In my post of December 9th, 2010, I asked the following question: “Do Mothers (Therapists) Really Attach to Their Babies (Clients)?” I answered this question with one word: “Depends.” (No … not the adult diaper). I’m not trying to be cute here but the answer does depend on what conceptual system you are using. In my earlier post I suggested that within a conceptual system focused on reducing all phenomena to simple cause and effect chains—reductionism—sure, mothers and therapists do attach to their babies and clients respectively. However, in my opinion (and I do have some research funded by our Foundation to back me up) Bowlby did not use reductionism to frame his theory of attachment. I argued that Bowlby principally used a naturalistic form of systems theory—often associated with the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy—to frame his attachment theory. Within naturalistic systems theory (as distinguished from mechanistic systems theory or cybernetics), a question like “Do Mothers (Therapists) Really Attach to Their Babies (Clients)?” makes no sense. Simply put, a question that makes perfect sense in one conceptual system may become vague, ill-defined, or even incomprehensible in another. As cognitive scientist turned political commentator George Lakoff points out, liberals scratch their heads when they hear that the conservative party is the party of preserving life while at the same time this party advocates for the death penalty. Conversely, conservatives are quick to point out that it makes no sense to them that the liberal party is all about developing empathy while this same party advocates for such things as universal daycare and pre-K. Conceptually speaking, it would appear that liberals are from Venus and conservatives are from Mars (with apologies to John Gray). Lets look at what happens when “planets” (e.g., conceptual systems) collide.
Andrew Samuels, writing in the 2006 edited volume Psychoanalysis, Class and Politics, states: “Objecting to psychological reductionism in relation to the political and social is reasonable—not resistance.” In this series of posts I am in effect objecting to psychology framed by reductionism (especially attachment psychology framed by reductionism, i.e., RAD or reactive attachment disorder). But Samuels is quick to point out that such objections “are handicapped by the lack of a much needed new language.” Sure, Bowlby, Bertalanffy, Lorenz, Piaget, Mead, Erikson, and many other early naturalistic system theory thinkers (see my December 9th, 2010, post for more on these early systems thinkers) did a great job developing their theory, but they did a lousy job framing it and selling it. As an example, here are a few concepts usually associated with naturalistic systems theory: emergence, equifinality, organismic biology (and I really had to search to find any link for organismic biology … and it’s from the 1950s). Not exactly household concepts. The only real “tag line” that came out of a naturalistic systems theory view that stuck is along the lines of, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” (which is one way to view emergence).
So, if the naturalistic systems theory worldview that Bowlby used to frame his theory of attachment lacks any real framing or marketing or ad campaign, then how can we go about understanding attachment within this worldview? Darn good question. The best way to start, then, would be to look at a few examples, and, in doing so, see if a frame or a “new language” (quoting Samuels) doesn’t begin to “emerge” (sorry … couldn’t resist). Lets look at one example here and then we’ll look at additional examples in my next post. Disclaimer: I reserve the right to embellish the retelling of these stories a bit partly for effect and partly because I’m pulling from memory (which has its own embellishment process going on).
In his 1995 book The Centerfold Syndrome: How Men Can Overcome Objectification and Achieve Intimacy with Women, psychologist Gary Brooks presents an interesting vignette drawn from his group therapy work with men suffering from pornography addiction. Brooks describes how one man—lets call him Bill—went on and on about how turned on he got by watching the scantily clad cheerleaders at a college football game. As Bill was telling his story—one in which he referred to these cheerleaders in very objectifying, dare I say, reduced ways—Dr. Brooks noticed one of the other men (lets call him Steve) in the group getting visibly irritated. Being the good group therapy facilitator that he was, Brooks stopped Bill and turned to Steve and asked (and I paraphrase), “Steve, you seem visibly irritated and upset by Bill’s story. Care to share with the group what’s going on?” Steve paused a moment, shot Bill a look that could kill, and then slowly began to speak (again paraphrasing), “Bill, I know what football game you are referring to. I was at that game and I too watched those same cheerleaders, but my reaction was very different.” Steve’s voice trailed off as tears began to well-up in his eyes. Dr. Brooks encouraged Steve to continue, which he did thus: “Bill … my daughter is on that cheerleading squad, and I watched her as a proud father, not as some horny bastard!” The group went silent. Bill was visibly shaken. Bill had gotten to know Steve and considered him to be his friend. Bill began to speak (more paraphrasing), “Steve … I don’t know what to say. I had no idea that your daughter was on that squad. I feel terrible that I talked about her that way. I’d never do anything to knowingly hurt you or disrespect your daughter.” There was more silence, which was broken when Brooks said effectively, “You know, guys, all of the women you look at in those magazines, those centerfolds, they all have mothers and fathers, mothers and fathers who loved and raised them from little girls. The process of objectification, of reducing women to sexual objects, makes us lose track of that fact.” As Brooks describes in his book, this encounter was one of those “ah ha” moments for the group. Lest you think that such encounters only happen in group therapy, see the 2010 movie Grown Ups (starring Adam Sandler and Chris Rock) where this theme is sent up (poorly in my opinion) for comedic effect. In Grown Ups, Rob Schneider’s character (Rob) confronts David Spade’s character (Marcus) because Rob (mistakenly) thinks that Marcus has slept with his daughter. In essence, Marcus tells Rob, “I’d never do that … you’re my friend and I care about you.”
Hopefully you’re starting to get a sense for the type of behavioral conflict that is being described in these examples, behavioral conflict that is often rendered incomprehensible because of conceptual conflict. In my next post we’ll look at additional examples and continue trying to flesh out this behavioral conflict, the same conflict (I will argue) that Bowlby spent years looking at and analyzing. Unfortunately, he did not spend any time on framing what he was observing and researching. Hopefully we can take a first pass at framing this behavioral conflict conceptually.
