TNP: Dr. Walant, tell us about your new book.
KW: Creating the Capacity for Attachment looks
at how we, as a society, have raised our children with the
expectation that they become totally self-reliant and autonomous
rather than with the hope that they have the capacity to form
close, loving, intimate relationships with others. As a result
of our social insistence upon self-reliance, we have witnessed
an epidemic of addictions and what I call "the alienated
self," meaning people who are disconnected from their
internal thoughts and feelings - their inner selves - and are
unable to form true intimacy with others. Addiction exemplifies
how, by not allowing ourselves to deeply connect to other
people, we have attached only to the other things. For example,
a pacifier is often one of a child's first attachments. It is
plastic - and not the same as having mother and her breast, to
suck and to cuddle with. This unhealthy pattern of reliance on
objects is encouraged in the detached parenting styles so common
in Western society, and it's easy to see how, from this
tendency, as adults we continue to seek comfort in other
non-human objects, such as drugs, food, money, etc.
Very early on, children are generally taught not to disclose to
others when feeling "weak" or scared,
"needy" or alone. Many of the emotions we felt in
childhood - what people call the "negative" emotions -
we were taught not to share. So, we sought comfort from
blankets, pacifiers, and teddy bears, and we learned not to seek
comfort from our mothers, our fathers, our family. As we got too
old for blankets and teddy bears, we turned instead to other
comforts - food, alcohol, money, etc. As adults, we struggle
with holding our emotions within because we fear that by sharing
our inner souls with others, we will - as in childhood - be
discounted, dismissed, or denied.
TNP: In your book, you discuss the
importance of "immersive" moments. When do these
moments occur and why are they important?
KW: There are special moments that
occur as part of the deepening of intimacy, which I have termed
"moments of oneness" - moments when a person feels
totally connected and understood by an other. The immersive
moment is an intensely spiritual, holy one that occurs when two
people can let down their barriers to intimacy and truly
experience their inner feelings. This kind of feeling is a
transcendent one - meaning that it moves someone, or shifts
someone, to feeling more connected to another person.
The immersive moment occurs in
feeling a sense of security in being held and comforted by an
other - be that a spouse, friend, therapist, nature, or God.
This kind of moment is first felt in baby-hood, when mother (we
hope) picks up her child when he cries and holds him. She
transcends his sense of pain and loneliness by holding and
comforting him - something a pacifier just cannot do. It's
similar to the feeling we get when we know that we can totally
disintegrate into the arms of another person - just totally fall
apart. Our baby falls apart in our arms, and we hold him,
comfort him, quiet him. He knows that we are there, and that we
- mothers, fathers, etc. - will put him back together again. We
will find some way to reach into his being and contain what is
distressing him so. We will take care of him. But if mothers and
fathers do not pick up their crying baby, or hold their sleeping
baby, then the experience is quite different. The child learns
that he will not be comforted if (and when) he falls apart, and
so he learns to hold in, dismiss, and cut-off from his fears and
anxieties. If as children we do not get practice in
"falling apart" into the arms of an other, then as
adults we will also have difficulty achieving this level of
intimacy.
TNP: It seems when babies fall
apart in our arms, they have no concern whatsoever that we
figure out what's wrong with them. They trust that we're going
to comfort them. But as adults, we are insecure about why we
fall apart.
KW: Right. It is our cultural
belief that we should be so self-reliant and so self-assured
that we shouldn't need anybody else. It seems to me that one of
the goals of Western parenting has been to raise children to
need no one - to be totally self-sufficient. That is not, in my
eyes, the point of parenting or of having children. In fact, I
disagree with the widely-held notion that we are born alone, and
we die alone, so therefore teach your kids to be alone. None of
us are born alone - after all, our mothers are there! And nobody
should have to die alone, either, because ideally there are
loved ones surrounding us as we leave this world.
TNP: What happens when the parent reassigns a
different motive to the child's cry and decides not to be
responsive?
