3.4.3 Attachment

Attachment is studied in some depth by students of social work, social care, psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy and related disciplines.

Because knowledge of trauma (previous Sub-Chapter) and dissociation (next sub-Chapter) is important in our support work with families affected by imprisonment, and attachment is closely associated with both, I believe that it is worth including a brief overview of it.  John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth were leading lights in the development of theories of attachment, and like many of the topics in the website there is ample information available on it from many sources.

As I have said about other phenomena – principles and characteristics of attachment are known intuitively to us all.  If we ever worried about problems in our lives or in the lives of our loved ones, I am sure that we have often wondered about what Bowlby would have defined as attachment.

Community workers often wonder about, explore the origins of, or try to make sense of behaviour that is very difficult to understand, and is harmful to others and self (such as violent crime, self-harm, suicide etc.).

This, I believe, is why the styles of attachment, as defined by Bowlby and refined by many other thinkers, are useful for us to know.

For me, attachment is concerned with human relationship and the nature of the relationship. And more specifically, whether, within the relationship, we feel safe!

Safety has particular significance for humanity in that safe relationships (and bonding) are necessary for our evolution.  Obviously, early childhood experience is very important in influencing how we will relate to others, and our overall development (and patterns of behaviour) in life in general.  This was recognised by John Bowlby.

Other researchers since then have posited that, because we have so many significant experiences as we grow from childhood to adulthood (and indeed into our mature years), attachment styles (which I will describe in this Chapter) have the potential to change at other developmental stages (for example, adolescence) and indeed throughout the life course.

Influences in our environment are, of course, very important, and the personality that we are born with is important too.

Research also indicates that how children perceive the quality of their relationships with their parents, and the quality of the parental relationship itself, is influential in predicting what kind of attachment style will prevail in adult life.  That is, continual observation of, and exposure to different forms of relationships, affects the child. 

Attachment theory gives an explanation as to why family love (mutual nurture, the root of emotional gravity, the identity that I already described) is so powerful.

Humans have a need for attachment and without it we are like empty vessels that yearn to be filled.

Attachment helps keep infants and children close to their caregivers so that they can receive protection in a loving context, and also experience what it is like to be protected.

I believe that this is very important because it is a sign of good emotional health when, as adults, we can ask for help, which is a way of protecting ourselves. 

And, of course, another important aspect of attachment is that feeling secure in ourselves encourages curiosity so we can safely explore our environment, and learn about the world outside through all our senses.

Before I describe the styles it might be helpful to look at four aspects of attachment here:

1. When we are infants we need an attachment figure which we will call a secure base.

2. If we are afraid or threatened we return to our secure base for safety and comfort.

3. We experience anxiety when our attachment figure is not present.

4. We like to be near the people we are attached to.

John Bowlby identified three principles of attachment.

1. Children who are confident that their primary caregiver will be available to them are more likely to experience safety and security [1] than those who are raised with inconsistent, unavailable primary caregiver(s).

2. This confidence is forged during the years of infancy, childhood, and adolescence.  These years are influential for the remainder of the person’s life – and, in general, the patterns laid down in younger years are hard to change.

3. If caregivers are responsive in infancy, children will develop expectations that caregivers in general will be responsive to their needs throughout their teenage and then adult lives.

Now this is important……

While 1 and 2 may be intuitively known to us, and are common sense, 3 may not – but it is particularly significant – and I believe it is one of Bowlby’s very important discoveries.

The reason that it is significant is that it sets us up for a self-fulfilling prophecy about life in general – that what we believe might happen in relationships more often than not will happen!

[1]. In some literature this sentence is written as ‘children are less likely to experience fear and anxiety’. Rather than use a double negative I put in a positive form.

The first year of life is particularly important in respect of our attachment style, and studies have also shown how important the pre-birth phase of human growth is.

In fact, as time goes on – and as can be seen in this link – more and more attention is being given to the phase from conception to birth in respect of not only initial attachment but a wide range of experiences that we encounter throughout our lives. In this, it is posited that our experiences in the womb are repeated over and over again until they are resolved through therapeutic or other support. We will meet this phenomenon again when I discuss fractals.

