>Well, to put that into perspective... I've read that in the Gusii 
>society in Kenya, it's actually normal *not* to talk to infants or 
>make eye contact with them. When anthropologists tried asking Gusii 
>mothers to try talking to their babies in order to show them how to 
>do something (older babies, obviously), the mothers found this quite 
>extraordinary and didn't really know how to go about it at all. And, 
>although that's the only specific example I can think of, I do 
>recall reading that this can be common in traditional 
>hunter-gatherer societies - it isn't normal, in those societies, for 
>parents to talk to babies and focus on them a great deal to the 
>extent that we do in this society.


I don't know anything at all about the Gusii, but yes, different 
societies value different ways of interacting with their children.

In Parenting for a Peaceful World, Robin Grille posits that cultural 
ideas about babyhood and childhood prepare children for the society 
the children are destined for.  So if your culture values aggression, 
dominance  and violence, and this is how you survive in adulthood, 
then you train your children to repress emotions  (bar anger and then 
you control it), to not be too needy, and to admire people who embody 
those ideals.

>
>Now, of course, that's not to say that there isn't a lot of room for 
>us to pay less attention to our electronics and more to our 
>children. But, at the same time, this whole idea that it's terrible 
>for a new mother to be posting Facebook updates instead of gazing 
>into her baby's eyes and forming an instant bond...


Sarah, that's a caricature of what I (and others said) !  No one 
expects 'an instant bond', and it's perfectly possible to post 
Facebook updates *and* have a great, mutually-responsive relationship 
with your baby.  But we know perfectly well now that babies need 
responding to, and the device that goes with you all the time 
actually prevents this for much of the day, if you let it.

The simple but telling example of phones literally getting in between 
mothers and babies at the moment of birth means the experience of 
these moments is missed. Grandma and Grandpa and all the waiting 
Facebook friends can wait for a picture; the baby and his mother 
won't have that moment again.  If that interference is prolonged and 
repetitive, it's not good news.

>  I think that may be strongly guided by a cultural ideal we have of 
>how new mothers 'should' be interacting with/bonding with their baby 
>that actually may not have much basis in terms of human history.

I am not harking back to a golden age where everyone (where?) related 
beautifully to their children. I think those societies were either 
rare or non-existant. The human race has survived physically pretty 
well, and we haven't blown up the planet yet (hurrah), or run out of 
resources yet  (yippee), or killed each other (though we keep 
trying....).

We can do more than just survive, in the 21st century, though, can't 
we? Now we know that emotional well-being is important, and that in 
*our* society,  especially so, we know what it takes to foster it 
(sound early relationships), we can aim for more than just seeing 
our kids survive  to adulthood.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor, UK
-- 

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome