO many stinky customers, but the one or two in there at any given time are certainly enough.)
During each visit, I see at least 4 or 5 “Baby-Wearing” mamas in the store. These dedicated parents take their childrearing (and food shopping) very seriously, braving the narrow aisles with groceries piled precariously high atop rickety shelves, all the while with an infant (or toddler, or preschooler) attached to their bodies. These are the Attachment Parenting advocates living at a major heart of the AP movement. These are dedicated baby-wearers, extended-breastfeeders, family-bedders, and gentle-discipliners. And because I live in a nexus of strident AP, we have more than our fair share of AP fundamentalists. And in fact the Stinky Market is the very place where I’ve gotten an uninvited comment (and plenty “Stink-Eye”) about using strollers. 
But this week, I was feeling quite contrite about my last AP post — not because I have changed my opinion (I haven’t). But I realized that the AP parents are really coming from the same place that motivates me in my parenting approach — we just get to somewhat different places with it. And I also feel really bad about offending some of you out there whom I consider to be readers, supporters, and friends….those of you who practice AP, and don’t deserve the uninvited criticism from me. To any of you I offended — you know who you are — I offer my sincere apology.
But because it was on my mind so much, I went back to developmental theory, to remind myself exactly WHY I disagree with some of what AP espouses. This is the quick version:
Infant Development: A (Very) Quick Primer
The infant starts out in life as a completely dependent being. She relies on her parents (usually the mother) for such fundamental things as nutrition and the regulation of bodily processes. In many ways, the infant is born “unfinished”, being delivered at 40 weeks’ gestation not because she’s really ready to be born, but because the human mother is not physically capable of delivering a larger infant. She needs to be “attached” to her mother to fulfill these needs. This attachment allows successful development into later phases of growth.
Over time, the infant becomes capable of voluntary movement. She starts to control her body in ways SHE wants to; it’s no longer up to her own random or reflexive movements. And with this voluntary movement comes the spark of the ability to be mobile, and to communicate.
Movement away from the parent requires a means of communicating over distance with that parent: When you crawl across the room, it’s nice to be able to say “Doggie!” and to point at the doggie, to get your parents’ attention. Communication becomes more necessary when the child can move away from the parent. And communication is a symbolic way of continuing attachment. We can tell older babies I love you! And their ability to understand abstract communication helps them to feel the love, without being physically held. It’s not that physical comfort is no longer necessary, but rather, the baby now has a new, more advanced way to be attached; through communication. And that allows the baby to become more independent, and venture out, away from the parent.
And moving away from the parent is really the point of development, isn’t it? It’s called independence. This isn’t dictated by some non-AP theory, it’s simply accepted developmental fact. Remember reading about Margaret Mahler in your Intro Psych class? She was the acknowledged queen researcher of infant development. She observed infants all over the world moving through phases of complete dependence in early infancy, through the phases of Separation-Individuation later in toddlerhood. This phase is topped off by the challenging, difficult phase of Rapprochement, in which the infant is conflicted about independence. She varies between clingy attachment, and boldly venturing out on her own. Many of the questions I get here at BabyShrink have to do with the fundamental conflicts inherent during the Rapprochement phase.
Of course this does not mean that our 2-year-olds are completely independent; we shouldn’t be expecting them to bring home a paycheck any time soon. But it does point out the slow modification that our parenting approach needs to make over time; the understanding that the increased ability of the infant to handle (and explore) independence requires us to give them room to do so. The infant starts out needing complete “attachment” to the parents, and gradually needs less and less attachment over time in order to develop independence.
How is this different from Attachment Parenting? Yeah, I know that AP understands and appreciates the nature of “attachment” — they used it in the name of the approach, after all. And I’m totally with them on the use of AP principles, but only with very young infants, and only when that infant is constitutionally amenable to the intense physical contact of AP. As I said in my previous post, AP comments very little on those infants who simply do better with a little time and space on their own; a little less handling — and little “breaks” from being “attached” all the time. Many of my readers have babies whose sensory systems simply could not handle all that attachment, and are so much happier with a little “breathing room”. And as infants become toddlers, they crave less and less dependence — and more and more independence. And we, as parents, need to walk that tightrope of “Rapprochement” with them.
