Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 John Bowlby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
Was John Bowlby the 'originator' of the attachment theory' or did he simply develop the concept?
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
- User:KingsleyMiller
- User:Fainites
- User:Jean Mercer
[edit] What's going on?
I believe that Fainities has approached the attachment theory from a Bowlby perspective quite unaware of the controvesy that has engulfed his work. As a consequence much of the information provided by Fanities is misleading and incorrect. Fanities in effect is promoting a discredited theory and this is damaging.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
This is an EARLIER EDIT I made that was changed by Fainities. I should like to see this incorporated into the page (It is taken from the acknowledged expert Professor Sir Michael Rutter);-
Bowlby and the 'Maternal Deprivation' controversy
According to Bowlby his early work, 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951) "focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health". This came to be known as the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'. However there are four main 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.
There was a great deal of professional disquiet about the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' and the World Health Organization WHO produced "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" in 1962. In 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' (1972), which New Society describes as 'A classic in the field of child care' Professor Sir Michael Rutter pointed out that children were not invariably so damaged and that, in any event, other people, including their fathers, can be equally important to children. Schaffer in 'Social Development' (2000) states that it seems likely that social convention explains whatever differences are observed between parents and that when fathers do assume the principal responsibility for their children such differences disappear.
The 'Attachment and Loss' trilogy
Bowlby stated that he had made good the "deficiencies of the data and the lack of theory to link alleged cause and effect" in his later work 'Attachment and Loss' thereby incorporating the concept of 'maternal deprivation' into the attachment theory. According to Rutter op cit, who Bowlby described as his "erstwhile critic", this later work took the attachment theory forward in five key ways,
(1) It differentiated attachment qualities of relationships from other aspects.
(2) The development of attachments were placed within the context of normal developmental processes and specific mechanisms were proposed.
(3) The development of attachments was placed firmly in a biological framework.
(4) A mental mechanism, namely internal working models of relationships was suggested as a means for both the carry forward of the effects of early attachment experiences into later relationships and also a mechanism for change.
(5) Bowlby made various suggestions about the way an insecurity in selective early attachments might play a role in the genesis of later psycho pathology.
Bowlby's Legacy
There is still a great deal of confusion regarding the contribution of John Bowlby. Although his earlier work led to major improvements in the care of young children in hospitals and residential institutions the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' met with a critical reception.. His supporters still claim that he is the 'founder' of the attachment theory but there were others at the time also working in the field and Bowlby himself never claimed this credit, instead he acknowledged that his work had given rise to "widespread controversy" (see; attachment therapy), as well as "extensive research" (see parent-child psychotherapy, 'Circle of Security', intergenerational communication of trauma, safe start initiative). According to Rutter op cit the importance of Bowlby's initial writings on 'maternal deprivation' lay in his emphasis that children's experiences of interpersonal relationships were crucial to their psychological development.
[edit] Mediator notes
[edit] Administrative notes
Can we merge this to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter since the participants are the same? If there are no objections in the next few days I will do this. --Cabal of one (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
When I wrote the lead part of the attachment theory article, I noted that although there have been various attachment theories, the term is generally taken to mean Bowlby's attachment theory, and I maintain this view. Ordinarily, when you read this term, you can assume it doesn't mean S. Freud, it doesn't mean Gewirtz, etc.
[edit] Bowlby as the 'originator' of the attachment theory
I am trying to find out whether anybody would agree with the idea that Bowlby was the 'originator' of the attachment theory?
The above comment seems to suggest that he was not the originator and I would appreciate ideas.
If you think he is not please say so. It would help!
KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I think Bowlby's the originator of the theory associated with his name, the one whose tenets are on that list. There are other attachment theories too, as I mentioned, and naturally he's not their originator. When most people say attachment theory, they mean Bowlby's theory, as I noted in the article. Wouldn't you be surprised if someone spoke of attachment theory and it turned out they were talking about Gewirtz or Ian Suttie?Jean Mercer (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- When you raised this before Kip I provided this [3], (from material lying close to hand - there's probably more) to which you have yet to respond. Anyway - what is needed for mediation is a fair representation of the dispute and agreement by all relevent parties. Its not meant to be an attack.Fainites barley 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals:
| suggestions for ambit of mediation |
|---|
|
Is monotropy a feature of maternal deprivation? Is monotropy a feature of attachment theory (Bowlby) What is monotropy according to Bowlby? Has monotropy been given a different meaning to Bowlbys by other authors? What is the current state of thinking on monotropy? In either maternal deprivation or attachment theory does it apply to only a)mothers, b) women or c)another or others? Is Bowlby the originator/formulator of attachment theory? If he's not, who is? If we're not talking about Bowlby's attachment theory, what attachment theory are we talking about? If Bowlby is the originator, has attachment theory developed on to the point where it is no longer Bowlby's attachment theory but something altogether different? Was Rutter referring to attachment theory or maternal deprivation when he set out the four elements in his 1995 paper? How do we present Rutters contribution to a)maternal deprivation and b) attachment theory? (Fathers and all). |
Fainites barley 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fanities on Bowlby
Fanities,
I have reproduced your 'Sources as to origins of attachment theory' in support of the notion that Bowlby is the originator, formulator or developer of attachment theory or that it emanates from him because I think it is important that others see your evidence.
There is no doubt that he developed and contributed to attachment theory but I do not think that any of it proves he is the 'author' or 'originator' of the theory. What you have produced below is an example of SYNTHESIS. You have put together a number of disparate quotes to make it seem as though they prove your 'point of view' when in reality on their own they show nothing of the sort. You seem to be trying to recast Bowlby's reputation. (Please do not remove this section)
- "Bowlby's theory. This represents the most comprehensive theory of human attachment." Gross. 2005.
- From the early days when he was criticised by academic psychologists and ostracized by the psychoanalytic community attachment concepts have become generally accepted. That they have become so is a tribute to the creativity and perceptiveness of Bowlbys original formulations and to the major conceptual and methodological contributions of Mary Ainsworth. It is also a function however of Bowlby's willingness to respond to empirical findings by modifying attachment concepts when research data indicated changes were necessary." Rutter 1995.
- "Ethological attachment theory, as outlined by John Bowlby (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980), has provided one of the most important frameworks for understanding crucial risk and protective factors in social and emotional development in the first 3 years of life." Zeanah 1996
- "Attachment theory was introduced and described in detail by John Bowlby in his many papers and books....Bowlby's trilogy (1969/82, 1973,1980) considered the formation of attachment, separation and loss......What is remarkable is the extent to which Bowlby's writing and predictions, which were based on extensive observations, have been proved correct. The theory has stood the test of empirical scrutiny....." Prior and Glaser in Understanding Attachment published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit. 2006.
- "There are two individuals who dominated the early formative years of attachment theory and who were responsible for its core concepts: John Bowlby... and Mary Ainsworth... To understand the revolutionary nature of Bowlby's thinking and how it represented a radical departure from the traditional psychoanalytic model, a little history is in order...." Pearce and Pezzot-Pearce, Psychotherapy of Abused and Neglected Children. Guilford Press.2007.
- "Because he found himself dissatisfied with traditional theories, Bowlby sought new understanding through discussion with colleagues from such fileds as evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psycholog, cognitive science and control systems theory (Bowlby 1969/82) He drew upon all these fields to formulate the innovative proposition...etc etc ...Bowlby (1958, 1960b, 1960c) introduced attachment theory in a series of papers....all of the major points of attachment theory were presented there in at least rudimentary form...these ideas were later elaborated in Bowlby's trilogy..." The Nature of a Childs Ties, in "Handbook of Attachment" Cassidy 1999. Guilford press.
- "Melding ideas from Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, object relations theory, control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology, Bowlby (1969/82,1973,1980) developed a grand theory of personality development across the lifespan - attachment theory. One reason why attachment theory is so unique, generative and prominent in contemporary social and behavioural sciences is because of its deep, foundational ties to principles of evolution." Simpson. Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective. Handbook of Attachment. supra.
- All relationships including the primary one between parent and child, involve a range of dimensions; it is the attachment dimension however that has been given by far the most attention in the last few decades and about which we have learned the most. This is largely thanks to the writings of John Bowlby (1969/82, 1973, 1980) whose attachment theory has become the dominant approach to understanding early social development and given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of childrens close relationships." Rudolph Schaffer. Introducing Child Psychology. 2007. Blackwell.
