Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Examen
Examen
CHAPTER TITLE I
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 FIFTY YEARS OF
8
9
ATTACHMENT THEORY
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page ii
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page iii
111
2 Published in 2004 by
3 Karnac (Books) Ltd.
4 6 Pembroke Buildings, London NW10 6RE
5 on behalf of
The Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy
6
PO Box 233
7
Ruislip
8 Middlesex HA4 8UJ
9
10 Reprinted in 2005 and 2006
1
2 Copyright © 2004 Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy
3
4 Foreword copyright © 2004 Eric Koops
5 Introduction “John Bowlby and Donald Winnicott: collegial comrades in
child mental health” copyright © 2004 Brett Kahr
6
“Fifty years of Attachment Theory” copyright © 2004 Sir John Bowlby
711
“Recollections of Donald Winnicott and John Bowlby” copyright © 2004
8 Pearl King
9
20 The rights of the contributors to be identified as the authors of this work
1 have been asserted with §§77 and 78 of the Copyright Design and Patents
2 Act 1988.
3
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
4 in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
511 electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
6 prior written permission of the publisher.
7
8 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
9
311 A C.I.P. for this book is available from the British Library
1
ISBN-10: 1 85575 385 5
2
ISBN-13: 978 1 85575 385 3
3
Edited, designed, and produced by The Studio Publishing Services Ltd,
4 www.publishingservicesuk.co.uk
5 e-mail: studio@publishingservicesuk.co.uk
6
Printed in Great Britain
7
8 www.karnacbooks.com
911
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page v
111 CONTENTS
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 CONTRIBUTORS vii
1
2 FOREWORD 1
3 Eric Koops, LVO
4
5 INTRODUCTION OF SIR RICHARD BOWLBY 3
6 JOHN BOWLBY AND DONALD WINNICOTT:
7 COLLEGIAL COMRADES IN CHILD MENTAL HEALTH
8 Brett Kahr
9
30 FIFTY YEARS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY 11
1 Sir Richard Bowlby, Bt
2
3 INTRODUCTION OF PEARL KING 27
4 Brett Kahr
5
6 RECOLLECTIONS OF DONALD WINNICOTT
7 AND JOHN BOWLBY 31
8 Pearl King
911
v
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page vi
vi CONTENTS
CONTENTS vii
111 CONTRIBUTORS
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Sir Richard Bowlby, Bt. Richard Bowlby qualified in medical and
1 scientific photography in 1968 and, until he formally retired in 1999,
2 had a successful career illustrating medical research; in particular,
3 he helped to communicate the findings of the researchers with
4 whom he worked by producing photographs and academic video-
5 tapes. Since retiring, his main preoccupation has been to study and
6 disseminate more widely the work of his father, Dr John Bowlby,
7 the “begetter” of the body of knowledge which came to be known
8 as “Attachment Theory”. This argued that the ties formed between
9 child and parents (particularly the mother), from the child’s first
30 months and throughout the early years, crucially affect personality
1 development, particularly traits relating to self-confidence. To this
2 end, Sir Richard maintains contact internationally with workers
3 and organizations engaged in the field of child development and
4 has produced training videos on Attachment Theory for profes-
5 sionals. He lectures widely on the critical importance of early
6 attachments (sometimes referred to as “bonding”) and has become
7 involved with innovative, community-based projects designed to
8 help young parents and their families develop secure relationships
911 with each other.
vii
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page viii
viii CONTRIBUTORS
CONTRIBUTORS ix
111 Since 2000, the main focus of Clinic activities has been the wider
2 dissemination of the work and ideas of Dr Donald W. Winnicott
3 (1896–1971), the distinguished English paediatrician, child psychia-
4 trist and psychoanalyst, who made an outstanding contribution to
5 the understanding of the causes of mental illness, particularly in
6 infants and children. To this end, the Clinic established the
711 Winnicott Clinic Senior Research Fellowship in Psychotherapy and
8 Counselling, and the annual Donald Winnicott Memorial Lecture,
9 designed for a wide audience of professionals and others involved
10 with children. Lectures focus upon specific topics arising from
1 Winnicott’s life and ideas, in terms of relevance for twenty-first
2 century living.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
ix
Bowlby & King prelims reprint 5/24/06 4:55 PM Page x
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 1
CHAPTER TITLE 1
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Foreword
8
9
10 Eric Koops
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
211 s Chairman of the Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy my
1 task this evening is very simple: to welcome you to the
2 second Donald Winnicott Memorial Lecture, tell you a little
3 about Winnicott, and hand you over to Brett Kahr, who will intro-
4 duce the speakers. When we booked this particular venue we did
5 not anticipate a problem with numbers—but we had one; there
6 were 100 more applications than could be accommodated; that
7 alone is surely testimony to the nature of tonight’s topic and those
8 who are participating. It’s marvellous to see such a wide range in
9 age and interest represented in the audience. Thank you for being
30 here tonight.
1 We are a very small charitable trust and have, in the last two or
2 three years, focused our attention primarily on the work and ideas
3 of Donald Winnicott. In furtherance of that objective we have two
4 main activities: a Senior Research Fellowship—the first of which
5 was awarded to Brett Kahr, who is going to produce the definitive
6 biography of Donald Winnicott in, we hope, 2004–2005; the second
7 is this Memorial Lecture. We held our first such event almost
8 exactly a year ago; it was a remarkable evening. Giving the Lecture
911 was Dr Joyce McDougall, who spoke on the theme: “Donald
1
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 2
2 FOREWORD
111 Winnicott the Man: Reflections and Recollections”, which has now
2 been published on our behalf by Karnac Books, to whom we are
3 most grateful. We hope this is but the first in a long series of
4 published Winnicott Memorial Lectures, and that tonight’s deliber-
5 ations will be the second such publication.
6 May I draw your attention to our questionnaire. It is important
7 to us as we plan further Lectures to receive feedback from our audi-
8 ences; we welcome your thoughts and ideas. From talking to vari-
9 ous people this evening I know that an opportunity to meet others
10 working in the same fields but in different parts of the country is
1 valued; perhaps, if you think it worthwhile, we could begin a quar-
2 terly soirée—an occasion for people to get together to discuss
3 mutual interests; it depends on your response and comments will
4 be appreciated. Thank you.
