Somehow I had the impression that Jean Liedloff's diamond-in-the-rough work was a comparison of modern day parenting to that of primitive tribes in general; instead, it is primarily her observations on the Yequana tribe of Venezuela. It's obvious that Ms. Liedloff has a great affection for these peaceful people, but that positive bias is apparent, and eventually weakens her argument. It is also often necessary for the reader to make decisions about whether the author, writing in 1975, should be forgiven for her (currently) strange ideas -- using the universal "he" and "man" can certainly roll off one's back, but proclaiming that male homosexuality is the result of a mother's demanding and overattentive nature and female homosexuality the result of cruel or unloving fathers is not so forgivable. If this theory were true it should have better predictive value, yet who today believes her assertion? In addition, Liedloff avers that children's accidents and burns are not caused by children's physical or cognitive limitations but primarily by subconscious suggestions from the parents, even relating (and she should be ashamed) the story of a toddler who died in a drowning accident that was, according to her, caused not only by the parents' admonitions to stay away from the pool but also by their installation of a security fence around it. Furthermore, roller coaster devotees are actually attempting to capture the experience of adventure denied them as children (I can attest from personal experience that this is not the case), and criminality and addiction are explained by the lack of in-arms time, as are child abuse (discussed solely in terms of women abusing their children), promiscuity, martyrdom, acting, academics and compulsive travelling. Neat trick, if you can make it work. I didn't even know compulsive travelling was a problem. That said, this is the theory as created *and interpreted* by Liedloff, and her misapplication of the continuum concept does not invalidate the theory, any more than Sigmund Freud's personal problems invalidated his few brilliant insights into the human psyche.
The author's positive bias also shows up in her willingness to view every act by the Yequana as positive, including parties and work sessions at which all tribe members, including children, drink to drunkenness. She lauds the Yequana's lack of parental guidance, saying that praise and scolding are equally corrosive to the child's ability to function later in life. I disagree with that assertion. I believe feedback is important, and I believe in praise and encouragement.
The author shrugs off anomalies such as the Yequanas, despite their having achieved perfect serenity, nonetheless having a mythology of a fall from grace and a yearning to achieve a better state. She also ignores contradictions, stating that modern humans search for physical contact because we were denied it in early life, but the Yequana enjoy physical contact because .... this is not explained. These particular passages convince me that the Yequana probably have a more realistic self-regard than does Ms. Liedloff. Reading this, in it's unfinished, untested, doctoral-thesis-that-never-got-turned-in state, you can see why scientific methods, for all their limitations, are valuable.
Having criticized, I will say that when the author gets it right, she gets it profoundly right. Simple statements she makes are well stated and ring true: The intellect is not always our only, or our best, guide. There is an evolutionary dance, informed by experience, between expectation and design. A spirit of competition is not always appropriate. We need to make the assumption of innate sociality. Happiness should be a normal condition rather than a goal. Parents do not own children. Children, though less physically powerful, are no less human and have no fewer rights than adults; consequently, children should be treated with respect and dignity.
While the Liedloff version of the continuum concept had little predictive value in the area of social science, she shows some timely insight into what was then becoming cognitive science, and offers some fertile material for artificial systems modellers.
As a parent, an education librarian and a substitute teacher, I thoroughly enjoyed the author's introduction of the ironically radical underpinnings of attachment parenting concepts as well as her suggestions for social change. As a cognitive science researcher and an optimistic populist, I was nonplussed by the lack of any bibliography or research -- just opinion and anecdote. There are some tremendously valuable insights here, but the author has slathered it with her own problematic conclusions. For pity's sake, ignore her advice about child safety, which is not appropriate for 21st century parents. My advice is to read this book with an open heart and a sharp mind, and to cull the wheat from the chaff.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks