Sushee - It's ben too long since i was in psychology and anthropology classes (*whispers* 8 years!? WTF!?) but i'll tell you what i remember..

In Psychology (main text was Gleichmann et al, dunno if you encounter it, also i seem to remember a lot of photocopied journal articles so i don't know how much was IN that book about this) we examined how emotions without actions in a child's early life (i.e. from a dramatic parent (who interprets emotions which are not truly there in the child) or a parent who always picks up a crying baby but does not address the source of discomfort (like not feeding/changing/etc. when it was appropriate) leads to a tendency towards sentimentalism later. Because the child has formed a good emotional bond but emotions have been separated from action, which they are the reflex for (i.e. the emotions one experiences when hearing one's baby cry with hunger should lead one to pick it up and feed it and if one DOES pick it up but DOESN'T feed one is teaching the child that one need not act on what one feels, or need not act appropriately and also confuses their own sense of self since they feel unable to communicate their needs).

In Anthropology we learned how this sentimentalism carried through in different parenting styles and cultures throughout the world. We focused on Chinese culture because out lecturer was Chinese and had done her thesis on foot-binding and the first-son-worship. There we basically covered how cruelties (like binding feet of the daughters) in the name of love combined with almost deification (of the sons, especially the eldest grandson) in the name of the self same love led over centuries to an imbalance of sexes, and in the context we looked at, created a perhaps unique polarity in which eventually BOTH sexes became exhausted by it, which provided a fantastic context for the Revolution. For centuries people had been placed in opposition from birth and the ability to join forces against these old habits was incredibly attractive. We also looked at the brutality of punishment beatings, also done in the name of love for the country or the individual (to "save" them from themselves/thoughts) as a continuation of the brutal love of sentimental child rearing.

On the side of that we looked more generally at parenting styles which have impacted in a similar way. The victorians expecting children to behave like mini adults, modern children being "babied" well into their 20's and 30's (more recently there might have been things written about the western child and the lack of freedom/over-protectiveness of parenting?) and so on. This is all very vague as i read it back! Sorry!

Basically the premise is that children are not sentimental creatures in the raw and that in many ways addressing needs they don't have can be as damaging as NOT addressing needs they DO have.

Sorry i don't have the article names...you could try a catalogue search in your uni library maybe? I think you'd have to tie it in to AP because it doesn't directly relate, it's a trend ACROSS parenting styles, rather than specifically in one, but it's one reason fro the mainstream rejection of AP, because people who do not BELIEVE a child needs to be loved and SHOWN love in the early weeks and months think it will "cause problems" (always very vague aren't they!?) to respond emotionally to the emotional needs of babies and children. It is basically possible to trigger sentimentalism by behaving sentimentally towards a child WHATEVER style you use, whether that be treating them as little gods or brutally altering their bodies to make them "delicate lillies" that cannot move about anymore or even by addressing pressing needs that they don't have (like assuming they would need eye contact to settle when in fact it is stimulating for some babies) or addressing a pressing need innapropriately (like picking them up when they cry but not addressing the root of the cry beyond that).

Very o/t, but thought i'd reply while i had the time

Got nothing to add to the main topic i'm afraid! LOL.

Bx