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 3
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Introduction of Sir Richard Bowlby
8
9
10 Brett Kahr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 John Bowlby and Donald Winnicott: collegial comrades
1 in child mental health
2
H
3 aving inaugurated the annual Donald Winnicott Memorial
4 Lecture last year with a spirited talk by the Paris-based
5 psychoanalyst Dr Joyce McDougall, the members of the
6 organizing committee of The Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy
7 have trawled through our address books and memory banks in
8 order to find a suitable candidate to present the second annual
9 Lecture. One might think that we would be spoiled for choice, but
30 we have very exacting requirements. Above all, we wanted to find
1 a speaker who shared Dr Donald Winnicott’s passionate commit-
2 ment to the fields of infant mental health and child mental health,
3 and one who, like Winnicott, had worked relentlessly to dissemi-
4 nate psychological knowledge to the widest possible audience. We
5 strove to find a lecturer who thought outward, rather than inward,
6 and one who communicated with those rare Winnicottian qualities
7 of charm, generosity, graciousness, and warmth. We also needed to
8 find someone who could dare to follow in the famously zesty foot-
911 steps of Joyce McDougall.
3
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 4
111 We struck gold this year. We are quite gleeful with gratitude that
2 Sir Richard Bowlby accepted our invitation to deliver the second
3 annual Donald Winnicott Memorial Lecture sponsored by The
4 Winnicott Clinic of Psychotherapy. Sir Richard has never studied
5 psychology or psychoanalysis in the formal sense. Quite simply, he
6 did not need to, having absorbed the most important principles at
7 home, from a most reliable source, namely, his father, the late and
8 much missed Dr John Bowlby. Instead, Richard Bowlby has
9 devoted his professional life to the fields of medical illustration and
10 scientific photography, and he headed the Department of Medical
1 Illustration at the Royal Free Hospital and Royal Free Hospital
2 Medical School in the University of London for many years,
3 pioneering the use of video technology in the recording and trans-
4 mission of data that might otherwise lie moribund on the printed
5 pages of a journal.
6 Since his retirement from hospital work, Sir Richard has used
711 his unique background in medical illustration and video tech-
8 nology to educate increasingly large audiences around the world
9 about the fundamentals of the parent–infant bond, about the
20 importance of attachment theory, and about the development
1 of innovative community-based projects which help young people
2 and their families. Those who have met Sir Richard will recognize
3 the parallels with Donald Winnicott, both men who have treated
4 all enquiries with utter seriousness—both men who specialized in
511 offering exquisite and unstinting support to parents and children—
6 both men who endeavoured, with success, to bring psychology out
7 of the ghetto.
8 These Winnicottian characteristics have earned Sir Richard the
9 Chairmanship of the Trustees of the Centre for Attachment-Based
311 Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, one of the most progressive and
1 vibrant clinical training organizations in Great Britain, as well as an
2 Honorary Research Fellowship at the Attachment Unit of the
3 Department of Psychology at University College London, in the
4 University of London. He also delivered, among many other noted
5 talks, the inaugural lecture at the Centre for Child Mental Health,
6 in London.
7 Needless to say, Sir Richard’s family history as a member of the
8 Bowlby clan lends a certain poignancy to our proceedings, not only
911 as the son of the distinguished clinician, researcher, and author
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 5
111 Dr John Bowlby, but also because of the close historical links
2 between Bowlby and Winnicott. Sir Richard’s paternal grandfather,
3 Sir Anthony Bowlby, the eminent surgeon who attended King
4 George V, actually taught the young Donald Winnicott during his
5 medical studies at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London at some
6 point between 1917 and 1920. And Sir Richard’s father, Dr John
711 Bowlby, collaborated with Dr Donald Winnicott in many differ-
8 ent capacities throughout the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Both
9 Donald Winnicott and John Bowlby trained together at the fledgling
10 Institute of Psycho-Analysis in London during the early years of
1 psychoanalytical education in Great Britain, occasionally falling foul
2 of the Training Committee because of their progressive ideas
3 (Training Committee Minutes, 1926–1945). In 1939, both Bowlby and
4 Winnicott became contributors to Dr Ronald Gordon’s (1939) land-
5 mark edited text A Survey of Child Psychiatry, the very first British
6 book that used the words “child psychiatry” in its title, thus giving
7 shape to this new field of clinical endeavour. Also in 1939, John
8 Bowlby and Donald Winnicott joined forces with the child psychia-
9 trist Dr Emanuel Miller to co-author an important letter of deep
211 concern to the British Medical Journal, warning fellow Britons about
1 the potentially deleterious psychological sequelae of evacuating
2 children to the countryside, and of the damaging consequences of
3 separating children from their parents (Bowlby et al., 1939). Both men
4 also served as commentators upon the later infamous “blood-tie”
5 case involving child maltreatment (Bowlby, 1966a; Winnicott, 1966).
6 The links between Bowlby and Winnicott extend even further.
7 As the middle years of the twentieth century unfolded, both Bowlby
8 and Winnicott assisted one another in professional contexts,
9 by reviewing one another’s work in professional periodicals, or by
30 commenting upon one another’s work at scientific meetings (e.g.
1 Winnicott, 1953). Bowlby (1958) would personally invite Winnicott
2 to teach clinical seminars for the child psychotherapy trainees at the
3 Tavistock Clinic, in its old premises at 2 Beaumont Street in Central
4 London, and Winnicott (1959) would from time to time write to
5 Bowlby requesting a copy of some new article. When Winnicott
6 became aggrieved that a journalist had misrepresented him in a
7 national broadsheet, Bowlby (1966b) wrote to commiserate. And the
8 pair turned to one another for scientific encouragement. In 1961,
911 Bowlby wrote to Winnicott enquiring:
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 6
111 In one of your papers I seem to remember you describe a girl who
2 had suffered from enuresis following the death of a close relative.
3 My recollection is that you made an interpretation along the lines
4 that she had been very fond of the lost figure and that she then burst
into tears and her symptom cleared up. If I am right about this I
5
would be very grateful for the reference, as I would like to quote it
6
in the paper on which I am now working.
7
8 The unpublished correspondence between the two men, housed
9 partly in the Archives of Psychiatry in the Oskar Diethelm Library at
10 the Institute for the History of Psychiatry, at the Joan and Sanford
1 I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, in New York City,
2 and partly in the Pearl King Archives Trust, at the British Psycho-
3 analytical Society in London, reveals a warm and convivial relation-
4 ship which endured over many years (cf. Winnicott, 1966). At one
5 point, it even seems that Bowlby had planned to collaborate with
6 the educational psychologist Dr Ved Varma (1970) to edit a Fest-
711 schrift in honour of Winnicott’s seventy-fifth birthday, but alas, this
8 volume never materialized.
