I Have Attachment Issues
Attachment theory posits that human beings have an innate biological drive to “seek proximity to a caregiver in times of alarm or danger”. We’re “hardwired” – programmed in our brains – to “attach” to someone for physical safety and security. Attachment theorists like to point out that research has proven this hypothesis beyond irrefutability and prioritizes it even over the drive for food. This hardwired attachment behavior becomes a powerful ally in the healing process in therapy; clients can use the therapist as an “attachment figure” to experience safety, protection, a “secure base” in times of alarm or perceived danger and, over time, internalize that secure base within themselves.
How do attachment theorists reconcile their view of mental health — a view that emphasizes healthy dependence on the mother as primary attachment figure and on social relations and groups in adulthood — with the functioning of creative persons who place a premium on autonomy, emotional detachment, independence of thought and behavior, and a reliance on the self as the ultimate source of identity and security?
Research shows that even in childhood the potentially creative child showed unusual autonomy from his parents.
In studies many creative subjects indicated that as children they had enjoyed a marked degree of autonomy from their parents. They were entrusted with independent judgment and allowed to develop curiosity at their own pace without overt supervision or interference. Donald MacKinnon noted of these parents, “They did not hesitate to grant him rather unusual freedom in exploring his universe and in making decisions for himself — and this early as well as late. The expectation of the parent that the child would act independently but reasonably and responsibly appears to have contributed immensely to the latter’s sense of personal autonomy which was to develop to such a marked degree.”
But this autonomy was shown to have a darker side — it coexisted with a certain emotional detachment from one or both parents. According to attachment theorists emotional detachment is a mark of insecure attachment and fear of rejection.
The creative subjects often reported a sense of remoteness, a distance from their elders — i.e., markers of insecure attachment dating back to infancy — which ultimately helped them avoid the overdependence — or momentous rejection — that often characterizes parent-child relationships, both of which were believed to interfere with the unencumbered unfolding of the self through the creative process.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/12/29/the-creative-architect/
In a study of eminent scientists Anne Roe found that many subjects had quite specific and fairly strong feelings of personal isolation when they were children (suggestive of insecure attachment). They felt different, or apart, in some way. Such statements as the following from physicists, in particular, were strong: “In college I slipped back to lonely isolation.” “I have always felt like a minority member.” “I was always lonesome, the other children didn’t like me, I didn’t have friends, I was always out of the group. Neither the girls nor the boys liked me, I didn’t know why, but it was always that way.”
In a study of architects MacKinnon found that the least creative showed the following characteristics seemingly associated with secure attachment: abasement, affiliation, and deference (socialization); their goal was to meet the standard of the group (i.e., the attachment figure). MacKinnon, D.W. “Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential.” American Psychologist 20: 273-81, 1965. The most creative architects scored highest on aggression, autonomy (independence), psychological complexity and richness, and ego strength (will); their goal was found to be “some inner artistic standard of excellence.” Cattell found that high ego strength (found in creative persons) was associated with being self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, and self sufficient: characteristics seemingly associated with insecure attachment. In creative persons are the characteristics of aggression, autonomy, psychological complexity and richness and ego strength associated with insecure attachment?
How does attachment theory reconcile the fact that although attachment is biologically-driven, the emotional detachment associated with insecure attachment — with its consequent promotion of unusual autonomy and creativity — has survival value for the group?
It is important to keep in mind, as Stephen Jay Gould (1981) has pointed out, that natural selection may produce a feature for one adaptive reason (e.g., the drive for attachment which promotes infant survival and group cooperation in adulthood). However this may have a number of potentially “non-adaptive sequelae” – such as the compromising of individual identity in the drive for group cohesion, the loss of rationality and the development of “group think”, and the scapegoating of outsiders who pose a threat to group cohesion. In short, there is no guarantee that all features of biology are adaptive. From a different perspective, we may also say that individuals who do not conform to biological imperative (e.g., persons with insecure attachment) may have qualities that prove to be biologically adaptive for the group (such as, heightened autonomy which promotes novel problem-solving skills).
Evolution is more complex than Bowlby proposes. Positive (good) things can come from negative (bad) things and negative (bad) things can come from positive (good) things.
How do attachment theorists reconcile their view of mental health — a view that emphasizes healthy dependence on the mother as primary attachment figure and on social relations and groups in adulthood — with the functioning of creative persons who place a premium on autonomy, emotional detachment, independence of thought and behavior, and a reliance on the self as the ultimate source of identity and security?
Research shows that even in childhood the potentially creative child showed unusual autonomy from his parents.
In studies many creative subjects indicated that as children they had enjoyed a marked degree of autonomy from their parents. They were entrusted with independent judgment and allowed to develop curiosity at their own pace without overt supervision or interference. Donald MacKinnon noted of these parents, “They did not hesitate to grant him rather unusual freedom in exploring his universe and in making decisions for himself — and this early as well as late. The expectation of the parent that the child would act independently but reasonably and responsibly appears to have contributed immensely to the latter’s sense of personal autonomy which was to develop to such a marked degree.”
But this autonomy was shown to have a darker side — it coexisted with a certain emotional detachment from one or both parents. According to attachment theorists emotional detachment is a mark of insecure attachment and fear of rejection.
The creative subjects often reported a sense of remoteness, a distance from their elders — i.e., markers of insecure attachment dating back to infancy — which ultimately helped them avoid the overdependence — or momentous rejection — that often characterizes parent-child relationships, both of which were believed to interfere with the unencumbered unfolding of the self through the creative process.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/12/29/the-creative-architect/
In a study of eminent scientists Anne Roe found that many subjects had quite specific and fairly strong feelings of personal isolation when they were children (suggestive of insecure attachment). They felt different, or apart, in some way. Such statements as the following from physicists, in particular, were strong: “In college I slipped back to lonely isolation.” “I have always felt like a minority member.” “I was always lonesome, the other children didn’t like me, I didn’t have friends, I was always out of the group. Neither the girls nor the boys liked me, I didn’t know why, but it was always that way.”
In a study of architects MacKinnon found that the least creative showed the following characteristics seemingly associated with secure attachment: abasement, affiliation, and deference (socialization); their goal was to meet the standard of the group (i.e., the attachment figure). MacKinnon, D.W. “Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential.” American Psychologist 20: 273-81, 1965. The most creative architects scored highest on aggression, autonomy (independence), psychological complexity and richness, and ego strength (will); their goal was found to be “some inner artistic standard of excellence.” Cattell found that high ego strength (found in creative persons) was associated with being self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, and self sufficient: characteristics seemingly associated with insecure attachment. In creative persons are the characteristics of aggression, autonomy, psychological complexity and richness and ego strength associated with insecure attachment?
How does attachment theory reconcile the fact that although attachment is biologically-driven, the emotional detachment associated with insecure attachment — with its consequent promotion of unusual autonomy and creativity — has survival value for the group?
It is important to keep in mind, as Stephen Jay Gould (1981) has pointed out, that natural selection may produce a feature for one adaptive reason (e.g., the drive for attachment which promotes infant survival and group cooperation in adulthood). However this may have a number of potentially “non-adaptive sequelae” – such as the compromising of individual identity in the drive for group cohesion, the loss of rationality and the development of “group think”, and the scapegoating of outsiders who pose a threat to group cohesion. In short, there is no guarantee that all features of biology are adaptive. From a different perspective, we may also say that individuals who do not conform to biological imperative (e.g., persons with insecure attachment) may have qualities that prove to be biologically adaptive for the group (such as, heightened autonomy which promotes novel problem-solving skills).
Evolution is more complex than Bowlby proposes. Positive (good) things can come from negative (bad) things and negative (bad) things can come from positive (good) things.
