Post #7 Bonding/Attachment

Post #7   Bonding/Attachment

I left the last entry hugging and kissing a child after knowing him three hours, aware tomorrow he would be our child. Whether the words ‘bonding’ or 'attachment' were in wide use at the time, or whether the pre-adoption seminars at the time used these words, I do not remember.  Scanning my journal again, I don’t see the words on any of the pages I am now writing from (I later found we had been given information).  Yet as we left, Yasik peeked through the banister to smile and wave.  And we floated away into the evening on a happy cloud.  I remember Dave and I going for a walk along the Volga in the evening still wrapped in this happy cloud. The journal says we felt Yasik was so much more than we could ever have hoped for. This is why I ask:  do people 'bond' or 'attach' in three hours? Bonding’ is the word most people use rather than attachment’ to describe the feeling they have as they fall in love with their children.  Few would be surprised at my use of it as well.  However, and yes here comes a big ‘But’, asking this question I have begun to discover stuff that may exclude Dave and me from the circle encompassing those who fit the scientific definition of the word.  And whether it sounds like fluffy semantic nonsense or not, I want to respect the work of science because I want an explanation built on empirically accessed information to know if my understanding is as concrete as possible.  To choose to use the word simply because of a feeling is not a stable explanation.  Thus far my readings no longer allow me to use the word ‘bonding’, drawing a distinct line between it and attachment which is where researchers want to go to explain those feelings, even though attachment has a more clinical sound than the more passionate 'bonding' to explain the feelings Dave and I were sure were ours, and were just as certain cemented a love within us.  So what is ‘bonding? Why am I directed to use the word ‘attachment’ rather than ‘bonding’? Are the feelings we had that day merely the squirt of emotion needed to encourage the growth of attachment? Were they really sufficient to leave us with sense of commitment to Yasik as our son that has refused to wane right to the present? We have never questioned Yasik took his rightful place in our hearts then and there and has never been ousted. With a question like this, I looked a several different articles to parse out a distinction between these two words. A variety of sources from work by John Bowlby and on into more current study suggests that 'bonding' is a parent's positive and protective feelings for a child, beginning in the womb. So far, other than the infant aspect, we can be included in the behaviour and irreversible shift in our emotional lives. But bonding’, suggests Jean Mercer in Understanding Attachment: parenting, child care, and emotional development (6), became a bit of a loosy-goosy term, referring to whatever sweet emotional moment one person shared with usually another person, animal, or even, thing.  The science world was forced to abandon it, though it was supposed to be a word specific to what began to develop in utero via hormone changes and the head start the biological mother gets while her child is in the womb. Yet Mercer returns to the word on pages 70 to 75 as a needed identifier, including fathers and parents of adopted infants who have no hormonal changes, nonetheless, “show bonding to the same degree as biological mothers”.  Not even the belief about breast-feeding being essential to bonding holds weight for Mercer.    She relegates that idea to persistent myth.  In Thinking Critically About CHILD DEVELOPMENT: Examining Myths & Misunderstandings (82), Jean Mercer talks about research looking at levels of oxytocin when asking if adoptive mothers bond with their adoptee.  The research found mothers who produced more oxytocin when cuddling with their children showed more delight in their children but then concludes it is not easy to measure how bonding or loving occurs for it is still not clear how important early contact is.  But there is no denial here that ‘bonding’ can be acknowledged for adoptive mothers (and fathers?) of infants.  Julie Holland, MD, wrote Good Chemistry: the science of connection from soul to psychedelics in 2020 (Harper Collins  Publishers). On page 120 she writes: "Yes, oxytocin works on father; however, these benefits don't extend to fathers who don't get involved." There is, however, denial in Inside Transracial Adoption: strength-based, culture-sensitizing parenting strategies for inter-country or domestic adoptive families that don’t “Match”? (128) by Gail Steinberg & Beth Hall for they write, By strict definition, adoptive parents can’t bond with their children. Bonding is a one-way process that begins in the birth mother during pregnancy and continues through the first few days of life. It is her instinctive desire to protect her baby. Offering a tempered rebuttal, on page 75 of Understanding Attachment: parenting, child care, and emotional development, Mercer adds this: “Adoptive mothers…ordinarily experience bonding…if [their children] … have been adopted early in their lives.” And with that seven-word caveat, Dave and I presumably were pushed outside the realm of the word bonding”.   But Yasik looked me directly in the eyes and smiled.  Connection of some sort was made and emotions were exploding like a fireworks display within.  

Author: Gail Vincent

It pissed me off that the prevailing attitude toward adoption issues was "Well, it's in the blood". This irritation has led me to an interest in imparting what I am learning from the study of Nature and Nurture: its competition and teamwork as it applies to adoption. Granted, I am a 2/3rdser, physically, emotionally, intellectually, socially, spiritually. I never quite fully get where I am expected to go or personally choose to go. It is evident in this blog set up to examine such a life. Still, hopefully, a bit of self-awareness energizes the need to keep seeking for I want to understand our family's story. It is an adaptation of James Michener's, Go after your dreams [and nightmares] to know your dreams [and nightmares] for what they are (The Drifters,p.768). Three things: 1. I am not a researcher but rather a student of others’ ideas and I am old. 2. I was first an evangelical missionary, a career I told the god-I-choose-to-believe-in that I couldn't live with anymore, so got an education and moved on to a career as a high school English teacher. The one skill learned and practiced in both careers was to take an understanding to be imparted – whether of the evangelical mission’s doctrine or the education ministry’s curriculum – and apply reductionist principles necessary to be able to present the teaching to what I understood the given audience needed. 3. I have found a viable reason for dead trees still standing in a forest. They can be hazardous fuel for forest fires, yes, but I have also noticed they are riddled with holes made by birds wanting to harvest the bugs within or they become the ground from which young trees can sprout. It put me in mind of the myth of the old man who built on ruins in order to see better and farther. Perhaps age has this to offer: we may use the ruins and remains to see farther or gain some sustenance for the journey ahead.

One thought on “Post #7 Bonding/Attachment”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.