9 Donald Winnicott made a strong impression not only on Dr
20 John Bowlby, but also on Mrs Ursula Bowlby, the devoted spouse
1 of Dr Bowlby, and the mother of Sir Richard Bowlby. In 1957,
2 shortly after the publication of Winnicott’s landmark book
3 The Child and the Family: First Relationships, based on articles and
4 radio broadcasts intended for a general audience, Ursula Bowlby
511 (1957) wrote to congratulate Winnicott:
6
7 I just wanted to let you know how much I’ve enjoyed reading The
8 Child and the Family. As you know, I had already read The Ordinary
9 Devoted Mother and her Baby and admired it so much—indeed it has
311 been the only English book which I’ve felt able to recommend when
1 mothers have asked me for the name of a good baby-book. But that
2 was some time ago and I’ve very much enjoyed re-reading it, and I
find it just as recommendable and good.
3
4
Mrs Bowlby continued praising Winnicott:
5
6 Now I am busily recommending the book to all my friends and
7 relations, because it seems a tradition nowadays that every
8 educated mother should read at least one baby-book, and I am all
911 in favour of their reading a really good one.
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 7
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 11
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Fifty Years of Attachment Theory
8
9
10 Sir Richard Bowlby
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
211 am not a psychologist, I like to design racing cars. I lived close
1 to my father all my life: I lived with him, in the flat above him,
2 in the house next door to him, shared a boat on the south coast
3 and a holiday home on the Isle of Skye. I find that I remember more
4 about my father than I once realized. It was a psychiatrist who told
5 me that.
6 It is astonishing to me, as a layman, that Attachment Theory was
7 not greeted with a great chorus of “Hallelujah!, at last we have seen
8 the light.” It was not like that. It was a real struggle to get this
9 concept—one of the fundamentals of what makes us human—more
30 widely understood so that society could benefit. It is solidly based
1 on research and, after all, what is the point of doing research if
2 nobody knows about it? That makes it a waste of time. Even when
3 it is obscure, as much of it can be, research data is valuable. I have
4 spent much of my life trying to clarify research findings in medical
5 science and assist in their wider circulation. Eventually I quit my
6 job to communicate Attachment Theory in what I hope is a more
7 accessible way so that it could be more broadly understood.
8 What I want to do tonight is to recount some of the struggles
911 that Attachment Theory has had in gaining a wider acceptance.
11
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 12
111 It is fifty years since my father wrote Child Care and the Growth
2 of Love, and although Attachment Theory is now established as a
3 valuable working model in child development and mental health
4 circles, the general public’s knowledge of the concept of attachment
5 is notably lacking. From my position inside the family and outside
6 the professions, I am taking a critical look at what prevents the
7 dissemination of the valuable insights that Attachment Theory
8 could bring to the general public. For some years I have been
9 presenting recollections of my father’s professional struggle to
10 develop Attachment Theory, and some of the public’s misunder-
1 standings of what he wrote. Sometimes this has been because of the
2 emotional difficulties that they have with his work, and there are
3 also wider social issues which still prevent many people from
4 accepting Attachment Theory.
5 Probably the largest group consists of people fortunate enough
6 to have had a secure attachment, who have the confident expecta-
711 tion of repeating the cycle with their own children; for this group
8 the whole subject is so self-explanatory and obvious that it hardly
9 merits comment—unless things go wrong.
20 In a way I do not even like to call it Attachment Theory any
1 more; I prefer to call it research into bonding. For many people
2 “theory” means a vague, “anything goes”, sort of idea; it does not
3 have only the strict scientific definition which is to be found in the
4 dictionary.
511 The origin of my father’s motivation for working on this conun-
6 drum of the parent–child attachment relationship probably stems
7 from a traumatic event when he was about four years old. In 1911
8 his father was a successful surgeon who lived in a large London
9 town-house with his wife and six children. The normal arrange-
311 ment for child-care at that time was to have a senior nanny—she
1 was called Nana—and one or two nursemaids who helped out as
2 more children were born. My father was the fourth child; he had a
3 nursemaid called Minnie who had day-to-day responsibility for
4 him. The children rarely saw their father, except on Sundays and
5 holidays; and they only saw their mother for an hour a day between
6 5.00 and 6.00 in the evening. Effectively, these children had twenty-
7 three-hour a day good quality and non-parental care. My father
8 grew to love Minnie, who once told his sister that John was her
911 favourite, and my guess is that Minnie was his surrogate, principal
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 13
111 children who had been orphaned because of the Second World War.
2 The wide-ranging material that he gathered for the WHO report,
3 called Maternal Care and Mental Health, was published in 1951. The
4 main text of the report was used for his popular and controversial
5 paperback Child Care and the Growth of Love, written in 1952 and
6 published a year later. It used to be said about him: “Stick a pin in
7 Bowlby and out comes maternal deprivation!” At this point he was
8 still working with the material on orphans; he had not worked out
9 Attachment Theory. On the first page of both books he outlined the
10 conditions needed for the healthy development of children:
1
2 For the moment it is sufficient to say that what is believed to be
3 essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should
experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his
4
mother, or permanent mother substitute, in which both find satis-
5
faction and enjoyment.
6
711 However, only in the paperback does he clarify his use of the words
8 “permanent mother substitute” by adding: “one person who
9 steadily mothers him”. Nowhere did he clarify his use of the word
20 “continuous”, and this was to get him into a great deal of trouble
1 later on. It is worth noting here that if you look up the word
2 “attachment” in the index of Child Care and the Growth of Love, you
3 will not find it. He had not worked it out in 1952, and did not use
4 it in a publication until 1957.
511
6
7
8 Video clip of John Bowlby
9 What I noticed was that there were children who had been referred
311 for persistent thieving, truancy, and what I spotted was that they
1 had had very, very disrupted childhoods. A continuous relation-
2 ship between a mother and child in which both find happiness and
3 satisfaction, promotes mental health.
4
5 Notice again his use of the word “continuous”; he frequently used
6 it but did not distinguish between what he meant by “the enduring
7 relationship” from that of “unbroken contact”.
8 Child Care and the Growth of Love was primarily addressing chil-
911 dren’s experience of complete maternal deprivation, or prolonged
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 15
111 neighbour can be daily guardian, it may work out all right. But it
2 needs regularity, and it must be the same woman who cares for him.