KW: A child cries for a reason -
not to manipulate his mother, not to be mean, or nasty, or to be
a "pain in the neck." When, instead of trying to
discern what her child needs, a mother simply says - "oh,
he's just tired," or "he has to deal with sleeping by
himself now" - she has given her baby the idea that
expressing his inner self is wrong or bad. A baby is like
someone who is quadriplegic. He can't do very much for himself -
but that doesn't mean that he isn't thinking and feeling. When
the baby cries and his mother responds, the child learns to have
trust in the world around him and to have trust in himself. When
the baby cries and his mother listens, the two join together in
a moment of oneness that transcends the separateness, the
aloneness, which the baby knows all too well.
TNP: Describe the process that
happens from there.
KW: If the child has not been
responded to, if he has not been attuned to or empathized with,
he begins to feel more and more powerless, alienated, and
detached. You know, sometimes the best you can do is simply
empathize with your baby - "I know, you are angry because .
. ." or "You want to get out of this car seat right
away!" Saying something like that is much better than
ignoring your child. The less empathy that is developed between
parent and child, the less understood the child feels, and from
there, the disconnection between the two just grows and grows.
TNP: What happens when a child
grows into adulthood with repeated patterns of relating like
this with his parents?
KW: Many people spend their lives
feeling like nobody hears their cries - they feel alone, afraid,
and powerless. When children are not responded to, in their
earliest and most primary relationships, they learn that their
thoughts and feelings are burdensome to others and that their
needs are shameful. As adults, these same people often go
underground with their feelings and seek comfort in substances.
Or, alternately, these same people become so vocal in their
neediness that, again, they are met with disdain from others and
go on to find comfort, as well, in non-human substances.
TNP: This pattern of parenting
that you are describing falls under what you call
"normative abuse." Can you describe this concept for
our readers and talk about what part it plays in the process of
detachment?
KW: Society (at least in the
Western World) has encouraged a number of parenting practices
that I call "normative abuse." "Normative,"
because these are approaches that are sanctioned by society,
therefore enacted without any moral discomfort. By normative, I
mean practices which appear normal for our culture. A hundred
years ago, for example, severe physical abuse was routine to
parenting. The abuse we see today stems from our insistence on
separation, self-soothing and detachment at the expense of
attachment, intimacy, and connectedness.
TNP: Describe these practices that you say fall under
the "normative abuse" category.
KW: First of all, normative abuse
occurs when we avoid or ignore our parental instincts to be
empathic and responsive to our children's needs. For example,
parents are taught the best gift they can give their children is
to encourage them to self-soothe at one, two, three months of
age. Mothers frantically stick a pacifier in their babies'
mouths or try to get their child to suck on his thumb, all in a
well-meaning effort to wean their child from "needing"
mom. In the psychoanalytic literature, for example, one writer
even criticizes a mother who "allows" her baby to
become "addicted" to her - can you imagine that? A
baby should be "addicted" to his real mother, not to a
substitute, plastic pacifier or even to his own thumb! Again,
normative abuse occurs when the child's needs for attachment and
closeness with his parents are sacrificed for the cultural norms
that insist on autonomy and individuation. Babies need to be
held - as much as possible, as often as possible. Therefore, I
consider the over-use of strollers, playpens, and even cribs to
be normative abuse.
TNP: Is this an all-inclusive
statement - are you advocating that parents never use these
items?
KW: No, certainly not. As a mother
of a 4 1/2-year-old and 17-month-old twins, I know that nothing
can be back and white! Certainly, a stroller comes in handy if
you must take two babies together, by yourself. But I think that
parents automatically put their baby into a stroller, without
giving any thought to what is truly best and most natural. As
well, parents worry that holding their baby will spoil him, that
he will never accept a stroller later if he is held now. That is
an unfortunate supposition and one that is not at all true. What
a toddler enjoys is not the same as what a newborn baby needs. I
sometimes cringe when I look at a newborn baby, lying all by
himself, in his expensive, state-of-the-art stroller that his
parents bought with such love and devotion. Almost without
exception, that baby would prefer to be held, I'm sure. When my
twins were infants, we always used slings to carry them wherever
we went, and I was able to make sure that I never went out
without another adult to help me carry the boys.
