In my post of December 14th, 2010, I suggested that, today, Bowlby’s theory of attachment is framed every which way but the way in which Bowlby framed it. Here’s a listing of the attachment frames that I am aware of (and there may be others):
- Reductionism—RAD or reactive attachment disorder would be an example
- Conservative religion—attachment therapy or holding therapy would be examples
- Economics—work by groups such as Zero to Three and The RAND Corp. in the area of infant mental health would be examples
- Neurobiology—work by Allan Schore and Louis Cozolino would be examples
- Psychoanalyisis—work by Peter Fonagy and Jeremy Holmes would be examples
- Buddhist religion—the mindfulness work of Dan Siegel would be an example
- Linguistics—work by Mary Main and Erik Hesse in the area of the AAI (adult attachment interview) would be an example
- Postmodernism—most grief work today would be an example
- Temperamentalism—T. Berry Brazelton’s work would be an example
- Vitalism—the attachment parenting and self-esteem movements would be examples
- Trauma—see my earlier posts on a presentation by Dr. Ippen-Ghosh
It’s sad (and a bit ironic) that the worldview that Bowlby arguably used—naturalistic systems theory—isn’t on this list. In my last post I suggested that because the naturalistic systems theory frame is in such rare evidence these days, we don’t have the necessary frames and concepts (e.g., language) that have the potential to render Bowlby’s framing of attachment understandable. I ended my last post with a vignette (drawn from the area of treating male pornography addiction using group therapy) that (in my opinion) embodied a naturalistic systems theory framing of attachment. My hope is that by telling a variety of these stories (drawn from myriad areas of life) concepts and frames will begin to emerge capable of making Bowlby’s framing of attachment intelligible . Lets continue by looking at more stories, vignettes, and examples.
I’m a big fan of using scenes (or, in some cases, entire) popular movies to illustrate psychological concepts, frames, and processes. In my July 1st, 2010 post, Jeremy Holmes talks about the attachment themes in the 2008 movie Mamma Mia via an excerpt from his 2009 book Exploring In Security: Towards an Attachment-informed Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Personally, if I had to recommend one movie that illustrates Bowlby’s attachment theory, it would be the 2007 movie Lars and the Real Girl (a discussion of which will have to wait for a future post, unless someone else wants to take a shot). Click on this link for more “Bowlby at the Movies.” Here are a couple “Bowlby at the Movies” scenes that I think have the potential to illustrate what Bowlby’s theory would look and feel like if framed by naturalistic systems theory.
One day while I was working at a RTC (residential treatment center) as a therapist, the milieu staff showed a group of adolescents the 1995 movie The Basketball Diaries starring Leonardo DiCaprio. This movie is based on the real-life story of Jim Carroll (poet and punk rocker) and his fall into heroine addiction. My guess is that the milieu staff showed this movie as a form of “scared straight” therapy. Basketball Diaries is a tough movie to watch and it’s not for the faint of heart. I would, however, like to draw your attention to one scene in particular that takes place about two thirds of the way through the movie (which you may have to search for—DVD format—or fast-forward to—VHS format).
In this scene, one of Jim Carroll’s running buddies is in the hospital. I don’t remember his name so lets call him Paul. I believe Paul is dying of Leukemia. Jim goes to visit Paul to see how he’s doing. Immediately it’s clear to Jim that Paul is not doing well. If memory serves, Paul is now bald from chemo therapy. After failing to cheer Paul up by joking around (mainly with banter centered on Jim’s masturbatory exploits), Jim gets a brilliant idea. Jim puts Paul into a wheelchair (because he doesn’t have the strength to walk anymore) and sneaks him out of the hospital. Jim wheels Paul to a nearby peepshow. Jim figures that a bit of sexual titillation should do the trick. Jim pays for the two of them and wheels Paul into a booth. The peepshow shade goes up (this was the mid-1960s mind you). A scantily clad dancer comes over to the glass that separates her from Jim and Paul. As the dancer writhes to the music Jim begins enjoying himself, but the camera lets us also see that rather than getting excited, Paul is now holding back tears. The dancer slowly stops looking at Paul in a seductive way and their eyes truly meet—person to person. The dancer’s face turns ashen. Her body stops and goes limp. She now is aware of her own semi-naked vulnerable condition and makes a feeble attempt to cover up. Jim, who’s standing behind Paul and oblivious to the exchange taking place, becomes angry that the dancer has stopped the show for no apparent reason, a show that was carefully orchestrated to cheer up a friend in need. Paul also becomes angry but for a different reason. Not a word is spoken between the two of them but it’s clear that Paul knows that the dancer knows that he’s going to die. Paul sees himself (and his near-death state) reflected back in the eyes of the dancer and her sudden sense of vulnerability. The reflection is simply too painful for Paul because of its deadly realism, which pales in comparison to the fantasy world that Jim is trying to sell. Paul demands that Jim take him back to the hospital immediately. In the movie (and in real life) Paul dies a few days after this scene takes place.
