Posted by alexandra_k on August 21, 2005, at 22:56:21
In reply to Re: Attachment » alexandra_k, posted by fairywings on August 20, 2005, at 20:45:20
> This attachment thing is confusing to me. Is it just our mom that was crucial to our attachments?
I dunno. I think most focus on mother - child attachments but there has been work done on other varieties of attachment too. I remember learning a bit about how the psychologists thought that traditional Maori culture was pathological because the whole whanau (family) would share the care of infants (including being breast fed by different people etc). They thought that was unhealthy but turns out it doesn't have to be. In fact... In some cases it can be more healthy as the infant gets to bond with someone who is more fitting than the birth mother may be. I think... That even though caretaking was officially a family affair infants would still form special bonds with one (or perhaps even two) other people. But the infants and carers would sort that out between them. It wasn't just a 'well, we are stuck with each other now' kind of thing...
And of course people who are adopted reattach to another.
And some are cared for by their fathers and their mothers return to work.
etc etc.
Turns out Bowlby is really important with respect to the notion of attachment. No time to read yet... dunno if I'll get to it. Might be worth a look but I think I'm getting the impression that he was more interested in deprivation rather than poorness of fit...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:543620
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050813/msgs/545017.html