Introduction: What Is Bowlbian Attachment? —
From time to time I am asked What the heck is attachment? Given that I have immersed myself in Bowlbian attachment theory and related areas since the early 2000s, I’m a bit baffled that I do not have a good answer. I think I know why.
As I have said many times before, Bowlby used organic systems theory to frame his theory of attachment. I would suggest that this influence came from his association with Ludwig von Bertalanffy arguably the father organic systems theory. Bowlby met Bertalanffy at the Geneva Conferences. I have also said many times that organic systems theory is not well known here in the U.S. The U.S. remains largely a bastion of reductionistic science: reducing wholes to parts and then analyzing those parts in isolation looking for cause and effect chains. As Bertalanffy wrote in his seminal 1969 book General System Theory, “I have looked in vain into leading American Texts even to find terms, ‘open system,’ ‘steady state,’ and ‘irreversible thermodynamics.’ That is to say, precisely that criterion which fundamentally distinguishes livings systems from conventional inorganic ones is generally ignored or bypassed.” On reductionism, Bertalanffy writes that it’s great for “analyzing elements, but then forgets to look at the relationships between elements, their interactions, and, as a result, is ill-equipped to put all the elements together in a whole that works.” I would suggest that part of the reason I am at a loss over the question What is attachment? is because I do not have ready access to concepts contained within the paradigm of organic systems theory. That’s changing. Allow me to explain why.
The Nutrients That Feed Organic Systems Theory: Goal-Directed Behavior —
Through reading books by Elkhonon Goldberg[1] and his edited volume Executive Functions in Health and Disease, I’m finding that this scientific environment focused on Executive Function (EF) is filled with the “nutrients” that feed organic systems theory. I’m like a fish who has encountered a particularly well oxygenated part of the pond; it feels great, even invigorating. Before my oxygen-induced euphoria wears off, allow me to take a stab at saying what attachment is.
In simplest terms, attachment is a behavioral system. Examples of behavioral systems that we all know about are seeking food, water, shelter (including clothing for humans), and the big one, sex. We’re also familiar with the behavioral systems that govern caregiving/receiving. Mothering, or more generally, parenting, would be examples. One of Bowlby’s biggest battles[2] was his fight to convince the scientific community that attachment was also a behavioral system right along with food, water, shelter, and sex. In general, behavioral systems are goal-directed. Goal-directed behavioral systems are part and parcel of organic systems theory. Bowlby, in his three volumes on Attachment and Loss (vol. 1 – Attachment; vol. 2 – Separation—Anxiety and Anger; vol. 3 – Loss—Sadness and Depression), often used the concept of goal-directed behavior to describe attachment behavior. The attachment behavioral system directs the organism away from danger and towards safety. Daniel S. Weisholtz and his colleagues provide a great definition of goal-directed behavior in their book chapter Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Inflexibility and Perseveration in Neuropsychiatric Illness, which appears in the Goldberg-edited volume Executive Functions in Health and Disease. Weisholtz et al. write
Goal-directed behavior requires not only an ability to represent a goal and then generate a plausible sequence of actions that must be accomplished to achieve it but also an ability to prioritize goals (represent the relative value of various goals at a given time), initiate a goal-directed process, and maintain goal pursuits in the face of unexpected environmental factors that might otherwise command attention.
Wow! Suffice it to say that a lot is involved in the process of a goal-directed behavior like attachment.
I’m sorry but that above quote is like music to my ears. Even though Bowlby used concepts like goal-directed behavior, he did not take the time to define nor describe that behavior in his volumes on Attachment and Loss. I have often wondered why. The best answer I can come up with is Bowlby probably assumed that organic systems theory would take its rightful place alongside reductionism in such a way that it would “need no further introduction” so to speak. Widespread proliferation of organic systems theory concepts and frames did not happen sad to say (at least here in the U.S.). This is why I am so happy to see these concepts being used to describe the various brain processes associated with the topic of EF. I have often stated that early safe and secure attachment relationships (if all goes well) pour the foundation upon which robust EF rests. I make this statement based largely on the work Walter Mischel presents in his book The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control. In addition, it is my opinion that the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) could be looked at as an assessment of EF in adults (which I have blogged about before). Happily Goldberg, along with the volume he edited, provides ample evidence in support of my claim, which includes mentions of Mischel’s work in the area of delaying gratification (an EF skill). Back to organic systems theory.
