(no subject)
Sep. 8th, 2005 09:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaI left this comment about Attachment Parenting in someone else's journal, and then decided that I wanted to hold onto it in mine. The italicized bit is the quote I was responding to.
(Ironically, it's the Way It Was Always Done if you go even further back, before industrialisation, probably).
It is and it isn't. Yes, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and (probably) babywearing were how people raised their children in preindustrial societies. But attachment parenting's intensive focus on one-to-one interaction with babies, child-led parenting, and being "wholly in tune" with children's needs and emotions, is solely the product of wealthy postindustrial societies. No one else in the history of humanity has ever been able to afford to have one person in each family occupied with parenting and practically nothing else. (Okay, some wealthy preindustrial families were rich enough - but they typically had that "one person" be a wet nurse, not the children's mother.)
If you wanted to practice historically accurate preindustrial mothering, in addition to breastfeeding and co-sleeping you'd also probably do things like swaddling your baby to a board and leaving her propped against the wall while you did your work, until it was time to nurse. You'd probably leave the one-year-old and the three-year-old under the supervision of the six-year-old. As seen in The Continuum Concept, you might constantly wear your baby on your back while you did manual labor but rarely speak to her or have face-to-face interaction.
I think attachment parenting is great, and good for babies. But it's definitely a product of modern times and circumstances. It's a combination of the most labor-intensive features of preindustrial parenting, plus the most labor-intensive features of modern parenting. Historically speaking, it's a luxury for women with amounts of leisure and resources which were practically unheard-of in previous centuries.
(Ironically, it's the Way It Was Always Done if you go even further back, before industrialisation, probably).
It is and it isn't. Yes, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and (probably) babywearing were how people raised their children in preindustrial societies. But attachment parenting's intensive focus on one-to-one interaction with babies, child-led parenting, and being "wholly in tune" with children's needs and emotions, is solely the product of wealthy postindustrial societies. No one else in the history of humanity has ever been able to afford to have one person in each family occupied with parenting and practically nothing else. (Okay, some wealthy preindustrial families were rich enough - but they typically had that "one person" be a wet nurse, not the children's mother.)
If you wanted to practice historically accurate preindustrial mothering, in addition to breastfeeding and co-sleeping you'd also probably do things like swaddling your baby to a board and leaving her propped against the wall while you did your work, until it was time to nurse. You'd probably leave the one-year-old and the three-year-old under the supervision of the six-year-old. As seen in The Continuum Concept, you might constantly wear your baby on your back while you did manual labor but rarely speak to her or have face-to-face interaction.
I think attachment parenting is great, and good for babies. But it's definitely a product of modern times and circumstances. It's a combination of the most labor-intensive features of preindustrial parenting, plus the most labor-intensive features of modern parenting. Historically speaking, it's a luxury for women with amounts of leisure and resources which were practically unheard-of in previous centuries.
