Believe it or not we’re still considering the question I asked as a part of my December 9th, 2010, post: “Do mothers (therapists) really attach to their babies (clients)?” Over a series of posts (12/9, 12/14, 12/17, 12/18) I have suggested that the above question only makes sense within a reductionistic frame or worldview. I have also suggested that rather than using reductionism, John Bowlby principally used naturalistic systems theory to frame his theory of attachment. Within a naturalistic systems theory frame, the above question makes no sense. So, over a series of posts I have been investigating how we might go about making sense of this question within a naturalistic systems theory frame. Unfortunately we lack a robust language that would allow us to make sense of the above question within a naturalistic systems theory frame. As a result, I have been telling a number of stories and vignettes that, taken as a whole, have the potential to at least illustrate how Bowlby’s theory might look and feel within a naturalistic systems theory frame. I’m hoping that as we arrive at the connections that tie these stories and vignettes together, the rudiments of a language capable of expressing the meaning of attachment framed by naturalistic systems, will begin to emerge. I ended my December 17th, 2010, post by briefly mentioning two stories: one drawn from a mid-1990s men’s retreat (which I attended) put on by Franciscan priest Richard Rohr, and the other drawn from the world of The Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest. Lets take a look at these two stories.
First, a disclaimer. Back in the mid- to late 1990s I went to a series of men’s retreats put on by Richard Rohr. One in particular centered on Richard’s (then) new 1997 book Quest for the Grail, a book that looks at the Parsifal myth in some detail. Suffice it to say that the Parsifal myth has a number of attachment theory implications (e.g., “mother’s home-spun shirt” is code for “attachment” in my book). “Bowlby Goes to the Myths and Ancient Texts” will have to wait (unless someone out there knows of such a treatment). My disclaimer centers on the very real possibility that I am pulling information from multiple retreats and creating a composite of sorts. This composite image will not change the message and meaning I am trying to convey. I will speak as if these stories are coming from one retreat.
During Richard’s (composite) men’s retreat, he told a couple of stories that, at the time, caught my attention but I did not know why. Today, I can look back and realize that (like the Parsifal story in specific) these stories have attachment implications if (and it’s a big if) they are framed by naturalistic systems theory. Lets look at the first story.
Richard told us a story that is particularly sad as you will see in a moment (and I am retelling it in a way that will not compromise any confidentiality). He told us about a father who had young twin sons. If memory serves, this father’s two sons were about two or three years old. As Richard told the story, this father was playing with his two sons on the floor as he had done many times before. His sons were running around and falling on dad and yelling and screaming and laughing and, generally, well, playing and being kids. But this play session turned out to be different and tragically fateful. As the play session progressed, the man got an erection. As Richard related to us during the retreat, this father immediately stopped the play session. As a matter of fact, this father never played with his sons this way every again. Turns out that this man was now very afraid that he was a latent homosexual, or, worse yet, a pedophile. In either case, this man now wished to relate to his sons in a way that guaranteed that neither possibility would become manifest. After telling us this story, Richard simply said, “What a shame … what a terrible shame.” Richard went on to tell us something along the lines of, “What a shame that our society equates erection with sex and makes no other connections.” He continued (and I’m still paraphrasing), “Why can’t simply being there for your sons—playing with them, caring for them, protecting them—be a sensual experience that is not about sex? Isn’t it possible that this man’s erection was more about a celebration of life, a celebration of being a good father to his two boys?” Richard’s next story has a similar theme to it.
Richard told us a story about a father who had a daughter who was probably about eleven or twelve. Like with the story above, an encounter that had happened many times before with out “incident” took place between this father and his daughter that had a profound and long-ranging effect. As Richard told the story, this father turned the corner as his daughter walked by in only a towel following her shower in the hall bath. Again, this was an encounter that had happened many times before without any real notice or comment on the part of either father or daughter. But this time was different. This time the father saw his daughter as a sexual being. Like with the above story, this father felt very uncomfortable having any kind of sexual image of or response to his daughter. Apparently after this encounter this father avoided any encounter that might bring to mind his daughter’s sexuality. Sadly, as Richard told us, as this man put the kabosh on affirming any sexual connection between himself and his daughter, he inadvertently ended up dampening his daughter’s emerging sexuality. Richard gave us the following “bottom line” with respect to both stories (and I paraphrase): “Our society has very limited ways of affirming sexuality without that affirmation being about or implying sex.” I didn’t know it at the time but in my opinion what Richard was saying was essentially something like, “Because our society so devalues a naturalistic systems theory worldview, it has no choice but to frame such natural human experiences as sexuality in such limited or reduced ways.” In my opinion, Richard was asking a question along the lines of, “How can a mother or father affirm a son or daughter’s emerging sexuality without it becoming about sex?” I hate to say it but you cannot begin to formulate an answer to this question if you stay within a reductionistic worldview of “to attach or not to attach” or “to sexualize or not to sexualize.” Lets leave Richard’s (composite) men’s retreat and visit an area that at first blush has no apparent connection: The Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest.
Disclaimer number two. I received training in The Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest (“Abel Assessment” for short) back when I was a therapist working at a RTC (residential treatment center). So, I’m pulling from memory here (which ain’t what it used to be). Based on my recollection, here’s my description of the Abel Assessment.
