Author: Sonny

[In the 1950s], Bowlby argued that a young child needs their mother ‘as an ever-present companion’, providing ‘the provision of constant attention night and day, seven days a week, and 365 days in the year’. What he hoped to get across, above all, was that young children should have someone they feel confident turning to when alarmed. Bowlby had been clearly informed by his wife, based on her own experience, that ‘constant attention’ to a child was both an impossible and unhelpful aspiration for mothers. And late in life, he acknowledged that he regretted this statement and the implied demand for ever present care.

Duschinsky, R. (2020-08). Cornerstones of Attachment Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

This page is still under construction

Part of the feminist critique of attachment theory could be attributed to Bowlby’s early polemical claims about the responsibilities of mothers. The most well known impression of Bowlby’s ideas and perhaps attachment theory is derived from the works written for a general audience during the 1950s, including articles in popular women’s magazines, presentations to professional organisations and the famous Child Care and the Growth of Love (1953). In these texts from the 1950s, Bowlby argued that a young child needs their mother ‘as an ever-present companion’.

Bowlby’s writing for a general audience during the 1950s was in sharp distinction to his later work and scholarly writing. Such a strategy helped him get some core ideas heard, even if these were mostly the rind of the views he actually held.

A thoroughly different man is known to those who read Bowlby’s scientific and clinical writings compared to his popular writings. The very content of Bowlby’s claims and his use of familiar words was different between his popular works and his scientific and clinical writings

The second generation of attachment researchers generally did little, especially compared to Bowlby, to speak to a wider public. This explains the continued focus of Bowlby’s earlier widespread ideas directed towards the general public. There is a misalignment between the current technical positions of attachment theorists and criticisms leveled at popular representations of the paradigm.

Did Bowlby reinforce the patriarchal model/family pushing the ‘mother back into the kitchen’ for the purpose of having ‘secure’ babies? Later, (1969, in Attachment, Volume 1), Bowlby was absolutely explicit that ‘almost from the first many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behavior; these figures are not treated alike; the role of a child’s principal attachment-figure can be filled by others than the natural mother’.

Bowlbys simplification had far reaching consequences for the theory

There was a huge backlash of reactions to Bowlby in 1960. Anthropologist Margaret Mead had famously been an early critic of Bowlby. The nub of their disagreement, from Bowlby’s perspective, was that Mead seemed to be arguing that an infant cared for by interchangeable caregivers within a village would have the same prospects of healthy psychological development as an infant cared for by a small number of very familiar and cherished people.

Marga Vicedo
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313733219_Putting_attachment_in_its_place_Disciplinary_and_cultural_contexts

It is likely that feminist opposition to Attachment Theory was produced via misreading and misunderstanding Bowlby’s proposition: “When all this work, with so much emphasis on the importance of maternal care, first became known it met with huge opposition not only from other psychoanalysts as already described, but also from feminists. In the 1960s and 1970s so many younger women were struggling, often through joining consciousness raising groups, to find ways of freeing themselves from lives that were feeling very restricted. They were looking after babies and children with little sense of being valued for doing so, and with very little independence, financial or otherwise. To hear, as so many of them did, that Dr Bowlby was apparently telling them that as mothers they should be not only available all the time, but also constantly responsive to their babies and children, seemed like the last straw. Such a reaction seemed very understandable at the time, but unfortunately it was mainly because many of them had not read Bowlby’s work, but just listened to the general outcry and joined in. Bowlby has made it clear that it is not routine care of babies or young children that is so significant, but the ability of the mother to respond with pleasure and encouragement to the child’s social advances that really matter. Two feminist women therapists were honest enough to write an article (Brave A. & Ferrid, H. 1990. John Bowlby and Feminism. Journal of the Institute for Self Analysis, 4(1): 30-35.) in which they admitted that at first they were ill informed about Bowlby’s views on maternal care, and that they had misunderstood what he had written. When they studied his work, they described how they came to appreciate the value of Attachment Theory in their own work as psychotherapists. It is, however, only fair to say that Bowlby did believe that mothers, on the whole, were better able to offer the sensitive, responsive care that babies and children need than were fathers. But he was a man of his time and this kind of judgement – that men of his generation were better kept out of close contact with small children- was probably accurate. It would have been almost unheard of that a father was present at his baby’s birth at the time when Bowlby was having his family, yet now it is commonplace. I think if he were alive today, he would be modifying his view. Some fathers may be more able to make secure attachments for their children than their mothers and of course this may always have been the case because, as Bowlby has so clearly shown, the ability to do this is due to their own experience of being sensitively parented. As it becomes more and more common for fathers to care for small children, so it will become easier for other fathers to feel more confident in playing a more intimate and sensitive parental role.”(Attachment and Human Survival: p13-14, Woodward, Joan)

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy

Ruth Feldman‘s very recent research findings – looking at single parent dads, single sex male child rearing couples – endocrinology is the same in fathers – when fathers are primary caregiver, oxytocin levels go up just the same as mothers – biobehavioural synchrony of baby reflects the oxytocin of primary cargegiving fathers.

https://ruthfeldmanlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TiCS.Neurobiology-of-attachment.2017.pdf

There is a way in which communication between research groups, and communication with the wider public, has been hindered by confusion about the meaning of concepts…. Part of the appeal of attachment research lies in its central reference to experience-near metaphors and terms such as ‘attachment’, ‘mother’, ‘security’, ‘sensitivity’, ‘disorganization’, ‘coherence’, ‘anxiety’, ‘dissociation’, and ‘trauma’”.

