One of the central conceits of the philosophy of attachment parenting is that is recapitulates parenting in nature and that it mimics child rearing among indigenous peoples.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In indigenous societies, “it takes a village to raise a child.” In attachment parenting, it takes only a mother following a rigid set of behaviors, that, in truth, have little or nothing to do with raising healthy, well adjusted children.
Attachment parenting, far from representing the way children were traditionally raised, reflects three very modern notions
1. Attachment parenting is very much an affectation of liberal, democratic societies that place primacy on radical individualism. In attachment parenting, only a mother can raise a child, and not just any mother: only a mother who fetishizes proximity to her young child.
2. Attachment parenting, though an affectation of liberals, actually reflects conservative values. The burden of raising children falls very heavily on women, at the expense of their ability to pursue intellectual endeavors or to achieve financial independence through working outside the home. The wider family has no responsibility to share the burden with the mother. The government has no responsibility for creating conditions that aid mothers in raising children or for supporting families in any way.
3. Attachment parenting is anti-feminist and fundamentalist. At its heart, with its emphasis on vaginal birth, extending breastfeeding, baby wearing and the imperative to be with a baby every moment of every day (including while sleeping), it is about policing women’s bodies to keep women in traditional gender roles and to make it impossible for women to pursue intellectual and economic equality.
Furthermore, attachment parenting has been marketed in ways that confirm its recent origins. Like any successful marketing campaign, the marketing of attachment parenting relies on exploiting insecurities (in this case, insecurities of mothers), encouraging competitiveness (between mothers), and selfishness (encouraging mothers to choose a parenting method that is all about them and their needs, as opposed to what is good for babies).
In “nature,” the central unit of human society is NOT the nuclear family; it is small bands composed of extended families.
In nature, the burden of childrearing is shared with grandmothers and older siblings. Indeed, some researchers believe that menopause confers an evolutionary advantage for humans because women who can no longer bear children turn to nurturing their grandchildren, providing them with significant benefits.
Children benefit by being nurtured and educated by an extended kin group.
Birth and breastfeeding, far from being manifestations of maternal love, are tests of evolutionary fitness. Baby too big to fit through the mother’s pelvis? Too bad! Both mother and baby die. Mother doesn’t make enough breastmilk to fill the baby’s needs? Too bad! Baby dies. Get pregnant quickly and have another one.
Tandem nursing, one of the hallmarks of contemporary attachment parenting, in unusual in animals and rare in humans. When the next baby is born, breastmilk is reserved exclusively for the nurturing of that baby and the older child is not allowed to continue nursing.
Baby wearing is not designed for emotional closeness; it is designed to protect babies from predators while mothers work around or outside the home. Indeed, the need for women to work, both around and outside the home, is integral to the survival of the group in nature. It is therefore profoundly ironic that baby wearing basically forces women to stay home with their children and isolates them from the rest of the group.
Similarly, the family bed is a reflection of the need for group protection, not a focus of nurturing.
Attachment parenting has essentially nothing to do with parenting in nature. It is a modern conceit, based on modern notions of radical individuality and conservative social beliefs about gender.
In nature, it takes a village to raise a child, not a vaginal birth.
