I recently received an email from an attachment researcher of some note. This researcher was looking for funding for a fairly ambitious project that potentially would have a global presence. I responded to this researcher by saying that back in September of 2011 the board voted to move away from Bowlbian attachment theory as a guide to our grantmaking efforts. In a series of email exchanges I went into some detail concerning this decision and even pointed this researcher to my blog post of September 22nd, 2011, entitled The “Bowlby Less Traveled” Journey Comes to an End. This researcher was disappointed that our Foundation had moved away from Bowlbian attachment theory. Our email exchange did get me thinking though. Sure, back in September we did summarize all of the reasons our Foundation was moving away from Bowlbian attachment theory, but we never wrote a summary of all the projects we were involved in over the last ten plus years. So, in this two-part blog post, that’s what I plan to do, take a quick trip down attachment memory lane. Part I will essentially cover the early years up to 2007. Part II will go up to the present, the Winter of 2012. Put on your walking shoes and lets go.
Birth—I start the journey with birth as a way of pointing out that at some existential level we’re all experts in Bowlbian attachment theory. My first experience with attachment was birth. As Bowlby used to say, attachment is with us “from cradle to grave.” I don’t know what’s on John Bowlby’s tombstone, but if I had to pick, here’s my choice:
Here lies the man who successfully elevated attachment behavior to the level of a motivational system that motivates all humans and most higher order animals.
We all have an attachment behavioral system (outside of some pathology). So, maybe Descartes should have said, “I am therefore I attach.” We’re all attachment experts, we simply may not have a theoretical framework to go along with that expertise. Bowlby certainly did not invent attachment behavior; he invented a theoretical framework by which attachment behavior could be potentially understood.
Sexual Assault Phone Advocate—The first place where I experienced attachment behavior was as a paraprofessional volunteering at the Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center back in the mid-1990s. During my weekly shift (for over three years) I would answer call after call from women (and a few men) who had been sexually assaulted. On some level the message was the same: “My whole world, my whole way of making sense of how I am in the world, has been shattered … and I want it back!” I did not know it at the time but I was listening to people describe how the experience of sexual assault had shattered what Bowlby called an Inner Working Model. We use this inner cognitive model to navigate the world, especially the world of social relationships. It is incredibly traumatic to have this inner cognitive model shattered—whether through sexual assault, loss of a loved one, or even the trauma of war. It’s like trying to navigate using a blank map or a compass where the needle bounces all over the place. And, yes, I heard about all of the stages of grief: anger, depression, bargaining, numbness, and, on occasion, acceptance. The scariest narrative was the one where sexual assault survivors wished to return to the scene of the crime and make everything turn out differently, turn out OK. In psychotherapy, we call this magical thinking. Magical thinking makes sense when your Inner Working Model has been shattered, but “returning to the scene of the crime” could be potentially very dangerous. A lot of our rape crisis training centered on keeping the survivor safe. It was tricky to acknowledge that magical thinking did have a logic to it while at the same time trying to persuade the survivor to not return to the scene of the crime. (Many survivors would agree that they would only return if accompanied by the police, which was a reasonable compromise.) Rape crisis advocacy was a tough job but that’s where I was hit with the attachment behavioral system full force.
Masters in Counseling Psychology—This is where I first heard the name John Bowlby. It was during a required course on the theories of counseling. We heard about such theorists as Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls, Freud (of course), B.F. Skinner, and Albert Ellis. Yes, John Bowlby was mentioned but if you blinked, you would have missed it. In that same vein Donald Winnicott and Berry Brazelton were mentioned. Here’s essentially what we were told as far as Bowlby’s work is concerned:
John Bowlby developed attachment theory along with Mary Ainsworth. Bowlby was influenced by animal studies, which showed that higher order animals, like monkeys, display attachment behavior. Infant monkeys clinging to their mother would be an example of attachment behavior. Bowlby’s theory holds that humans also engage in attachment behavior. According to Bowlby’s theory infants need to feel safe and secure or pathologies may develop later in life.
That was about it. Yes, we were exposed to John Bowlby and attachment theory, but nothing on what we as counselors should do with this information. At the time I dismissed Bowlby and focused on becoming a good client-centered Rogerian.
