“I have only recently found your blog and been introduced to Magda Gerber‘s RIE approach and I must say a lot of it really resonates with me and makes beautiful sense! I have to admit I’m having a little trouble with the concept of child-led play though. I’m also taken with the Attachment Parenting style which highly advocates baby-wearing and letting the child experience your day with you. They also advocate high touch/less STUFF (so in that way the concepts are similar), and I’m not sure how the styles would mesh. A lot of what I’m reading about RIE makes total sense to me but AP parenting does as well, and while a lot of it cohabitates beautifully I’m not quite sure how these work together. Maybe just because I haven’t seen it in action? Any advice?” – Jessie
An increasing number of parents are reporting that they are combining Magda Gerber’s RIE approach and Attachment Parenting. Since I haven’t done that myself, I’d love to hear readers’ experiences in the Comments Section (below).
RIE and AP are distinctly different in both theory and practice, although both approaches could be considered valid routes toward secure attachment — both are responsive to the child’s needs. Where they diverge most is in their recommendations for bonding in the first year. These differences are reflective of the way each school of thought perceives infants’ needs and abilities.
Attachment Parenting views the baby’s first several months as a “fourth trimester” and suggests that infants derive comfort and security from an environment that is as “womblike” as possible. Maintaining constant close contact with the mother is also thought to help babies regulate themselves physiologically. So, among AP’s primary recommendations are: a) keeping babies attached to the parent’s body in a carrier for the majority of the day; and b) co-sleeping.
In the Attachment Parenting model, this almost constant connectedness helps parents become attuned to their baby’s needs. The parent trusts the infant to indicate readiness to be independent of the parent’s arms.
RIE perceives infants as dependent but innately competent self-learners ready to actively participate in life and begin forming communication partnerships with their parents at birth. RIE recommends speaking to even the youngest infants directly and respectfully (“Now I’m going to wipe your back with this warm washcloth”), and suggests parents pay full attention to babies and engage their participation during “relationship-building” routines like baths, feedings and diaper changes. In between naps and care-giving routines, RIE suggests providing infants opportunities to move freely and initiate self-chosen activities in a safe play area. Parents practice observing sensitively in order to become attuned to their baby’s needs (including their need to be held).
So, one could generalize that Attachment Parenting’s focus is building healthy attachments through physical connectedness, while the RIE approach emphasizes the development of a mind connection. Their core recommendations might be summed up as: “Keep your baby close” (Attachment Parenting) and “Pay attention and communicate” (RIE).
These would seem to be mutually supportive, compatible practices. End of story?
Not necessarily, according to RIE founder Magda Gerber and Jean Liedloff, whose book “The Continuum Concept” has been an inspiration to AP advocates. Interestingly, both Gerber and Liedloff expressed views on “keeping babies close” and “paying attention” that are not only divergent, they are diametrically opposed.
“Before attending RIE classes, I had carried my daughter everywhere. Starting from three months, I soon learned that I could let go and still stay profoundly connected. My daughter taught herself to roll over and sit up and walk, teaching me in the process that I could let her. She taught me that there are all kinds of things she can do without me”. – A RIE parent from Dear Parent: Caring for Infants With Respect
Magda Gerber agreed with AP founder Dr. William Sears and Liedloff that babies have an essential need to be touched and held, but she also believed the positive effect of touch was greatly diminished when there was little direct attention paid to the baby. “What is the value of being held or touched if it’s only the skin that is in contact? What about your minds connecting, or to become more philosophical, your souls?” asks Gerber in Your Self-Confident Baby.
Profoundly influenced by her pediatrician Dr. Emmi Pikler, who was a pioneering advocate of unrestricted infant movement and unassisted natural gross motor development, Gerber also argued that the extended use of carriers was too confining for babies and impeded them from moving “according to their readiness”.
