Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 22:29:54
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 21:53:05
some people think that autistic spectrum disproves attachment theory.
i'm not sure that that is quite it, exactly...
attachment theory has an ideal or an idea of what 'normal' or 'optimal' are. while it might well allow that everyone falls short in this or that respect - it provides an ideal.
but who says humans *should be* that way? or that it is *better* to be that way. why can't there be other ways of being that aren't better or worse (across the board) so much as different?
so one ideal might be an infant who seeks attention from a caregiver when distressed who utilises that gaze and emotional resonance from them in order to comfort / regulate itself.
and another ideal might be an infant who takes comfort in something like how their hand sounds when it flaps, or the feeling of spinning, or the couch cushions being smushed into them, or what color the number three seems to them to be, or whatever. autistic kids do seem to use these things to comfort / regulate themself.
they get distressed when those things are taken from them just like other infants get distressed when they are separated from their caregiver.
why think the second infants are dysfunctional or deevolved or worse than the first infants? why think the second lot need to be changed to be more like the first?
it is the first lot who is more likely to seek therapy (for themself) that is true...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1058503
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20131211/msgs/1059522.html