Residential Treatment Center—After graduating with a masters in counseling psychology, I was lucky enough to get a job working at an RTC (residential treatment center) with troubled adolescents. This particular RTC focused on behavioral health, and, as such, only used behavioral modalities, like cognitive-behavioral therapy. Very simply, behaviorism holds that one can use one’s cognitive thoughts to change behavior. “Just say no,” would be an example. It was at this RTC that I had my “Bowlby moment.”
The teens I was working with were engaging in bizarre behaviors: they would shadow me, they would take things from me like pens or pads of paper, or they would want to be my best friend even though we had just met. I asked my supervisor, Chris Landis (who had twenty years experience as a clinical social worker), what was up with these bizarre behaviors. She almost nonchalantly said, “Oh, the stealing, shadowing, and inappropriate closeness … that’s what Bowlby described in his paper Forty-four Juvenile Thieves.” John Bowlby … I had heard that name before. I asked Chris, “Bowlby? Are these attachment behaviors?” “Yup,” Chris simply said. Then I asked two pivotal questions: “What do they mean and what do we do about them?” Here’s essentially how Chris responded: “They tend to indicate an early history of insecure attachment, and you don’t do anything about them because you can’t treat attachment issues with cognitive-behavioral therapy.” In essence what Chris told me was, “You can’t just say no to attachment.”
Bowlbian Attachment Theory as a Guide to Grantmaking—I’ll let you in on a little secret: I’m one of these guys where if you say “don’t go there,” that’s where I’ll go. Even after my job at the RTC ended it continued to bug me that the policy, philosophy, and economic model used by the RTC—behaviorism—prevented the use of Bowlbian attachment theory. It seemed to me (and Chris agreed) that what these kids needed was treatment for their attachment issues. And they weren’t getting it (but they were, I might add, being fed copious amounts of behavioral drugs). So, as I assumed my role as executive director of the FHL Foundation in 1999, I recommended to the board that we focus in on Bowlbian attachment theory (e.g., go where I was told not to go). I went a step further and suggested that we adopt the following mission statement:
To explicitly promote attachment theory as a guiding principle toward understanding and solving societal problems.
The board agreed and we were off and running. In essence, we would fund groups that either had or were wishing to have a focus on Bowlbian attachment. We would fund in research, education, and service. In addition, we would be a hands on Foundation in that we would try to actively link groups up and also make available information on attachment that we created in-house (mostly through executive summaries of books and articles) or by others. Lets take a quick look at how we did.
1999–2000
Books for Babies ($1,000)—Way back in fiscal year 1999–2000, we made a grant to Books for Babies. The idea behind this project was fairly straight forward: make sure families have books so that mother and fathers can read to their infants and young kids. The idea is that if parents read to their babies and kids, secure attachment bonds will be encouraged. The brochure from Books for Babies reads: “Read to your baby. Start at a few weks of age. You are your child’s first teacher.” Humble beginnings.
NM Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs ($10,000)—Also back in 1999–2000, we made a grant to the New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. This grant was made because of my experience working as a rape crisis advocate. It was at a very intuitive level but I knew that sexual assault had the very real potential to disrupt attachment functioning because it had the potential to shatter one’s sense of a coherent world, to shatter one’s Inner Working Model.
2000–2001
All Faiths Receiving Home ($10,000)—This grant to All Faiths back in fiscal year 2000–2001 was designed to look at the connection between abuse toward animals and violence toward people. This grant was to establish the First Strike Campaign here in Albuquerque. First Strike was a program set up by the Humane Society of the US. All Faiths was the lead group for First Strike in Albuquerque. Sadly, when the attachment system of a family is disrupted, it often manifests as abuse toward animals. First Strike coordinated reporting among groups like police, shelters, ER clinics, vet clinics, and the judicial system. Use the Contact Us link above (or your reply button for you email readers) and ask for a copy of a news article that ran in the Albuquerque Journal profiling First Strike.
Animal Humane Association of NM ($10,000)—Another grant made in 2000–2001, it was a part of the First Strike project listed above. All Faiths was a safe house for children, and Animal Humane Association of New Mexico was a safe house for animals.
