Hello friends!
So I wanna chat a bit more about a book I read recently, that makes a case for parents to hold on to their kids, and why “parents needs to matter more than peers.”
Ok. There’s a lot so bear with me. I’m not going to talk about everything, just the more pressing bits!
Why does this book matter? Like, why not move on and read other books if this one is so worrying? Well, the reason this book matters is that it gets thrown around a lot in unschooling and homeschooling and peaceful parenting circles - it gets quoted and mentioned and generally praised. Honestly, I’m rather baffled by why that is, but there we go. I want to talk about it because actually, I’d like to point out that the major downside of this book (among other downsides) is that it is, in my opinion, profoundly adultist.
But first, the good stuff. The book essentially makes the case for the importance of attachment between parent and child, quoting studies and research. I mean - okay, yes. But also, we have known this for decades (due to research and studies people have been doing for decades) and also for millennia (due to the way our ancestors raised their children, and indigenous practices, and the care work that women all over the world have been doing). So it’s interesting to me how men have somehow positioned themselves as experts on attachment (think Bowlby, Dr Sears, and a long line of male pediatricians and psychologists) while also upholding the patriarchy, which in turn devalues the care work that women have been doing since the beginning of humanity, and devalues women’s intuitive understanding of attachment, and women’s invisible (ignored) labour for, you guessed it, millennia.
Phew, okay. That said, I can see why many homeschoolers and unschoolers see themselves in this book. Its central premise is that the parent-child relationship should take precedence over pretty much anything else - peers, in particular, but also schooling, social pressures, society at large. The authors write things like, “in postindustrial society the environment no longer encourages our children to develop along natural lines of attachment,” and to a point, I agree. We have created a system where it has become really hard to prioritize a close attachment with our child, for all sorts of reasons: the nuclear family, detachment from our ancestral practices, systemic oppression, colonialism, capitalism, and more.
There’s a lot of goodness in this book (but also, plenty of amazing women have written equally amazing books - just sayin’.) The authors emphasize the importance of unconditional love, of not pushing independence before our children are ready, of freeing our children “not by making them work for our love but by letting them rest in it.” There is talk about peer culture, which is super interesting. I think there can be nuance here - even though the book doesn’t always allow for it. Peer culture and peer attachment is seen as an unequivocally bad thing. I don’t love using the word ‘bad’ in general, but in this case, they really do mean bad. Peer attachment is bad news, according to the authors. I’m not an expert but I wish there were more space to dwell in the grey areas here. I wish there were more discussion around how peers can be toxic, but peers can also be life-saving, and everything in between. That peer culture itself can be inspiring. That young people have done important activism (for example, Greta Thunberg, LGBTQ+ young people, the young girls of Iran, and so many more) while the adults stood by, upholding the status quo. So I think the discussions around the influence of peers and peer culture could do with a lot more nuance.
But for me, the biggest red flag in the book (and there are others which I won’t touch on) is the narrative that adults know best.
According to the authors, adults hold more power in the adult-child relationship for a reason: because children may know what they want, but adults know what they need. The power imbalance is built into the relationship by “nature” for the very purpose of allowing the adult to prevail over the child in situations where the adult knows best. That is partially what attachment is FOR, says the book - it exists so that children will be so dependent on us that we will retain the degree of authority over them that we need, in order to do what we believe is best for them.
If you think I’m exaggerating, here are some actual quotes (because I underlined all the problematic bits, of course!):
“A child does not know best. Parenting that takes its cues from the child’s preferences can get you retired long before the job is done.” I totally get that there will be times, especially when our children are little, when we will in fact know best. But I think this is a sweeping statement and that assuming parents always know best is dangerous, and adultist. Also, we can at times know best, AND respect our children’s preferences and needs.
“Parenting was designed to be power-assisted.” They are saying that the power we hold, is how we get our children to do the things we want/need them to do. And if we lose it, then we can no longer “manage” our child. Apparently when children become ‘difficult’, “the absent quality is power, not love or knowledge or commitment or skill.” Hmmmmm. They go on to talk about the good old days when children did what they were told because our parents and grandparents apparently knew how to wield their power. I see no evidence in today’s adults that that sort of parenting worked out well for anyone concerned.
“Children (or adults) become bullies when the striving for dominance is not coupled with the instinctual sense of responsibility for those lower in the pecking order.” Why does there have to be a pecking order? Why are some people dominant and that is apparently okay? Instead of questioning hierarchy, the authors are telling us that apparently hierarchy is normal and okay, as long as the people at the top are benevolent leaders. But we know from history and just living in the world, that where there are unquestioned and entrenched power imbalances, there is often abuse of power. It’s a myth that institutionalized social hierarchy can exist and benefit everyone. The people at the top, no matter how much responsibility they feel for the ones at the bottom, almost always benefit the most. This one quote has repercussions for all sorts of social dynamics and validating the status quo. It validates the use of hierarchies and power in schools, and all social systems.
