To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.
DOUBLE TAB TO ZOOM ON PHONE OR TABLET Introduction (representing the nature half of the debate) and sociologists (repre- senting the nurture half of the debate) agreed was the premise that babies loved their mothers because mothers were the source of sucking and hunger satisfaction. Usually at odds with each other’s perspective, both agreed that mothers nurtured these natural needs, and that feeding and sucking were the primary force behind an infant’s bond to the mother. Bowlby, Spitz, and Ainsworth began discussions on the impact of relational factors as important parts of healthy development. Their work was furthered in 1958 by that of the psychologist Harry Harlow, now famous for his study of rhesus monkeys. Harlow ques- tioned the psychoanalytic community’s long-held belief that the reason babies loved their mothers was connected to feeding (1958). (I explain his experiments involving infant monkeys and their mothers in chapter 1.) Harlow’s work opened the door to consider- ing relationships in the early months and years of life. Feeding practices, bonding, rooming in, and other attachment- related issues became hotly debated in professional circles and neighborhood parent groups as researchers, clinicians, and practi- tioners in the 1950s and 1960s spent more and more time focusing on the importance of early relationships. Contributions of people like John Kennell and Marshall Klaus in the United States and Dr. Frédérick Leboyer in France had powerful and positive effects on changes in birthing practices. In the United States at the time, many practices in childbirth and infant care prioritized efficiency over the best interests of infants and families. New mothers were urged to bottle-feed their infants. Marketers went so far as to promote stuffed toy bottle props to free mothers from hours of holding and feeding their new infants. Automated swings and audio cassettes of lullabies were offered to replace long hours of rocking and singing. These “improvements” may have allowed the new parents to know the exact per ounce intake at a feeding, and the swings were definitely a blessing for busy moms who could not manage older children and a crying infant at the same time. However, these ideas did nothing to pro- mote positive outcomes for babies. The renewed energy and focus on supportive practices for families and babies of the 1970s were an overdue improvement. 11 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL