Shelley, as you were concerned that the discussion with Dennis about 'evidence' was straying from the initial topic I started a new one. I forget how long ago it was that a campaigner against attachment "therapy" posted a message on the PPP. He posted links to a couple of websites cataloguing abuses by attachment therapists. Webmaster John didn't buy it. It is worrying that shysters can dazzle unfeeling people into applauding abusive methods merely by adopting certain labels like "attachment" or "primal."
It seems to me that a robust distinction needs to be made between Attachment Therapy and Attachment Parenting. The latter is a nurturing approach to the needs of young children, while the "therapy" is a coercive form of abuse perpetrated on older children who don't conform to behavior patterns which meet their parents' expectations and demands. Attachment Parenting, by contrast, is exemplified by the wealth of information provided by Jan Hunt at
http://www.naturalchild.org and Althea Solter.
I think backing for coercive therapies and the problem of religious people who, unlike Jesus, don't take sides with the weak and powerless members of society, both stem from an extreme form what psychohistorian Lloyd DeMause calls the "socializing mode" of childrearing (basically coercive). What he calls "helping mode" child-rearing corresponds to the approach that Jan Hunt and Althea Solter advocate. If ALL religious people, christian or otherwise, were opposed to war, practiced tolerance, and behaved like good samaritans, their example would be something to admire. Instead, the USA, Israel, and the Arab countries are all awash with rabid religious warmongers. Three different faiths with the same thirst for violent retribution.
In case you're wondering, Shelley, I'll state my position. It seems to me that neuroscience is moving in the direction of confirming Janov's underlying biological propositions, while the authors of "A general Theory of Love" (see my
reply to salago) are probably correct in their view that good relationships are the source of emotional healing. Theresa Sheppard, former director of the New York Primal Institute, said the same in "Facing The Wolf." However one defines them, 'primals' may be helpful to some people as an adjunct to a supportive therapeutic relationship. I believe, however, that the idea that 'primals' are crucial is merely a marketing ploy.
Like IanC, I sometimes I wonder why I continue to participate in a forum in which the 'primal' proposition is the crux. In the present climate of mental health orthodoxies it's hard to find backing for the idea that a person's emotional history is the true source of disruptive feelings. There's Alice Miller's mailing list, but I wouldn't want to read a constant stream of posts like the
letters on her website.
* Mojo *