The Nutrients That Feed Organic Systems Theory: Goal-Corrected Behavior —
Another concept drawn from organic systems theory that these EF researchers use is “goal-corrected behavior.” Weisholtz et al. touch on this when they say that after a “goal-directed process” has been initiated, it needs to be “maintained … in the face of unexpected environmental factors….” They’re talking about goal-correction. Bowlby in his trilogy would often use the concept of goal-corrected behavior. In order to educate the reader on goal-corrected behavior, Bowlby would use analogies such as a home thermostat, or a development that took place during WWII, guided antiaircraft guns. As a side note, the antiaircraft gun systems used during WWII were a development arising from two new fields of study: information science (informatics) and cybernetics. I go into this story in more detail in a post I wrote entitled Attachment Neurobiology and the Cutting Room Floor (Pt 2) pulling from work by Katherine Hayles. Let’s stay with the home thermostat analogy.
A home thermostat does not simply turn on heat or air conditioning at a set point and then that’s it. It “monitors” the temperature in the room and then turns off heating or cooling once the room reaches a certain level. This is a very simple mechanical system demonstrating goal-corrected behavior. More sophisticated systems, such as guided antiaircraft guns or guided missiles, have an ability to check their progress to a stated goal or target and modify that goal-directed behavior so that it is more effective. These systems use what are known as “feedback loops,” which come in both positive and negative flavors. Simply put, goal-corrected systems—whether mechanical or organic—have the ability to “learn” from their failures and successes. If you spend any time in the world of psychology, you will probably encounter the adage “Repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.” This adage points to a system that lacks the ability to change its behavior based on past experiences delivered through feedback loops.
As an aside, Amazon’s recommendation algorithms use goal-corrected behavior. Based on your browsing and purchase history, these algorithms predict which books or products you should buy next and tell you about them. Heck, my Alexa device now tells me about discounted books I might like: some I have interest in; others are just bizarre. In the footnotes I’ll briefly tell the story of how Target knew about a teen’s pregnancy before the teen’s parents did.[3] It’s a scary story of how far these recommendation algorithms can go.
The Nutrients That Feed Organic Systems Theory: Progressive Segregation —
Allow me to mention one more concept drawn from organic systems theory that I think is important: what Bertalanffy calls “progressive segregation.” The following is an excerpt from my book Bowlby’s Battle. Quotes by Bertalanffy are from his book General System Theory.
As von Bertalanffy puts it, progressive segregation “appears to be unusual in physical systems but is common and basic in biological, psychological and sociological systems.” Progressive segregation occurs when a “system passes from a state of wholeness to a state of independence of the elements.” As von Bertalanffy explains, “The primary state is that of a unitary system which splits up gradually into independent casual chains.” von Bertalanffy continues, “The reason for the predominance of segregation into subordinate partial systems implies an increase of complexity in the system.”
As I have said before, a person being chased by a lion does not think about planning for their child’s future. The act of being chased by a lion causes the human brain to release executive control (the upper brain) and allow the fast-acting middle brain to takeover. Further, when we are under anesthesia we take comfort in knowing that the lower brain and its brain stem functions keep our breathing and cardiac functions running smoothly. This is the idea behind so-called “sleeper cells,” cells that can come alive and operate autonomously if the connection to a central command is cutoff. I remember reading about Japanese soldiers who were found living in caves years after WWII ended. Not knowing that the war was over, they endeavored to protect their homeland for as long as was necessary. Cutoff from any news these soldiers operated alone and autonomously. So, progressive segregation operates in social systems as Bertalanffy suggests.
In their book chapter entitled Functional Neuroimaging of Deficits in Cognitive Control, which appears in the Goldberg-edited volume mentioned above, Macie and Fan attempt to find a common pattern concerning cognitive control that underpins three psychological disorders: autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. Interestingly the authors find that all three disorders are characterized by progressive segregation. As the authors observe, “Overall, the results confirm a common pattern across [the three] disorders of hypoactivation within key CCN [cognitive control network] regions (both cortical and subcortical) and hyperactivation of lower order limbic brains regions for conditions requiring cognitive control.” Simply, the cognitive control that the cortical and subcortical systems normally provide is damped down resulting in the lower limbic systems taking on that role. The authors point out that this form of progressive segregation is not a new phenomenon. In fact they point to the work of Hughlings Jackson in the late 1800s who observed (quoting the authors) “that the disruption of function at higher levels of cortical organization results in a release from inhibition of the lower levels….” Neurologists will often use a simple office assessment for the first signs of dementia. They will ask a patient to grasp items like pencils or pens. If the patient grasps these items as if to stab someone with a knife, it indicates the patient is now using an innate way of holding objects no longer under the control of the EF centers, which often are the first brain centers to experience diminished capacity.
