A few days ago the SINC agency published a report with a surprising, striking title and I would say that even worrying: "Parenting with attachment does not work as preached by 'gurus'". Since that day, the same report has come to me on numerous occasions, especially shared by people who wanted to know my opinion about it, who wanted me to confirm their suspicions, and that in some cases they were relatively worried about that " it does not work".
I did not need to read it carefully to give an answer, because only with the introduction I clearly saw that there was a misconception in the writing. So my response to these people was brief: "No, no one has yet shown that attachment breeding does not work"But since this phrase does not say anything, I will go on to analyze the report and give my vision about it.
What is attachment breeding?
Before entering to analyze it, it seems important to explain a little what is the raising with attachment. The term "parenting with attachment" is a rather horrible translation of the English 'Attachment parenting'. And I say horrible because it seems to say that only those who follow their principles feel attachment to their children, when the reality is not that.
I like to call it "respectful parenting", or similar, although I don't usually name it that way because I don't say "I practice respectful parenting" as if it were a method, but I talk about it as what I think is the way normal and natural to educate children, without the need to put a name or label: children you have to educate them from the respect so that they grow up being respectful people. That is, every person deserves to be treated with respect; and children, until proven otherwise, are also people.
One of the people who has spread the most about raising with attachment is William Sears, who dared to divide this philosophy of care into eight principles:
In Babies and more, can childhood attachment affect our mental health in adulthood?- Birth bonding (emotional ties from birth): give the importance of not separating from the baby at birth and initiate a bond of care and affection that can be very beneficial for both the newborn and the mother.
- Breastfeeding (breastfeeding): breastfeeding the baby when it is considered the normal feeding method of the baby, protector of sudden death and facilitator of the aforementioned link between the baby and the mother.
- Babywearing (take the baby on top): carry the baby to improve its relationship with the carrier and the environment, as well as its physical and psychological development.
- Beding close to baby (sleep near the baby): sleep near the baby to provide security, tranquility, and promote breastfeeding on demand.
- Belief in the language value of your baby's cry (confidence in the value of his crying as a language): giving value to crying as a form of communication, without being tempted to say "let him cry" or "cry to manipulate you".
- Beware of baby trainers (Be careful with training): Be aware that the methods to modify the normal behaviors of babies can make parents think that there is a problem that is not real, and can generate distrust in a relationship that should be the opposite .
- Balance (maintain a balance): between norms and freedom. The basic needs of children must be met; When the needs are no longer basic, parents should be able to educate and explain the reasons with respect.
- Both (both): that the raising of the baby be carried out by both the mother and the father.
Now these eight principles are not instructions, but a guide. It is not a list that should be followed to the letter if the baby is communicating to us otherwise.
I explain myself better: all these principles have an ultimate goal, which is none other than responding to the needs of babies, attending to them, and so on. make them feel loved, accompanied and sustained emotionally and physically, so that from the calm, they can develop correctly. If at any point the baby wants something different, the logical thing is not to follow the specific point (if a baby does not want to be ported because he is uncomfortable, or if he prefers to sleep in a crib next to the parents, instead of sharing a bed ...), because in the end, as I say, the important thing is to adapt to the child, and not adapt the child to instructions.
Come on, which is a generalization of what most babies do well, but not something that must be fulfilled as if it were a method. Basically because there are people who say "I educate following the method of parenting with attachment because I sleep with him, I breastfeed him, I carry him, etc.", who then does not get between the baby and her (or him) to be established a relationship of trust, or secure attachment, because The important thing in the end is not what you do, but why. And why is none other than the objective that I have already explained: make the baby feel loved, comforted and calm. And not because it should be that way, but also because you really feel that way.
In Babies and more Why having "mamitis" is actually normalIt often happens to me that when I talk about these issues I find it increasingly difficult to put ideas into perspective because it is something that is part of me. I don't educate my children like this to get anything concrete, nor do I look at the list of instructions from time to time to see if I'm doing well. I do it this way because I was born to do it that way; because I would not be able to do otherwise; Because that's how I feel I should do it. Moreover, raising a child with respect in order to be a leader, or a person of social success or something like that is a mistake, because then you will be guiding everything to achieve your goal, when the logical thing is that you are a companion on the road.
How the SINC article begins
Having said all this, I will explain what the introduction of the article says, which was enough for me to answer those who asked me:
A strong and healthy relationship between babies and their caregivers is essential in the evolution of any creature. Supporters of 'natural motherhood' promote three practices to strengthen it: colecho, breastfeeding and portage. However, its rules are neither necessary nor sufficient, according to the science that studies the child's development. The secure link is achieved by responding to your physical and emotional needs and, for that, three tricks are not worth it.
They start confirming that the essential is a healthy and strong relationship between babies and caregivers, which is precisely what is sought when parents are told to respond to the baby's crying and to adapt to their needs (the principles of respectful parenting, let's go).