3 It is the same with nannies. Nannies are valuable people, provided
4 they are good ones and provided they stay. It is the chopping and
5 changing of people in charge of a young child which upsets him. If
6 a mother hands over her baby completely to a nanny (as my father
7 was) she should realise that in her child’s eyes, Nanny will be the
8 real mother figure, not Mummy. This may be no bad thing, always
9 provided that the care is continuous, but for a child to be looked
after entirely by a loving nanny and then for her to leave when he
10
is two or three, or even four or five, can be almost as tragic as the
1
loss of a mother.
2
3 That’s straight autobiography! I do not think he realized it was the
4 word “continuous” that was the cause of the misunderstanding in
5 the first place. I think his own loss of Minnie must have created a
6 complete blind spot for him; otherwise, considering that the prime
711 purpose of his pamphlet was to clarify what he meant by “contin-
8 uous care”, he would surely have defined the word “continuous”.
9 I suspect he was so deeply affected by this experience of a discon-
20 tinued relationship that, to him, the meaning of a continuous rela-
1 tionship was so blindingly obvious and of such overpowering
2 significance that it never even occurred to him that it might need
3 defining. I would define his use of “continuous” (when applied to
4 a relationship) as an enduring relationship, lasting many years,
511 where periods of separation are shorter than would cause the child
6 distress or trauma. The length of the period will depend upon the
7 age of the child, the person with whom they are left, where they are
8 left, how often they are left, and also the child’s temperament and
9 the quality of his relationship with their principal attachment
311 figure—that is, the person who is leaving him.
1 The following video clip of my father is a bit confusing because
2 he makes a Freudian slip, an example of a lack of coherent narra-
3 tive: he refers to his mother as his grandmother.
4
5
6 Video clip of John Bowlby interview
7
8 Interviewer: “Do you think a nanny intervenes in the relationship
911 between a mother and her child?”
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 17
111 John Bowlby: “Not necessarily; only if one is jealous of the other
2 . . . but if each have their own role and the parents
3 see plenty of the children, there is no problem. I think
4 one of the problems nowadays is that nannies don’t
5 stay. I mean, in my day I had a nanny. I was one of
6 six children. Nanny came when my elder sister was a
711 baby and stayed until my grandmother died at the
8 age of ninety. She was part of the family, you see.
9 That was a way of life which has long since ceased;
10 I happened to notice just the other day that the Prin-
1 cess of Wales’ nanny had left after she was with the
2 family for four years; she has now left and that, I am
3 sure, is very unsettling for the two princes. Nannies
4 leaving can be very traumatic, especially if the chil-
5 dren have become very attached to them.”
6
7 Interviewer: “So time is the important thing rather than . . .?”
8
John Bowlby: “Continuity is one very important thing, and the
9
personal relationship between nanny and mother is
211
the other critical thing. If they each have their own
1
role it’s all right; if they compete, it’s all wrong.”
2
3
A fundamental principle of Attachment Theory is that people of all
4
ages show a preference for one primary attachment figure above all
5
others; this will usually shift from the primary attachment figure,
6
usually the birth mother but not necessarily, to a romantic partner
7
over time. For babies older than a few months, the primary attach-
8
9 ment figure is almost always the biological mother but it could be
30 anyone else who takes on the long-term commitment of raising the
1 child. My father told me how the arrangement of someone’s attach-
2 ment figures can be described as a pyramid: friends and familiar
3 neighbours at the base, secondary attachment figures above them,
4 and the primary attachment figure at the top. In Attachment
5 (Volume I) he comments that it may be confusing to refer to all of
6 them as “attachment figures”, and to all the behaviour as “attach-
7 ment behaviour”. He was keen to emphasize that we need multiple
8 attachment figures, but that they are arranged in a hierarchy. In
911 Separation (Volume II) he says:
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 18
111 His guiding principle was that: “If the theory doesn’t fit the
2 data, change the theory, not the data.” It took him years to develop
3 a theory of attachment that incorporated all the research data that
4 his colleagues had amassed; only then did he start to write the three
5 volumes. I think his forthright manner made him the champion of
6 those who felt supported by him, but a pariah to those who felt
7 threatened by his ideas; I fear there has been a limited meeting of
8 minds as a result.
9
10
1
Video clip of John Bowlby interview
2
3 John Bowlby: “About sixty per cent of mothers do a very good job,
4 so the majority of women have a good model to
5 follow—and there is an awful lot to be said for that.”
6 Interviewer: “So you are saying that 40 per cent do not do a good
711 job?”
8
John Bowlby: “I am.”
9
Interviewer: “And what does that mean?”
20
John Bowlby: “Well, it means a lot of mental ill-health and distur-
1
bance and delinquency and what have you.”
2
3
Well, that’s telling you! No wonder he had his battles! In taking up
4
this principle, I try to be as thoughtful and as considerate as I can,
511
but I do think that these issues have to be addressed. One cannot
6
just sweep great chunks of human nature under the carpet; these
7
are the chunks that make us who we are, that make us human. He
8
considered the best conditions for optimum mental health for chil-
9
dren under three years old were:
311
1 a resourceful parent (usually but not necessarily, the biological
2 mother) who was happy to stay at home, with adequate emotional,
3 practical and financial support, where both the parent and child
4 found satisfaction and enjoyment.
5
6 My wife, Xenia, was a full-time, stay-at-home mother; she is some-
7 times asked what it was like to live next door to John Bowlby and
8 bring up his grandchildren. She says that he only ever once gave
911 her advice. This was in 1968, when she was pregnant for the second
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 21
111 time and under some peer pressure to stop providing “‘comfort on
2 demand” for our two-year-old. (They said: “You’ll make a rod for
3 your own back.”) He said to her: “Carry on exactly as you are; take
4 no notice of what others say, you are doing it right.” I think that
5 may be a message for some of us to take away tonight. Our daugh-
6 ter Sophie and her husband Matt have recently had a baby and
711 bought a small house. They told us that when house-hunting, they
8 had drawn a three-mile circle around our house, and had only
9 looked at places inside that circle.
10 I now turn to some of the financial and emotional obstacles that
1 have made Attachment Theory so unpalatable to the public.
2 Humans have an insatiable appetite for knowledge and invention
3 aimed at making life better and easier. However, our genetically
4 inherited developmental needs remain unchanged. If we allow
5 them to be submerged by the lifestyle that technological and social
6 progress has made available, we get into trouble. I was born in 1941
7 and people of my age are now becoming grandparents; we can see
8 some of our children struggling to arrange their lives and afford the
9 lifestyle that they have grown to accept—the lifestyle and values
211 adopted by my generation. We need to look at the care of small chil-
1 dren from the perspective of their parents, the thirty-something
2 generation of new mothers and fathers.