But for now we will focus on attachment.

The four attachment styles, secure, insecure ambivalent, insecure avoidant, and insecure disorganised, which will be described in the next four posts are attributed to Mary Ainsworth and two other researchers Mary Main and Judith Solomon. The styles can sometimes change as we grow, depending on our life experiences.  For example someone who might be described as ambivalent during childhood can be described as secure when an adult.

Now I am aware that in breaking down what is an emotional journey into identifiable or discrete types or styles I run the risk of reducing what are primarily feeling phenomena into (almost) mathematical, measurable entities. So in a way my descriptions are analogous to the way that both sides of the brain develop in sympathy with each other – see this post.

Most studies posit the importance of the mother as a primary caregiver – and while I totally agree that mother is of high importance, I will use the word parents because I believe that both Mams and Dads are capable of providing love, warmth and consistent care. 

My beliefs in this regard are continually affirmed by the passion and interest, (given time and patience), that Dad in prison expresses to see his child prospering, and ensure that he or she does not end up like him and, in turn, the attachment that the child has to Dad.

Because my work is closely associated with the imprisonment experience I am acutely aware of the role of the single parent (usually, though not exclusively Mam) and all the nurturing and protecting that the single parent has to do, while the other parent is absent, very often due to imprisonment.  Yet, my experience (and intuition) informs me of the enormous benefit to the child of acknowledging her attachment to her very imperfect, probably much-given-out-about, Dad!

Most of the time people who fall in love and start a family are attracted to each other because one’s needs are met by the other’s. (For example, one’s need for care may be met by the other’s need to care). Total opposites might not attract but is true that the characteristics of one person complements the other’s, and the initial attraction is driven (or at least significantly influenced) by this complementarity of needs. (Of course, we may not be conscious of our needs at time of first meeting).

But because of this complementarity, from the point of view of the child, what Mam can provide is different to what Dad can provide, and vice versa. (And I am not just talking about gender based differences here). 

And while I cannot recall coming across it that much in literature that I have read, I believe (probably because I am so accustomed to thinking systemically) that the extended family has substantial influence in forming attachment styles and resultant patterns of behaviour throughout life.

So I include a remark, in each post, on what I believe to be the influence of the extended family in the descriptions in the following posts.

Secure is just what it says – secure! I propose that this is the most important style for us to know about because it is what we are aiming for in families and I will describe it below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we are parents, secure attachment means that we react quickly (and appropriately) to our infants’ needs and we are generally responsive.  We also tend to play a lot with our children, and enjoy playing in general.  We tend to be content to be good enough as parents, in that we accept our imperfections.  If we (parents) are at our ease within, and/or are surrounded by, a loving, accepting extended family, it is obvious that it will optimise secure attachment among grandchildren, nieces, nephews etc.

An interesting aspect of secure attachment is that it gives us permission to be critical of our family (or indeed our homeland [1]) in a constructive way.  We may find it difficult to be critical if we are not.

If we are children, and we experience secure attachment, we tend to be more empathic with others’ needs, in particular during later stages of childhood.  We will generally mature and develop as expected and will display age appropriate responsibility.

Empathy is very important for development of positive, healthy and reciprocal relationships, and is linked to a child’s ability to mentalise. That is, imagine and/or predict what others might be thinking from observing things like facial expression, tone of voice etc., and ponder on the affect our own thinking is having on both ourselves and our environment.

(Just as an aside – studies have shown that in children that grow up in war zones, the trauma experienced by the child is ameliorated by the love and protection offered by parents and whether or not it is consistently available).

One indication of secure attachment is that (as children) we learn how to soothe ourselves when something goes against us.  This is resilience-in-action – bouncing back and trying again, keeping our protective layer flexible, there being less need to grow the rigid armour referred to in the post describing how we protect ourselves from trauma.

