Gabor Szendi:
The myth of the first three years

People have many wrong ideas about the lasting impact of the childhood experiences. Not only laymen, but psychologists believe them, what is more the latter are promoting them.

 

 

Changing perceptions of childhood

In the Middle Ages, everyone used children for their own purposes, and the child was a consumable. Even in the 19th century, only half of children reached the age of ten. After the Industrial Revolution, capitalism loosened class boundaries, and with skill, knowledge and some luck (the English word happy comes from the word 'hap', meaning lucky), it was possible to rise from poverty. It was in this age that the idea of the child as an 'investment' was born, and raising an educated child could improve the life of the family. Rousseau's idea of parenting summed up the era's endeavors (where Rousseau placed all six of his children in an orphanage).

The thinking about children reached a moral threshold in the second half of the 19th century, when child labor began to be regarded as unacceptable. Industry also needed more and more qualified people capable of learning, and so public education was introduced. Of course ideas and laws slowly transformed daily practices, and the idealization of untainted childhood spread to the middle and upper classes in the 20th century. Child psychology (Jean Piaget, Henry Wallon) also showed the particular development of childhood spirit, which further underlined the need for special treatment and teaching methodology. After World War II, orphanages proliferated and researchers noted the negative effects of emotional neglect (René Spitz).

Errors in attachment theory

John Bowlby formulated the attachment theory, according to which the human child's biological and psychological need is a constant parent or guardian to whom they can attach themselves. Mary Ainsworth, a follower of Bowlby, created, with some psychiatric resemblance, categories called 'attachment styles' to classify whether a child responds safely, ambivalently, or negatively to the mother's approach and calming in a so-called alien environment. That is, when the mother leaves the baby with a friendly stranger for three minutes. The theory has become immensely popular, and attachment styles have almost become diagnostic categories. Many psychopathological changes have been associated with an unsafe attachment style, and it started to become the universal explanatory principle for adult life leading, relationship and personality issues. However, there are three unconfirmed assumptions hidden in the theory: One is that the attachment of the child is determined solely by the mother's behavior. Second is that the experience gained in this way affects one's whole life, and the third is that the alien environment is a valid measurement of the attachment style.

1. Bowlby's theory was based on evolutionary principles, that mammals' small offspring, including the human child, are innately bound to their caretaker, whatever they may be like, because even a bad parent offers a better chance of survival than being alone. So it is a serious mistake to believe that attachment is created by the 'good mother'.

2. Research has not confirmed the second hypothesis either, and many studies have found no relationship between childhood and adult attachment styles.

3. It is also a misconception that the attachment theory overlooks innate characteristics of temperament, and that behavior is approximately 50% genetically coded. Children who are born shy (usually those with enhanced right hemisphere functions) all appear to be ambivalent, because they find it difficult to calm down when their mother returns. But those that are attending nursery school are so accustomed to the absence of the mother, and the coming and going of strangers, that they are more likely to show dismissive attachment - that is connected to severe pathologies. It is also noteworthy that children's behavior has been profoundly reshaped by culturally specific values, for example in the East, with the inhibited, dependent child, while in the West, the self-confident, self-supporting child is the ideal. Therefore, for example, when measured in an alien situation, a quarter of Japanese children are ambivalently attached, 70-80% of German children were found to be dismissive to attachment. But this doesn't tell you anything about children's mental health.

Moralization instead of science

Attachment theory is actually more of a moral judgment on the 'bad mother' than a scientific theory. Like many times in science, the educational style expected of white, middle-class, non-working mothers has become an ideology disguised as science. Of course mothers who wish their children to become happy adults buy into any recipe that guarantees a perfectly grown child for those who follow the 'sacred principles' of upbringing. Attachment education has now become a religion, and the archetypical American 'Sears portrait' couple are the anointed priest and priestess of the cause. Followers want to become perfect mothers who resonate with every movement a child makes, and want to satisfy the child's every need with great love and devotion. They claim that it has been natural since ancient times, and that Natural People are still raising children in the same fashion. In contrast, because of the high infant mortality rate, mothers of Natural People, while meeting the needs of the child, are careful not to develop emotional attachment: They do not look at children even when they are feeding them, they do not talk to them, they discipline them often, and many people do not even give a name to the child for a long time. The baby is often passed around, and is often breastfed by whoever has the child in hand at the moment.

Education is not omnipotent

The belief in the decisive nature of the early years was also established by studies which proved that young animals lacking nervous stimulation, later suffer from developmental and cognitive impairment. As a result the fetus must listen to classical music, and later the baby and then the child must be surrounded by all kinds of exciting educational developmental games, because that's how the brain develops. However extreme withdrawal of stimuli is only possible in the laboratory and cannot occur in the human environment. The development of the child is guided by a genetic program that ensures normal maturation, despite harsh conditions. Research has not proved any significant difference in this regard, but beliefs are sustained by the need that many mothers have in wanting their efforts to not be in vain, and that their child will be different from those of 'careless' mothers.

The development of a child is determined by many factors, and research does not prove that success in adulthood can be inferred from childhood effects. It is often observed that those who grew up in a harsh environment are really ambitious in their adult lives. Inherited qualities and socialized values are more important than devoted maternal care.

Of course, everyone should work on raising their child as well as possible, but we should not wish to justify the views of an elite class, using scientific arguments. It would be good if all children could grow up in happiness and love. But unfortunately the social situation, proper nutrition, and access to further education will determine future success much more than a parent's perception of parenting.

 

References

Gabor Szendi: Giving wings.Raising up persistent and excellent children. Jaffa Publishing, 2017.