3 Two big changes during my lifetime can be singled out. First is
4 the dramatic increase in wealth and living standards that much of
5 society enjoys, compared with the 1940s and 1950s when I was a
6 child in England. The second change is perhaps even more dram-
7 atic: the huge social and cultural changes brought about by the
8 equal opportunities movement in the 1970s. This opened up to a
9 much wider spectrum of society an array of social, educational,
30 and employment possibilities that had previously been closed on
1 grounds of race, gender, age, class, or creed. The consequent rise in
2 living standards and disposable income for a broad band of middle-
3 class young people raised their expectations very high. These
4 included good housing, transport, holidays, television, designer
5 clothes, mobile phones, central heating, entertainment and leisure
6 activities—not to mention PCs, CDs, plasma screens and all those
7 gizmos. These expectations have been created by my generation
8 and it is not unreasonable for my children to wish to provide these
911 high standards for their own families. However, they need to pay
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 22
111 most is time. The more hours spent away from parents, the
2 more likely is the child to have behavioural problems. . . . In no
3 case can the findings be described as strong, but a small impact on
4 many may be of far greater social significance than a large impact
on a few.
5
6
Many parents who have no choice but to work will find these
711
words painful, and will not want to hear them. I think there is a
8
similarity between the way my father was treated when he deliv-
9
ered his uncomfortable message many years ago and the way
10
Belsky is being treated today when he reports the more uncomfort-
1
able aspects of the NICHD day care study. I did, by the way, take
2
3 this quote to Belsky to check he was comfortable with my using the
4 piece; he confirmed that it was accurate and that he would stand by
5 it. When I likened the struggle that he was having to my father’s
6 struggle, he said: “I think it has something to do with the initials!”
7 There is currently a culture glorifying the independence of the
8 nuclear family who can make it on their own without being depen-
9 dent on anyone else, and of denigrating the inter-dependence of the
211 extended family. Peer pressure often encourages mothers to return
1 to work promptly, aided by attractive employment offers which
2 may not be available after a maternity break of several years. Many
3 young couples have made financial commitments which require
4 them both to return to work after the birth of a baby; there is often,
5 however, a dramatic shift in their feelings once the new baby
6 arrives, and they may come to regret entering into those commit-
7 ments. There are some positive reports about the advantages of
8 modern childcare arrangements that are reassuring to new parents:
9
30 ● Playing with other infants in day care helps the social devel-
1 opment of the child.
2 ● Infants have a better standard of living with two-income
3 parents.
4 ● Day care infants have a larger vocabulary and are more ready
5 for pre-school facilities.
6 ● Working parents are less depressed and isolated than stay-at-
7 home parents.
8 ● High-quality day care can compensate for a very poor family
911 environment.
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 24
111 attachment thinking as they understand it, and those who are
2 passionately in favour of their version of it. This destructive polar-
3 ization of opinion prevents the general public from getting a
4 balanced view of Attachment Theory. Let me summarize the four
5 main factors that I believe are preventing the knowledge of
6 Attachment Theory from becoming more widely accepted by the
7 general public:
8
9 1. Some people are securely attached and are comfortable with
10 their life choices, hence the topic is of little concern to them.
1 2. Some are confused by the widespread misrepresentation and
2 ridicule of my father’s work in the popular media.
3 3. Some have personal memories of painful childhood issues that
4 are awakened by the insights afforded by Attachment Theory.
5 4. Some are anxious about the long-term consequences that
6 limited parenting choices may have for their own children.
711
8 The research data on many aspects of Attachment Theory is now
9 unassailable. Somebody recently asked me if I had attended a “big
20 conference in Minneapolis”. I had not, and asked why I should
1 have gone there. The answer was: “It was astonishing; there were
2 3,500 people and the only show in town was your father’s work!”
3 Despite that, the way we have been communicating this knowledge
4 to the general public for the past fifty years has not been effective.
511 Many lay people are still mystified by the emotional and social
6 development of their children. For me, the challenge ahead is to
7 find new and appropriate ways to help ordinary men and women
8 to benefit from my father’s knowledge.
9
311
1 Vote of thanks by Brett Kahr
2
3 Thank you very much, Sir Richard. I think we all realize how lucky
4 we are—those of us who practise in the fields of psychology, coun-
5 selling, psychoanalysis, or psychotherapy—that Sir Richard has
6 now retired from his post at the Royal Free Hospital, and therefore
7 may devote himself full-time to the furtherance of his research. He
8 has actually given a great gift to those of us who work as mental
911 health professionals.
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 27
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Introduction of Pearl King
8
9
10
Brett Kahr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
W
211 e have a further treat tonight. Pearl King has kindly
1 accepted our invitation to follow Sir Richard Bowlby this
2 evening, and to share with us her personal and unique
3 reminiscences of both Donald Winnicott, the man, and John Bowlby,
4 the man. Pearl is one of the few people alive today who worked very
5 closely with both, and who knew each of them in a variety of
6 contexts. It is vitally important for those of us who are students,
7 entering the psychoanalytical or psychotherapeutic field for the first
8 time, confronted by an often confusing and overwhelming array of
9 historical personalities, to begin to learn about competing theories
30 by first understanding the man or the woman behind these theories.
1 In this spirit, we have called upon Pearl King to provide us with
2 some biographical meat and potatoes, if you will, something to
3 underpin our knowledge of these two towering figures in the
4 burgeoning disciplines of infant and child mental health.
5 Pearl King occupies a unique position in the international
6 psychoanalytical movement. She has practised as a psychoana-
7 lyst for over fifty years, having become the very first non-
8 medical President of the British Psycho-Analytical Society, and
911 having served as Secretary to the International Psycho-Analytical
27
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 28
111 Association as well. She recently received the Sigourney Award, the
2 highest honour that one can earn in the field of psychoanalysis,
3 arguably the psychoanalytical equivalent of an Academy Award or
4 the BAFTA, for lifetime achievement. Not only a psychoanalyst of
5 great clinical renown—one of the most popular teachers, super-
6 visors, and mentors—within the British mental health community,
7 she will also be well-known to us as an exceptional historian of
8 psychoanalysis, and as the founder of the Archives of the British
9 Psycho-Analytical Society, recently renamed as The Pearl King
10 Archives Trust in commemoration of the important work that she
1 has done to keep the history of psychoanalysis alive. Her wonderful
2 book, co-authored with Professor Riccardo Steiner, The Freud–Klein
3 Controversies: 1941–45 (King & Steiner, 1991), remains a work of
4 exceptional scholarship, translated into many languages around the
5 world. Only a short while ago, Miss King received the very exciting
6 news that a Chinese translation would be appearing in print before
711 too long. This will be followed by an edition of her collected papers,
8 currently in preparation, which will be published by Karnac Books.
9 During a recent research trip to New York City, I found another
20 interesting letter. Pearl herself may not have seen this letter since
1 1961. It is a letter that Donald Winnicott wrote to Pearl King about
2 John Bowlby. At that time, Pearl served as the Chairman of the
3 Publications Committee of the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, and in
4 this capacity wrote to Dr Winnicott asking what he would think
511 about including a book by John Bowlby in the International Psycho-
6 Analytical Library. Winnicott (1961) wrote:
7
8 From several quarters I have heard that Dr. Bowlby might be offer-
9 ing a book to the Library for publication. Any book by Bowlby
311 would be a profitable book to publish and would be read all over the
1 world in places where psycho-analysis is scarcely read at all.
2 Nevertheless I think that it is unlikely that one of Bowlby’s books, of
3 which he has given us samples, would qualify for publication in the
4 International Library, and I doubt whether the Society would be
5 satisfied if it were found that Dr Bowlby’s offer of a book had been
6 accepted.
7
8 In this respect, Winnicott alluded to the tension felt by many psy-
911 choanalysts at that time, who believed that Bowlby had abandoned
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 29
30 PEARL KING
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Recollections of Donald Winnicott
8
9
and John Bowlby
10
1
2
Pearl King
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
211 could not help thinking, while I was listening to Sir Richard,
1 how a cousin of mine who was a medical missionary in India
2 once said to me: “This Dr Bowlby, you know, I think that the
3 devil must have got into him!” It was enough to make one feel very
4 worried and wonder what else this man would come up with. You
5 see, my cousin had gone to India as a medical missionary, leaving
6 two of her children, one of whom was a “blue” baby, at home to be
7 looked after by relatives.
8 At that time many more people worked abroad in the mission-
9 field where it was not very easy to keep their children with them.
30 Their usual response to their dilemma was: “God called me to go
1 abroad; I am doing His will; He will look after the children!”
2 I have some personal experience in this context, for I “lost” my
3 mother, and my father, so to speak, when I was four years old. My
4 parents were Christian missionaries and they went abroad to East
5 Africa, taking my new baby brother with them and leaving me
6 behind with a family of four cousins, two older and two younger
7 than me. I lived with them for four years and they became my
8 “family”. When I was eight years old, my parents returned from
911 abroad and I “lost” my family; in return, I was left with a sad little
31
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 32
32 PEARL KING
111 boy who did not know how to play and often cried. After a year,
2 my parents returned to Africa and I was sent, together with my
3 five-year-old brother, to a boarding-school.
4 I was most upset about losing the family of cousins who had
5 become my “family”. This boarding-school accepted only children
6 of active CMS missionaries, so that we all shared a common
7 “trauma”, i.e., that of separation from parents for years, with no
8 family life in the holidays. After a year or two at the school, feeling
9 rather dumped and unwanted, some of us decided to organize
10 ourselves into groups, in which we were protected from the bully-
1 ing tactics of unhappy classmates.
2 It is now interesting to me to see how a group of children,
3 treated in this way, worked out together a way of making up for the
4 loss, or temporary absence, of their real family. There is no doubt
5 that we formed ourselves into “extended families”. The lesson that
6 I draw from this experience is that even though many colleagues
711 (including John Bowlby) would regard the situation in which we
8 grew up as potentially traumatic, it turned out better than might be
9 expected, because those involved took the trouble to “work out”
20 how best to cope in that situation. True, we were “merely” children,
1 but we had the capability of realizing that we needed extended and
2 continuing relationships and we created them for ourselves.
3 Anyone who knows anything about my professional activities
4 would recognize that I have been forming “groups” to protect
511 people, or promote ideas, ever since!
6 Today I am here to talk about Donald Winnicott and John
7 Bowlby. They were both very good friends of mine. I worked with
8 both of them in the British Psycho-Analytical Society (BPAS) and I
9 accomplished much good work with each of them. Following a
311 period of “unrest” and “problems” in the Society, in 1956 John was
1 elected Deputy President and I was elected as Honorary Business
2 Secretary. John was very convinced about the importance of an
3 institution having an appropriate structure and together we
4 managed to introduce some new procedures into the Society
5 and to put in place a structure that would give protection to its
6 members.
7 In preparation for this evening, I consulted records, including
8 Minutes of the Society and its Annual Reports, to see what Donald
911 was doing at this time when John was Deputy President. To my
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 33
111 surprise, I saw that Donald was then the President of the Society. It
2 seemed very odd that I should have forgotten that, until I remem-
3 bered that Donald Winnicott, on the whole, did not like committee
4 meetings and that is probably why we had comparatively little
5 contact. Although he was a member of the Council, he did not have
6 to attend its meetings. He chaired the Scientific Meetings and left
711 John and me to carry on the business of the Society.
8 After a year working together, John Bowlby was invited to
9 spend a year at Palo Alto, in the States, doing research and writing.
10 William Gillespie, another person who cared deeply about people
1 and the importance of good organization, was elected, at the AGM
2 in July 1957, as Deputy President—and therefore as Chairman of
3 the Board and Council—with myself as Business Secretary again.
4 What I had not bargained for was that at the Paris Congress of the
5 International Psycho-Analytical Association (IPA) in 1957 he was to
6 be elected as President of that organization and that he would
7 choose me as its Honorary Secretary!
8 While John was abroad, he began putting psychoanalytic theory
9 through a very tough questioning, with the aim of seeing how
211 theory could help with what he had been discovering in his work
1 with children and with the ideas he was beginning to conceptual-
2 ize. When he returned to the UK in 1958 he began writing all those
3 papers that were to cause him so many problems with his profes-
4 sional peers. Over the next few years he read a number of his
5 papers to the Scientific Meetings of the Society. One paper was
6 discussed at three successive meetings; another occupied two
7 consecutive meetings. Sadly, at that time we did not record our
8 scientific discussions; although we know who spoke at the meet-
9 ings, we have no written record of what was said. If they had been
30 recorded, people’s reactions to John’s controversial papers would
1 now make interesting reading. It was a very anxious time for the
2 Society, especially for those members who had their own particular
3 point of view and expected other people to follow it.
