Posted by DaisyM on February 8, 2004, at 18:15:42
In reply to much better, posted by shortelise on February 8, 2004, at 17:54:06
It is nice to know that "modern" science is now documenting what the birthing field has advocated for 40 years. We know that mothers need immediate contact with their babies when ever possible to begin the bonding process. And babies need secure, consistant care to begin their attachment. I would argue that touch and voice, soft, gentle, and appropriate, is just as important. Our babies who are blind attach to their caregivers through touch and voice. Think about how most of us instinctively sooth a baby - we rub their backs and talk softly. We don't usually make eye contact to sooth them. So it is the mix that is important.
I think, though, attachment can be disrupted by traumatic events later in life, especially the teen years. Sometimes if our expectations are to never be hurt or abandoned and it happens, things shatter. But perhaps these are easier to get over in some ways, if you had good care early on.
I agree with the eye contact making a difference, but I think voice is equally so. I find that when I'm saying something really important, there is usually eye-to-eye contact. I might break it and look away, but he never does. And when I look up, he is usually looking right at me, accepting the reconnection. When I'm relating an old memory, I mostly don't make eye contact, looking out the window or off into space. It is at these times that he usually interjects very soft, "I know" or "you're doing fine, keep going" etc. He doesn't interrupt or derail me, he just lets me know he is there with me. Does that make sense?
Even given how great I think he does things, I'm still insecurely attached. I fight it every week. But I know this is from the past. I'm hoping to get past it soon.
Very interesting thread...
poster:DaisyM
thread:310812
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040206/msgs/311015.html