As adults, if we have experienced secure attachment in our home growing up, we tend to trust more, and be able to sustain the ups and downs of long-term relationships.  We also tend to have good enough self-esteem and enjoy intimacy in relationships.  We can seek out help and support if we need it, and have willingness to be honest about what we might perceive to be our shortcomings. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I think of secure attachment, I think of fertile soil where roots can grow deep and strong to ensure a sturdy and long-living tree, or a good foundation of a house, that will ensure that the house will remain standing.

And one of the reasons that I used the term root foundations in the Chapter on the Universal Theories Of Change is that secure attachment enables them to flourish.

[1]. This finding, on the surface, might lead one to believe that in Ireland we are, generally, securely attached and have a sense of belonging to our homeland, as we certainly do not appear to have a problem criticising our past. But, it appears to be far more difficult to be critical of the present – perhaps we (unconsciously) feel ashamed and guilty when we think of all we could be doing for vulnerable members of our society but, because of our economic choices, don’t. All the soul searching, enquiries, revelations etc. might in the long run be a good thing.  It can, however, bring a lot of shame and guilt which I believe we need to process as a country. Perhaps the processing will enable us, over time, to be (constructively) critical of the present as well as the past, which (as the saying goes) is a different country!

Ambivalence implies doubt, mixed feelings, or having difficulty making a choice. In the attachment context – it implies uncertainty about whether I will be loved or not. For example I might believe that if I try really hard all the time I’ll be up to the standard demanded of me, and only then will I deserve to be loved.

There are a lot of shoulds in ambivalent attachment. (Like, I should love my Dad but I’m angry with him all the time because he makes so many demands on me). The paragraphs below will shed some light on this ambivalence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With ambivalent attachment, if we are parents we tend to over-control, we doubt that our children will thrive without constant direction, and we are fearful about their growth, development and overall progress.  We might be inhibited about play – perhaps deeming it to be a waste of valuable time, and focus on what we should be doing as parents.

We strive for perfection, and may be critical of our own performance.  We tend to blame someone if something goes wrong and we may take life very seriously.  It is likely that supply of love in our extended family is conditional on who behaves in what way, and some members may be in conflict with others over historical issues that never seem to be resolved. 

If we are children in ambivalently attached situations we tend to be infants who are fearful about exploring, be in distress about minor matters, and more anxious and suspicious of strangers.  When we are older we might be clingy and find it hard to be independent.  We may worry about exams and never being good enough, and (perhaps) work very hard but find it hard to concentrate or absorb material.

As adults in this category we can experience difficulties in relationships and though dutiful and loyal, find it hard to be close to others.  If we break up it will involve blame mixed with being not good enough. We may be distraught with ending of relationships, partially because of our sense of failure. We may worry a lot about our job, getting it right, who’s being promoted, who’s not, disciplinary matters etc.

Avoidant implies just what is says – parents avoid close contact.

It is different to the ambivalent (described in the previous post) where parents may be demanding, strict or harsh disciplinarians, but at least children know that they are interested in them and emotionally involved.

In avoidance, intimate contact is avoided and emotional matters are kept at a distance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In avoidant attachment, as parents, we find it difficult to meet our children’s needs – we are simply too needy ourselves.  Unwittingly, our behaviour may be rejecting of our children, or we may sometimes (usually unintentionally) ignore our children.  These patterns probably run through the extended family also.  While some members of our extended family may be very needy there are always those who are strong and resilient, and can see the harm that the overall level of neediness is doing.  (These could be the wise and strong people referenced in this post when describing the Focus Group).

If we are children who are avoidant and/or insecure we grow up avoiding intimacy and relationship, even with our own parents or carers.  Because we do not feel accepted or that our parents are genuinely interested in us, we might not seek out our parents’ love or comfort if we are in distress – this is the avoidance bit.  (This theme will be touched on again in Section Three in the Chapter on Symmetry).  We may also be indifferent as to whether it is a parent or a stranger meets our needs.