Gerard’s House ($1,000)—Also made in 2000–2001, this grant was designed to help kids process the grief associated with losing a close loved one like a parent, sibling, aunt or uncle, or grandparent. Processing grief is a huge part of the attachment process. Bowlby’s theory holds that processing grief is one way we can rebuild Inner Working Models that now need to be updated to accommodate the fact that a loved one is gone (physically) and will (hopefully) guide us spiritually. The brochure for Gerard’s House simply states: “A Safe Place for Grieving Children, Teens and Families.” Their final report states: “[Gerard House] provides early intervention and prevention programs serving youth who are at risk of impraired development as a result of their traumatic experience.”
2001–2002
Anorexia & Associated Disorders ($5,000)— In fiscal year 2001–2002, we made a grant to Anorexia & Associated Disorders mainly because there was early research showing a connection between low self-esteem and eating disorders. Bowlby did not care for the idea of self-esteem. He viewed low self-esteem as a reframe of insecure attachment. And, yes, since this time a connection between insecure attachment and eating disorders has been established. From the final report we hear, “Your contribution makes a significant difference in ANAD’s (Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders) ability to provide effective programming to stop these illnesses from claiming more young lives.”
All Faiths Receiving Home ($10,000)—Second grant to support the First Strike Campaign made in fiscal year 2001–2002.
Coalition for Quality Children’s Video ($10,000) &
Florida Atlantic University Foundation ($20,000)—Two grants made in 2001–2002 designed to look at media literacy issues. It may sound simple but secure attachment at the level of society needs to be supported by images of secure attachment. The grant to FAU Foundation was in support of a DVD project by Dr. Jane Caputi entitled “The Pornography of Everyday Life.” Dr. Caputi’s research shows that many everyday images—TV, magazines, movies—contain pornographic themes, themes that often encourage processes, like role-reversal and parentification, that can lead to insecure attachment. Bowlby suggested that parentification—turning kids into adult parents—can lead to insecure attachment. Our grant to the Coalition for Quality Children’s Video resulted in the development of the Kids First Manual—a manual that allows kids to “become a critic of films, videos, DVDs, and Interactive Media.”
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Training—I participated in the Winter 2002 AAI Training Institute. This training was held in San Diego, CA, January 7–18, 2002. The training was conducted by Dr. Sonia Gojman de Millan and Dr. June Sroufe. The AAI is probably the de facto assessment for attachment functioning in adults. The AAI is an amazing instrument, however, it is very time-consuming and labor intensive. To be certified as a reliable coder in the AAI also requires a huge commitment of time and money. This has caused researchers to look for a faster and easier to learn version of the AAI (see below). What makes the AAI unique is that it is specifically designed to trigger the attachment behavioral system, unlike the self-administered questionnaires often used in attachment research. As an aside, I first encountered the AAI during my read of Dan Siegel’s 1999 book entitled The Developing Mind. For more on the AAI, take a look at Dan’s book. (Looking back, I’m surprised that we never received a grant request to provide AAI training scholarships). I point to the AAI training as when our Foundation’s focus on Bowlbian attachment theory officially started even though we had been investigating projects with an attachment focus prior to this time.
Funding in the area of Bowlbian attachment theory
began to speed up at this point, so I’ll be brief.
2002–2003
All Faiths Receiving Home ($10,000)—One more grant in support of First Strike made in fiscal year 2002–2003.
Lifespan Learning Institute ($20,000)—This grant was made in 2002–2003 to support of a research project being conducted by Dr. Robert Neborsky. Dr. Neborsky wished to look at whether Short-term Dynamic Psychotherapy had the potential to shift a person’s attachment style from insecure to secure as measured by the AAI (the Adult Attachment Interview). The results of this study were presented at an Attachment Think Tank (see below), which we in part funded.
Santa Fe County Infant Program ($11,000)—A grant made in 2002–2003 to support infant mental health projects in Santa Fe County.
Women & Children’s Home of Shiprock ($5,000)—A 2002–2003 grant in support of a new healing center in the Shiprock area of New Mexico. The Women & Children’s Home of Shiprock is principally a domestic violence shelter. This project started our interest in looking at the connection between domestic violence behavior and attachment. We have continued to look at this theme ever since.