He then says that supporters promote that to happen based on three practices: colecho, lactancia y porteo. And this is when they already screw up to the groin (as they say in my town). As I said above, the important thing is not the how, but the why: You can get a good bond with a baby without carrying it, for example, if as I say that is not what the baby demands; you can get a good bond with a baby without sleeping with him if, as I say, he prefers something else; and you can get a good relationship and a good bond with a child if you don't breastfeed him. We fathers do not breastfeed - I have never done it in fact and I have three children (it is irony, of course) - and we can also be part of that parenting philosophy, for example (or would someone say to a dad who is not educating your child well by not breastfeeding?).
And he ends up saying that "the secure link is achieved by responding to your physical and emotional needs and, for that, three tricks are not worth it." And they are right: the link is achieved by responding to the physical and emotional needs of babies, and for that there is no trick. If he asks you for arms, you give him arms, or for the comfort of the parents, you carry him. If he asks you not to let him sleep alone, then you have him nearby. And if he asks for a tit, and the mother gives him a tit, then breastfeed him. It is not a trick, it is to follow what they themselves suggest: respond to your physical and emotional needs.
Responding to the experts
The rest of the article focuses on the words of some experts such as Alan Sroufe, considered one of the main references in scientific research on attachment, Amy Tuteur, gynecologist and author of the book "Push Back: Guilt in the Age of Natural Parenting", and Dieter wolke, from the medical school of Warwick (England).
So to continue with my post, I will collect your words to be able to demonstrate that, in reality, what they come to say all the time, is that parenting with attachment is the best way to educate a child.
Many of the proposals offered by this parenting style are good, but following them is no guarantee of a secure bond and, if the parents do not comply, their child does not have to have any problem.
In Babies and more From tiger parents to poultry: what science says about the most popular parenting stylesAs I said before, educating a child is not following specific instructions, because the manual is the baby. What Sears says is, basically, don't be afraid to do what your baby asks if we talk about sleeping with him (as long as it is done safely), take him in his arms, attend to his crying, etc., in addition to going creating a relationship of communication and affection with the son. Because you can carry, collect and care for the baby, but if you do not talk to him or look him in the eye, for example, you will not be able to have a good relationship with your child.
Why not, doing so is no guarantee of anything, and like everything in this life, not doing so does not have to be a problem ... look at how many children we traveled every day without a belt and we had no problem.
In the 50s, your social status was marked by the country club you belonged to. Now you prove it by explaining that you breed with attachment to your children and what school you take them to.
Well, I suppose there will be people who do it, and who believe they have a greater social status by educating their children. I am one of those who think that I do it because I don't get it any other way and they get depressed when they look at the checking account.
The formation of a good bond during the first years of life is essential, but Sears dictates that a perfect mother is available and physically and emotionally available 24 hours a day. If not, the child will be terrible. This is not only sexist and retrograde, but it is also a lie.
I think that Sears says that a baby needs a mother and a father (by saying "Both"), but especially the mother if she is the primary caregiver. It doesn't have to be perfect, although since a totally dependent baby is being raised, yes It is important that the mother or father be available 24 hours a day. I think nobody would think of taking a break from raising the baby: "Honey, the baby has been crying for five hours because it was my resting time" or "It's been crying for an hour because we were that after three the baby was a thing yours, and you're late for work. "
All babies will generate a bond with the person who raises them, it is not necessary to do anything to promote it. Yes we must strive for the child to trust this relationship and, in addition, we know how to achieve it. A secure attachment is achieved by responding to the needs and signals of the baby in a sensitive, appropriate and effective way. Not with a series of tricks, as Sears dictates.
But "tricks", as they call them, is the way to respond to the needs and signals of most babies "in a sensitive, appropriate and effective way." Come on, if you have to make an effort so that the child trusts the relationship and cries to take it in his arms, but I can't take it, how do I do it? What if he cries because he feels only at night? What if he cries because I am doing the Estivill method and suddenly I regret doing it, as Sears says, and then I remember that these experts said that Sears was a trick and that I should not listen to him? Letting him cry to teach him to sleep would not be the opposite of responding "to the needs and signals of the baby in a sensitive, appropriate and effective way"?
Human development is like a pyramid: the first two years are key, but the friendly relationships we have throughout life also determine our adult ability to deal with conflicts.
Well that ... what we have been saying: The early years, those who spend with their mother and father, are key. Then the children begin to interact with other children and the sum of all this creates the person. I do not see that Sears, nor anyone who defends respectful parenting, says that children do not have to have friends, nor that they should avoid being related to other people ... it is not even said that adult capacity to deal with conflicts depends solely on what happens in the first years with the parents. But if "they are key", they are key.
Our conclusion is that there is nothing more important than the first experiences. But always, always, we talk about statistics. Life and development are complicated: a good principle can be distorted and a bad one amended.