As adults we might find intimacy and close relationships problematic.  We may feel that we are investing a lot and getting little return. As we find sharing feelings and thoughts difficult, how-it-looks-to-the-world can be as important in sustaining a relationship as the depth of the feelings.

Disorganised, (also called disoriented) in attachment theory, is, sadly, a term that I associate with many children growing up in families that are in the Focus Group.

As such it is important that anyone with ambition to support families affected by imprisonment has an understanding of the term and its implications.

My own opinion is that while children, as they grow to mature adults, can make sense of and even rationalise (what I described in previous posts) as ambivalent and avoidant attachment, it is far more difficult for children who experience disorganised attachment to do so.

Unlike children who experience secure attachment, they may find empathy difficult. One of the reasons for this is that their ability to mentalise is impaired. That is, guessing what others – including their own parents – are feeling or thinking.

A not uncommon manifestation of disorganised attachment is a rage, or disintegration, (reminiscent of a tantrum that a three year old might have) that the vast majority of the population have no appreciation or understanding of – as they rarely if ever experience it themselves in their adult lives.

These difficulties have implications for the type of modality that we choose when supporting people who grew up, or are growing up in such situations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With disorganised attachment we parents might display very inconsistent behaviour in general.  We may be very angry (and/or violent) one minute and display great love the next, with no rational explanation or apparent reason for the sudden switch.

Certain members of the extended family may be feared and obedience, authority etc. is garnered through fear and strength rather than genuine respect.

As children we never know what to expect and can experience both love and fear and everything in between but have no way to figure out a reason why.  This causes us to be confused and apprehensive, leading to an overall sense of deep insecurity.  We can avoid relationships, or resist affection and feel that we do not deserve it. 

Sometimes we appear distant but paradoxically it also causes us to seek closeness, a kind of extreme clinginess.  This is the only way that we can feel safe – as it is too risky to venture too far from the caregiver for too long.  Also, we might have grown up having to be on high alert all the time.

And we never learn to soothe our pain because we are too pre-occupied being on high alert.  (More about this in posts 3.4.3.4 and 3.4.3.5).

Because we have never learned to soothe our own pain, rather than being open and honest and willing to ask for help we expect others to sense that we are in pain and soothe it for us. But the trouble with this is that others often get it wrong!

John Bowlby proposed that we can have different forms of attachment to different family members and even though attachment might be disorganised with parents it can be secure in respect of others in our life – which – obviously, is a protective factor for us.  (In this, I have come across children that, on the surface, do not appear to have what could be described as secure attachment with anyone – and discovering those to whom they are attached takes time and patience).

As adults we can feel unloved and undeserving of love with roller-coaster kinds of relationships.  We may be totally apathetic on one hand and demand great love on the other.  We can be very difficult to live with as we are usually very demanding, emotionally. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I think of insecure disorganised attachment, I think of a house built on soft or swampy soil with insufficient pile-driving done to ensure stability, or (in the living world) a tree growing in sandy or gravelly soil where roots are thin and stunted, placing the very viability of the growing tree at risk.

Now we come to a discussion, or an exploration, that makes (I believe anyway) this website a little different to other publications.

Most books, articles etc. that describe attachment focus on hurt children from families that are deemed to have problems, are dysfunctional, and/or have parents who are very needy – like, for example, children in families in the Focus Group.

Just to recap, here are brief descriptions of the different forms of attachment:

1. Secure Attachment:
Comfortable with closeness, playfulness; being ‘at ease’ in relationships is seen as natural.

2. Insecure Ambivalent Attachment:
Some doubt about whether one deserves love, i.e. love may be conditional, person is aware of implications of this and may work on difficulties through the life-course.

3. Insecure Avoidant Attachment:
Avoids closeness in relationship; intimacy may be problematic. Perfectionism is seen as important and playfulness is risky.

4. Disorganised Attachment:
Intimacy may be associated with violence or abuse; adult behaviour often has a clear self-destruct pattern.

