Thanks for this, Gena – very eloquent and clarifying.
In my experience, as my child has grown (he’s now 14) and needed less and less of my intermediation, it’s absolutely thrilling. I think kids are (can be?) capable of much more agency than many/most adults imagine, and seeing that exercised is such an enormous reward (and comfort).
I’m not a psychologist, but I watched a video of the “Strange Situation” experiment, and I found it to be both cruel and useless. GCM sounds like a very “intrinsic” way of explaining human behavior.
We are not born with any pre-determined styles. The need for a mother/ caregiver gradually disappears as the child becomes more and more independent and self-reliant.
I agree with you about Maria Montessori. The key is in what she wrote: “Never help a child with a task at which he feels he can succeed.”
That is, never do for a child what he can do for himself.
I have to confess that my husband Peter was better at it than I was (raised Italian-protective mother)
Very interesting take on attachment parenting, something that has become a big part of my thinking since my son was born 7 years ago as it’s made me aware of my own ‘damage’ from growing up and my efforts to not pass that on.
Something I have found is crucial for me to manage myself with more autonomy is to grasp and constantly remind myself of what keeps me safe in the world. As a child you believe it is other people and their favourable opinions of you, but in adulthood it’s the laws in place based on individual rights (office politics aside!)
This may sound obvious to most but for me it’s a vital distinction that I constantly need to remember because it clarifies my anxiety in any given situation helping me see what’s really necessary and not just ‘feelings’.
Following on from this, I think there might be a specific order in which our needs must be met. Given the above principle, that you are protected and have personal freedom based on an objective (somewhat) legal framework, the first requirement for gaining and maintaining personal freedom and control of your life is that you can use your mind and body (to the best of your ability) to produce value (work).
This again sounds obvious but it’s too often posted as some kind of duty or burden, not as the first step towards being ‘at home in the world ‘.
Thank you for this. Clarified for me the major contributor to what I believe is my avoidant attachment style. I hope awareness is a big step toward disintegrating it.
This is such a fascinating and refreshing perspective on attachment. I completely agree that the ultimate goal of secure attachment is to liberate us to move freely and confidently through the world, untethered from chronic anxiety about our most vital bonds. But I can’t help wondering if this disposition toward the world is less a parallel developmental track and more a direct result of having experienced a secure attachment early on.
Isn’t it precisely through the lived experience of having our bond with a caregiver consistently affirmed—of being seen, soothed, and understood—that our nervous systems can afford to turn outward? In this way, the energy that would otherwise be consumed by hypervigilance or protest gets freed up for exploration, learning, and self-direction. In other words, it’s the experience of safety in the bond that frees us up to use the caregiver as a secure base for agentic discovery of the world.
The ultimate aim is, of course, to develop the confidence to engage life on our own terms, but it seems to me that this capacity is built from the inside out, and originates because someone helped hold the scaffolding until we could hold ourselves. The internal working model that “the world is a place where I can thrive, and it’s up to me to do it” therefore only becomes livable because someone once made it reliably true.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you for offering such a thoughtful reframe, it really got me thinking 🙂 Always enjoy reading your work!
Ooo, such an interesting question (and thank you so much for engaging so thoughtfully with my piece!!).
Couple of off-the-cuff thoughts for now:
What you say at the end is actually a beautiful formulation of my view: that this internal model “only becomes livable because someone once made it reliably true.” I don’t think the exact biological and developmental pathways by which this gets accomplished (which we still only partly understand) matter so much for what I’m interested in here, namely: what the successful outcome looks like in adults. But I do also think my parenting has benefited from my sensitivity to this aspirational outcome, if that makes sense.
I do think what you mention about providing safety and “holding the scaffolding” (so well put!) are also important dimensions in their own right, and I appreciate you pushing me to include them in my account. :)
Thank you so much, Gena! This really helps clarify where your focus was, and I so appreciate your generous response. It sounds like you’re speaking more to the conscious intent behind parenting—the mindset we hold in those small, everyday decision points—and how focusing on cultivating independence and agency, rather than centering attachment itself, can ultimately lead to more securely functioning kids. I hope I’m understanding you correctly, because that really lands.
And I love how you frame that your goal isn’t to be the final arbiter of your kids’ access to the world, but to gradually make yourself irrelevant in that role. That feels like such a subtle and profound shift in stance, and one I’ll be turning over for a while in my own parenting.
Thank you again for such a thought-provoking essay and a rich exchange. I’ve genuinely loved thinking through this with you ◡̈
I’ve often found myself observing attachment styles in religious contexts: some ways that seem quite torturous of practicing religion (scrupulosity, persistent prayer accompanying fear of calamity or disorder that contradicts the notion of a merciful loving God) strike me as anxious attachment to divinity.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that most people have an avoidant attachment to the divine because I really think some people are wired to engage with spiritual feeling and others are not. But, if everyone does have some connection to the divine because it’s a feature of humanity, then I’d have to say that most people have an avoidant attachment to the divine.
As someone who IS religious, I lately ask myself what it would look like to have a secure attachment to the judeochristian God; I suppose in religious vocabulary this is what is meant by faith, trust in the process, confidence in one’s own reasoning and pursuits, forgiveness for shortcomings, without discouragement or discipline leading to indifference or joylessness.
Thanks for this, Gena – very eloquent and clarifying.
In my experience, as my child has grown (he’s now 14) and needed less and less of my intermediation, it’s absolutely thrilling. I think kids are (can be?) capable of much more agency than many/most adults imagine, and seeing that exercised is such an enormous reward (and comfort).
