Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:56, 29 February 2008

All,

Any comments?

Kingsley Miller, kip

Introduction

THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR 'MATERNAL DEPRIVATION'. If you go to my video clips on YouTube you will see that I have a video clip about this theory made famous by John Bowlby called;-

The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjWDz9df4E

Contributing to Wik I have noticed that this theory dominated the pages on attachment and bonding without mentioning the fact that fathers can be equally as important to children as mothers.

I have made a video clip based on this at;-

Misplaced Pages Mistake:A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spc2WxtPYkU

(PLease note I have subsequently added a section on Maternal Deprivation to the page on John Bowlby and edited other pages to include references to fathers)

TO SHOW READERS THAT Wik is still wedded to this concept I should like to draw readers to the following discussion below between myself and one of the 'sub-editors' (sic) known as 'Fainities'

Many thanks

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it rather shows the opposite. Whats a "sub-editor (sic)" Fainites 12:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities, First Contribution

I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the hierearchy of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants can develop a number of attachments (precise number unknown) they tend to have a primary, preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. Fainites 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is no good making these comments without consulting my references, kip reply

Dr John Bowlby established the theory of Maternal Deprivation in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951), that is the reason he gave it that title. The welfare system in the UK after WW2 adopted this theory and many of the troubles you have editing these pages on attachment comes from people that do not know he was wrong. MARVIN's (sic) comments stem from this very problem. He deals with mothers not fathers. He has had to concede the argument because he knows what I am saying is true.

Bowlby MADE HIS REPUTATION BASED ON THIS THEORY.

The World Health Organisation, who employed Bowlby at the time he produced 'Maternal Care and Mental Health', felt obliged to publish a rebuttal called 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its Effects' (1962) in which many of the World's top psychologists disagreed with Bowlby.

PEOPLE STILL DO NOT REALISE HE GOT IT WRONG and still think he is famous for this theory. I spoke to somebody the other day doing her second degree at Southampton University. The first time around she said Bowlby was out of vogue. This time he is back in vogue and she cannot hope to pass her degree and contradict him!

See how the references to Bowlby in Misplaced Pages NOW say that he DEVELOPED the attachment theory. HE DID NOT INVENT IT! People were already developing the idea. He put the ideas together but this does not qualify him for greatness.

SO WHAT IS HIS LEGACY?

Really he is know as the man who said children love their mothers!

What is great about that? I could tell you that.

Why do people still believe the Maternal Deprivation theory?

Because it is reinforced all around us. By the media, in the courts, by government.

It is like buying a second hand car - there is somebody born everyday who will be taken in by the theory.

So what is so special about Rutter?

His work flew in the face of convention. He saw through the stereotypes that blinded Bowlby's work. Bowlby's work on attachment is an APOLOGY for his mistake.

Rutter, in his slim volume 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed', showed more understanding than Bowlby ever could in his thick tomes.

I have written these pages so people such as yourself can voice their opinions.

You have set your task to sort out the pages on psychology.

To make a difference between 'bonding' and 'attachment' is playing with words.

If you want to give the Misplaced Pages pages some credibility REDIRECT all the pages on BONDING to the ATTACHMENT THEORY (and remove the contents of these pages which is unadulterated rubbish).

(You will have to keep the titles because you will forever get people writing about 'bonding' without knowing the work of Bowlby or Rutter).

NEXT, change the heading on 'Attachment in children' to the 'Strange Situation Protocol'.

This will give you the control you need to make sure all the contents of these pages meet the strict Misplaced Pages standards.

I will support you as much as I can.

PS

Please have a look at one of my video clips, possibly 'Bonding - The Attachment Theory' It has been seen by 14,741 people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTIlXavtqU

Also see my petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ChildsFather/

"We are shocked by the suggested amendment to the human fertilisation and embryology act 1990 that 'children do not need a father'. All the research goes to show that fathers are just as important as mothers to the welfare of children. It was Dr Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' in 1951 who stated that,

'Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health'.

This led to government policy which supported the idea that fathers went to work whilst mothers should stay at home to look after the family. We the undersigned believe the suggested amendment to the act is a 'throw back' to a bygone age and that there is good research to show that the welfare of children will suffer without the support of a father.

We petition that the amendment is not put before the House of Commons and respectfully ask the Prime Minister not to deny other children the same opportunity as his own - the love and affection of a father."