I have described how insecure attachment of the types in the previous posts – particularly the disorganised type – affects individuals and families in the Focus Group. It can lead to oppositional, self-destructive behaviour, lack of trust and hope, tendency to demand instant gratification, and lack of ability to form warm, long-term, trusting relationships in adult life. It also leads to what is known as the trauma bond, where someone who engages in harmful, self-destructive behaviour chooses another of the same type; even though the relationship is – to every outside observer – a disaster.

The general belief is that children who grow up in families that display the most extreme form of insecure attachment (disorganised) in addition to having poor physical and mental health, may cause ordinary people all sorts of problems (in particular crime, but also dependency, illness etc.) costing the state a fortune.

So much for the Focus Group, but what about those who are of most influence of society – the Pillars?

I propose that, in general, organisations within the Pillars fall somewhere between ambivalent and avoidant attachment.

This is evident in organisations’ lack of trust in people, their risk aversion, their striving for perfection and obsession with shoulds, competition and comparison, lack of playfulness and (particularly in respect of the Focus Group), the avoidance of genuine contact and dialogue, their wariness of idealism, and in some cases even people being at ease with each other.

And remember the post on trauma, creativity and logic? Almost always – in my experience anyway – spontaneity, creativity, or passion are met by stifling amounts of institutional logic and rationality. This speaks volumes about the balanced development of left-brain and right-brain thinking within the Pillars……. and their willingness to allow the root foundations to flourish.

And of course, it follows that if the Pillars in general display avoidant and ambivalent attachment it is because a critical mass of people working within them are that way. This further implies that such styles have prominence in our hugely influential mainstream education system – in which almost all staff in the Pillars have spent 15 to 18 years.

In a later Chapter I mention the desirability of modelling what we want in families in our organisations.  One of the reasons why I describe attachment theory in some depth and include this post is that I believe that it has significant relevance for what practitioners in the caring professions within the Pillars might aspire to.

The reason for this is – of course – that caring involves contact, warmth and at ease relationships – the stuff of secure attachment.

NOTE: Further reading on the Strange Situation experiments by Mary Ainsworth is recommended for interested readers, where she separated infants from care-givers and then assessed how easily they settled down again on reuniting.  Those with disorganised attachment style had far more difficulty than any others, were confused and had no pattern of attachment. 

To conclude, after the descriptions of ambivalent, avoidant and disorganised attachment, I feel like adding a sentence like ‘if you have been affected by the issues’ etc. and giving a helpline!

If you are upset after reading them, and/or see your history (or your family history) in the more negative styles, do not be too put out. We’d all wish that our families were perfect, but they weren’t – all families have elements of dysfunction. If they were perfect they’d be boring.

And anyway this website is about hope – not despair. Healing can take place at any time and place during the life stages – people who experienced the more problematic styles in their childhoods are not predestined to have problems all their lives.

And children are very good at compensating for deficits in their families – I believe that every individual in the world who was ever born had or has to do this.

Also, don’t forget, you are attracted enough to the subject to read about it – so you are obviously interested in further growth and development.

Otherwise you probably wouldn’t be reading about it at all!

This is an important post describing the disorganised attachment style and how it affects growth.

You may remember that I said elsewhere that I believe that adults have the wherewithal to protect and care for children naturally, but that we may need to unlearn a lot of prejudices, beliefs, core values etc. to allow us be natural in our caregiving. 

This will be explored in this post – for example, in the description (below) we may need to unlearn the strong belief that lack of control means lack of safety.

We have an innate disposition to not only care for each other, but (I believe anyway) to care for the world in general. It is easy to spot this care-giving tendency in ourselves. It is revealed when we smile at a baby (who is a stranger) in a pram, or even pat a dog’s head as we pass by, or have a hobby like gardening which is a manifestation of our wanting to care for plants/flowers etc., or indeed, having pets. (Mutual nurture and emotional gravity again)!

Our care-giving tendency usually matches our care-seeking tendency and this probably ensures relative harmony in normal family, community or societal situations.