TNP: We tend to treat babies
like they want to be away from us - "Don't you want this
toy?" or "Don't you want to be in this his neat bouncy
seat?" - when what they really want is to be in our arms or
on our lap.
KW: That's right. Don't forget, we
ourselves were parented in a detached manner, with normative
abuse as well. So often, despite what we may intellectually know
is best, we may still worry when our young children demand a
closeness we never experienced in our own childhood. Despite
what we know, we worry that he is "too clingy, too
needy," and we become afraid that he will never want to
become more independent. So, in spite of ourselves, we may push
our children away, giving subtle messages that our children
should learn to be independent of us. This is a Western worry -
in other cultures, children are raised with the expectation that
they will always remain near their parents, building a
close-knit community rooted in the extended family.
TNP: It seems that we've lost
the sense of family connectedness in our society that should
sustain us throughout our lives.
KW: Yes. In our world, a family
that "still" has a 20-year-old living at home, for
example, is considered suspect. "What went wrong?"
people wonder. "Why is that young adult still at
home?"
TNP: What are some other
practices that fall under the term normative abuse?
KW: The concept of normative abuse
implies that intimacy and connectedness are devalued and
replaced with social expectations of a self-sufficiency way
beyond the baby and young child's ability. When we are not
empathic to our children, we create a rift or a separation
inside this loving relationship. For example, using nicknames
that are in reality hurtful or mean, creates a barrier inside
the relationship. Jokingly calling your child a
"stinker," or "troublemaker," or
"rebel," can have long-lasting effects on your child's
self-perception. I knew a mother, who, for example, continually
labeled her 3-year-old daughter's opposition behavior
"ugly."
TNP: What challenges do parents
face (in their own parenting) when they grew up in situations
that were laden with "normative abuse" practices?
KW: Well, the likelihood is that we
will repeat, in some form or another, that which was done to us.
Parenting is constant interaction, meaning we are always being
challenged by our children in the moment. I like to hope that,
at our best, we can parent in an introspective way. By that I
mean, that we continue an ongoing conscious dialogue within
ourselves, with our spouses, and with others so as to question
and process how we are handling the everyday moments with our
children. We need to "check in" with others who are
also taking a more empathic approach to parenting, so as to make
sure that our actions are intersecting with our intellect. For
example, one mother I know needed ongoing reassurance after the
birth of her young daughter, that her 4-year-old's wish to
return to nursing was not "wrong" and that it did not
indicate that her preschooler would always insist on being
"babied" again. This is uncharted territory for most
of us, and it helps to have others - like AA has sponsors - to
guide us along the way. That's one of the wonderful aspects of
magazines like The Nurturing Parent. People can feel
reassured as they parent in a more attached way and can ask for
help and guidance in navigating the waters of empathic
parenting.
Another aspect of "doing unto
our children what was done to us" is that we may, by
attempting to become the opposite of our parents, still
stimulate some of the same dynamics with our children. For
example, some parents have the tendency to
"overattach." By that I mean that they do not allow
enough separateness inside the connectedness of their
relationship with their children. In so doing, these parents are
not attuning to the very important needs of their children to
also have "separate time," or even "separate
adventures" away from home. What causes this misattunement?
In every relationship, we find characteristics in others which
resemble our own parents and siblings. We essentially recreate,
in our current relationships, the family scenario from which we
came. In this, we then respond as we have always responded,
feeling the same emotional dynamics that we have always felt,
and therefore feeling a stability in our own core self. For
example, a mother may have felt particularly traumatized by her
own childhood experiences of abandonment. As an adult, she is
exquisitely sensitive to feeling that others will leave her.
With her own child, then, she may experience what is his healthy
separateness, with dismay and fear. She experiences his natural
growing independence and individuation as an abandonment of
their relationship and then, as she did in her own childhood,
she becomes anxious, insecure, and protests what is essentially
his right to separateness.
TNP: How do we understand
healthy attachment?
KW: Healthy attachment allows for
separateness as well as connectedness. Freud spoke of an
"indissoluble bond," a bond in which we know that
"we cannot fall out of this world." In a sense, we
have an invisible, life-long umbilical cord which is attached to
those we love most dear. And, as in the womb, we are free to
move around, somersault, and rotate while still being fed and
cared for through the umbilical cord.