Executive Summary of Attachment and Teen Pregnancy—It was in the 2002–2003 timeframe that the Foundation discovered a pivotal article (for us) by Dr. Carole Pistole entitled Preventing Teenage Pregnancy: Contributions from Attachment Theory (1999). I took the time to write an executive summary of Dr. Pistole’s article. In my opinion, Dr. Pistole’s article is one of the best articles on introducing Bowlbian attachment theory because not only does it have a good primer on attachment theory but it also has clear examples of how attachment theory can be used to guide the formation of a program designed to treat the issue of teenage pregnancy. Sadly, when we contacted Dr. Pistole to see if she would come to Albuquerque to speak, she informed us that she had moved to another research area and was no longer interested in the topic. Researchers abandoning attachment theory for other areas is a theme that we would encounter several times more over the years. As an example, we loved the 2000 article by Coleman & Watson entitled Infant Attachment as a Dynamic System. Again, when I contacted Dr. Coleman about a possible lecture in Albuquerque, she informed me that she had moved on.
When the Bough Breaks Video—It was in the 2002–2003 timeframe that the Foundation discovered an amazing video on Bowlbian attachment theory produced by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation back in the mid-1990s. The video was entitled When the Bough Breaks. A version of this video was shown in the US as a Frontline segment. I like the Frontline version because it gets into the politics of attachment (mainly via interview clips with Robert Karen who wrote Becoming Attached). Sadly, we could only find the Canadian version commercially available. For a description of the Canadian Bough Breaks over at Filmakers, click here. Over the years we probably sent out a dozen copies of Bough Breaks to non-profit groups and researchers interested in knowing more about Bowlbian attachment theory. For a sampling of reactions to the video, click here. Sadly, I am not aware of any more recent video on Bowlbian attachment theory. That’s almost 20 years without new educational resources of this kind. At least we have Bough Breaks.
2003–2004
Lifespan Learning Institute ($10,000)—In fiscal year 2003–2004, we made another grant to the Lifespan Learning Institute in support of an Attachment Think Tank. This think tank included members such as Daniel Stern, Nadya Bruschweiler-Stern, T. Berry Brazelton, Lois Sander, Karlen Lyons-Ruth, Jeremy Nahhum, Alexander Morgan, Daniel Siegel, Allan Schore, and James Grotstein. From the Attachment Think Tank proposal we hear, “The goal of think tank meetings is to advance knowledge in the treatment of mental disorders.”
Animal Humane Assoc. of NM ($1,000)—A follow-up grant in 2003–2004.
Adoption Assistance Agency ($5,250)—Three grants, actually, made in 2003–2004. The first was for $3,250 and was in support of a conference put on by Deborah Gray entitled Promoting Attachment. Then we made two $1,000 grants to send two participants to the 2004 UCLA Attachment Conference.
Southwestern College ($2,800)—A 2003–2004 grant to support a course taught as a part of their MA program in Art Therapy on Bowlbian attachment theory.
Syracuse University ($5,000)—A 2003–2004 grant to Dr. Ken Corvo in support of his research to put domestic violence behavior into a Bowlbian attachment theory framework. Dr. Corvo has received a grant from our Foundation every year since. And each grant has resulted in a published article. For a list of the articles published by Dr. Corvo and supported by our grants in the area of attachment and DV behavior, use the Contact Us link above (or your reply feature). Our collaboration with Dr. Corvo has been one of the most productive and long-lasting of all of our collaborations. My favorite Dr. Corvo article? Bowlby’s Ghost—The Political and Moral Reverberations of Attachment Theory (co-written with Dr. Ellen deLara). This article appeared in the March 2010 issue of Attachment.
Many Mothers ($25,000)—A 2003–2004 grant designed to create a home visitation manual for those groups interested in promoting infant mental health.
Gerard’s House ($2,000)—A 2003–2004 follow-up grant.
Cuidando Los Niños ($2,000) &
Santa Fe County Infant Program ($1,000)—2003–2004 grants both designed to support infant mental health.
Psychologists for Ethical Treatment of Animals ($6,000)—This 2003–2004 grant went toward creating a training manual for psychotherapists so they could recognize and treat animal abuse issues. This grant was close to my heart because as a psychotherapist I encountered many examples of animal abuse and I was ill-prepared to deal with such issues. This grant was an extension to our First Strike Campaign efforts. Pat Sable, a noted attachment researcher, helped to write the section on attachment and animal abuse.