The next movie I’d have Bowlby go to is 1999’s American Beauty from the imaginative and provocative (and a bit dark) mind of Alan Ball (of Six Feet Under and True Blood fame—both HBO productions). American Beauty stars Kevin Spacey who plays a suburban husband (Lester) who’s effectively oppressed by his job, his wife (Carolyn played by Annette Bening), and even his teenage daughter Jane (played by Thora Birch). All of this oppression places Lester in a chronic state of low-level depression or lethargy. Long story short (see the movie for the full story), Lester meets Angela (played by Mena Suvari), his daughter Jane’s friend. The movie has several subplots, but the central one focuses on the rather complicated dance that takes place between Lester and Angela. Lets take a look at this dance keeping in mind that Bowlby is eating popcorn in the next row.
Angela immediately senses that she can put Lester into a flustered, dare I say, disorganized state by simply flirting with him. Angela delights in putting Lester into a flustered state through a furtive glance or gesture. This one-sided dynamic changes once Lester begins to “find himself” through quitting his job, working out, and smoking pot (the male Baby Boomer “find yourself” trifecta). Angela issues forth with a bit of sexual innuendo and Lester follows suit without skipping a beat. Contrary to previous encounters, Lester did not become flustered. Sexual flirtation is met with sexual flirtation. The dynamic had changed. Angela’s face turns ashen (sound familiar—see above). In my opinion, Angela senses a certain level of vulnerability and even tries to cover up (at least emotionally). I would suggest that there’s a bit of the “Paul and erotic dancer” dynamic taking place here between Angela and Lester. But this is not the main scene I’d like to look at. Lets fast-forward to the end of the movie.
It’s now clear that the teenaged Angela is going to give herself over to the much older, middle-aged suburban husband, Lester. Lester is excited that all of the flirtation is finally going to be concretized in some form of actual physical encounter. The two are sitting on the couch in the living room. Lester begins to undress Angela. Lester is visibly excited over the first exposure of naked skin. He continues undressing Angela until all of a sudden, he stops. I would suggest that the Angela and Lester scene changes in very much the same way that the Paul and dancer scene changed as described above. Lester appears to snap out of his sexual trance. No words are exchanged but its clear that Lester senses that Angela is feeling very naked, exposed, vulnerable, and even alone. In a very fatherly way, Lester covers Angela up and simply holds her. If memory serves, Angela—somewhat surprised, disappointed, and relieved all at the same time—sheepishly asks Lester, “Does this mean you don’t find me attractive?” Lester laughs in a way that I can’t describe here because it’s a laugh that conveys multiple emotions at the same time (see the movie). If I had to pick two emotions conveyed by this laugh, they would be sexuality mixed with protective adult care.
With all of these “Bowlby goes to the movies” scenes, don’t take my descriptions at face value. View them yourself. Personally, I see a connection between the Paul and dancer scene from Basketball Diaries, and the Lester and Angela scene from American Beauty. My hope is that through enough of these connections we might begin to see how Bowlby’s attachment theory might look within a naturalistic systems theory frame. In my next post we’ll look at two more examples but not from the movies. One will be from a men’s retreat that was put on by Franciscan priest Richard Rohr back in the mid-1990s (which I attended) while the other will be drawn from the world of The Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest.
As a closing comment, if you have seen the movies or scenes that I am describing and they have resonated with you on some level, by all means, post a comment (registration required) and let us know your thoughts.
