Mother Still Loves Best: Attachment Theory’s Influence on Mothering Practice-Then and Now

Please note that due to some unfortunate political/financial circumstances surrounding The Association of Research on Mothering (ARM: York University), what had initially been intended as a joint venture between ARM and The Motherhood Foundation (MOM: NY) and Mamapalooza (NY) became, following ARM’s withdrawal, a venture sponsored by MOM and Mamapalooza. The conference was re-named “Amplifying M(Others) Voices 2010.” The venue remained the same. And it was a fantastic focussed conference with scholars, activists, and artists from around the world participating ! Starting with AU’s Dr. Gina Wong Wylies’ keynote address on the first morning of the conference, the 3 days were filled with excellent and diverse sessions all related to mothering practice and motherhood. My paper was part of a session entitled “Loving & Love in the Art of Motherhood” with the focus on notions of the “good mother.” The audience was generous in their interpretation and discussion of the overall theme and all of the presentations in this session were well received. Although I did have the sense that my paper, which was based in a very specific psychological theory, was perhaps a little too specific for this audience. There was lots of opportunity throughout the conference to chat and discuss ideas. I used a lot of the time to gather information and ideas for my new undergraduate course on “Mothering”. Meeting other scholars interested in “Motherhood” as an academic discipline was perhaps the most inspiring aspect of the conference. Please note that my presentation was based on a recently published book chapter [Ross, L.R. (2010). Mom’s the word: Attachment theory’s role in defining the “good mother”. In L.R. Ross (Ed.), Feminist counselling: Theory, issues, and practice (pp. 22-51). Toronto: Women’s Press.] and consequently the presentation is not available to be reproduced online.John Bowlby's (1907 - 1990) attachment theory was formulated to explain mother-infant bonding. The theory was bound by a number of assumptions that placed responsibility for child rearing soley in the hands of women. Bowlby’s theory suggested that infants form a single, principle, bond that once formed provides the mental models that will govern all subsequent attachment relationships. Infant separation from the mother—“maternal deprivation”—was seen as the primary agent affecting infant personality development. Bowlby assumed that women are biologically suited and best able to raise children. The infant’s role in the formation of attachment bonds was not considered, nor were the roles of others in helping infants and children develop positive “attachment” relationships. In 1952 Hilde Bruch (cited in Mead, 1954) astutely pointed out that Bowlby's emphasis on maternal deprivation was "...a new and subtle form of antifeminism in which men—under the guise of exalting the importance of maternity—are tying women more tightly to their children than has been thought necessary since the invention of bottle feeding and baby carriages." Although a highly influential theory from its inception, in the early 1970’s only a handful of “attachment” studies had been published; today we see entire scholarly journals devoted to the topic, publishing literally thousands of articles each year. This paper will review the historical development of the attachment construct and discuss concerns about its continued use in informing mothering practice