AP's missing pieces.

Last night I had a long conversation with Hannah, later my husband too, about some of the places where traditional "AP" (attachment parenting) philosophy falls short.  The spark of the conversation:  the book Hold On To Your Kids by Neufeld and Mate, plus a DVD seminar by Neufeld under the title The Power to Parent.

I wish I could get into the details of Neufeld's thesis in a blog post.   Neufeld's work is, like typical "AP" (Dr. Sears-type) parenting philosophy, grounded in attachment theory.  But it picks up where AP leaves off and goes a lot deeper.  AP is missing some important stuff.

Where AP has it right is in stressing early sensory bonding with the infant and the young child (through practices like babywearing, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, and caring for your own children); and training your children through modeling the behavior you'd like to see.  But these can only get you so far.  Once a child hits five or six or seven years old, they need more.  And it's at this point that a lot of AP parents run into behavior problems  --- relationship problems --- that hugs and co-sleeping and gentle modeling can't solve. 

Some think that they just haven't given enough closeness and love.  Some, certain they've done everything right, figure that they have an exceptionally "high needs" or "difficult" child --- and can't think what to do next.  Some decide that AP was a bunch of bunk and switch gurus from Dr. Sears to somebody else.   

Meanwhile, some (not all) people who were raised (horrors!) by mainstream parents who may have spanked, used coercive discipline, put their kids in cribs, etc. etc. etc. seem to have turned out healthy, happy, and whole.   How can this be if we're so certain that spanking is wrong?   That breast is best?  That cribs are nothing but cages?  Etc. etc.

The ends don't justify the means, so if you're convinced spanking (or anything else) is wrong, then don't do it, even if you think it will work.  But judging purely on results:  Could it be that it's not quite so simple as "Spanking is bad and won't work" vs. "Spanking is good and will work?"

Neufeld's research, according to the book and the video course, indicates there's six kinds of attachment.  And that attachment is the most important factor in their maturation and character development.  As children mature, they need to pass through the stages in sequence:

1. Through nearness and the senses (easiest but also the most superficial kind of attachment);
2. Through imitation and identification (deeper);
3. Through belonging and loyalty ("I'm on your side; I want to obey you")
4. Through a feeling of being significant, important;
5. Through a feeling of love and affection;
6. Through being secure in the knowledge that they are known and understood (the deepest and most persistent and mature level of attachment).

AP is great for the earliest two stages, what with all the cuddling and bonding and closeness and modeling ("You can clean up just like me!"), but stops partway through.    The stories we hear of successful mainstream parenting, and we all know some, are the stories of people who grew up in a family that fostered, especially, the latter four kinds of attachment as the children grew through older childhood and their teen years.    The stories of people whose parents were confident in their work as parents.

The kinds of attachment can, to some extent, be formed independently of each other.   It's not hard to imagine that in a family with very strict rules and harsh punishments for rule-breaking --- the kind of stuff that "gentle parenting advocates" and AP experts decry --- there might still be a strong sense of belonging and having a place in the family; a strong sense that Dad and Mom are on the same side as the kids; great love; the sure knowledge that the ties among them can never be ruptured.   

What Neufeld presents in the book and seminar (at least what I've seen so far) provides a lot of what traditional "AP" is missing. 

There are other aspects of it that I haven't touched on.  One:  By "power to parent" Neufeld means the ability to wield influence (not leverage, not force) on your kids by virtue of their attachment to you, their love for you --- many have lost this power over their kids, and it's not as simple as the continuum between permissive/authoritarian.   Nor is it as simple as the superficial kinds of attachment that AP parenting promotes.  Two:  The whole job of parents is complicated by children's propensity to attach to other people, not just parents, if it's what they need to do to maintain emotional and physical safety.  Good or bad?  Depends who they attach to.  A kind, helpful teacher at school?  Good.  An abusive boyfriend or a neglected young peer? Bad.

I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the seminar sessions.

UPDATE: More thoughts.

Comments

[Kelly]

Have you ever read any of James Stenson's stuff? I think his books fit right in here. He gives a lot of practical advice for the school age, too.

[MelanieB]

Thanks for this. I've been kind of leery of attachment parenting philosophy and the list of six stages helps me pinpoint why. TO me the latter four stages seem much more important than those first two.

"It's not hard to imagine that in a family with very strict rules and harsh punishments for rule-breaking --- the kind of stuff that "gentle parenting advocates" and AP experts decry --- there might still be a strong sense of belonging and having a place in the family; a strong sense that Dad and Mom are on the same side as the kids; great love; the sure knowledge that the ties among them can never be ruptured."

I'm currently re-reading the Little House books and it seems like Laura's family is a perfect example. Very harsh rules and strict punishments, and yet I am so struck by the sense of love and belonging, the certainty of belonging and the closeness of family.

[Elaine]

I LOVE this book- just finished reading it myself a couple of weeks ago. It makes so much sense, and now everywhere I turn, when I look at "typical" teenagers I just think to myself "Hold on to Your Kids".... I especially like that you emphasized that the hardest but most important stage of being secure in the knowledge that they are known and understood. This book has made me reevaluate my parenting style. (Just being in proximity isn't good enough after a certain age).

[bearing]

Melanie, agreed re: Little House, especially the "Ma slaps the bear" story.

[Amber]

I definitely agree with you about AP - I've been thinking for the last year or so that it doesn't seem to give the full picture. I read "Kids Are Worth It" by Barbara Coloroso last year and on the whole I think it is a helpful resource for what to do as the children get older, but this Neufeld book sounds more comprehensive.

I was on an AP homeschooling list a few years ago and I was struck by the fact that there were so few people there with older kids (the whole list was primarily preschool to first grade). I didn't know if parents of older kids just had better things to do with their time or if there was something more going on there. I've seen and heard a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that points to people starting out with an AP philosophy and then going either onto something else or just reverting to how they were parented once the eldest hits four or five and starts asserting their independence more.

On the whole I think I agree with what MelanieB said about the last four being more important, however I do wonder if fulfilling the first two helps in fulfilling the last four. It seems like they all build on each other in one way or another and if you neglect the first two you may end up making things more difficult in the latter stages.

Thanks for the review, there's certainly some food for thought here! I'll look forward to seeing any further thoughts you might have on the subject. I've had someone else highly recommend this book as well - it sounds like I need to check it out!

[mandamum]

I really appreciated Neufeld's book, which I read after seeing him speak. Re: your point #2, I think it's not just who they attach to, but whether that attachment is also in relation to their attachment to *you* as the parent. Attach to kind helpful teenager at school who is good role model and respects you--good; attach to ditto ditto as primary compass point to exclusion of you--bad, no matter how nice and good she is.

I think one of his points is that in this time, it is easier to build the last four kinds of attachment when you have done the first two. In Little House times, the "power" to parent was there, and I think that made it easier to create the "we're in this together" belonging sorts of attachment. Now you have to start with attachment to build more attachment, or you don't have the power to parent that will keep your kids from whirling away from you.