- "Attachment theory is the joint work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Drawing on concepts from ethology, cybernetics, information processing, developmental psychology and psychoanalysts, John Bowlby formulated the basic tenets of the theory....Mary Ainsworths innovative methodology not only made it possible to test some of Bowlby's ideas empirically but also helped expand the theory itself and is responsible for some of the new directions it is now taking." "...Bowlby realised that he had to develope new theory of motivation and behaviour control, built on up-to-date science rather than the outdated psychic energy model espoused by Freud." Bretherton. The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. 1992. Published in Developmental Psychology
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a waste of space.
- a)There's no need to keep reproducing everything all over the place cluttering up the pages. Just provide links. (I already had anyway).
- b)Its not really appropiate to reproduce other peoples talkpage posts out of context. You never even bothered to acknowedge its existence in context. Links leave them in context.
- c)Mediation hasn't started and the more offensive and accusatory you are the less likely it is it ever will as mediation requires assumptions of good faith.Fainites barley 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fanities on Bowlby2
Here is the quotation in which you described me as 'frankly bizarre'.
"Your version of maternal deprivation and attachment theory significantly confused the two and misrepresented both Rutter and Bowlby. In maternal deprivation Bowlby mentions the first 6 months of an infants life. In attachment theory, attachment behaviours develop after around 7 or 8 months. Further, monotropy and imprinting are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. The alleged 'significant differences' between maternal deprivation and attachment theory that you have set out on Rutters page and the maternal deprivation page and to a lesser extent here, from Rutters 1995 paper, are in fact, as is clearly stated in Rutters paper, developments in attachment theory, not distinctions from maternal deprivation. Your repeated statement that Bowlby is famous only for maternal deprivation and that he is not the author of attachment theory is frankly bizarre". Fainites barley 14:35, 22 March 2008
Doug, Can you tell me by either contacting Fanites or from this extract whether; 1. Fanities is saying Bowlby is the 'author' of the 'attachment theory'? 2. Is Fanities saying the attachment theory and 'maternal deprivation' are the same? I am sorry to say that I feel he is acting in 'bad faith' and that only by using yourself as an intermediary am I likely to get a straight answer. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated." kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)KingsleyMiller
1. Yes 2. No Fainites00:36, 23 March 2008
As I understand the situation now you believe Bowlby to be the 'originator' but not the 'author' of the attachment theory. Is this correct? KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Higher Education: Don's delight Dr Raj Persaud on Maternal Deprivation Reassessed -the book that changed his life
The Guardian (Manchester); Jan 21, 1997; DR RAJ PERSAUD; p. 002
THE book which had the most profound impact on all our lives is often a publication we may not even be aware of - for it must be the literature which our parents consumed as we grew up - anxiously seeking guidance on how to bring up sane children.
The child psychologist your parents religiously followed in print has, decades later, been proved entirely wrong! Even if our parents did not read popular tomes such as John Bowlby's 'Can I leave my baby?', published in 1958, this eminent British psychoanalyst shaped the way a generation of parents related to their offspring.
He was interpreted as insisting that continuity and closeness of maternal care were the only certain ways of preventing adolescent and adult psychological disturbance. The inevitable conclusion was that mothers should not go out to work. All mothers who wanted a career or a life outside of childcare worried about comments like Bowlby's: 'Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.' Then came the book which argued the primary care-giver need not be the mother, nor were her absences always hazardous - Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, published in 1972 by Sir Michael Rutter, Professor of Child Psychiatry at London University's Institute of Psychiatry. It is difficult for us to recall, before Putter's book, what a struggle it was for women to break free from the notion that spending some time away from their children inevitably resulted in 'deprivation'.
My mother left us for a year to finish her PhD in Britain, when my brother and I were both under 10. It is Putter's book which ensured she never felt guilty for temporarily leaving us, and which ensures that, today, my wife continues to pursue her career as an eye-surgeon, as well as having children. By challenging what we believe constitutes good parenting. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed has changed not just my life, but all our lives.
Dr Raj Persaud is consultant psychiatrist at The Maudsley Postgraduate Psychiatric Teaching Hospital, University of London.
To order any book mentioned in Guardian Education, call 0500 600102
KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