4 To return to the time when John returned from Palo Alto in 1958,
5 he was again elected as Deputy President, a position which he held
6 for another three years. He continued to serve the Society in that
7 role, while I withdrew from the Council to work as Honorary
8 Secretary of the IPA with William Gillespie. Once I was no longer a
911 member of the Society’s Board and Council, my only contact with
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 34
34 PEARL KING
111 John for the next three years was when I attended his research
2 discussion groups on the effects of separation on children.
3 On the occasion of John’s eightieth birthday, I insisted on reading
4 a paper about his contributions to the Society and Institute (King,
5 1987). I decided that although many colleagues had not been able to
6 appreciate him earlier, at least they would now have to spend a
7 whole hour listening to me describing all the things he had done for
8 us. He was present for this meeting, and indeed the whole family
9 was there. The fact that this event took place was a little unusual.
10 I like to think that it was an attempt to say sorry to him for the
1 unkind way he had been treated by some members of the Society.
2 When John died, Eric Rayner and I wrote his obituary (King &
3 Rayner 1993) and insisted that it was published in the International
4 Journal of Psycho-Analysis; it ran to six pages. We felt that all mem-
5 bers of the IPA who read that journal should be made aware of his
6 achievements—and that those who had been unable to reach some
711 kind of accommodation with his ideas could have another chance
8 to do so. To us, it was curious that John’s work and thinking was
9 known all over both Americas and elsewhere, and that people
20 outside the UK seemed to know better than most of our members
1 how useful his contributions had been and what research they had
2 inspired.
3 I first got to know Donald Winnicott quite well in 1951, after I
4 had qualified. I asked him to supervise a child case for me. He
511 selected a severely traumatized four-year-old boy, who tried to beat
6 me up from time to time. However, in the end that child did very
7 well and I learned so much from Donald. Not only did I get to know
8 him, but I started to understand his way of thinking about problems
9 and psychoanalysis. At one time when I was treating this child,
311 I became quite frightened of the boy, who was really quite strong!
1 What helped me to deal with my fears was Winnicott’s comment
2 to me: “You’ll be all right, Pearl,” he said, “provided he doesn’t
3 think he is God. When a child thinks he’s God, he never misses!”
4 It was some years later when we again worked together, this
5 time as members of the BPAS Council. For a period of twelve years
6 either John Bowlby, Donald Winnicott or I were on the Council of
7 the BPAS. At one period when I was Deputy President and
8 Winnicott was President, we discussed beforehand what matters to
911 bring up at Council. At that time, I lived in Great Cumberland
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 35
111 Place, Marble Arch, which he passed on his way to his home near
2 Victoria. Sometimes he would give me a lift to my flat. I recall that
3 after one Council meeting when I had been chatting, as one does,
4 about a topic which interested me, he offered me a lift home. When
5 we were in the car, quite suddenly, out of the blue, he said: “If only
6 Melanie Klein had once, just once, said to me that she had learned
711 something from Donald Winnicott, I would be satisfied.” I replied:
8 “How very sad for her, because she cut herself off from so much
9 learning that she could have enjoyed.”
10 It was indeed sad to realize that in the BPAS at that time we had
1 Anna Freud, who had expert knowledge of children in the latency
2 period; Melanie Klein, who had set her sights on very young chil-
3 dren, trying to analyse them and so had a lot to give; Winnicott,
4 who had so much experience to share, gained from his clinic; and
5 then there was John, who had also gained much experience in Child
6 Guidance Clinics and his research on mother–child relationships.
7 They were all giants in their own particular way. Yet they seemed
8 so often to be either at odds with each other, or indifferent to each
9 other’s work. They never seemed to share experiences or exchange
211 information.
1 I am now in my eighty-fifth year, and looking back on fifty years
2 of working with these exceptionally gifted people, I think about
3 what could have happened had there been more co-operation, or
4 even just friendliness, between them all. I am sure that it would
5 have been tremendous and so beneficial for everyone in the Society,
6 especially for those working with children.
7 Winnicott had great difficulty in persuading any of his
8 colleagues to let him come into contact with the teaching side of the
9 Institute of Psycho-Analysis. He was allowed three evenings a year.
30 He complained to Sylvia Payne, and later to Adam Limentani,
1 because he could not build up a relationship with students when he
2 only had three seminars a year in which to do so.
3 I wonder what his colleagues were afraid of? Could it be that
4 they were afraid their own students would pick up Winnicott’s way
5 of letting himself think about what was being said at Scientific
6 Meetings, instead of just checking to see whether or not a speaker
7 followed their party line? Alongside criticizing those who con-
8 tributed to discussions, Winnicott encouraged colleagues to think
911 for themselves; he urged that when they reported their work, they
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 36
36 PEARL KING
111 should do more than simply copy the ideas of their own training
2 analyst. In 1954 he wrote to Roger Money-Kyrle as follows:
3
4 I found myself getting annoyed talking to you last night. I did not
5 want to leave it like that as I have a great respect for you, and not
a little affection. I think what irritated me was that I faintly detected
6
in your attitude this matter of a party line, a matter to which I am
7
allergic. Your own opinion is what I asked for. . . . When people like
8 Marion Milner, or myself for that matter, write papers, we do not
9 write them in order to show each time that we have grasped
10 Melanie Klein’s contributions to theory, but we write them because
1 of an original idea that needs ventilating.’[Rodman, 1987]
2
3 The message that Winnicott seems to be trying to convey to adher-
4 ents and their students, if only they would learn it from him, was
5 how much more pleasure they could experience if they dared to
6 have a more open mind by allowing themselves to see the whole
711 context in which their patients struggled, which included external
8 settings and relationships as well as their inner world. I suspect
9 that John’s interest in the external relationships was something that
20 did not win him friends in the Society; people used to tut-tut about
1 him, saying he did not place enough emphasis on “the inner
2 world”.
3 Winnicott seemed happier with his colleagues when he was
4 President of the Society. He was elected after the Freud Centenary
511 in 1956 and held office until 1959. During the time I worked with
6 him, while Secretary to the BPAS, he was deeply concerned about
7 raising money for a new child clinic, following the gift of $1,000
8 from Pryns Hopkins, who had helped Ernest Jones to start the adult
9 clinic in 1926. The child clinic was opened in 1960.
