Flowers Fall
Detachment Parenting
I am reading a book called Becoming Attached which details the story/theory behind so-called Dr. Sears’-style “attachment parenting” (i.e. sleep with your child in your bed until the child decides it’s time to leave, etc.). In fact, attachment theory, hard-won as it is, is what we can thank for the totally obvious (so we thought) idea that babies need their mommies, or at least some kind of primary caretaker who is there for them. Mommies are not just food-dispensers. Babies don’t just love their mommies because they fill their tummies. Mommies are more than boobs. Babies are not robots. Isn’t it amazing that until the 1960’s us Westerners really thought that babies could be separated from their moms and be fine? Hospitals used to not allow parents to visit their sick kids!!! Remember the monkey and the wire mama experiment, where the baby monkeys clung to the terry-cloth covered wire monkey even though the wire one gave them the food? That’s part of the attachment thing. The babies liked the warmth just because it was more comfy.
ANYway, reality is much more interesting and less condemning and rigid than Dr. Sears and his barefoot nurse-wife Martha (born-again Christians, by the way) and their ten million children. The book explores the humanity of the researchers, their own “issues,” the in-fighting, and the experiments themselves, and their results. This is where things get a little spooky. Most readerly parents have heard of the “Strange Situation” experiment where Mary Ainsworth confirmed the different attachment styles of babies to their moms (secure/avoidant/ambivalent) based this simple experiment where a baby is left in a room with a stranger then reunited with the mom. The way the child reunites is studied microscopically and then codified in terms of attachment. Obviously, there’s much more to it than that. But it’s the kind of thing everyone wants to repeat with friends as a parlor game: let’s see how anxious our babies get when we leave them with the neighbor they’ve never met!!! Let’s see if, even though I have been leaving my darling with a babysitter since she was 5 months old, she still loves me the best! What a blast!
Perhaps the elephant in the room right now is that fact that I am reading a book. Indeed. I am. How did that happen?
I feel like something has shifted. I have cut back on work – working the hours I am paid to work (for the most part, of course, or as much as I can and still get the job done – I can’t believe how much I feel like I need to justify working my agreed-upon hours. What’s wrong with me???), which has made work much more fun. And it has given me more room in the day to be a person, a person with a child, a person with a child who also loves to read and sit and even cook! Wow! So I have set up some rules, mostly about technology, and the main one is being violated right now.
The main rule is to only have my computer on between the hours of 7 and 7 (It is now 6:45 am). Or even 6 in the evening is preferable. And no weekends. No email, no web browsing. No work. Except, of course, weekends when I explicitly MUST work, and then it’s clear that I am indeed working and so it’s ok and even a pleasure. This may not seem monumental, but since I am getting up so dang early (5) to sit and shower, I still have an hour at least to READ before Azzie gets up, usually around 7:30. And then in the evening she goes to bed around 8 and I have another hour to READ before I go to bed between 9 and 10.
In Buddhism we hear a lot about detachment, in the sense of seeing through what FEELS real. NOT not feeling. Just not attaching. Thoughts can be seen as the illusory ghosts that they are, powerful because of the power we give them.
I feel like I am trying to do the real work of attachment parenting (including parenting myself) from this perspective. I get all wrapped up in whether or not Azzie reunites with me the way Mary Ainsworth says she should. That’s normal. And it’s ok. But don’t fall to the other side of not caring or paying attention! Aaaah!!! Duality!!! Back and forth.
Attachment parenting COULD be called Detachment parenting. Meaning: See your child, let her go. See her over and over. Let her go. She is not a thing separate from you. She is not a thing. She is not a thing. She is not a thing. And when you are really connected, there is no reunion.

Have something to say?
Login or register to leave a comment.
Maya Pettit-van der Meer left this comment about 1 year ago
Part I:
Dear Bethany,
Thank you for your candid accounts of the process of resisting and opening to the precious opportunity of another person and to life as it passes through us. I just found your blog and find all you posts thoroughly insightful and entertaining to read.
