-
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
-
Thanks for that explanation Bec, I was just about to PM you to see if you had any info for me (yes I'm keen! Lol).
I can see how this 'branch' of parenting is something I've not stumbled across, because looking at attachment theory, relating specifically to secure and insecure attachment, I imagine it wouldn't relate. I actually did have a search for it in my uni catalouges as well as the sciencedirect and proquest catalogues but wonder if I'm putting in the correct parameters, because nothing comes up. Psych always changes the way it descrcibes things (every few years, I'm told) so I may be looking at the wrong areas.
I can see how actions in the absence of meeting emotional needs might impact on parenting, but where it sits inasfar as relating to attachment theory as a direct result of responsive parenting, I'm not sure. I may have to pick your brains on the subject if I go down that tangent. At the moment I'd hoarding articles of interest for the future, and this is one area. I also am specifically interested in women's issues, so the whole Chinese first-born-son is interesting too (and witnessed first hand, growing up in an Asian country). Women's issues is one of my MIL's specialised areas too, and having her there helps heaps with research. That's why I am always on the lookout for people to chat to about psychology! :)
I'm so sorry this is sooo OT too. I might start a psych thread in Adult learning, Bec, when I have a minute (I'm supposed to be studying right now) and maybe we can get some discussions going on some topics of interest. I know there are a few Psych students lurking.
As for eye contact, I don't think babies need it to settle - if I'm sleepy and someone was trying to stare intently into my eyes, I'm sure I'd find it hard to sleep - but I wouldn't avoid it either. I'm going to expect my baby to settle while I stare it down :P but neither am I going to conciously avoid eye contact either.
-
I'll keep an eye out for other threads on this sort of thing Sush as i do find it interesting. I don't think sentimentalism directly relates to any particular parenting style, but i DO think it is a knee-jerk against the sentimentalist raising of children in the 60's (the "never say no anything goes" mentality) that makes people suspicious of AP, because they really DO fear that responding so completely to needs (which they possibly see as desires instead) will "spoil" the child.
I think also that there is ALWAYS the danger of sentimentalism in modern parenting (i say that as a BFing, baby-wearing (even now she's 2) mother) because we have so deified our children. I'm not saying children aren't precious, i'm just saying that now more than ever before we value them more highly. My mother's mother had 4 children, 2 grew to adulthood. My mother had 7 children, six grew to adulthood. Nowadays losing a child has become such a rare thing and is therefore such a shock when it happens (i'm not saying it wasn't then, but my mum and my nana knew LOTS of women, the majority in fact, who had lost at least one infant or child, whereas now it is rare enough for parents who suffer such a loss to be isolated in their grief) and so the tendency to wrap in cotton wool is stronger than ever. My mum would no doubt have had a FIT at the situations i was in when in fact i learned the hardest and most useful lessons of my life so far, but i cannot imagine in a life of classes, planned activities and supervised playdates how my child would ever GET into such situations. I DO think there is a more common trend nowadays to over-protect and that lessons about HOW to cope when you fall/are harmed/meet danger/encounter evil are being lost to our children. Already a generation have genuinely NEEDED therapy for things which past generations accepted with stoicism. Simultaneously talking therapy and antidepressant use are higher than ever before and suicide rates climb ever higher. This is WAY o/t now. If you start a new thread feel free to move this post there.
Bx
-
I haven't got time to say more than:
Hoobley: I've found your contributions really interesting and it resonates as true with me. Thankyou for taking the time to explain :clap:
Sushee: yes! please start that thread about mother/child psychology... absolutely fascinating! I hope you track down that info on sentimentalism... I'd love to hear more. I hear so many parents attribute emotions/needs to their children that the child is absolutely NOT capable of having and it drives me nuts! Eg. the parent who claims their newborn is being "manipulative" by settling well to sleep in the day and not at night. A newborn is just not capable of that degree of sophistication in their relationships. Why do parents feel the need to do this? Can they (the parents) not relate to another human being that has a vastly different reality to their own? I agree... I don't think my newborns "needed" eye contact to settle but I never actively avoided it... who knows, their might have been a few times... say they heard a strange noise like a loud sudden bang and briefly needed my eye contact to see that I am calm thus everything is ok... maybe babies don't react that way... just guessing. I'd love to read more about the reality of being a newborn (life from their perspective not ours)! Robin Skinner (British psychologist, written many books) touches upon it but only in a mainstream kinda sense.
-
Started a thread here to discuss further.
Bx
-
-
The link doesn't seem to work Hoobley...
-
-
I have experienced the exact opposite. Ususally when I try to put DD down (when she was little) I would look at her for a while, then when she was getting sleepy, I would either have her lyin on my chest (she couldn't see my eyes there) or if I was still facing her, I would close my eyes, sort of modelling what I wanted her to do. I would hope that me looking sleepy would send her off to dreamland. Just like someone yawning makes you yawn. I found that when DD was very tired, she would break eye contact with me all by herself, actually, and rather stared into the distance.
But when she was upset or resisting sleep, it often was enough to just lovingly look into her eyes. I would try to "tell a story" with my eyes, Try to tell her how much I loved her and how I would watch over her while she was asleep. That seemed to calm her down really quickly. It's like sometimes she just needed that assurance that mummy was there and that she was loved and safe. Body contact can do that, but eye contact is a lot more effective at communicating. It's a bit like: these eyes can't lie.
I agree with previous posters. it is so sad that most women are only ever offered one type of advice about parenting. Just like they are only ever offered one type of advice about child birth (ie. medical and interventionist). You have to be quite a strong-willed assertive person to actually go out and find other alternatives.
Sasa
-
We carry our tiny little bundles for a long 9 months and often wonder what they look like and can`t wait to see them, hold them,theres nothing more special than looking into your bubs eyes and giving them a cuddle or two ,or rocking them gently to sleep,we all have our own ideas and methods that work for us,but having no eye to eye contact is so very text bookish to me...... only my opinion though. I personally love to sing very quietly to my little bub,he loves it.A happy baby is a very happy mummy, lol.
