Maternal Deprivation - Controversy, Misinterpretation and Criticism

Controversy, Misinterpretation and Criticism

See also: Attachment theory and Attachment in children

Aside from his profound differences with psychoanalytic ideas, the theoretical basis of Bowlby's monograph was controversial in a number of ways. Some profoundly disagreed with the necessity for maternal (or equivalent) love in order to function normally, or that the formation of an ongoing relationship with a child was an important part of parenting. The idea that early experiences have serious consequences for intellectual and psychosocial development was controversial in itself. Others questioned the extent to which his hypothesis was supported by the evidence. There was criticism of the confusion of the effects of privation (no primary attachment figure) and deprivation (loss of the primary attachment figure) and in particular, of the failure to distinguish between the effects of the lack of a primary attachment figure and the other forms of deprivation and understimulation that might affect children in institutions.

It was also pointed out that there was no explanation of how experiences subsumed under the broad heading of "maternal deprivation" could have effects on personality development of the kinds claimed. Bowlby explained in his 1988 work that the data were not at the time "accommodated by any theory then current and in the brief time of my employment by the World Health Organisation there was no possibility of developing a new one". He then goes on to describe the subsequent development of attachment theory.

In addition to criticism, his ideas were often oversimplified, misrepresented, distorted or exaggerated for various purposes. This heightened the controversy. In 1962, the WHO published Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects to which Mary Ainsworth, Bowlby's close colleague, contributed with his approval, to present the recent research and developments and to address misapprehensions.

Bowlby's work was misinterpreted to mean that any separation from the natural mother, any experience of institutional care or a multiplicity of "mothers" necessarily resulted in severe emotional deprivation and sometimes, that all children undergoing such experiences would develop into "affectionless children". As a consequence it was claimed that only 24-hour care by the same person (the mother) was good enough, day care and nurseries were not good enough and mothers should not go out to work. The WHO advised that day nurseries and creches could have a serious and permanent deleterious effect. Such strictures suited the policies of governments concerned about finding employment for returned and returning servicemen after World War II. In fact, although Bowlby was of the view that proper care could not be provided "by roster", he was also of the view that babies should be accustomed to regular periods of care by another and that the key to alternative care for working mothers was that it should be regular and continuous. He addressed this point in a 1958 publication called Can I Leave My Baby?. Ainsworth in the WHO 1962 publication also attempted to address this misapprehension by pointing out that the requirement for continuity of care did not imply an exclusive mother–child pair relationship.

Bowlby's quotable remark, that children thrived better in bad homes than in good institutions, was often taken to extremes leading to reluctance on the part of Children's Officers (the equivalent of child care social workers) to remove children from homes however neglectful and inadequate. In fact, although Bowlby mentioned briefly the issue of "partial deprivation" within the family, this was not fully investigated in his monograph as the main focus was on the risks of complete or almost complete deprivation.

Michael Rutter made a significant contribution to the controversial issue of Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. His 1981 monograph and other papers (Rutter 1972; Rutter 1979) comprise the definitive empirical evaluation and update of Bowlby's early work on maternal deprivation. He amassed further evidence, addressed the many different underlying social and psychological mechanisms and showed that Bowlby was only partially right and often for the wrong reasons. Rutter highlighted the other forms of deprivation found in institutional care and the complexity of separation distress; and suggested that anti-social behaviour was not linked to maternal deprivation as such but to family discord. The importance of these refinements of the maternal deprivation hypothesis was to reposition it as a "vulnerability factor" rather than a causative agent, with a number of varied influences determining which path a child would take.

Rutter has more recently advised attention to the complexity of development and the roles of genetic as well as experiential factors, noting that separation is only one of many risk factors related to poor cognitive and emotional development.