For the last week of December, we’re re-posting some of our favorite posts from 2012. Cross-posted at The Huffington Post.
All that rot they teach to children about the little raindrop fairies with their buckets washing down the window panes must go. We need less sentimentality and more spanking.
Or so said Granville Stanley Hall, founder of child psychology, in 1899. Hall was one of many child experts of the 1800s who believed that children needed little emotional connection with their parents.
Luther Emmett Holt, who pioneered the science of pediatrics, wrote a child rearing advice book in which he called infant screaming “the baby’s exercise.” “Babies under six months old should never be played with,” he wrote, “and the less of it at any time the better for the infant.”
Holt and Granville’s contemporary, John B. Watson, wrote a child advice book that sold into the second half of the 1900s. In a chapter titled “Too Much Mother Love,” he wrote:
Never hug and kiss them, never let them sit in your lap. If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say goodnight. Shake hands with them in the morning.
…
When you are tempted to pet your child remember that mother love is a dangerous instrument. An instrument which may inflict a never-healing wound, a wound which may make infancy unhappy, adolescence a nightmare, an instrument which may wreck your adult son or daughter’s vocational future and their chances for marital happiness.
With these quotes in mind, it seems less surprising that we put adolescents to work in factories and coal mines.
In any case, it was in this context — one in which loving one’s child was viewed suspiciously, at best, and nurturing care both psychologically and physically dangerous — that psychologist Harry Harlow did some of his most famous experiments. In the 1960s, using Rhesus monkeys, he set about to prove that babies needed more than just food, water, and shelter. They needed comfort and even love. While this may seem stunningly obvious today, Harlow was up against widespread beliefs in psychology.
This video shows one of the more basic experiments (warning, these videos can be hard to watch):
The need for these experiments reveals just how dramatically conventional wisdom can change. The psychologists of the time needed experimental proof that physical contact between a baby and its parent mattered. Harlow’s experiments were part of a revolution in thinking about child development. It’s quite fascinating to realize that such a revolution was ever needed.
Special thanks to Shayna Asher-Shapiro for finding Holt, Hall, and Watson for me.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 34
Hatsmuggler — September 5, 2012
I find it amusing that, as a psychology student, I actually remember the Watson quote from Anne of Ingleside.
Larry Charles Wilson — September 5, 2012
Is there any evidence of how widely Mothers and Fathers (regardless of class) followed the advice of these psychologists?
Village Idiot — September 5, 2012
With these quotes in mind, it seems less surprising that we put adolescents to work in factories and coal mines.
They make the fact that World War I and World War II happened seem less surprising, too. Since these "ideas" about child development worked so well as retroactive justification for how children were being treated in the context of industrialization, they were probably motivated partly by some subconscious guilt about its horrors (or something like that). Subconscious or not, the guilt may have been mitigated by these clearly-pathological ideas, but the damage to the kids was not and they grew up with that damage into the adults who determined the direction of their respective societies. Thanks a bunch, Mr. Hall.
But anyway, such counter-intuitive, ice-cold ideas about raising children would almost certainly be very popular in all the countries taking part in the Industrial Revolution. That makes me really curious if they were also well-known and widely accepted in Europe in the generations that grew up just before the continent exploded (twice). Since Freud agreed with Hall, I bet they were.
Also, Hall could be described as a proto-Nazi in that he was (according to Wikipedia): "...deeply wedded to the German concept of Volk, an anti-individualist and authoritarian romanticism in which the individual is dissolved into a transcendental collective." Sound familiar? Raise kids with that lunacy while denying them any semblance of basic human affection and it seems to me to be a miracle that WWII was as short as it was (probably just poor planning).
It's a Brave New World after all. Where the hell's my Soma®?!?
[On an unrelated note, I got a kick out of this line from the wiki page about G. Stanley Hall: "After Hall graduated with his doctorate, there were no academic jobs available in psychology..." Some things never change, apparently]
Jamy Barab — September 5, 2012
That is the saddest video I've ever seen. How could the researchers stand to be around all those suffering creatures? I wonder if they "tainted" the results by holding the monkeys?
What is the origin of the idea that children are hurt by affection?
Tusconian — September 5, 2012
These experiments in pysch class really explained the vast difference in attitude that my mother and her aunts held when I was growing up. My mother was often chastised by her aunts for "spoiling" me by holding me "too much" (before I could walk on my own) and not beating her students, instead sending them to the office, making them stand in the hall, or making them write apologies when they misbehaved. My grandmother, who was significantly younger than her sisters-in-law, was certainly not the cuddly-wuddly mother of the 90s, and never shied away from a spanking, but had no trouble hugging, carrying, or otherwise "spoiling" a child who wasn't misbehaving. It's definitely very generational, and experiments like this were probably a lot of what shaped her as a mother, and, later, my mother.