I can relate to much of what you have written. I am a mother too and also, like you, a dharma practitioner. My husband John is a Tibetan language translator and buddhologist. Before settling down here in Woodstock to have our son we traveled extensively for John’s work. We became disillusioned with the various academic and dharma scenes we encountered over the years and decided that the most authentic way to live and practice involved having a family. Though this sounds in no way like a revolutionary idea, it really was for us.
(Comments apparently have a word limit so I will have to post this response in parts.)
Maya Pettit-van der Meer left this comment about 1 year ago
Part II:
Thank you for having the courage to talk about what you call "detachment parenting." It is both a brave personal endeavor and a brave public statement when you could easily be misconstrued as the anti-mother.
I know many people who employ the attachment method of Dr. Sears. Some of them are so devoted to this method and their lives are so shaped by it that I rarely, if ever, say anything against it. I keep mum even in my weekly mother's group in which I have something to say about everything else. Though I find some of his advice (especially about discipline) useful, the truth is that his core ideas have always seemed off to me.
The idea of my child being completely emotionally dependent on me 24 hours a day just never seemed fair to anyone, especially my child in the long run. Having said that, I did not employ the “cry it out” technique of Richard Ferber either. That just seemed sadistic. I got some good guidance in this regard from Tracy Hogg a.k.a. the Baby Whisper. She encourages a middle way between these two popular parenting styles and emphasizes the necessity of developing a deep understanding of your child’s style, his way of being and yours and what kind of structure you both need. In regards to common problems such as sleeping and eating, she teaches ways to ask the right questions to deal with problems without applying generic protocols to baby and parent.
I won’t go into the various ways I approached the challenges of the first year but it has basically worked out as I had intended. My son Ashok is good sleeper, which means I can sleep (with my husband.) He is equally bonded with John and me and confident that one or both of us will be there when he needs us but he has confidence in himself as well. He likes to play independently and is happy to meet and be held by new people he feels a connection to. If he feels shy or weird about someone he lets them know without making them feel like the monster from under the bed. I believe Ashok is able to do all this because he isn’t constantly attached to me and has had the space to develop his own emotional compass and self-confidence. He has never liked to be showered with affection by anyone, including me. This has not been exactly easy for me to accept. I’ll confess that part of me actually enjoys the rare occasion when he’s sick because it means he relaxes into me more.
Around 7 months I had a huge crisis of confidence when he started crawling and wanting more autonomy then ever. "He doesn’t want me or need me," I thought. "He doesn’t have separation anxiety, something’s wrong!" What could be wrong? My mothering of course, all wrong! I felt guilty for the countless things I had done to encourage his independence and mourned my inability to breastfeed longer than I did. "Maybe, he should be more attached to me," I thought and sped to Barnes & Noble to buy a book by Dr Sears. Reading his thought inspired more guilt, self-loathing and doubt than I had produced with my own. But then I had to ask myself, "do I really want Ashok to freak out every time I leave the room? Would that make me feel better about myself," to which I quickly concluded "no!"
So I have kept up with what you have so brilliantly termed "detachment parenting." Ashok goes on and on developing in his energetic and spirited way and I am letting him go to it.
Thank you.
Maya Pettit-van der Meer left this comment about 1 year ago
Part I:
Dear Bethany,
Thank you for your candid accounts of the process of resisting and opening to the precious opportunity of another person and to life as it passes through us. I just found your blog and find all you posts thoroughly insightful and entertaining to read.
I can relate to much of what you have written. I am a mother too and also, like you, a dharma practitioner. My husband John is a Tibetan language translator and buddhologist. Before settling down here in Woodstock to have our son we traveled extensively for John’s work. We became disillusioned with the various academic and dharma scenes we encountered over the years and decided that the most authentic way to live and practice involved having a family. Though this sounds in no way like a revolutionary idea, it really was for us.
(Comments apparently have a word limit so I will have to post this response in parts.)