John Bowlby (1953) studied emotional disturbance in children occasioned by the separation of the child from it’s family, in particular from its mother. It provided a radical challenge to existing child-care policy, which had laid priority on removing children from families where they were though to be in danger of neglect, or lack of care, and placing them into local authority, residential care. Contrary to this established wisdom.
Bowlby argued that such policies failed to recognise central processes in the development of the child’s emotional development of the ‘bond’ or attachment which it formed to it’s mother. Based on Freudian analysis, Bowlby’s argument was that breaking this maternal bond caused emotional trauma, and that child-care policies should be revised to take account of this central feature of childhood development.
Evidence of an understanding of attachment theory. Attachment is an “affectionate bond between two individuals that endures through space and time and serves to join them emotionally,” (Kennell, 1976). This concept of attachment, is a central theme in the discussion of the role of parenting. Until the latter part of the 1950’s the dominant view of attachment was the “Cupboard Love Theory,” i.e. the baby becomes attached to the mother that feeds it. There are two theoretical considerations for this view, Freud’s Psychoanalytical Theory and Learning Theory. According to Freud, “Love has it’s origins in attachment to the satisfied need for nourishment,” (Freud, 1940).
The child’s primary drive is for food and through associating the mother with the satisfaction of this drive, it acquires a secondary drive for its mother. The child begins to be socialised as it learns to value it’s mother as an agent who alleviates tensions associated with hunger, thirst and physical discomfort (Stendler, 1952). In Learning Theory, the child is helpless and totally dependent on its mother. The child soon learns to associate it’s mother with the relief of painful tensions (hunger).
Food is the primary reinforcer and the mother is the secondary reinforcer. The satisfaction of the child’s primary needs eventually leads them to being dependent on the mother emotionally. In essence the child has no self-awareness. It seems a strange paradox, that in order to become a fully functioning individual, the child must first become attached to the mother (or other significant person), by the bonds of dependency and love. Bowlby (1951) criticised the social learning model, as an over simplification. He argued that attachment behaviour was the, “operation of an internal control system that predisposes the child to form attachments.”
Bowlby argued that the child displays social behaviour from birth (crying, smiling etc.), up to and beyond the time that he makes focused attachment to parental figures. Parental response to these innate behaviours, combined with a critical period early in a child’s life, cause attachments. Bowlby (1969), also claimed that an infant displays a strong innate tendency to be “attached” to one particular individual (this need not be the natural mother) and this form of attachment is different to any subsequent kind (Bowlby’s Monotropy Theory). Studies by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) support the idea that a child’s attachments are not equal and that a hierarchy exists.
Bowlby also argued that, a child’s relationship with its mother, is somehow altogether different from others. He claimed, that the maternal bond could not be broken in the first years of life, without causing serious and permanent damage to emotional, intellectual and social development (Bowlby, 1951). He called this breaking of the mother-child bond, “Maternal Separation.” Bowlby argued that, the separation anxiety experienced by children, had to do with their emotional rather than physical experiences. Rutter, (1972), later made the important point that, the effects of bond disruption (maternal separation), and failure to form bonds (maternal deprivation), are different.
If maternal bonding theory were correct, it would not be possible for foster parents to form necessary attachments to “their” children, whom they would not have seen as babies at all (in the majority of cases). It is the process of bonding that forms the basis for attachment in later life. I feel that the use of a single concept is wholly inadequate, as there are many modifying influences (supported by empirical research) which determine the consequences for the child.
Researchers (Robertson and Bowlby, {1971}) have identified three stages in a child’s reaction to separation: protest, withdrawal and detachment. It is the worker’s job, to help the child cope with this trauma. “Distress caused by separation, is likely to be greater if the child is between 6-7 months and 3 years old, reaching a peak between 12-18 months,” (Maccoby, 1980, quoted in Gross, 1991,p.658). One of the crucial variables linked with age, is the ability to hold in the mind an image of the absent mother. Also the limits to a child’s language comprehension may make it difficult to explain concepts of tomorrow or in a few days time. The child may feel that the mother has abandoned them and that she no longer loves them or that they are to blame.
“The combination of separation from the key attachment figure and a lack of personalised care giving during the separation produce the greatest upset,” (Rutter and Rutter, (1993), quoted in Howe, D (1995) Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice, p.57). Boys are generally more vulnerable than girls but, their reactions vary greatly (Lowe, 1990, quoted in Berridge, 1997,p.32). The more stable and less tense the relationship before separation, the better the child appears to cope i.e. there’s less chance that the child will blame themselves for the separation. Alternatively, an extremely close and protective relationship where the child is rarely out of the mother’s sight will produce a more traumatic separation, as it is a new experience. “Multiple attachments also make separation less stressful as the child is not dependent on one,” (Kotelchuck, 1976).
However, any behavioural problems that existed prior to the separation are likely to be heightened, because the young child’s personality and emerging sense of self, form within relationships and any disruption to that relationship, is a threat to the integrity of the self, “and when that bond is broken the very structure of the personality is endangered,” (Fraiberg, quoted in Fahlberg (1991) p.143). Foster carers should note, that they are dealing with a young personality, that was still in the process of forming within the now disrupted attachment relationship (Howe, 1995,p.57).
These experiences of loss and disruption can be present throughout the life cycle (Parkes, 1986), and research shows that past experiences of loss along with the quality of our current relationships can have a significant impact on how well we grieve and eventually adjust to our loss( Howe, 1992). When moving to a new placement the child is faced with forming new attachments to their carers. The purpose of the placement, the needs of the child and the capacity of the carers, will all affect the quality of the attachment.
Given the lifelong effect that lack of attachment can have on a child, it is primary that the foster care system responds in a way that facilitates attachment, as children require continuing relationships for ongoing growth and development. Unresolved separations interfere with the formation of new attachments, as few children in foster care receive adequate help in resolving the grief they experienced when separated from their birth family (Fahlberg, (1991) A Child’s Journey Through Placement, p.17).
Evidence of an understanding of how a worker might utilise attachment theory when planning for individual children. Children need to be placed with foster carers that possess the skills and ability, to achieve healthy attachments so that growth and development are facilitated and then transferred to the primary care givers. Workers must develop the knowledge, skills and ability, to assess attachments through the child’s interaction with the primary care givers, siblings and peers.
To identify problems and develop strategies to remedy them, one must be aware of how they may be manifest (i.e. may be evident in “play,” or reaction to separation), and differ at the varying life/developmental stages. If the worker has no other available option than placing a child in care, possessing this knowledge enables the worker to minimise the trauma by pre-placement preparation (informed by each child’s individually assessed needs)