Sure. Such is life, which does not always happen what one expects. But that's not why we're going to stop trying to do things right, or how we feel they should be done: "Look son, from now on I'm going to feed you hamburgers and potatoes every day, that total, there are children who eat very good of little ones that then twist equally ".
Mothers of babies with an insecure or elusive attachment have them in their arms for as long as other mothers. The key is not how much, but to do it when the baby requires that physical closeness.
Well, I don't know ... if there is insecure or elusive attachment, it will be because they really don't take them so much in their arms. If it were the same time, they would also be held when the baby requires them. In any case, it does not say that taking them is bad, or carrying them, so: why not?
Breastfeeding is a precious thing, but it is not critical for the child to develop a secure bond. The important thing is to feed a baby when he needs it and not when you want him to eat.
Exact: food on demand. All mothers who breastfeed know that. About the link, the same. It is not indispensable, because parents can also make a safe bond with their children, and obviously also mothers who do not breastfeed, but if it facilitates it and it is also the normal feeding of a baby: why not?
With breastfeeding, porting and schooling, the mother proclaims her emotional bond with the baby through a physical attachment to her body. You can't even sleep alone!
Well ... if you want to sleep alone, do it. But the baby is very likely to cry. If you don't cry, perfect. If he cries and the mother does not take care of him because he considers sleeping more important than caring for him, then that principle that they defend from "forming a good bond during the first years of life is essential" is no longer fulfilled. Basically, the formation of the bond serves for that, so that the mother and father can understand and understand the needs of the baby. If not, cannot be called link: "I have a wonderful bond with my baby, that's why at night, although she cries, I'm going to sleep alone."
The crying of babies is the first form of communication to ensure feeding and proximity. (Asked about whether the crying of babies could be due to the behavior of the parents): It may be, but it would be very rare. There is very little evidence, at least for crying crying, that it is related to poor parental care.
At least for colic crying. And for the rest of the crying? The truth is that it is quite mathematical: the more you care for a baby, the less he cries. The less you attend, the more he cries. Unless he starts crying because he has the badly called infant colic, and then it already feels a bit the same as you take it or not, because he cries equally in his arms (although the logical thing is that you take it in case with that you relieve him a little ).
But we go back to the before: should we defend "poor care" because perhaps it does not increase crying or is it better for care to be successful even if it does not reduce it? Better the second, right?
Now I quote an entire fragment of the article so that it is well understood:
When in 2006, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine reviewed 52 studies on the efficiency of sleep training techniques, it obtained a remarkable result. "94% of the interventions were effective, with a clinical improvement of insomnia in 80% of treated children, which remained between three and six months," explains the study summary. "Sleep training techniques are safe for at least five years after the intervention."
This is great news for all those parents of babies and children with childhood insomnia, which must be very few, although some will be. In Spain we have the so-called "Clinical Practice Guide on Sleep Disorders in Children and Adolescents in Primary Care", which also suggests behavioral and similar methods for children with sleep disorders.
I am glad to know that even if these methods are carried out, these children with problems will have a good relationship with their parents and that they will really get to sleep better. In fact, most likely, in children with sleep disorders, studies show that once the methods are done, the relationship is even better: that a baby or a child cannot sleep at night or during the day, and does not get a restful sleep, can mean being irritable, upset with the parents and even having concentration, learning and development problems. Surely, any effective technique, no matter how much crying it causes for a few days, will help you a lot in this regard, as it will be a child who will finally sleep, rest, and by day will have his abilities in better condition.
Now, speaking of normal children, without sleep problems, those of us who have the majority of fathers and mothers in the world, those who wake up several times at night to eat a little and know that their parents are still there, and those we refer to when we talk about raising with respect, because then I don't know anymore. Because if your baby sleeps and rests, and during the day is a happy child, what need is there to make him feel that you abandon him? In fact, what need to make parents think that the child has a problem, if not? Wouldn't we alter the bond in this way, making parents believe that what they have to do to make their child better is to let him cry, make him suffer? Don't we disconnect the parents from basic needs -sheep- of babies, those who carry the whole article telling us that we should attend?
Ending up…
Come on, I thank all those who have passed me this article that you have done, because thanks to these experts I have even clearer: the best way to raise and educate a child is one in which parents respond to the needs of their children; taking them in his arms, attending to them, giving them affection and spending time with them. What is usually summed up as 'breeding with attachment' or 'raising with respect', by giving it a name that differentiates this current style from that in which children did not take us in arms so that we would not get used to it, they let us cry at night so that we would learn to sleep alone and they would punish and beat us so that we would behave well and be obedient as soon as possible.
Photos | iStock
In Babies and more | When your child gives arguments to others against parenting with attachment, but what does parenting with attachment have to do with giving homeopathy, not vaccinating and not giving milk ?, 10 fundamental books for Parenting Attachment