“Most animals can show affection only through touch, be we humans have an extensive, varied and refined repertoire of ways to demonstrate love. To me, a mature, evolved person shows love by respecting the “otherness” of the beloved. You become a good parent not only by listening to your instinctive messages but by paying close attention to your baby, by observing the infant. Sensitive observation flows from respect.” – Gerber
Like Gerber and Pikler, Jean Liedloff’s opinions were shaped through extensive observation. While Pikler and Gerber observed babies interacting with caregivers and initiating “child-led play” activities of their own in safe, enclosed play areas, the Yequana Indian babies Liedloff observed spent the majority of their day safely nestled in their mothers’ arms or attached to their bodies in carriers:
“…this in-arms experience had an impressively salutary effect on the babies and they were no “trouble” to manage. Their bodies were soft and conformed to any position convenient to their bearers — some of whom even dangled their babies down their backs while holding them by the wrist. The baby passively participates in the bearers running, walking, laughing, talking, working, and playing.” – Liedloff, The Importance of the In Arms Phase
So Gerber and Liedloff disagreed about the value of the “in-arms” experience. Their views about “attention” conflict even more dramatically. Liedloff’s is a more adult-directed view:
“…it is also important that caretakers not just sit and gaze at the baby or continually ask what the baby wants, but lead active lives themselves. Occasionally one cannot resist giving a baby a flurry of kisses; however, a baby who is programmed to watch you living your busy life is confused and frustrated when you spend your time watching him living his. A baby who is in the business of absorbing what life is like as lived by you is thrown into confusion if you ask him to direct it.” – Liedloff
While Gerber believed “gazing” was crucial for bonding and attunement:
“As you carefully observe your newborn, you will discover her unique personality. You will see your real child as she is rather that the ‘imaginary child’ of your own creation. You observe her so that, in time, you will understand her likes and dislikes, moods, and abilities. And understanding these things will help you to better care for her, communicate with her, and improve your relationship.” – Gerber
In Liedloff’s essay “Who’s In Control? The Unhappy Consequences of Being Child-Centered”, she asserts that giving babies too much direct attention when what they want and need is to be passive “spectators” is what commonly causes them to become “terrible twos”, bossy, demanding, angry, rude and defiant. Whereas the Yequana Indian children never had conflicts with peers or adults; never interrupted an adult conversation; “rarely spoke at all in the company of adults, confining themselves to listening and performing little services such as passing around food or drink.”
“The crucial difference is that the Yequana are not child-centered. They may occasionally nuzzle their babies affectionately, play peek-a-boo, or sing to them, yet the great majority of the caretaker’s time is spent paying attention to something else…not the baby! Children taking care of babies also regard baby care as a non-activity and, although they carry them everywhere, rarely give them direct attention.
Being played with, talked to, or admired all day deprives the babe of this in-arms spectator phase that would feel right to him. Unable to say what he needs, he will act out his discontentment.” – Liedloff
In Gerber’s view paying attention could never be a problem and is, in fact, the key to raising healthy, happy children:
“The more you invest in those first early years of parenting, the easier your life could be later on. You won’t have to be a slave to a child who has been raised with aware, respectful attention. It can be the difference between nagging, neglected (withdrawn or aggressive) children and those who will make it in life independently, with strength and confidence.” – Gerber
I offer these viewpoints as a discussion opener and really hope you’ll share your thoughts and experiences…
(Photo by Gemma Stiles on Flickr)
While I agree with this and really wish I had known about RIE when my babies were younger, I have never seen the 3rd trimester referred to the first 9 months, only the first 3. That makes much more sense to me.
Yes, I messed up on that a bit, confusing the term “fourth trimester” with Dr. Sears’ advice: “The womb lasts eighteen months: Nine months inside mother, and nine months outside.”
I think the issue being “child-centered” comes down to balance. While I spent a good amount of time quietly observing my children, I’m often reading a book or getting some work done on the computer for part of the time. They will check-in with me every once in a while to be held, kissed, cuddled, talked with, etc, and then wander off again to play. They do not need or even want me around all of the time, but when they do, I try to stay completely centered on them. This gives me the freedom to cook, use the restroom, or do other things that are valuable to me at other times. I would never imagine asking my children to direct my life, but I do want them to direct at least some of their own (even though they aren’t even a year old yet!) because they’re whole, capable people who deserve as much freedom as I can safely provide. I also do think this approach allows me to see them as their real selves, as Magda describes. I feel sorry for their grandparents who insist on trying to entertain them. If only they would sit back and allow them to be, what an experience it would be. Perhaps someday!
Reannon, I totally agree about “child-centered” being a balance of the child’s and parent’s needs. But I do not agree with Liedloff’s suggestion that babies shouldn’t be given much direct attention, and should be constant spectators interacted with only when the parent feels like kissing them, etc. That may have worked well for interdependent communities like that of the Yequana…but children today need a stronger sense of “self”and agency, in my opinion. I don’t sense attunement with the baby in Leidloff’s descriptions.
Yes, there’s hope for the grandparents!
Yes, absolutely. It really reminds me of a version of “children should be seen but not heard” which is pretty sad.
I practice attachment parenting and also read your blog Janet, and while yes, co-sleeping and babywearing are two components of AP, they’re not the be all end all of AP. Instead of just limiting reading physical cues of my child, I look at all cues of my child, emotional readiness, changing desires and growth. I find AP and RIE to go hand in hand, and they both stem from a basic belief in respecting your child.