I want to make a case for partnership, not dominance.
Especially as our children get older, and less physically dependent on us, our attempts to “hold on to them” are going to break down if we are not also questioning our use of power.
I think the missing piece of this book is precisely that: consent-based relationships, partnership, building community, being human and vulnerable around our children, meeting them on an equal footing because we are in fact, both humans. Seeing our children as full, capable, flawed people, just like ourselves, is where connection is built and maintained as they get older. I suppose I could quote studies for this, but do I need to? I know this, as a woman and a human. I know that if I’m in a relationship where I feel equity is missing, where the other person’s power is wielded “for my own good,” I may stay in that relationship because I need to - but as soon as I can, I will leave. That is not unconditional love.
And here’s another bit, which I found super disturbing: “a child needs to be attached enough to care what adults - his parents and teachers - think, to care about their expectations, to care about not upsetting or alienating them.” This statement is dangerous. This is not what unconditional love looks like - this is what people-pleasing, and overriding consent, and fitting in, looks like. Sure, attachment means we care what the people closest to us think. It also means that we know we are loved no matter what. That no matter what we say, think, do or be, we *cannot* alienate those people, that we are *not* bound by their expectations but set free by knowing we will always belong.
There is a lot of similar talk about how attachment makes students “teachable” and lack of attachment is why kids aren’t keen on learning - as opposed to like, the fact that being told what to do all day long might not be ideal for young people, that perhaps they aren’t interested in what is being taught, and so on. I resent the use of the words “teachable” and “unteachable” because it implies, once again, that adults know best, that we are the ones imparting the lessons and children are expected to be open and willing to learn.
All of that said, I want to recognize that this book may have given many parents the confidence to centre relationship in their home, that perhaps they didn’t have or had lost due to the way society’s focus is skewed towards peer relationships, towards pushing our children to be independent. It was a reminder to me that my relationship with my children is what matters most.
I also recognise that we have lost something - we have lost the ability to create multigenerational communities where our children could create attachments with adults AND peers (because it doesn’t have to be either/or!), all in a safe, connected environment. Perhaps we never really had it to begin with - some of us didn’t, at least. And perhaps some of us did have it, and were stripped of it. And many of us are trying to reclaim some of that, and it makes sense. It makes sense that knowing that our relationship with our child is more important than any other, will help us put all our focus on that.
I just don’t think it has to involve power, or adult dominance. We can build connection, and attachment, and we can educate in a relationship-based way, WHILE ALSO centering autonomy, consent, and partnership. What we can’t do (or what we will struggle to do), is to create true partnership if we continue to believe we always know best. If we don’t step down from our “alpha” (actual quote!) position.
The conflict there is that partnership is rooted in non-coercion, in respect for personhood, in building a culture of consent and dissent. And believing we need power over our child in order to parent, is in direct conflict to all of those things.
Thanks for reading!!
I would love to know your thoughts on this, especially if you’ve read the book.
I hope you have a wonderful week ahead,
Fran x
Hi Fran. Thanks for writing about this book! I raised my kids with this book and with G. Neufeld's teachings on attachment when they were young. I attended several classes! I just want to clarify something that I feel you missed in the overall language of the book. When he uses the term "alpha" he is talking about a psychological term. Often children who have absent parents or disengaged parents will take on an alpha role. They will feel the stress of the absence and feel the need to fill that role by bossing around their sibs, feeling like they need to be in charge all the time etc... It's very stressful on the child to take that protector role. So when Gordon talks about reclaiming the "alpha" position, he's talking about protection and security. He's explaining how the parent needs to step into their child's life and show that they will be there. That they will provide the care the child needs and will give them a sense of boundaries and restrictions to help that child feel loved and contained. But I can see how that wording would feel authoritarian, oppressive and lacking in understanding. There is something about the consent culture that always puts the onus on the child to know what is best for them, when that can be overwhelming. What if the child needs someone to say, "I got this. I'll make the choice." I'm more asking than suggesting because I still wonder if there is a way to provide autonomy while also providing a container. When our kids were young we would give them a few options to chose from. Example, "We as a family are eating dinner now. You can eat in your own chair or with Mom and Dad on our lap. Which would you prefer?" This often really helped our youngest feel like she could join us. As they approach young adulthood, it obviously no longer applies. All of this is very subjective and the book does not address any special needs. I would love to delve into the peer orientation aspect as well. I think it is a fascinating topic and I really appreciate you highlighting that we can have both. A close tie with the unconditionality of our parents but also the risk-taking and experimentation of our peers to branch out and leave the safety of the nest. Both! More examples of this!
Absolutely loved this post! Thanks for sharing.