Winnie wrote:
> Is this
primarily a US or US/European attitude?  Our society seems to value
independence and individualism more than many other cultures.  Many
other cultures value co-operation and group-centeredness over
self-centeredness.  I think many USers identify group identity,
collective needs etc as the same as communism and therefore to be
avoided at all costs.  This spills over into attitudes about
infants.  We don't want them to become "overdependent" on us.  We
push them to be independent.  We expect them to adopt adult needs,
attitudes and behaviors as soon as possible.
It would be necessary to compare attitudes a couple generations back
to see if there is a true difference since we have "exported" so
many of our ideas (good and/or bad) that the lines are becoming less
and less distinct.

Winnie, this is only my personal opinion, coming from the perspective of
one who grew up in England and moved to the USA in 1973, with frequent
visits back *home.*

I hear what you are saying about the fear of anything remotely resembling
the popular conception of *communism.* I can certainly see this coming
through in a fear of *socialized medicine.* I do not think, however, that
it pertains to the treatment of babies, at least in England.

My sister, whose children are about the same age as mine, (early
twenties) put it this way. She said, *Some people believe that chidren
are like wild animals that have to be taught how to behave in civilized
society, and others believe that parents should do things at the child's
level until they are old enough to know better.*

Now I know that this is a very simplistic way of looking at things, but
my point is that it really has not got a lot to do with political
systems. While our mother tried to *do things at the child's level * as
did I, my sister took the opposite approach. For the record, we all voted
for the same political party :)

I agree with the idea that many people in the States continue the
tradition of individualism and ruggedness started by the early pioneers.
I do wonder, though, how those same pioneers actually treated their
children. Did they allow them to be babies, or did they beat them to
teach them not to cry, as Susanna Wesley, (John Wesley's wife, in 18th
century England,) wrote in her journal?

It is my understanding that until very recently, childhood as we know it
did not exist. Children were simply small adults who were even dressed in
adult fashions. They were seen as a vital part of the economy, whether
they were poor, and used for manual labour, or rich, and used as
bargaining pawns in marriage settlements. I wonder if Kathy Dettwyler is
reading this thread and would like to  comment?

Norma Ritter, IBCLC
private practice in Big Flats, NY
[log in to unmask]

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