Kelly H — September 6, 2012
I looked the monkey thing up on wikipedia (slow internets, fast reader, limited patience) and discussed it with my mother, and she said that my (paternal) grandmother had advised her against holding me 'too much' or "you'll spoil it". This was in the 80s, decades after these experiments, and she was still saying the things they disproved.
Interrobang — September 6, 2012
I really have to wonder how much of that was rationalization to protect the parents. When you live in a world where one in ten babies die of diphtheria alone (as they did in the late 1800s), being distant might be a coping mechanism. Do we know how many of Hall and Holt's children died before the age of four?
ItsAlwaysNatureANDNurture — September 6, 2012
The focus on "nurture" in the post is interesting, because one of the main points of the study is to demonstrate the importance of "nature", and how evolved systems usually integrate information from the environment to "facultatively adjust" behavior.
We come "preprogrammed" to prioritize contact comfort because offspring separation from parents = extremely high risk of death in primates. In humans, stranger anxiety and attachment displays spike markedly around 6 months after birth, when infants can crawl and be potentially separated from their parents. Infants show the same patterns of anxious response when separated from their mothers, whether they are human, gorilla, chipmanzee, or orangutan.
Like most evolved psychological systems, the system is designed to take the local context into account - the exact pattern of attachment will depend on the cues the infant is getting from the environment about safety and reliability of comfort.
The Adjunct — September 6, 2012
Did anyone else notice that the baby monkey didn't let go of the human researcher until the researcher pushed? The cloth "mother" was what baby held if the researcher pushed hard enough.
It makes me think of nannies. I wonder whether nannies became the equivalent of "cloth mothers" or whether they bought into this school of child rearing, too.
Morgothy — September 7, 2012
I think the account given above of theories of child development is extremely flawed and inaccurate and poorly researched, the more I think of it. The notion that Granville Stanley Hall's book from 1899 could persist right the way through as child rearing canon to these experiments in the 1960s is completely unsupported. It's especially questionable to act like these experiments were what 'proved' things one way or the other. There were child rearing texts at various points which advocated catering for children's emotional needs and being kind to babies. Between 1899 and the 1960s there had already been a change towards considering babies' emotion needs. These experimenters were not boldly challenging the canonical ideas of the time.
Consider this quote from 1950-
"The
past two decades [1930-1950] have witnessed a revolution in child training
practices in America which has been tremendous in its scope and far‑reaching
in its effects. From an era where the mother was taught that the child must
have its physical wants cared for and then be left alone, must be fed on a
rigid schedule, must learn to cry it out, must be toilet trained early and must
not be spoiled by attention, we have come to a time when exactly the opposite
advice is advocated. Today the mother is advised to feed the baby when he's
hungry, to delay toilet training until he's ready for it, to see that the baby
gets a reasonable amount of cuddling and mothering, to let the baby initiate
the weaning process. And just as a mother of 1930 was taught that the popular
doctrine of 1930 would produce the right kind of child, so the mother of today
is assured that if she weans and toilet trains and cuddles in the approved
fashion, her child will have a well‑adjusted personality (Stendler 1950,
p.122)."
And what of Dr Benjamin Spock, whose work was first published in 1946, and who surely was and is one of the most influential figures in child development, who was extremely important in changing attitudes to parents towards considering children's needs and emotions?
Love and the Cause of Revolution « Cathi Carol — November 13, 2012
[...] punishing parenting style was first recommended to the reading public by the creator of child psychology, Granville Stanley [...]
Pedogyny: the hatred of children. « The Prime Directive — November 30, 2012
[...] but is rather a historical phenomenon that has been the dominant worldview on child-raising from the last century to the previous millenia. Like misogyny, it has been a near-universal principle of social [...]
Neglectful Parenting Excused by Drug-Expert Psychiatrist « Cathi Carol — December 2, 2012
[...] Proving the Necessity of Nurture Lisa Wade, The Society Pages, September 5, 2012 [...]
How Do You Raise Independent, Self-Sufficient Children? « Cathi Carol — December 2, 2012
[...] Proving the Necessity of Nurture Lisa Wade, The Society Pages, September 5, 2012 [...]
Should A Son Ask His Abusive Father For Money? « Cathi Carol — December 2, 2012
[...] Proving the Necessity of Nurture Lisa Wade, The Society Pages, September 5, 2012 [...]
Guest — December 30, 2012
Harlower was a monkey f***er.
shorelines — December 30, 2012
We have scientific evidence that children thrive with the close physical nurture of their parents, and yet we find it completely appropriate - even noble in the case of the poor parents - to send six-week-old infants to day cares where they spend the majority of their days competing with 5, 6 sometimes even 9 or more other children for the attention of a representative of the lowest paid profession in our economy. We do not value the work of nurturing and it will continue to undo us.
Guest — December 30, 2012
Harry Harlow, the Pit of Despair fella? I'm guessing most of his stuff will fall under hard to watch.
Mars — June 6, 2019
Imagine that Harlow had access to an unwanted, redheaded, just weaned 11 week old infant....but there are some things too horrible to imagine, so I guess that one stays in the box.