Isn’t this a crazy idea? That a child can be too attached to his or her parent. Just the thought that anyone could think that makes me react in two ways: slightly-too-hysterical laughter and deep resounding sadness.
I have come across two examples of this within the last week. One was a friend whose mother thought that her grandchild was too attached. The ‘warning’ signals apparently included clingy behaviour and that the child was still waking regularly at night.
Why do people think that a baby preferring to be with her mother is an abnormal state of affairs? Why might we have evolved as a species to be like this? Why can’t we accept that this is actually totally normal behaviour for a baby or young child? Why do women, especially, have such an issue with other women allowing their children to have a natural attachment? I can hazard a guess but genuinely, answers on a postcard please.
Similarly, why do we consider a baby waking in the night to be unusual, strange or a problem that needs to be fixed? It is common. So common to be considered normal I would even put forward. It’s been documented that the vast majority of one-year-olds still wake regularly at night. So why are we so focussed on the sleep patterns of babies? Why is this biological disposition attributed the deciding factor of whether a child is ‘good’ (shudder)?
The second was while waiting in a queue at the post office. A woman with a girl of around two-and-a-half was in the queue with her sister-in-law. The sister-in-law was talking to a family friend. The conversation went something like this:
“oh” (embarrassed friend)
The friend tried to bend down to say hello to this child whom she clearly didn’t know, the child hid behind her mum’s legs.
This prompted AA to launch a tirade of aggressive ‘advice’ against the poor mother. Was Mia always like this? Answer, no she’s fine at home and with people she knows. Well she needs to get out! She needs to socialise. She needs to go to nursery. Her mother is stifling her development. She can’t stay home all the time, clearly she can’t cope in the real world. She needs to mix with other people without her mother…. etc. etc. And on and on.
Clearly AA had no children. She was young, and yes, clearly an idiot. But by no means is this an isolated incident. I’m sure we all hear and meet people like this all the time. But where has it come from? This strange and consuming idea that young children need to socialise away from their primary carers in order to develop properly.
Just a few minutes of thought would render the very idea ridiculous and unworthy of any more consideration. And if a few minutes of thought are not available then the stack of evidence that ‘socialising away from a primary carer’ is harmful to young children should stamp out this loony theory for once and for all. Yet, it is so incredibly persistant. Everyone continues with this theory as if it’s sensible and obvious … why? What do ‘we’ get out of it? Obviously it frees up women to go into the labour market, and further provides lots of jobs to other – mainly – women. Oh and lots and lots of opportunities for nursery owners to make a lot of money. But surely this can’t be the only reason for ignoring facts, evidence and instinct. Can it?
Assigning babies, toddlers and young children the ‘problem’ of being too attached to their parents or too clingy seems to be a national pastime. I just can’t help wondering why?
It seems as clear as day to me that a baby and/ or young child needs to be raised by one primary carer. This person is his or her rock. They provide safety and security – a soft place to land. The child knows this person and is utterly confident in their love. They know that they are always safe when this primary carer is around. And if this person suddenly disappears then surely a normal reaction is anxiety until they reappear? Until such time as the child knows that this person will always reappear.
Surely anyone knows in their heart that this is right and good. Compare to a young baby or child who is left with a wide variety of people and has no strong attachment to anybody. Yes, aren’t they ‘good’. They can be left anywhere, with anyone. They never cry. This child never feels safe, they don’t have a soft place to land. We know from scientific studies that these children have abnormally high levels of cortisol in their bodies which set the ‘normal’ level for the rest of their lives at a level that is too high. This causes them difficulties for life which include attention-seeking behaviour, risk-seeking behaviour and relationship problems. (Check out my shop for the Margot Sunderland book which contains all the evidence and scientific data that proves this pretty convincingly.)
Would anyone honestly choose an unattached childhood for their child if they knew the lifelong consequences? Would anyone actually think that a child could be too attached or that a normal attachment could damage a baby? I hope not, but I fear so. Such is the crazy world we appear to inhabit.