As a developmental specialist, I feel compelled to speak to this issue.  First, attachment behavior as it relates to separation is different from attachment theory which is based on the notion that children need a safe base of security.  Attachment behavior, as measure in Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment classified children's responses not simply according to their reactions at being separated from their moms but the underlying predisposing factors.  Therefore, judging by appearances alone is very deceiving.  For example, a child who is securely attached may cry where as an avoidant child may not, as they have learned what is for them, adaptive given the constraints of their relationship with their mom.  Looking at the crying child, the simpleton might make the wrong conclusion, which happens all the time (i.e. Ezzo).  Without a sturdy understanding, surface behavior is misinterpreted.  (I realize that I glossed over all the details, but that's the relevant part.)

Culture becomes a factor when, for example, in many groups like middle class America, if a parent is at home, they are in and out of the room doing laundry, answering phones etc whereas in another culture, children remain in much closer physical proximity if not physically attached (as in carried) all the time.  Both may be equally securely attached, but their experiences are different and they therefore would respond differently to the Strange Situation Attachment Assessment which we must recognize as specifically designed to be used in one culture and for one culture.  The abuse of information comes when it is used for children with different cultural experience and their responses vary accordingly but they are evaluated the same way.

Most excitingly, the latest brain research (just went to a symposium in Chicago THIS morning) is defining the biological and neurological basis for issues such as shyness, fussiness etc.  This is a matter of brain chemicals, experiences,  (areas of the) brain and how they develop, environmental responses and the nature of caregiving.  Very multiply determined.  And temperament, now being understood as individual neurology, is at the core of the issue.  Having a sensitive and responsive caregiver can positively impact both the child's social and interpersonal experience as well as the development of the brain and neuro-chemicals themselves as it is an experience dependent system with great plasticity.  To mush matters of temperment into issues of mental health is innacurate.  (Which is not to say that they are unrelated)

Therefore, when this Maryland researcher begins to pigeonhole diagnoses such as these, I find it problematic.  And by the way, school phobia is usually a response to something happening at home, not a fear of separation per say, but what will happen if the child does not remain at home.  So basically, this fellow is pouring everything into one pot which is misguided at best, dangerous at worst and definitely not sound.  

As for co-sleeping, one of my Profs who is from China told me that when she immigrated as a college student, she was furious at her teachers' ethnocentric perspective that co-sleeping is dysfunctional.  She said that she had slept with her mother until she got married and most people in her village do.  She is a well-respected developmental psychologist and researcher to this day!!!

Joanne McCrory
Infancy specialist

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html