The Importance of Child Bond to His Mother

The primal importance of a child's bond to his mother has always been recognized as a topic that has fascinated people for hundreds of years. Among psychologists and sociologists, there is much debate about exactly how important this attachment is and why.

At the turn of the century, the treatment of new-born babies was regarded as having little significance for later life, because babies were thought to be immune to influence. Such idea was attacked by Sigmund Freud. He believed the relationship a child has with his mother was a prototype on which all future relationships were based.

Freud's theory held that the child becomes attached to his mother because she is the source of food; hence she gratifies his most basic needs. Slightly later in childhood, the drive for food is supplemented by another basic drive, and that is the need for sexual pleasure. According to Freud's theory, the mother, who is already an object of love because of her role in satisfying the first need becomes an object of desire with whom the child wants to gratify his sexual desire. In reference to boys is known as the Oedipus complex. An equivalent theory was proposed for girls, but was much criticized, and Freud eventually admitted to not understand female sexuality. In the normal course of growing up the child comes to accept that this cannot be, and he sets out to become an adult and find another figure with whom to satisfy this need. Therefore, if future relationships are a substitute for the mother-child bond, then they will also be modeled on it (Coon, 2000).

Many people have questioned this cynical view of infants, including John Bowlby (1969, 1973). He disregarded Freud's theory of attachment believing instead, that a child is born biologically pre-disposed to become attached to its mother for two important reasons; first the need for comfort, and second, the fear of the unknown, both of which are characteristics that can be observed in all children.

Bowlby's conjecture has been supported experimentally by Harlow (1958). He studied rhesus monkeys (one of the primate species most closely related to humans). In his study, new-born monkeys were raised without their mothers, and they were provided with two “mother substitutes”. One was a “wire mother” equipped with a nipple to provide food, whereas the other was a “doll mother” made of terry-cloth. While the monkeys soon learned which was the source of food, and went to the "wire mother" to be fed, they became more attached to the "cloth mother," which was their source of comfort when they were frightened. This experiment led Harlow to believe that the “cloth mother” is a better substitute because it more closely resembles the monkeys’ real mother. Such experiment, in relation to humans, shows that infants need their mother for something other than food, and this comfort can only be provided by an appropriate figure. Though Bowlby disagreed with Freud’s explanation of the child’s love for his mother, he agreed that this attachment is crucially important for the rest of its life.

Now, having agreed on the importance of a primary attachment, the next issue is how this attachment is formed. One approach is that babies are born “Programmed” to form an attachment to someone, which under normal circumstances is the mother.

Klaus and Kennel claimed that in human babies the first few hours after birth constitute a critical period in which a bond can be formed between the mother and the child. They found out that a lack of contact between the mother and the child can lead to disorders of parenting which at the same time will have negative consequences for the child. However, these findings have been disputed, and it is only generally accepted that this critical period has short-term consequences. On the other hand, it is believed that in the long term later bonds can be as strong (Bee, 1995).

Klaus and Kennel then postulated a second stage of attachment, which consist in the opportunity to develop real mutuality. This takes place during the first few months of the baby’s life. As parent and child interact and respond to each other, they allow a natural interlocking pattern of attachment behaviors to develop. This second phase of attachment is more widely accepted than the first, and has far greater long-term significance (Bee, 1995). However, the main concern is what happens if the child does not form a primary parental attachment. The most obvious case is of children who form no such attachment at all.

Harlow (1962) having studied the attachment behavior in rhesus monkeys followed this up with a study