311 Winnicott understood the importance of parties for his
1 colleagues, in contrast with the rather precious attitudes of some of
2 them. I remember particularly his pleasure in the party he helped
3 to arrange for Melanie Klein’s seventy-fifth birthday. This was
4 followed by a party for Joan Riviere’s seventieth birthday in 1958—
5 which was more tricky to organize because Joan Riviere did not
6 want to invite Melanie Klein to it. I think Paula Heimann helped
7 to sort the situation out and Mrs Klein came to it for a short time.
8 In 1966 Winnicott had his seventieth birthday. He and Clare put on
911 the best party at Mansfield House that I have ever attended. We
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 37
111 ate and danced, then sat on the floor and listened to Joan Baez
2 singing.
3 Winnicott also successfully campaigned for funds to commem-
4 orate Freud with a statue of himself by Oscar Nemon, cast in
5 bronze and erected outside Swiss Cottage Library. He and Anna
6 Freud unveiled this in October 1970. The statue has now been
711 moved to stand outside the Tavistock Clinic in Belsize Lane.
8 Another period when Donald and I worked particularly closely
9 together was when he was appointed Chairman of the Sponsoring
10 Committee of the Finnish Psychoanalytical Society and I was
1 appointed Honorary Secretary to the Committee. The task of the
2 Sponsoring Committee was to set up interim training arrangements
3 for the Finnish candidates so that they could train as psychoana-
4 lysts during the period until the Study Group became a Component
5 Society of the International Psychoanalytical Association. This
6 training role, perhaps, made up a little for Donald having been
7 excluded from participating in the training activities of the British
8 Society; I hope so.
9 While he was working with our Finnish colleagues, Winnicott
211 announced that he was going to present a case that had not gone
1 very well. He explained to me that he did this so that the students
2 could feel that they, too, could make mistakes; he wanted them to
3 understand that this would not matter, provided they were firmly
4 rooted in the spirit of the psychoanalytic tradition, rather than just
5 following the letter of it. I saw this as his independent mind at work
6 (King, 2000). Most people in his position would want to show how
7 clever they were! One very important thing that I learned from
8 working with Winnicott on this project was how important it was
9 to leave enough space around individuals who were learning, for
30 them to be able to think for themselves, and for them in turn to
1 learn to leave enough space around their patients for them—so
2 that both could discover their own unique way of thinking and
3 working creatively.
4
5
6 References
7
8 King, P. (1987). John Bowlby’s contributions to the British Psycho-
911 analytical Society and its organisation. Scientific Bulletin of the British
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 38
38 PEARL KING
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Questions to Sir Richard Bowlby
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Group 1
1
W
2 hy is it that the work and ideas of Dr Bowlby are so
3 much more widely known and practised in the United
4 States than here? Is this simply a cultural matter, or is it
5 because American society is, on the whole, very much more orien-
6 tated towards psychoanalytic theories generally? Are Americans
7 much quicker than us to accept new ideas? Is there any specific
8 reason, for example, that childcare arrangements for my daughter-
9 in-law, who is resident in America, are very much based on
30 Attachment Theory?
1
2 1. The reason my father’s work and ideas are so much wider-known and
3 practised in the United States than in the United Kingdom—so much so
4 that many child care arrangements are very closely based on his
5 Attachment Theory—is probably a cultural phenomenon. Americans are
6 more orientated towards psychoanalytic theories generally, and their way
7 of thinking is more attuned to taking on new ideas. I recall an American
8 saying to me (and this is not at all PC): “Don’t forget, Richard, nearly
911 every American has come from a disrupted background—and those who
39
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 40
40 QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS 41
111 will be very tough indeed for a child, because he will forever have as part
2 of his past the knowledge that one of his parents walked out on him.
3 We raise defence mechanisms in order to ward off pain; that reaction
4 is natural and very powerful; it helps us to cope; it can be too difficult, too
5 painful, to consider the effects on the child; we avoid thinking about it very
6 deeply. But defence mechanisms are blunt instruments. We can decide to
711 chop out one element in our lives, but it not possible surgically to excise
8 just that one piece; a lot of useful stuff goes as well. It is a problem, and
9 a growing problem. It affects not just individual families but society as a
10 whole. We all, not just the specialist groups here tonight, would benefit
1 from greater insights into this painful area—and it is an area where I
2 believe that Attachment Theory has much to offer by way of improving
3 understanding of what is happening to children experiencing family break-
4 down. We need to find ways to communicate better with the general public
5 about bonding, and how children can be helped through this most difficult
6 period.
7
8
9
211 Group 3
1 We who work in the counselling field are aware of the need for
2 better guidance as we seek to help split families, which involve chil-
3
dren; what, for example, are the in-depth, long-term effects of chil-
4
dren losing their primary attachment figure? What are the
5
implications of the current shortage of good childcare facilities? Do
6
we know the long-term effects on children who enter the education
7
system while still very young. Does losing carer continuity, for
8
example when staff change, have a detrimental effect on children’s
9
development? What are the long-term effects of the current fashion
30
in education of regular and frequent testing of children (which is a
1
form of competition) right from a early age?
2
3 3. The Scandinavian system of day care for young children is rather like
4 that which exists in many parts of America. Although young children go
5 to school, they do not do what is generally considered in this country as
6 “school-work”. To a casual outside observer, it looks as if they are playing.
7 In fact, certainly in Scandinavia, the teacher is facilitating the children’s
8 acquisition of interpersonal skills; they are learning to co-operate, to use
911 adults when needed and to engage their co-operation to solve problems
41
Bowlby & King/1st proofs 5/2/04 11:21 am Page 42
42 QUESTIONS
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Envoi
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Brett Kahr
1
P
2 lease join me in giving a warm vote of thanks to our two
3 speakers this evening, Sir Richard Bowlby, and Miss Pearl
4 King. We have had a marvellous fusion of the historical
5 Winnicott and the historical Bowlby, with the contemporary appli-
6 cations of their evergreen contributions.
7
8
9 Eric Koops
30
1 I am indeed grateful to the speakers tonight. Each of us will take
2 away our own memories of what has been said, and each of us will
3 have gained a particular and personal insight into the various
4 matters we have discussed. That, above all, is the value of gather-
5 ings such as this. We hope that we, in our small way, have done
6 something useful in enabling this general sharing of experience in
7 an interesting field, in bringing together people of like mind. Thank
8 you all for coming.
911
43