![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2005, at 17:44:20
Ok, now as usual I probably have the empirical details a little bit wrong, but anyways... here goes.
At the University I am at it is compulsory to do some Maori psychology. Now that has a couple of different meanings... There is Kaupapa Maori psychology which is psychology developed by Maori for Maori, there is Maori psychology in the sense of Western psychology of Maori culture / peoples etc etc.
An issue that came up was how appropriate western psychology was for Maori people. Now here they didn't so much mean neuropsychology but more along the lines of developmental theory etc etc.
I am sure we looked at attachment a bit. So infants show preferential looking for their mother etc, I think that would still be the case. But with respect to that continuing when the baby is older...
If you have 12 or 13 or even 14 or more children then the fact is that you don't have enough time in the day to foster a particular attachment relationship with them all. From about the 3rd or 4th kid, or whatever, the responsibility for picking them up and holding them when they cry etc comes down to being the responsibility of the older siblings.
Western psychologists came on in and wrote about the horrors of children being neglected by their mother. They failed to note that those emotional needs were being met by thier siblings and grandparents and aunties and uncles and so on and so forth. There was no ONE person who took responsibility, rather it was shared and whoever was closest at the time was up.
Now evidence for that being a horrific, unsatisfactory state of affairs was cited as the inability of these children to assimilate well to Western culture. But they were slapped hard for speaking their language at school etc and well, there are a lot of other factors that explain their inability to assimilate well (along with the point that they were treated as second class, uncouth citizens and also the point of why the hell should they?).
Anyway what my point is is that attachment to one figure (such as ones mother) may be part of Western culture. We say that it is the PARTICULAR person who is there that results in the alleviation of distress etc. Well, maybe they can say that it is not so much about the PARTICULAR person. Maybe for them it is about the fact that there is SOME PERSON OR OTHER who can meet their needs, and thus the presence of just someone who understands and so forth is helpful. So maybe for them 'attachments' aren't really so much person specific.
Maybe I do embrace the Western ideal of individualism.
But maybe I do not embrace the Western ideal of attachment.
Posted by daisym on January 5, 2005, at 18:39:55
In reply to Been thinking about attachment..., posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2005, at 17:44:20
Let me first tell you that my thesis project was about promoting attachment and bonding within a childbirth education setting. So I've read a lot of this stuff...
Typically, if we look closely, even within a setting such as you are talking about, there will emerge a PRIMARY caregiver to an infant. And typically, that someone has a matching temperment. So if an older sibling takes on the roll of childcare, the baby or toddler has a reliable person to meet their needs. It is much more about consistency than an individual person. I think most dvelopmental specialists will tell you that if the environment itself is safe and predictable for the child, most of them grow up healthy. In a family unit, the family could be the entity that the children attach to.
We know in childcare settings that the idea of a primary caregiver works well for children, even if several teachers are available to them during a day. We are back to the idea that interdependency is more ideal than independence.
Also, I suspect that the initial imprinting that occurs during breastfeeding is being underestimated by whomever is counting the kids. Even in culturals with wet nurses, babies bond with their moms and know the difference in milk.
And I agree with everything you said about easy assimiliation and giving up ones own culture. Why should they indeed?!
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2005, at 19:02:53
In reply to Re: Been thinking about attachment... » alexandra_k, posted by daisym on January 5, 2005, at 18:39:55
> Typically, if we look closely, even within a setting such as you are talking about, there will emerge a PRIMARY caregiver to an infant. And typically, that someone has a matching temperment. So if an older sibling takes on the roll of childcare, the baby or toddler has a reliable person to meet their needs.
I wasn't so sure that there was a PRIMARY caregiver. That was kind of my point. Maybe I have that wrong. I was thinking that rather than their being ONE PARTICULAR person there were more than one. Of course, I didn't mean complete interchangability I was thinking more that there may be a few people who would do.
>It is much more about consistency than an individual person.
Yeah. Thats what I was thinking.
>In a family unit, the family could be the entity that the children attach to.
Yeah, in this case we have the Marae which is a kind of 'living house' for the community.