I’m not a psychologist, but I watched a video of the “Strange Situation” experiment, and I found it to be both cruel and useless. GCM sounds like a very “intrinsic” way of explaining human behavior.
We are not born with any pre-determined styles. The need for a mother/ caregiver gradually disappears as the child becomes more and more independent and self-reliant.
I agree with you about Maria Montessori. The key is in what she wrote: “Never help a child with a task at which he feels he can succeed.”
That is, never do for a child what he can do for himself.
I have to confess that my husband Peter was better at it than I was (raised Italian-protective mother)
Very interesting take on attachment parenting, something that has become a big part of my thinking since my son was born 7 years ago as it’s made me aware of my own ‘damage’ from growing up and my efforts to not pass that on.
Something I have found is crucial for me to manage myself with more autonomy is to grasp and constantly remind myself of what keeps me safe in the world. As a child you believe it is other people and their favourable opinions of you, but in adulthood it’s the laws in place based on individual rights (office politics aside!)
This may sound obvious to most but for me it’s a vital distinction that I constantly need to remember because it clarifies my anxiety in any given situation helping me see what’s really necessary and not just ‘feelings’.
Following on from this, I think there might be a specific order in which our needs must be met. Given the above principle, that you are protected and have personal freedom based on an objective (somewhat) legal framework, the first requirement for gaining and maintaining personal freedom and control of your life is that you can use your mind and body (to the best of your ability) to produce value (work).
This again sounds obvious but it’s too often posted as some kind of duty or burden, not as the first step towards being ‘at home in the world ‘.
I think you'd enjoy this essay on a similar topic! Spirituality as secure attachment with reality.
https://open.substack.com/pub/intimatemirror/p/spirituality-is-secure-attachment?r=1bxhcf&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for sharing, Manansh - some deep points of resonance here indeed!
Thank you for this. Clarified for me the major contributor to what I believe is my avoidant attachment style. I hope awareness is a big step toward disintegrating it.
Thank you, Paula! So glad to hear it (and yes, awareness is often the biggest step, in my experience :) ).
This is such a fascinating and refreshing perspective on attachment. I completely agree that the ultimate goal of secure attachment is to liberate us to move freely and confidently through the world, untethered from chronic anxiety about our most vital bonds. But I can’t help wondering if this disposition toward the world is less a parallel developmental track and more a direct result of having experienced a secure attachment early on.
Isn’t it precisely through the lived experience of having our bond with a caregiver consistently affirmed—of being seen, soothed, and understood—that our nervous systems can afford to turn outward? In this way, the energy that would otherwise be consumed by hypervigilance or protest gets freed up for exploration, learning, and self-direction. In other words, it’s the experience of safety in the bond that frees us up to use the caregiver as a secure base for agentic discovery of the world.
The ultimate aim is, of course, to develop the confidence to engage life on our own terms, but it seems to me that this capacity is built from the inside out, and originates because someone helped hold the scaffolding until we could hold ourselves. The internal working model that “the world is a place where I can thrive, and it’s up to me to do it” therefore only becomes livable because someone once made it reliably true.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you for offering such a thoughtful reframe, it really got me thinking 🙂 Always enjoy reading your work!
Ooo, such an interesting question (and thank you so much for engaging so thoughtfully with my piece!!).
Couple of off-the-cuff thoughts for now:
What you say at the end is actually a beautiful formulation of my view: that this internal model “only becomes livable because someone once made it reliably true.” I don’t think the exact biological and developmental pathways by which this gets accomplished (which we still only partly understand) matter so much for what I’m interested in here, namely: what the successful outcome looks like in adults. But I do also think my parenting has benefited from my sensitivity to this aspirational outcome, if that makes sense.
I do think what you mention about providing safety and “holding the scaffolding” (so well put!) are also important dimensions in their own right, and I appreciate you pushing me to include them in my account. :)
Thank you so much, Gena! This really helps clarify where your focus was, and I so appreciate your generous response. It sounds like you’re speaking more to the conscious intent behind parenting—the mindset we hold in those small, everyday decision points—and how focusing on cultivating independence and agency, rather than centering attachment itself, can ultimately lead to more securely functioning kids. I hope I’m understanding you correctly, because that really lands.
And I love how you frame that your goal isn’t to be the final arbiter of your kids’ access to the world, but to gradually make yourself irrelevant in that role. That feels like such a subtle and profound shift in stance, and one I’ll be turning over for a while in my own parenting.
Thank you again for such a thought-provoking essay and a rich exchange. I’ve genuinely loved thinking through this with you ◡̈
Yes, that captures it well! And the sentiment is mutual. <3 :)
I’ve often found myself observing attachment styles in religious contexts: some ways that seem quite torturous of practicing religion (scrupulosity, persistent prayer accompanying fear of calamity or disorder that contradicts the notion of a merciful loving God) strike me as anxious attachment to divinity.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that most people have an avoidant attachment to the divine because I really think some people are wired to engage with spiritual feeling and others are not. But, if everyone does have some connection to the divine because it’s a feature of humanity, then I’d have to say that most people have an avoidant attachment to the divine.
As someone who IS religious, I lately ask myself what it would look like to have a secure attachment to the judeochristian God; I suppose in religious vocabulary this is what is meant by faith, trust in the process, confidence in one’s own reasoning and pursuits, forgiveness for shortcomings, without discouragement or discipline leading to indifference or joylessness.