What I mean here is that in normal mature adult-adult relationship, I will sometimes need help.  So I ask for it and receive it.  At other times, I am asked for help, and I am able and willing to give it.  The help that someone else gives me is acknowledged and appreciated by me, and the help that I give someone else is acknowledged and appreciated by him.

If I am giving all the time and my requests for help are never reciprocated (or vice-versa) then I (or the other) will ultimately feel taken for granted and this will usually lead to disharmony in the relationship. In the adult-child relationship, the child, because he is a child, will obviously need more care than he can give!  (This will be revisited in the Chapter on Symmetry in Section Four).

The area of interest of this Sub-Chapter on Attachment is the parent-infant relationship where the care-giving is, because the child is an infant, (in a normal relationship) one way – that is, from the adult to the child.

Crying is a common and perfectly normal manifestation of infant care-seeking, i.e. asking for help.

If I, a parent, experienced disorganised attachment as a child, (and have not had the opportunity to heal) I know that I should (and probably will have a natural desire to) soothe my infant when he cries.  However, the trauma (unresolved) that is triggered by the crying (particularly if the crying persists) gets in the way, and my disorganised attachment quickly kicks in.

My baby’s need induces my need!

This is partly related to feelings of powerlessness in me, the parent, i.e. not being able to control my baby.  (After all, part of my own trauma will most probably have arisen from my inability to control my parent).

Any situation where I feel not in control can thus be, potentially, frightening. Parental disorganised attachment may now manifest as anxiety, fear, or very often anger.

Research shows that even very small babies (an hour old or even less) can respond to different emotional expression. When a parent is fearful or anxious etc. an infant will also be afraid. After all, the infant totally depends on the parent for safety.

And what do we do when we are afraid? We try to get away.

Because an infant cannot really get away, the need to get away may manifest in distraction, or avoidance of eye-contact. The avoidance of eye contact, in turn, causes the parent to avoid eye-contact, which for the child is also frightening – a baby can be very fearful of an unresponsive face!  (All these behaviours are, of course, happening unconsciously).

Paradoxically (because of the over-riding need for protection) the infant’s fear actually increases his need for closeness to the attachment figure.  Our need for closeness to a person who we might fear (or who might even be harming us) can be repeated in adult relationships and is sometimes called the trauma bond, also mentioned here.

The trauma bond can lead to the idealised, uncritical view of childhood, which, when allied to the repetition of the need for closeness when carried throughout the life stage may lead to denial both of historical and contemporary realities.

This is a very powerful wall that continually inhibits insight into what is good for me, what is not, what I deserve, what I don’t etc.

If we cast our minds back to the Sub-Chapter on Trauma, this, if we think about it, also makes sense.  One way of protecting ourselves is to identify with the aggressor or the punisher.  The old saying, keep your friends close but your enemies closer probably comes from this wisdom! Or perhaps the Mozambican author Mia Couto hit the nail on the head when he suggested that in times of terror, we choose monsters to protect us.

So the parent, (viewed from the infant’s perspective) is the source of his anxiety, but is also the only resolution to his distress.  This, obviously, causes great confusion in the infant, the most harmful aspect being that there is no way out of the dilemma!

This uncertainty in respect of the source and the resolution of anxiety in an infant is very harmful.

Now I know that I have promoted the view in earlier chapters that it is helpful, as adults, to allow and indeed embrace chaos and uncertainty.

However, (and this is very important) at this early stage of development uncertainty does a lot of harm.

In fact, the infant needs the certainty of the secure base in very early years to firstly venture out and explore, then make sense of, and finally embrace the inevitable uncertainty (and in particular the emotional uncertainty) of the world as she grows to maturity – otherwise it will be feared greatly, and an impenetrable barrier (the thick armour I mentioned already) will be grown to avoid it!

Ongoing, repeated situations of the confusion and uncertainty described above, as the infant grows into and through childhood firstly lay down the foundations and then concretise, or sediment a disorganised style of attachment thereby repeating it through the generations.

Such experiences also determine what Internal Working Model (IWM, described in the next post) will prevail in her life.