2004–2005
Executive Summary of Allan Schore workshop—A summary of the Allan Schore workshop “Affect Regulation and the Repair of Self” held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 29-31, 2004. Note: we hosted a Meet the Speaker event at this workshop so that groups could talk to Allan and Judy Shore in a relaxed and informal setting. If memory serves, about 14 groups received scholarship grants for this workshop.
Executive Summary of a Mentalization Workshop—A summary of the two-day conference entitled “Mentalization, the State of the Art: From Basic Science to Clinical Application” held in Houston, Texas, December 10-11, 2004.
Lifespan Learning Institute ($20,000)—A 2004–2005 grant in support of Allan Schore’s book project entitled Reader’s Guide to Interpersonal Neurology. I’m pretty sure this book was published.
Cuidando Los Niños ($22,000)—This 2004–2005 grant was supposed to bring a training program to Cuidando Los Ninos that was very similar to the Strange Situation Assessment (an assessment that assesses for attachment patterns in young children). Sadly, because of high staff turnover, the project never happened and the funds went into buying much needed playground equipment.
Southwestern College ($2,000)—2004–2005 follow-up grant.
Las Cumbres Learning Services ($2,000)—2004–2005 grant to support infant mental health. Las Cumbres worked closely with the Santa Fe County Infant Program.
Baylor-Menninger Foundation ($10,000)—This grant made in 2004–2005 came about because I attended the Mentalization Workshop mentioned above. This workshop featured Peter Fonagy and Jon Allen—two big names in the world of Bowlbian attachment. But this grant went to Dr. Stewart Twemlow in support of his work in the area of attachment and bullying. This project was ahead of its time considering all of the attention now being placed on bullying. Dr. Twemlow’s idea concerning bullying is controversial. Dr. Twemlow’s research holds that bystanders, such as teachers, parents, school administrators, and even community leaders, actually pick the bully and then have the bully fight the fights they are powerless to fight themselves. Dr. Twemlow suggests that to treat bullying, we will need to look at bystander behavior, not just bully behavior.
YWCA of Omaha ($10,000)—This 2004–2005 grant was designed to look at whether a combination of DBT (dialectical behavioral therapy) and EMDR (eye movement desensitization and reprocessing) could help women who had been abused. This project allowed us to collaborate with Dr. Francine Shapiro, who developed EMDR. Dr. Ann Potter was the lead researcher on the project, and the project did produce a paper that was presented at a regional conference on trauma an healing.
California Graduate Institute ($10,000)—A 2004–2005 grant to graduate student Dale Stuart so that she could develop a picture-based version of the AAI (adult attachment interview). In her proposal, Dale writes, “The advantages of the new measure [of attachment functioning] are that it requires only ten to thirty minutes to administer and less than an hour to score.” Trust me, that’s quick compared to the AAI (which I received training in). Honestly, I’m not sure if Dale ever completed this project. Interesting side note: Bowlby described picture-based assessments in his trilogy on attachment theory.
University of Virginia School of Medicine ($20,000)—This 2004–2005 grant was made to Bob Marvin (who studied under Mary Ainsworth, Bowlby’s longtime collaborator) so that Dr. Marvin and his group could make the Circle of Security (COS) protocol evidenced-based. This project was completed and the results (which were put into a published paper) showed that COS had the potential to move a person from an insecure to secure attachment position. Now, here’s an interesting aside. Dr. Marvin’s group apparently applied to the Gates Foundation for additional funding so that COS could be marketed to therapists as an effective treatment for insecure attachment in children. The Gates Foundation said that the first trial had a bias in it—the administrators (Dr. Marvin and his group) were too familiar with the protocol and that’s why it was successful. The Gates Foundation wanted a second trial but with people who were newly trained on COS. Dr. Marvin asked for a second grant from our Foundation to do this second trial. We made the grant ($30,000) but the second trial never happened. I have no idea why. Fortunately the University of Virginia School of Medicine returned the grant about a year and a half after it was originally made (with $50 of interest). Sometimes grants blow up and you’ll never know why.
