Everywhere I turn these days, I see something about
William Sears, “attachment parenting”, and babywearing (carrying babies a lot
of the time in various kinds of slings and carriers). It all seems to have to
do with the fear that attachment just won’t happen properly, and that if it
doesn’t a whole cascade of bad outcomes will occur.
Obviously this isn’t something we can do randomized
controlled trials on. Even if there weren’t ethical issues about any possible
harm to babies (either of being “baby-worn” or of not having this experience),
there’s no way to be sure that parents would follow the routine they were
assigned-- and why on earth should they,
after all?
What we can do, though, is taking an anthropological
approach and look at ways different groups of people have cared for their
babies. Much of the decision has been based on the physical and social environment-- did they need to keep babies warm? Did they
need to keep them from falling into the fire? Were there lots of other people
around, or was the family pretty isolated? Was it customary to space babies by
prohibiting sexual relations until the child was weaned at age 2 or 3? Was
there a high infant mortality rate so that most families would not have living
children close together in age?
Thousands of ways have been used to care for babies
under different sets of conditions. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson did a
wonderful book of photographs of Balinese life, including babies being carried
at all waking times until they could walk , because as creatures who had come
recently from the divine they should not go on all fours like animals (by the
way-- so much for having to crawl, right?).
In the Middle Ages in Europe, and in Russia perhaps even until the present day,
babies were swaddled by wrapping in cloths from foot to head until they could
be picked up by the ankles and not bend. In cold countries where people stayed
indoors much of the time in the winter, babies were kept in cradles where they
could be wrapped warmly and rocked to sleep while their mothers did other
tasks. In Polynesia, babies could be wrapped into a container and hung from a
hut roof, away from animals and adult activity. Some Native Americans bound the
child to a cradleboard, so the baby got a handsome flattened head and could be
carried easily on the mother’s back. (On the whole, fathers didn’t do these
things, although they might be very fond of their children.) In parts of Africa
today, although mothers may carry babies in slings as they work in the fields,
if they have any 5- or 6-year-old girls around, those girls become “child
nurses” and are in big trouble if they let the babies cry.
Let’s not forget an interesting one: in traditional
Israeli kibbutz life, babies lived in the babies’ room, where the group was
cared for by one or two caregivers who might or might not have much interest in
the task. The mothers came in periodically to breastfeed but were encouraged to
wean soon and put their energy into the communal organization. The whole point
was that there should not be intense
emotional connections between family members, but that instead that emotion should
go into loyalty to the group.
And, you know what? All those babies formed
emotional attachments to familiar people in pretty much the same way, no matter
what their experience had been. Most were securely attached, some were
insecurely attached, but the great majority in every group grew up to have
ordinary cognitive abilities, social skills, and relationships with others.
The moral of this story is that just as human beings
can thrive on a lot of different kinds of food, emotional attachment can grow
robustly on many different social diets. If everybody in the family wants to go
with babywearing, it isn’t going to do any harm, but it isn’t going to do any
special good either. Babies need caregivers who are sensitive and responsive to
the babies’ communications. Exactly how they go about being sensitive and
responsive can vary enormously depending on the family situation and individual
personalities, and they don’t have to be sensitive and responsive every minute.
There are limits to tolerance for unresponsiveness, of course, and caregivers
who change frequently or are otherwise unable to figure out a given baby’s cues
do not provide the ideal situation for secure attachment or other important
parts of development.
Having read some of Sears’ work, I have to say that
I’m not clear on what he thinks attachment is, or bonding either (and he does
seem to use the terms interchangeably). I remember one statement he made some
years ago, to the effect that a baby separated from its mother in the hospital
was “bonding to the bassinet”. I have no idea what this could possibly mean,
unless Sears thinks that human beings, like ducklings, become imprinted on
whatever they see in the first hours of life.
So-- Do what works for you
and your family. If you have time and energy and want to wear your baby, that’s
fine. If you work full time and hand off the baby with your spouse or another
caregiver, and nobody wears that baby, that’s fine too. Neither family is going
to guarantee a child with no problems, or a child with a lot of problems, by
taking one route or another. And don’t snub people who don’t do what you do. It
really isn’t a competition.
One thing, though--
babywearers and non-babywearers both, watch it with the cellphones! Don’t
imagine that you’re being sensitive and responsive to your baby if you stare toward
the baby and talk at length in an adult voice. What do you think this conveys
to the baby? It certainly must be confusing to see what appears to be “eye
contact” but no response to facial expressions, and the wrong kind of talk for
someone looking at a baby. Get a look at a baby’s face some time when Mom is
yakking away on the phone and looking vaguely toward the baby. Talk to your
friends some other time! For the baby’s sake, Be Here Now.
Such a great post! Thank you.
ReplyDelete