The Nutrients That Feed Organic Systems Theory: Emergence —
OK, I have to mention one more concept drawn from organic systems theory that is key and can be found in the Goldbergian world of EF: emergence. Wikipedia has a nice definition of emergence:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole.
The Wikipedia entry goes on to point out that
Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and physics.
Bertalanffy chides reductionistic scientists because, again, they know how to take things apart and investigate elements in isolation, however, they ignore emergence or what happens when those parts are brought together into a coherent whole. As Goldberg points out in his work, the right brain is very comfortable with Gestalts or wholes. In fact, Goldberg suggests that given the opportunity the right brain will glance over at the various fragments of an idea that the left brain is wrestling with and almost by magic will create a whole that then reveals a solution that emerges from those parts. The skeleton of the hominid named Lucy (Australopithecus) was found after the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds was “played loudly and repeatedly in the expedition camp all evening after the excavation team’s first day of work on the recovery site,” according to Wikipedia. The benzene ring “emerged” in a dream. Safety glass was discovered when a beaker was accidentally knocked over by a janitor in a lab. Emergence confounds scientists simply because it cannot be predicted. As Goldberg writes in his book Creativity, “In the end, whichever way you look at it, [brain] connectivity matters. Neuroscience research of the last few decades has brought about an understanding that the brain is orders of magnitude more than the sum of its parts.” If only Bowlby had lived to see all of this. And what does this mean for Bowlbian attachment theory?
Bowlbian Attachment Theory: About a Goal-Directed and Corrected Behavioral System —
The Bowlbian attachment behavioral system may well be unique among behavioral systems. The Bowlbian attachment behavioral system simultaneously monitors in, and operates along, two directions. Using a Goldbergian framework, it monitors exploration “out” into the world while at the same time it monitors or keeps track of a path back “in” to safety and comfort. According to his son Sir Richard (whose lectures I’ve had the pleasure of attending), John Bowlby would often talk to his audiences about what he called “the risk of risk.” What the heck is this? Let’s think of a mountain climber on a solo expedition. He or she trains, plans, and prepares for this expedition and the risks it involves. However, in the back of his or her mind there’s this nagging question, What if this challenge exceeds my capabilities and I find myself in danger I cannot get out of? This is where the risk of risk comes in. Who now will come to my rescue? Will anyone come to my rescue?
Climbers address the risk of risk by carrying with them a satellite transceiver capable of sending a message to search and rescue (a feature now found on the current iPhone). Mariners journey the seas knowing that the Coast Guard is out there patrolling the waters. We take comfort in knowing that police and fire departments are out there, or hospitals, or even shelters. The Bowlbian attachment behavioral system engages and pulls resources from the conservative left brain as well as the novelty-seeking right brain. Attachment is a rather old behavioral system likely making its evolutionary appearance along with the rise of mammals. Evolution has seen fit to impose upon attachment behavior to help connect and integrate the left and right brains in animals and in humans. In humans, this brain integration may have played a role in developing Executive Function. Today we have parents who hover over or bulldoze their kids effectively relegating them to a life lived out of the left brain. In contrast, we have so-called free range parents who allow their kids to roam freely relegating them to a life lived out of the right brain. These kids never have the opportunity to balance left with right, to learn how to deal with the risk of risk. Let me give you a quick example that goes something like the following.
A geology colleague of mine teaches field courses. On one particular trip she was taking a group out into the field. As they were driving along the students were chatting and having a good time. Then rather suddenly the van got quiet and moods turned sullen. After describing an outcrop, my instructor friend noticed that the group was still quiet. Concerned this instructor pulled her TA (teaching assistant) aside and asked, Do you know what’s going on with the group? The TA responded, Yes … there’s no cell service here and they’re freaking out. Safe and secure attachment is about experiencing the ebb and flow between right brain exploring of novel environments, and left brain return to certainty and the comfort of the known. It’s not about becoming locked in one end member or the other. Parenting, teaching, and mentoring are about allowing the developing mind to experience the ebb and flow between novelty and certainty as described by Bowlby and now neuroscientists like Goldberg and his EF colleagues. We’re allowing kids to be “geofenced-in” by technology.