So I guess this is my lengthy reply to all of you who commented and emailed on my last AP post — and also my apology, to any of those I unintentionally offended. I hope this post shows that I agree wholeheartedly with the intended goals of AP — we just vary in our approach.
IF YOU FOUND THIS POST FIRST, MAKE SURE TO CATCH ANOTHER ONE OF MY AP POSTS HERE AS WELL
Just a thought. Some of us who occasionally “wear” our babies aren’t necessarily AP types. I’m about as far from AP philosophically as you can get, but I do own a MOBY and my daughter is pretty happy there…and I’m happy to have her there so I can keep my hands free. I’m a yuppie who shops at Whole Foods on occasion. But I’m not an AP type.
Oh hell, I used to wear the backpack while grocery shopping all the time. From 5 months until about 11 months, when I was confident enough in the shopping cart seat belt to put her in there instead.
But it wasn’t a philosophy; I just didn’t have a car to put one of those cart-blanket things in.
My first child was born just before 30 weeks gestation, weighing in at just over two pounds. The nurses gave me an article about “Kangaroo Care”, which is a method of holding the baby against the mother’s bare chest. It has been used in developing countries, where there isn’t the luxury of heat lamps and cozy isolettes, with much success. I tried it. I loved it. I firmly believe it helped my daughter.
But, once she reached passed her actual due date and once she had gained enough weight that she seemed to be thriving, we phased out the kangaroo care, and you know what? She continued to thrive. Interestingly, she is still quite a snuggler. But, she’s also a very independent thinker. I think this post is right on.
HI MOMO:
I’m, so glad you posted about Kangaroo Care. It’s a perfect example of developmental needs changing over time. Isn’t it amazing how these babies change and grow so much..so quickly?!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on attachment parenting and continuing attachment through more advanced means as the child ages. I love the thought that my verbal “I love you” is like a hug to my child. I don’t know why it surprises me, because I get the warm fuzzies when someone tells me they love me.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what attachment parenting truly is, both among some that claim that they practice it and among those that don’t.
Attachment parenting isn’t about following specific rules (babywearing, breastfeeding, etc.). Those are just tools that often help to foster attachment, but they may not work for everyone.
Attachment parenting is not about preventing your child from becoming independent. It is about helping your child feel secure enough to seek independence confidently.
To me, ultimately and most importantly, attachment parenting is about knowing your child. If you know that your child needs physical touch, then give it. If you know that your child needs space, then give that. It doesn’t make sense to push our children into independence before they are ready for it and it also doesn’t make sense to hold them back when they are. I loved wearing my daughter, but she wants to walk now most of the time, so she does. She does still breastfeed, but I can’t (and wouldn’t dream of) trying to force her to do it when she doesn’t want to. The choice of whether to continue nursing or not is HER choice, not mine (I also know not all parents feel that way and some moms prefer to gently wean their child and that is fine too).
For more on what attachment parenting really is, check this out:
http://phdinparenting.com/2008/11/16/what-is-attachment-parenting/
I wear my 15 month old son when we go out to the store, etc – partly because it is easier to navigate aisles while wearing him than in a stroller but mostly because he likes it. When I show him our carrier (a Calyx) and ask him if he wants to ride in it, he gets excited. If we have the Calyx around the house (on the couch or bed), he will often bring it to my husband and I and ask to be put in it.
Hello Dr. Heather!
I just found this site after clicking around on the blog of someone who commented on my blog. (oh the tangled web we weave.) The commenter is an APer and strongly encouraging me not to try Cry It Out with my 7.5 month old. I was about to fall down the oh-no-i’m-a-bad-mother well when I went to her blog and by extension found you, a voice of reason and balance! Imagine that in the arena of parenting philosophy! I can hardly wait to read through your blog! Meanwhile, we are in the middle of a bedtime sleep crisis, and if you felt inspired to share a cliff notes version of your advice with me I would greatly appreciate it! I can’t seem to read Drs. Sears or Weissbluth without feeling like I am doing everything wrong and am doomed for failure. But I think I might be able to gain something from you….
my post about our sleep problems:
http://ifindmyselfamother.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/this-is-bad/#comments
thank you, begging you,
Susanna
Dear Dr. Heather,
I really appreciate your thoughtful explanation of the research behind attachment and infant development, the principles of AP, and the evolving balance between closeness and independence as children mature. I have a similar ambivalence toward the AP movement, and your post takes what I’ve been thinking a step further. I find myself often wondering what type of parenting is the opposite of AP, or what are they working against/in contrast to. If AP is about knowing your child, what type of parenting isn’t?