Cornerstones of Attachment Theory

Defensiveness – The theme of defensiveness encompasses a multitude of attitudes and behaviors. Greenberg and Johnson and Gottman and Silver describe three patterns of communication in the relationship (ie., attack-attack, attack-withdraw, and withdraw-withdraw). To explain, attacking is understood as a desperate attempt to gain the partner’s attention at any cost.
People will likely be defensive and engage in their “preferred” destructive technique (e.g., attack or withdraw).
Practicing psychologists revealed that the main reason that people sabotage their relationships is to protect themselves. (The relationship sabotage scale: an evaluation of factor analyses and constructive validity. Peel, Raquel; Caltabiano, Nerina. BMC Psychology, 2021, Vol.9 (1), p.1-146, Article 146)

Demand-withdrawal pattern – See Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins & Chistensen, 2007)

Internal Working Model – affectively-colored, dynamic, relationally-based mental representations that stem from attachment-relevant experiences and influence later aspects of social and personality functioning. Taking perspective on attachment theory and research: nine fundamental questions (tandfonline.com)

Gottman Conflict Styles – Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Avoidant mismatch is particularly problematic and is associated with more stonewalling, relationship problems and lower levels of relationship satisfaction and stability than the Validating matched style and than other mismatched styles.
An important point that Gottman makes is the idea that “one style is not superior to the other.” The three styles are distinguished by the degree to which partners attempt to influence each other through persuasion and dialogue and the ttiming of the influence attempts. Avoidant couples prefer to minimize conflict as much as possible eby agreeing to disagree. Validating couples address conflict by emphasizing the importance of making sure each person is understood and their views are appreciated, or validated. Volatile couples are more passionate and energetic and are not afraid of lively debates and disagreements. In contrast, unregulated couples are labeled “hostile” and participate in destructive and contemptuous conflict that undermines positive sentiment and marital stability.
(Busby, Dean M, PHD; Holman, Thomas B, PHD.  Family Process; Rochester Vol. 48, Iss. 4,(2009)Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables)

Mismatched Couple Conflict Styles – Gottman presents these mismatches as “the real problem in couple relationships.” He suggests mismatches as an explanation for many divorces in that couples do not feel like there is “understanding” or “connection in the marriage”.
Couples with mismatched styles may have more difficulties with “perpetual problems” which are the types of problems that are related to basic underlying differences in how partners express themselves through communication, both positive and negative. In addition, mismatches are likely to result in at least one partner feeling emotionally flooded by the higher degree of intensity and frequency of persuasion attempted preferred by the other other partner. These process differences are likely to lead to different couples outcomes such as more relationship problems, lower relationships stability and lower relationship satisfaction.
(Gottman, J.M. (1999) The marriage clinic: A scientificially based marital therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.

Predator – Predatory people lack a sense of conscience and rely on charm, intelligence and charisma to manipulate others. If charismatic “seduction” fails, they rely upon intimidation and threats of organization-based violence to achieve interpersonal submission (Hare, 199; Itzkowitz, 2018; Landay et al., 2019).

Psychopathy – See Erich Fromm “the degree of destructiveness [in psychopathy is proportionate to the degree to which the unfolding of the person’s capacities is blocked” (Itzkowitz, 2018, p. 43)

Secure Base – Where the child/adult returns to when threatened or stressed for example in the words of Mary Ainsworth “And, should such exploration get him into more than that infant was ready to cope with, it was crucially important that the parent be accessible-that the baby be able to retreat to his “secure base” for comfort and be, as it were, “recharged” before going off again on his own” (Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Marvin, R. S. (1995). On the shaping of attachment theory and research: An interview withMary D.S. Ainsworth (Fall 1994). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development)

Self Sabotage – Elliot and Reis suggested that self-sabotage is possibly enacted when individuals are insecurely attached, hold avoidance goals for their relationship, and are driven to self-protect, as oppose to seek proximity. (Elliot AJ, Reis HT. Attachment and exploration in adulthood. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):317–31.) Additionally, Kammrath and Dweck [11] found that individuals with insecure attachment often expect their relationships will fail, which in turn means they were less likely to express concerns and engage in strategies to resolve issues with their partners. (Kammrath LK, Dweck C. Voicing conflict: preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorists. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006;32(11):1497–508.)

Stonewalling – Stonewalling represents a deteriorated relationship process where partners are withdrawn from both positive and negative relationship interactions by creating a “stonewall” to keep their partners from affecting them. Withdrawal, as measured by stonewalling, is strongly associated with hostility, or the demanding confrontational style. Gottman, in his marital cascade to divorce, suggested stonewalling is a phase that represents the almost total deterioration of the relationship. Hostility sometimes precedes, coincides, or follows stonewalling.

(Gottman, J. M. (1993) The roles of conflict engagement, escalation and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61 6-15) and (Gottman, J.M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Toxic Relationship – A toxic relationship is unhealthy, characterized by unsupportive attitudes, conflicts in which one tries to destroy the other, competition, disrespect, and lack of cohesiveness. Suciati, S., & Ramadhanty, S. (2023). (Communication patterns in interpersonal conflict in premarriage couples experiencing toxic relationships. The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies, 22(2), 41-60. doi:https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7882/CGP/v22i02/41-60)

Withdrawal – Spouses with a withdrawing pattern usually avoid discussion by shifting subjects, remaining silent or even removing themselves physically from the conversation.

aside: Individuals with a poor understanding of romantic engagements, often based on unrealistic representations (e.g., fairy tale beliefs), tend to withdraw effort to repair the relationship and give up easily (Knee CR, Patrick H, Vietor NA, Neighbors C. Implicit theories of relationships: moderators of the link between conflict and commitment. Pers SocPsychol Bull. 2004;30(5):617–28.)

so long as our history is hidden from us, so long as we hide our history from ourselves, we are very likely to see the present and future in the terms of the past

John Bowlby (1989) Attachment and Loss: Continuing Education Seminars.