There's an interesting discussion that's taking place on several sites simultaneously, and rather than responding to comments down below one of my more recent Attachment Parenting posts, I thought I'd highlight the discussion here, since lots of us are interested. Many of us are confused when we read parenting advice by "gurus" like Dr. Sears (who coined the term "Attachment Parenting"), because it makes us wonder whether we're doing a terrible disservice to our children if we use some form of "Cry It Out", DON'T co-sleep, engage in "babywearing", or do "extended breastfeeding". Poor Susanna came over to BabyShrink, after feeling scolded by AP proponents when she tried the "Cry It Out" (CIO) approach in a desperate attempt to get her son to sleep. We've continued to discuss the issues, with Annie at PhDinParenting bravely supporting her beliefs here, and elsewhere.
Annie left a link on a fascinating, very thorough anthropological review article looking at aspects of "natural parenting" worldwide. If you've got the time to read through the 82 page document -- go for it. Seriously, it's extremely interesting. I certainly find very little to quarrel with in the report. Perhaps Annie doesn't realize it, but here at BabyShrink we agree that responsive, "tuned-in" parenting is crucial in child development, and that physical -- and emotional -- contact, and very involved care, is an essential component in the ultimate well-being of a child. And that the lessons learned from in-depth study of attachment -- via well-accepted research -- informs our approach and intentions.
But the research review that Annie showed us mainly focuses on the young infants we ALL agree need to have close, physical contact and deeply involved parenting. It doesn't extend much to a discussion of toddlers and preschoolers, which is the group most often asked about at BabyShrink. It also doesn't tell us that the "Attachment Parenting" approach is somehow BETTER than the "Good Enough" parenting we strive for.
My beef is with those who take excellent research, and make unwarranted generalizations about it. The research shows us that excessive crying and non-responsive parenting is bad for the development of babies. --Well, duh. The research does NOT say, for instance, that a certain amount of crying, in the service of getting an older baby or toddler to sleep through the night, in their crib -- is a bad thing.
The bottom line here is that I'm against any sort of "holier than thou" parenting approach that doesn't respect individual differences in babies' temperaments and family circumstances. Good Enough is GOOD ENOUGH -- and there's research to support THAT. You don't have to be a perfect parent, and in fact in trying, you can make everyone nuts. There are far too many parents out there on "information overload", worried that they are daily making bad decisions for their kids, and in the process, not learning to trust their own best instincts as parents. You know your child best. I've always said to take what I say, or what any "expert" advises, with a grain of salt. Take what makes sense, leave the rest, and improvise from there.
Do I think Attachment Parenting can be applied with excellent results? Of course. Are there AP parents who are doing a fantastic job? Absolutely. But there is a vocal AP minority who insist on spreading the "gospel" to those of us who don't appreciate the prosteletyzing -- and whose children are turning out pretty great, thank you very much.
Dr. Heather The BabyShrink Mom of Four, Parenting Expert