One possible correction: my memory is that Mahler and her coleagues only conducted research with a small sample of middle-class white families on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and that one of the criticisms of her work was her limited sample. That is not to undercut her theories which were seminal to the field, just to give them context.
And thanks for visiting my blog and your always interesting comments! I heart your site!
Psychomama
psychobabbling.net
Hi Psychomama,
Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
Actually, Mahler is only the beginning. Mary Ainsworth did research in a very similar vein, and spent years in Africa, studying mother/infant attachment. It’s fascinating. Remember the “Strange Situation” of evaluating the type of attachment between mother and child? That was her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ainsworth
I think it’s relevant to the current discussion about AP. OF COURSE “attachment”, as a general thing, is an important part of the parent/infant bond. But as Mahler, Ainsworth, Bowlby and others show, it’s not an end IN AND OF ITSELF. It is part of an important developmental progression that starts with total fusion with the mother, and leads towards independence.
I worry that the AP approach stops at the “attachment” part, and isn’t sure how to appreciate and support the normal developmental independence and gradual “letting go” that needs to happen in the growth of any child.
Fascinating stuff! Thanks for reminding me about Ainsworth.
So true! Attachment has to be understood as part of a larger process, albeit a very important part, and no one would argue with that. And yes, Ainsworth is the bomb too.
Psychomama
psychobabbling.net
An important part of being an attached parent is knowing your child and being able to sense their readiness for independence and giving them the freedom that they need to achieve that independence. I am an attached parent, but am also very fond of the writing of the author at Free Range Kids: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/
I believe that my children are gaining the confidence that they need to become independent based on the strength of their bond with me.
Also, in light of your comments here and on my blog with regards to the lacking “science” behind attachment theory, I thought you might also be interested in this research:
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep05102183.pdf
Abstract: This review examines an age-old approach to parenting recently rediscovered in Western industrialized societies and known by names such as natural parenting, attachment parenting, and instinctive parenting. Its leading principle is utmost sensitivity to the child’s innate emotional and physical needs, resulting in extended breastfeeding on demand, extensive infant carrying on the caregiver’s body, and cosleeping of infant and parents. The described practices prevailed during the evolutionary history of the human species and reflect the natural, innate rearing style of the human species to which the human infant has biologically adapted over the course of evolution. An overview of research from diverse areas regarding psychological as well as physiological aspects of early care provides evidence for the beneficial effects of natural parenting. Cross-cultural and historical data is cited to reveal the widespread use of the investigated parenting style. It is concluded that the described approach to parenting provides the human infant with an ideal environment for optimal growth both psychologically and physiologically. It is yet to be determined how much departure from this prototype of optimal human parenting is possible without compromising infant and parental wellbeing. The review also invites a critical reevaluation of current Western childrearing practices.
I realize this is an old article, but had to comment. I consider myself an AP parent. However, I agree with you… is this weird?
Maybe it is because I am not the type who takes a book by ANY expert on ANYTHING and just photocopies the absolutes from the program and plunks my family down in there. I read, I ponder, I study, then I find ways to apply it to my own family and children.
I coslept with my son, and plan to with my daughter who is due in a few weeks time – however, they have a bassinet that is set in our large bed. Once my son was about 6 months old he started to show he wanted a bit of independence and so I would put him in his crib at the start of the night, and once he woke up he was welcome in our bed. Eventually he slept longer and longer in his crib until he slept there all night.
I also am a babywearer; but I do own a stroller and use it whenever I am at an event or something where babywearing would be too difficult.
I think the point I am trying to make is that AP is a wonderful approach to parenting – you just need to apply it’s principles to your own family, and not make it like a military drill where everything has to be exactly “by the book.” I read your last article that you referenced and agree with both of them.
Nena –
The beauty of parenting is that the issues are timeless — the article may be from a couple of years ago, but the issues are still totally current. Babies (and parents) don’t really change all that much
And I totally agree with YOU — the rigidity and inflexibility are to be avoided, not the parenting approach per se. As long as we are taking the child’s temperament, our own family culture and needs, and the child’s age into account we can feel free to adopt whatever parenting approach feels most natural to us. Aloha!