2005–2006
Executive Summary of Sir Richard Bowlby Workshop—A summary of the Sir Richard Bowlby workshop held in Canmore Alberta Canada, October 28 – 29, 2005. Honestly, this is one of my better executive summaries. I really enjoy hearing Sir Richard, John’s son, speak. He really keeps his father’s memory and legacy alive. If memory serves, we sent about eight or so groups to this workshop on scholarship grants. Sir Richard is one of the lone voices in the area of fathers and attachment.
Southwestern College ($4,600)—A 2005–2006 follow-up grant. I think this grant includes scholarships for the Sir Richard workshop.
Cuidando Los Niños ($3,000)—A 2005–2006 follow-up grant.
Las Cumbres Learning Services ($2,000)—A 2005–2006 follow-up grant.
YWCA Omaha ($10,000)—A 2005–2006 follow-up grant.
New School for Social Research ($12,000)—This 2005–2006 grant was designed to fund a study to look at “aging out” of the foster care system. In essence, this study wanted to look at whether kids who age out of foster care at age eighteen have enough attachment strength and attachment support to make it in the world. Sadly, the study points out that many aging out kids do not have the attachment resources they need. And many do end up in prison as a result. Miriam Steele and Beth Manning led this research project. From the proposal we hear, “Research suggests that former foster youth are at a particular disadvantage during the transition to adulthood because, unlike their peers from intact families, they lack stable attachment figures.”
Executive Summary of 2006 Salt Lake Attachment Conference—A summary of the seventh annual “Bridging the Gap” conference entitled “Clinical Application of Attachment Theory and Research” held in Salt Lake, Utah, February 8 – 9, 2006. It was at this conference that I met Dr. Sheree Toth. That meeting resulted in the following grant:
Mt. Hope Family Center ($11,000)—This grant made in 2005–2006 was used to send a group to a training in Montreal. From the final report we hear, “In June, 2006, four members of Mt. Hope Family Center staff attended a ten-day training on coding security of attachment relationships in pre-school-aged children and their caregivers. The training was conducted at the University of Quebec at Montreal by Dr. Ellen Moss.” Drs. Toth and Dante Cicchetti (two well-known attachment researchers) administered this grant.
Syracuse University ($10,000)—A 2005–2006 grant to Dr. Ken Corvo to study attachment and DV behavior.
2006–2007
Many Executive Summaries in 2006, Oh My:
A summary of the Louis Cozolino workshop “The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain” held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 27-29, 2006. We sent probably 14 groups to this workshop on scholarship grants. I really liked Dr. Cozolino’s workshop because he talked about attachment and alien abductions. Yes he did, for real. Request a copy of my summary and find out why.
A summary of Robin Dunbar’s book “Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language.” I summarized this book because Dr. Cozolino mentioned it. Dunbar puts forward the idea that grooming behavior in primates is not only the foundation upon which empathy is built, but also language. This may in part explain why the AAI can get at attachment patterns using linguistic structures. It would appear that attachment and language share an intimate connection. Keep this book in mind for later as I describe a grant to Dr. Marva Lewis at Tulane.
A summary of Richard Nisbett’s book “The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why.” Contact me and I’ll tell you why I summarized this book.
A summary of George Lakoff’s book “Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea.” When people ask me what book to first read about Bowlbian attachment theory, I usually recommend Lakoff’s book Moral Politics. Whose Freedom? is a version of Moral Politics designed for a popular audience. Both books point out that Bowlbian attachment theory is framed by the cognitive model Lakoff calls the Nurturant Parent Cognitive Model. In contrast, behaviorism is framed by the Strict Father Cognitive Model. Simply, before you begin to approach Bowlbian attachment theory, you would be well-served knowing where it fits politically and philosophically. For more help in this area, see Ben Mayhew’s great 2006 article Between Love and Aggression: The Politics of John Bowlby. (Contact us and I’ll get you a copy by permission of the author.)
A summary of Neil Postman’s book “Technopoly—The Surrender of Culture to Technology.” I summarized this book as a way of starting the process of looking at how technology use was potentially adversely affecting attachment functioning. This is a theme that would stay with me all the way through our recent RYOL Lecture (02.17.12) by Nichols Carr on his 2010 book entitled The Shallows—What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (see the end of part II).
