Attachment theory

John Bowlby with child (Wellcome Library)

Attachment theory is a long-established, but controversial and increasingly unpopular Freudian/evolutionary framework positing the importance of early bonds between infants and their primary caregivers. Developed by John Bowlby (1907–90), the theory posits that infants need to form a close relationship with at least one primary caregiver to ensure their survival, and to develop healthy social and emotional functioning.

Searches of the Attachment theory concept (as understood now) appear to reference it's "four principles", "four stages" and "four styles of attachment". Thusfar, no empirical evidence has been put forward for the existence of such discreet categories, "stages" or "styles". Unsurprisingly, a 2018 paper proposes that Attachment theory represents a Western middle-class perspective, ignoring the diverse caregiving values and practices in most of the world.

Criticism

A 2013 study from Utah State suggests an individual can have different attachment styles in relation to different people and that "parents' time away from their child was not a significant predictor of attachment." Attachment theory models are heavily focused on attachment to the mother, not other family members and peers, also noted by Rosjke Hasseldine. Salvador Minuchin suggested that attachment theory's focus on the mother-child relation ignores the value in other familial influences: "The entire family—not just the mother or primary caretaker—including father, siblings, grandparents, often cousins, aunts and uncles, are extremely significant in the experience of the child...And yet, when I hear attachment theorists talk, I don't hear anything about these other important figures in a child's life."

Quotes

Dr. Jerome Kagan:

Attachment is a far less popular explanation in 2019 than it was in the 1960s, and in 10 to 15 years, it's going to be rare to find anyone defending the theory. It's just dying out slowly...Yes, what happens to you in the first year or two of life has an effect, but it's tiny. If I take a 1-year-old child who is securely attached, and the parents die and the child is adopted by a cruel foster parent, that child is in trouble. Their secure attachment is useless.

[...]

Abuse and neglect in the first years are bad, but they’re associated with class. Children who are abused and neglected are far more likely to come from poor families than wealthy families. If you’re raised in a poor, single-parent family, you’re more likely to be abused. If you’re abused, you’re more likely to have problems when you’re 20. Now we’re quick to say it must be the abuse, but if you’ve been raised in poverty, you can’t dismiss that.

I’m suggesting that an abused child from a wealthy family of privilege would be far more likely to not have problems, because to be born into a disadvantaged class means you’re going to encounter different teachers, different schools, different peers, different values for the rest of your life. So we can’t just blame the abuse.

Of relevance to MAPs

Attachment theory has been criticized for its use in stigmatizing non-normative sexualities:

Finally and most perniciously, the use of attachment theory has often been used to pathologize non-normative sexualities. Under the guise of relational "normality" established by a social construction of what a secure relationship looks like, folks have been labeled as insecurely attached simply for desiring sexual variety or displaying an interest in fetishistic activities. Hence, attachment-based therapists, especially those influenced by Freudian concepts, will often take on the stance that the security of their stable, long-term therapeutic relationship will not only change the client's attachment style, but in this way also transform the "sexual deviant" into a stable, sexually conforming member of society.

See also

• Valerie Sinason
• Repressed memory
• Covert incest
• CSA Accommodation Syndrome

External links

• MAPs and Attachment Style