TNP: Explain healthy
separateness.
KW: It varies from child to child,
but generally speaking, we need to help our children develop
what Winnicott, a British psychoanalyst, called the capacity to
be alone. We need to be non-intrusive and respectful of times
when our children want to play alone or color alone or to simply
be alone. We don't need to force alone time on our children by
shutting them away from us, but rather we can help them create
the capacity for self-enjoyment by giving them time to entertain
themselves while we are unobtrusively nearby. Even a baby has
this experience, while being held on his mother's lap or
snuggling inside a baby wrap. It's really a misnomer to think
that a baby must be put down in order to experience his own
separate body and mind. Even while being held, he is having his
own thoughts, feelings, and sensations. Research has shown that,
for example, a 3-month-old pair of conjoined twins already knew
the difference between sucking their own thumb and sucking the
thumb of their sibling.
Part of our job, as parents, is to help
our baby feel comforted in negotiating the feelings that come
from his sense of littleness and powerlessness. I often think of
myself as a "human pacifier" because I can provide
immersive moments through comfort, nurturance, and soothing to
my children when they ask for, and need, my help.
TNP: After addressing the
disease of detachment in the first half of Creating the
Capacity for Attachment, you present breakthrough ideas
concerning an approach to psychotherapy that facilitate the
healing process for persons suffering it. Why did you choose to
focus on this?
KW: Psychotherapy is a wonderful
place for people to discover the joy of intimacy through putting
their thoughts and feelings into words. But all too often,
psychotherapists have fallen short of encouraging the attachment
process - of encouraging just what it takes to heal someone from
their wounds of detachment. The 12-Step programs, such as
Alcoholics Anonymous, have done a much better job of helping
people re-attach to the loving bonds of humanity than,
traditionally, has psychotherapy. These programs teach people
how to redirect their very normal need for love and attachment
to other members of the group, rather than to continue seeking
comfort from substances. A therapist can, similarly, be someone
who is willing to help create the kind of attachment, love and
security that was missing in his or her patient's childhood. I
believe this element has been left out of psychotherapy for too
long. The level of intimacy that the therapist encourages inside
the setting of the psychotherapy process can be very powerful
and healing.
TNP: In your book, you discuss
how you enable immersive moments to be part of the psychotherapy
process in your practice. Can you describe this process?
KW: I look at psychotherapy as a
process of immersion, of always deepening my knowledge and
understanding of the person I am sitting with. As he puts all
his feelings and thoughts into words, he feels relief in being
understood, in releasing himself from his inner demons, and he
relaxes in our developing relationship. In this empathic
process, there is usually a deepening of affection and trust.
The development of a secure base, a secure attachment between
us, is crucial to the process. Therefore, as with a baby or
young child, I believe that as the therapist, I must be
accessible, even between sessions. This is usually of great
comfort to people, who are used to detachment and distance in
most of their other relationships.
TNP: In your book, you comment
that you've often been questioned about making yourself so
accessible to your patients because it might create an unhealthy
dependency, which might even mean that your clients would be
calling you all of the time, not allowing you the space that you
need.
KW: It doesn't happen that way.
Just knowing that I'm accessible is what seems to have been the
most important part of my accessibility to my patients. I have
provided the protective wall in which they can operate. This is
such a direct parallel to the parent-child relationship.
Attachment parents have been criticized for the same reasons.
But, in truth, the children, like my patients, operate within
the protective wall, and they do not form an unhealthy
dependency. Instead, they do their own thing and grow to reach
their own potential. Just like our children, my patients seem to
thrive in the knowledge that I am present for them whenever they
have a need.
John Bowlby has said that no matter how
adult we are, as grownups we also do our best when we feel
there's someone behind us or underneath us who is holding us up.
It's as though we are all acrobats, walking on our own
tightropes, feeling confident because there is a security net
beneath us that we can see and believe in. This security net
gives us the courage to continue walking along on our own
highwire. This concept is as necessary to psychotherapy as it is
in childrearing. |