910 SIGNATURES

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS

Bowlby's work was based on the concept of 'monotropy', that there was only one important person to the child. It was Rutter who said that a child can rely on a small group of primary carers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities, Second Contribution

Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:

• "In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."

Heres another bit:

• "It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living. As a matter of empirical fact there can be no doubt that in virtually every culture the people in question are most likely to be his natural mother, father, older siblings, and perhaps grandparents, and that it is from amongst these figures that a child is most likely to select both his principal attachment-figure and his subsidiary figures."

He then discusses two (then) recent studies, one in Scotlad and one in Ganda. He points out that in both studies, only children living with their natural mother had been selected and therefore "it is not surprising that in an overwhelming proportion of cases a child's principal attachment figure was his natural mother." He then makes a point of pointing out that even then, there were instances in both studies where childrens principal attachment figure was their father, and that in a number of others the father came to share the role of principal attachment figure in the second year even though the mother had been the principal figure in the first year. It is obvious that he is highlighting this to illustrate his point that anybody can be a principal attachment figure.

I don't think trying to pin Bowlby down solely to the 1952 publication of maternal deprivation and the subsequent misrepresentation of his views for political purposes in the '50's and by the media thereafter is really providing comprehensive Wiki articles. Pointing out that he used 'mother' and 'mother-figure' throughout isn't enough. He also uses 'he' for the infant throughout. Are we to assume from that that attachment behaviours only emanate from male infants? As for the media - I think there may be a whole article on just how out-of-date the media and/or popular beliefs generally are. I reckon there is about a 50 year time lag. Fainites 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As for mothers going out to work - most had little option. Married women usually lost their jobs on marriage - or pregnancy if they'd concealed their marriage. Unmarried women were mostly limited to poorly paid and unrewarding jobs. The policy to throw women out of work to provide jobs for ex-servicemen after the war was partly promoted as policy and partly enforced by the sudden closure of the nurseries used during the war. Being able to be financially independent on benefits when single and bring up children is comparatively recent. As for the courts - 'maternal deprivation' is not generally used in the courts. They are concerned with the primary carer. Most of the time that is the mother because that is how most people continue to organise their lives. It is not always the mother however, which is why the term 'primary carer' is often preferred. Words such as mothering or mother-figure are often used to describe activities rather than a particular person, out of long cultural usage. (I would agree with you by the way that children need both. Unfortunately both are not always an option). Fainites 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer, First Contribution

It's certainly true that Bowlby used the term "mother" in a generic way, to mean a caregiving person, and in this he followed long usage: to "mother" someone means to care for them, to "father" means to impregnate a woman. However much we may dislike this, it is the case.

Actually, if Bowlby had thought only women could be "mothers", he would not have referred to Harlow's work, in which baby monkeys treated a soft monkey-like figure as a surrogate mother. If terrycloth can be a "mother", surely a man can too.

The most important point of Bowlby's work is not who can be mother, but the fact that attachment is not based on feeding (cf. S. Freud), but on social interaction. This view, following that of Ian Suttie, in fact "frees" men to be the mothering person, by making breastfeeding irrelevant.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What's more, even if Bowlby began with ethology and monotropy, there's nothing in that view that contradicts the possibility of attachment to fathers. If ducklings could imprint on Konrad Lorenz and on toy trains, there seems nothing to imply that humans could attach only to females.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites - Address the points!, kip comment

I do not know what you are saying about Bowlby? That he did not write 'Maternal Care and Mental Health'? That he did not make his reputation based on the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? That the World Health Organisation, never produced 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its Effects'? That Rutter never wrote 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'? That this is what he is not still famous (infamous) for? That his theory of 'maternal deprivation'is not being constantly quoted?

Which bit do you disagree with, cause even your own expert Jean Mercer does not dispute these points.

Do you think the people who signed my petition do not know what they are talking about?

Are you on a mission to recast Bowlby's reputation? Bowlby would like people think he invented the 'attachment theory' but he did not!

If you do not want to make the changes necessary to Wik, fine. But don't attack me for trying to give the facts to people.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities, Third Contribution

I have addressed your points and provided some quotations from Bowlby in support. I don't think Bowlby's primarily famous for Maternal Deprivation. I don't think he's infamous at all. I haven't noticed Maternal Deprivation being constantly quoted - though some of the media might, they generally being pretty out of date. I don't agree that maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous or generally seen as synonymous as you say on your video. Its not a term generally used in social work, psychology or the law and hasn't been for years whereas attachment theory is pretty much mainstream. Jean Mercer is not 'my expert'. She's been on Wiki longer than I and stands on her own two feet. Bowlby doesn't need anybody to 'recast his reputation'. His theories will either stand the test of scientific research over time or they won't. So far they're doing pretty well. This doesn't mean he was correct in every particular.