The Abel Assessement purportedly assesses for sexual interest, especially sexual interest in children of a deviant or prurient nature. The Abel Assessment uses a computer screen. A series of images are displayed on the screen. Most of the images feature children to some degree but there are images that feature only adults. Men are asked to view these images. Honestly, I’m not sure if there is a female version of the Abel Assessment. If memory serves, the images are innocuous enough, essentially showing images from everyday life: kids at a playground with their mothers, a family together at the dinner table, fathers and sons at a baseball game, etc. Interest levels are measured one of two ways. In the first way, the amount of time a man spends looking at an image is measured. In the second, the man is fitted for a penile plethysmograph—a device that measures blood flow (over time) to the penis. Interest levels as determined by the Abel Assessment have been normalized, that is to say, have been established for a normal, non-pathological population. Interest levels that deviate form these norms are considered pathological. The Abel Assessment is often used to collect evidence to be used in criminal cases involving sex offending behavior, especially sex offending behavior directed at children.
When I studied the Abel Assessment back in the 1990s, it was still fairly new. But even at this early stage of the game, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the Abel Assessment. Critics simply asked, “Why does interest—even pathological interest—have to always be associated with sexual interest?” I’ve hinted at this controversy by hyper-linking the phrase The Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest to a web site hosted by InnocentDads.org. The Innocent Dads web site simply asks, “What does the Abel Assessment REALLY measure?” Getting a bit more technical, Innocent Dads is asking whether the Abel Assessment is valid, that is to say, does it in fact measure sexual interest or could it be measuring something else? “Well, if it’s not measuring sexual interest, then what might it be measuring?” you ask. I’m pulling from memory here but critics of the Abel Assessment contend that many of the images shown also contain expressions of such things as care, love, protection, family, play, etc. As an example, an image of kids at a playground implies that a safe and protected space has been created by adults and that, by virtue of their play, the children are being watched over, protected, cared for, and loved by adult caretakers. These critics argue that there is no way the Abel Assessment can properly discriminate between all of these dimensions (whether in implied or explicit form): love, protection, care, safety, etc. Simply put, the Abel Assessment is defined by and operates within a reduced environment that equates interest with sex. Is the Abel Assessment valid (as its creators contend that it is)? If it is then it is only valid within a worldview of reductionism. If you ask this same question within a naturalistic systems theory framework, the answer is not as clear cut. I’d be remiss if I did not point out that our legal system prefers that evidence be presented in reduced, cause and effect terms. This is why our legal system often views a naturalistic systems theory worldview with suspicion. Our current legal system is afraid of the “systems defense”: “Your honor, my client was not reacting to the sexual content of the scene; s/he was reacting to the implied love, protection, care, attachment, attunement, etc.” The legal ramifications of a naturalistic systems theory framework will have to wait for another day.
So, before we go on break for the holidays, lets sum up by briefly looking at all of the stories and vignettes presented thus far:
- Dr. Brook’s group therapy session where one man gets angry at another because the latter man objectifies the former man’s cheerleader daughter.
- In the movie 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 the movie Basketball Diaries, Jim takes Paul to a peepshow where there is an uncomfortable wordless connection between Paul and the dancer that has the effect of revealing vulnerability and nakedness on the part of both persons.
- In the movie American Beauty, there’s a wordless encounter between the middle-aged Lester and the teenage Angela that, again, has the effect of revealing vulnerability and nakedness on the part of both persons, but also allows them to find and get comfortable with age-appropriate roles (father and teenager respectively).
- Richard Rohr, during a (composite) men’s retreat, tells a story about a father who gets an erection while playing with his young twin boys and this father vows to never play with them again.
- Richard also tells a story of a father who negatively reacts to his “tween-aged” daughter’s emerging sexuality and vows to never affirm any sexual connection between them.
- I described the Abel Assessment and raised the possibility that a clear cut association between interest and sexuality could not be validly established. I suggested that associations between interest and dimensions such as love, protection, care, comfort, etc., are equally valid.
So, over the Holiday break, take a stab at trying to figure out what connects together all of the above stories and vignettes. As mentioned in earlier posts, I’m hoping that taken as a whole, these stories and vignettes will help to illuminate how Bowlby’s attachment theory might look and feel within a naturalistic systems theory frame. If you’re looking for a bit of a hint, in my next post (after the Holidays) I’ll be introducing a concept that I’m tentatively calling The Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment. As a further hint, within the GBAE can be found the attachment behavioral system, the caregiving behavioral system, and the sexual behavioral system. If we accept that somehow The Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment holds the behavioral systems of attachment, caregiving, and sexuality, then it follows that if you sexualize (see my post of December 18th, 2010, for an example) you are also affecting caregiving and attachment. So, within GBAE, to the concept of “sexualization” we must add concepts like “carualization” and “attachualization.” “Hey, wait a minute … you’re talking about attachment as a behavioral system and as some sort of grand systems holding environment … that’s damn confusing,” you protest. You are exactly right. And, in my opinion, I think Bowlby did in fact refer to attachment as being both an isolated behavioral system and a grand systems holding environment without drawing a clear distinction between the two. Further, I do see this as a source of much confusion surrounding Bowlby’s theory of attachment. I hope to clear up some of this confusion (or possibly make it worse) in future posts. For the moment (over the Holiday break) see if you can’t identify the sexualization, carualization, and attachualization patterns contained in the stories and vignettes I have been telling. For extra credit, take a stab at seeing how these three “-ualizations” interact with each other. As a side note, they can only interact if they are first being held by a grand systems holding environment, such as The Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment.
Enjoy the Holiday Season everyone!