A summary of an edited volume entitled “The Politics of Attachment—Toward a Secure Society.” Simply, you cannot approach Bowlbian attachment theory unless you know where it sits politically and philosophically. This book came out of a conference that was held at the Tavistock Institute (where Bowlby did most of his work) back in 1995. Sadly, I’m not aware of any other conference that specifically looks at attachment and politics. Too bad because I think this is an important but overlooked topic.
A summary of Peter Marris’ book “The Politics of Uncertainty—Attachment in Private and Public Life.” Honestly, the board was close to moving away from Bowlbian attachment theory back in 2006. We were having a very hard time selling Bowlbian attachment theory in a political sense, in a way that might change policy. But then we discovered Peter Marris’ book and it gave us the inspiration to move on. I had the pleasure of talking to Peter by email. We wanted to bring him to Albuquerque to speak. Sadly, Peter passed away before we could hold the event. I often think about what may have happened had we had the chance to collaborate with Peter. We’ll never know. One of my biggest regrets.
Cambridge Health Alliance ($28,500)—This is a 2006–2007 grant in support of a brain scan research project entitled Neurobiological Effects of Disorganized Attachment. The lead researcher is Dr. Karlen Lyons-Ruth.
YWCA Omaha ($20,000)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
NM Ronald McDonald House ($27,300)—A 2006–2007 grant designed to give kids and their families a safe and secure place to live while they receive treatment from local area hospitals.
Home for Women and Children ($20,000)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
Cuidando Los Niños ($12,000)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
Salt Lake Children’s Center ($2,000)—It was in 2006–2007 that we started supporting the annual Salt Lake Attachment Conference organized by Dr. Douglas Goldsmith. We have supported the Salt Lake Conference every year since. And we have sent many people to this conference on scholarship grants, probably 20 or so. Part of this grant was to defray the cost of bringing the Honorable Judge William A. Thorne, Jr. (Utah Court of Appeals) to speak at a pre-conference session entitled “Trauma, Attachment, and Culture: Working With Culturally Diverse Families in the Foster Care Mental Health System.” (Dr. Chandra Ghosh-Ippen also spoke at this pre-conference session—see part II.) Judge Thorne made an observation that stayed with me. He essentially said that the current foster care system is modeled after the Indian boarding school model that oppressed Native American families (by forcing young children into boarding schools) around the turn of the last century. Judge Thorne suggested that until the current foster care system acknowledges its ties to the earlier oppressive Indian boarding school system, rehabilitation will not be possible.
Las Cumbres Learning Services ($4,400)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant. I’m pretty sure this grant has Salt Lake Conference scholarship funds in it. So does the next one.
Southwestern College ($8,600)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
Florida Atlantic University ($2,000)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
Am. Society of the Univ. of Haifa ($18,000)—This 2006–2007 grant came out of our association with the Salt Lake Attachment Conference and Doug Goldsmith. This project was entitled Foster Care Study—Contrasting Family and Institutional Settings. Dr. David Oppenheim was the lead researcher on the project. I hate to say this but we never received a final report on this grant, so I cannot tell you the outcome. Seems like it would tie into the Aging-out of Foster Care project mentioned above by Drs. Miriam Steele and Manning.
Syracuse University ($10,000)—A 2006–2007 follow-up grant.
California Research Bureau ($20,000)—A 2006–2007 grant that ultimately ended up producing a manual entitled Relationships Beget Relationships: Why Understanding Attachment Theory Is Crucial to Program Design for Homeless Youth. Dr. Toni Heineman at A Home Within administered this grant.
The Rockridge Institute ($10,000)—This was a 2006–2007 grant to George Lakoff’s think tank. Sadly, Rockridge closed it doors not too long after this grant was made.
University of Virginia ($30,000)—This was the 2006–2007 grant to Dr. Marvin’s group that was returned (see above).
UNM Children’s Hospital ($40,000)—This 2006–2007 grant was designed to support a project entitled “Neighboring Program at Young Children’s Health Center (YCHC)—An Offsite Pediatric Clinic for UNM Hospitals.” From the proposal we hear, “YCHC serves low-income, immigrant families. Funding will allow for the continued operation of the Neighboring Program and its many components, which reaches more than 10,000 families per year.”
Continued in part II