I'm not attacking you Kip. I'm disagreeing with you about attachment theory. Thats normal on Wiki. You are the one getting personal. Lets not go there. We can amicably agree to differ surely. I don't have a particular 'mission' now. I suppose it was to clean up the attachment related articles after the depredations of the old attachment therapy sock army. Fainites 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites - It is not 'friendly' to misquote somebody then disagree with something you have deliberately misquoted, kip comment

What theory is Bowlby famous for? What theory that he invented has stood the test of time?

In which video clip do I say,

"maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous"

HERE IS A SECTION FROM THE PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA YOU ARE DISCUSSING;-

Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory

Adapted from 'Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect' (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume. 36 No 4, p551, 1995) by Professor Sir Michael Rutter.

(1) The abandonment of the notion of monotropy. Bowlby's early writings were widely understood to mean that there was a biological need to develop a selective attachment with just one person.

(2) It came to be appreciated that social development was affected by later as well as earlier relationships.

(3) Early accounts emphasized the need for selective attachments to develop during a relatively brief sensitivity period with the implication that even good parenting that is provided after that watershed is too late.

(4) Bowlby drew parallels between the development of attachments and imprinting. It became apparent that there were more differences than similarities and this comparison was dropped later on and is no longer seen as helpful by most writers on attachment.

Fainites - Apology Required, kip comment

Fainites comment

Nope. I don't need to apologise for disagreeing with you. If I have misunderstood something you have said it would be unwittingly. I do recall you saying something along the lines of maternal deprivation and attachment theory as coming to be seen as synonymous in your video. I'll listen again to find the exact quote when I have a moment in case I misheard it. I also feel you have misunderstood what I have said but I do not attribute any malicious intent to that! Just as an example of how misunderstandings arise - I take JeanMercers comments above as agreeing with my position whereas you take them as agreeing with yours! Who knows what JM thinks of that. As I say - disagrement about theoretical matters is normal on Wiki. You shouldn't take disagreement personally. We've always worked perfectly well together before. Lets carry on that way shall we? Fainites 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kip - quotation found, Fainites comment

I have now checked your videos again. In "The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed" you say "the theory of attachment has become synonymous with the theory of maternal deprivation". I have not therefore misquoted you. Fainites 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote, kip comment

"The confusion about Bowlby stems from the reputation he made for the theory of Maternal Deprivation. The real contribution he made was to their institutionalized care. Later on Bowlby himself realized he put too much emphasis on the role of the mother and so diffused the concept into the Attachment Theory. But there were others working in this field and it would be wrong to claim he invented the concept. The problem lies in that the Attachment Theory has become synonyms with the theory of Maternal Deprivation and in many peoples minds they mean the same thing".

Fainities, You are guilty of taking the phrase out of context to deliberately misrepresent my point of view, kip comment

I do not say the "maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous". I say the opposite on the video clip and as shown by the Misplaced Pages page.

The real meaning could not be clearer.

You have tried to make it sound as though I said they are the same and this is supported by most people when I have said the opposite. You are guilty of taking the phrase out of context to deliberately misrepresent my point of view.

You cannot claim that this is an accident or that you did not mean to do so because you went back to find the quote and the real meaning must be clear.

You do not have anything to criticize me for so you have made things up!

KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainities, Where has this quote come from? kip comment

You attribute to Bowlby above. This is what you say,

Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:

   * "In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."

But how can Bowlby in 1956 quote from Mead writing in 1962 as you claim?

I have got to say that wherever you got the quote from it seems to be supporting the same point of view I describe in the video clip. Are you not arguing against yourself and just adjusted the date so it fits in better with your own criticism of me?

What is the full quote? From whom? When?

Does it not go to justify what I have been saying from the beginning?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer and 'Human bonding', kip comment

I realise you have not contradicted anything I have stated and noted beforehand that you are pretty mainstream as a rule.

I should be very grateful if you would take a look at the Wik page called 'Human bonding' and tell me what you think?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)