> We know in childcare settings that the idea of a primary caregiver works well for children, even if several teachers are available to them during a day.So even though we still talk of 'the primary caregiver' we can reallly read 'whosoever (and maybe more than one person) meets their needs'. And thus if something happens to one of those people then it is not the end of the world insofar as their needs continue to be met by the remainder.
>We are back to the idea that interdependency is more ideal than independence.
I would probably say that independence is an ideal on the one hand and complete autonomy is an ideal on the other. The reality of what works, however would seem to be interdependence. I still like the ideal of complete autonomy actually, but need to realise that that would be pathological :-)
> Also, I suspect that the initial imprinting that occurs during breastfeeding is being underestimated by whomever is counting the kids. Even in culturals with wet nurses, babies bond with their moms and know the difference in milk.Yeah, ok. I was getting more at attachment in the sense of crying and seeking and so forth sense. Sure, maori kids were breast fed so some bonding would have gone on. Not so much once weaned, however, that was when the responsibility would fall to others in the community.
Posted by pegasus on January 6, 2005, at 13:41:09
In reply to Been thinking about attachment..., posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2005, at 17:44:20
This is interesting. I've been reading a lot lately about attachment parenting, and I've wondered about this same thing. When my baby is born, my husband and I are planning to split childcare on work days, so that I'll work mornings, and he'll work afternoons, and one of us will always be with the baby. The attachment parenting books that I've read have always assumed that the mother is the main caregiver, and the father is more secondary. And that any child care that occurs when the mother works is a day care, or nanny, or something like that.
I suppose I'll still be a more primary caregiver, because I'll be breastfeeding and everything. But I was hoping that the baby would be able to attach to *both* of us, so that it wouldn't be stressful for her when I'm at work. I guess I'll be doing my own little attachment experiment. We'll see if she ends up more attached to her dad than usual.
pegasus
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2005, at 22:24:48
In reply to Re: Been thinking about attachment..., posted by pegasus on January 6, 2005, at 13:41:09
Hey wow, great for you guys!
If I ever have kids thats what I am hoping will happen there. SHARED parenting. That way if anything happens to one of us... Or, even more to the point when I am not in a place where I am good for them... they will be ok.
Other people have done this. I am sure. Its not that rare, is it? (I ask that suprised that the actual answer might be 'yes').
Posted by daisym on January 6, 2005, at 23:35:39
In reply to Re: Been thinking about attachment... » pegasus, posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2005, at 22:24:48
I worked when my kids were babies but we had a consistent daycare provider who was sooo good, I was jealous! My husband picked up and dropped off for many years. He liked to hold, rock and feed them, so we shared those tasks. And the rule was, who ever did bath, didn't have to do dishes. He use to have a way to gauge "bad" diapers with how many wipes he had to use...10-wiper was REALLY bad! :)Parenting is less shared now, as he is sick and commutes an hour to work each way. I work 6 minutes from home and the kids so I'm around a lot. But they are bigger so the impact is less. On them, at least.
Kids are smart. They know when they are loved. They can and should attach to many people in their lives. By providing a safe, consistent base, you will give them the confidence to do this.
Posted by daisym on January 6, 2005, at 23:37:08
In reply to Re: Been thinking about attachment..., posted by pegasus on January 6, 2005, at 13:41:09
I've been thinking about you. How is the pregnancy progressing? Are your dreams different? Has your therapist attached to the baby yet? I've heard it is very common for therapist to do this, which I think is sweet. :)
Posted by Dinah on January 7, 2005, at 4:06:16
In reply to Re: Been thinking about attachment..., posted by pegasus on January 6, 2005, at 13:41:09
We had a schedule worked out with me and his dad and his granny/grandad and his grandma. He never was with someone who didn't adore him and thoroughly enjoy changing his diapers. Me and my mother during the day, my husband at night.
He seems fine. But I used to laugh that he was attached to everyone more than me. Everyone else he looked in the face. His gaze never went above shoulder level with me. The boy had his priorities.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.