Coming up —
Yes, I know, I was going to talk about how we may reframe McGilchrist’s left brain vs right brain take on cultural history using a Goldbergian frame. I’ll pick that up in the next post. Before I end, I’m sure there are a few readers out there who are thinking that the behavioral systems I have mentioned—water, food, shelter, sex, and attachment—are the same behavioral systems that most animals have. Yes. These are innate behavioral systems. However, in humans we have well-developed Executive Function skills or what the authors writing in the Goldberg-edited volume call “top down control”—control coming from the upper cortical areas of the brain especially the PFC or prefrontal cortex. Even Freud knew this. According to a professor I had during my counseling grad school days, Freud effectively said that man (and I’m sure he meant men) cannot go around copulating with anything that moves. In man there needs to be some way to temper the innate behavioral systems (the id) in keeping with social norms. Freud proposed two ways of managing id impulses: the ego and the superego. I would suggest that the ego is none other than our capacity for Executive Functioning. And of course the superego is the control exerted by social norms including rules and regulations. I get the impression that Freud favored ego strength that also recognized and appreciated social norms, rules, and regulations. Psychoanalysts may disagree with me here, however, psychoanalysis may well be about helping an individual to develop better EF. And, yes, neuroscientists have bridged the gap between Freud’s work and the findings of neuroscience.[4] I wish the same held for Bowlby’s work. Here’s an interesting side note told by Goldberg in his book The Wisdom Paradox.
The noted Russian neuropsychologist Aleksandr Luria was Goldberg’s mentor and supervisor in graduate school. Goldberg writes, “As a very young man, Luria admired Freud and corresponded with him.” He continues, “Later, in the worst days of the worst Soviet excesses, when psychoanalysis was mocked and denounced from every official pulpit, Luria privately [and dangerously no doubt] continued to speak about Freud with respect and with interest.” Goldberg reveals, “Freud’s early interest was in the brain and his early contributions were in the field known today as ‘behavioral neurology.’ ” Here’s a showstopper: “Some of the most widely used items of neurology and neuropsychology today were first introduced by Freud (like ‘agnosia’).” Here’s Goldberg’s bottom line:
Freud was one of the earliest proponents of the unity of the brain and the mind. But he felt that the science of his era was not ready for the “last frontier,” not ready to tackle the mysteries of the brain. As a result, he focused on the mind, and psychoanalysis was born.
What’s interesting here is one of the big reasons Bowlby moved away from psychoanalytic theory (after going through the arduous process of becoming a psychoanalyst) was because he felt that it lacked scientific grounding. Bowlby went off to find that grounding. As Bowlby writes in his book Affectional Bonds:
Though [attachment theory] incorporates much psychoanalytic thinking, the theory differs from traditional psychoanalysis in adopting a number of principles that derive from the relatively new disciplines of ethology and control theory; by so doing it is enabled to dispense with concepts of psychic energy and drive and also to forge close links with cognitive psychology.
By all measures, Bowlby did an admirable job framing attachment using scientific principles like organic systems theory, evolution, and developmental psychology. Unfortunately, Bowlby ran into the same problem Freud did: science (especially reductionistic science) was just not ready. It’s just my impression, however, I think, today, he would be welcomed by the likes of Goldberg and his colleagues. I’m just trying to make an introduction. I’ll continue working on this in my next post.
Notes:
[1] – I’ve had the pleasure of reading these Goldberg books: The Wisdom Paradox, Creativity—The Human Brain in the Age of Innovation, and The New Executive Brain—Frontal Lobes in a Complex World.
[2] – In my book Bowlby’s Battle for Round Earth, I talk about the many battles Bowlby engaged in from battling reductionism to battling the self-esteem movement.
[3] – Here’s the story of how Target’s recommendation algorithms knew about a teen’s pregnancy before the teen’s parents did. I’m telling this story from memory, however, feel free to Google it. It was a story that made headlines. OK, here’s a TimeOnline article about the incident:
How Target Knew a High School Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Parents Did
Here’s my version. A father got angry that Target was sending coupons and other offers to his teen daughter that focused on having a baby or caring for a baby. Apparently the father stormed into his local Target and demanded an explanation. Turns out Target was right. The teen in question was indeed pregnant. How did Target do it, figure out the teen’s pregnancy? Target hires statisticians who use computer algorithms to sift through the buying histories of customers and draw certain inferences like pregnancy or even divorce. Based on those inferences they make buying suggestions. So, when you use a rewards card at a store or supermarket to get discounts, that card tracks your buying history. Computer algorithms, or even a statistician using such algorithms, then data mine that history figuring out what your next buying move will or should be. Now, critics of the Target story point out that association is not causation. True. The teen in question could have purchased baby-related products for a friend at the friend’s request. It just so happens that she was buying these products for herself.
[4] – See the April 2014 Discover Magazine article entitled The Second Coming of Freud: Century-old Insights Shed New Light On the Brain.