For example, I adjusted my schedule to fit my child’s schedule. That is to say, if my child is giving cues that he needs a nap at 10am, I will let him nap at 10am. I’ll also state to him when he’s showing signs he’s tired, “you look tired, let’s go get a book and lay down.” However, if the next day he’s not needing a nap at 10am and instead at 10:30 or maybe 11, then I’ll let him nap then. Maybe I’m not using the exact RIE language (I find I do some of this intuitively and some I need to remind myself to say) but I hope you get the idea.
Another example is babywearing. I feel like AP gets reduced to wearing my baby 24/7 and eschewing strollers, and again, if that is your child and the cues they are showing, fine. But that’s not true for every child, and certainly not every parent. There is a time and a place for babywearing, and it is up to the parent and the child’s relationship to know when they want to be worn, and when they want to get down, run around, or walk next to mom and *I do it myself*! And some children don’t want to be worn at all, and that’s ok! The key is recognizing and respecting your child to not force them to do something they are ultimately not comfortable with. This goes along with every other aspect of AP.
Hope that helps.
Thanks, Angie! I didn’t have the impression that co-sleeping and baby carrying are the “be all end all of AP.” I was focusing on the differences between the two approaches…and co-sleeping and baby carrying are AP values that RIE does not value. RIE values conscious attention and attunement to the baby.
You sound like a wonderful mom!
I’m wondering what exactly RIE’s stance is on bedsharing/cosleeping?
RIE doesn’t have a stance on sleeping arrangements, but advises placing babies in comfortable beds when they are tired, rather than having them catnap in carriers or in vertical positions that don’t support the neck, etc.
I agree, sometimes my 4mo old wants to be snuggled in his carrier all day, and sometimes he wants to wiggle all over on the floor, and anything in between. Even as Adults we have these “swings”, sometimes i just want to veg out or read a book, and sometimes i need out of the house or to go hiking, and anything in between…i think we as human beings are alot more complex than strictly one or the other.
I too have only seen the fourth trimester referred to in the capacity of the first three months and those accompanying five “s” techniques really worked well for us during that time.
Although we identify with AP and I hadn’t discovered RIE in the early months, I came to it quite naturally, as although my son enjoyed close proximity at key times he was also very determined to examine his surroundings and it felt rather natural to me to let him (safely) do so. I felt I think this is one of the reasons that RIE struck a chord with me when I first discovered it not long ago…
That bring said I feel it’s best not to label one’s parenting style and strive to adopt those methods which feel right for you and your child. Communication and intuitiveness are key.
Thanks for writing this, Janet. It’s interesting and insightful, as always, to hear your perspective. I am one who combines AP with bits of RIE, but I also have the third influence of Montessori philosophy. I think it’s Montessori that helps me to achieve the balance that makes different philosophy fit so beautifully into our lives. When “follow the child” is your mantra, tidbits from both AP and RIE can be integrated in a way that works for the individual child. How I parent my second child is very different from the way I parented my first, because he has different needs. Really, every new perspective on parenting gives me something else to consider, but my children’s, and our family’s needs are always the deciding factor.
I think that’s a great way to parent, Melissa.
I also have combined AP and RIE with the third influence of Waldorf philosophy. I had 2 homebirths, and my midwife steered me toward AP, I believe to ensure that my babies would thrive. Nursing on demand and cosleeping did help me attune to my babies as a first and second time mother. I am so grateful to RIE (and you, Janet) for bringing me the principles of natural motor development. This has been the part of the RIE approach that has made me consider myself a follower, and the one that has the most apparent results as I watch my babies grow. The Waldorf influence enables us to view our children as unique, independent spiritual beings. As I look back I feel that AP was most appropriate for us from birth to a few months old, and then RIE has helped me immensely in the baby and toddler stages, and Waldorf is where I see my kids becoming themselves. Again– thank you Janet for your thoughtful and inspirational blogs.
This is why labeling parenting advice rubs me wrong. RIE and ap can coexist. It’s called paying attention to your children and reading their cues and attending to their needs. Neither box label fits every child or every parent. Listening and connecting does.
AMEN! THANK YOU, RACHEL! People ask me what philosophy I use with regards to parenting, and I say…. “my philosophy….I pay attention to my child.” I do appreciate what is said in RIE and AP, however just like with medicine, all must be integrated for best results.
Interesting, Rachel and Dr. Mayer, I see AP and RIE as two different “opinions” on the best way to attunement (“reading cues”), not boxes or labels.
I care enormously about my son and parenting him. It is something I have thought about from before I was pregnant and certainly ever since. I follow my instincts and intuition. I have gotten a lot of great ideas from both RIE and Attachment Parenting but I do not follow either of them. I don’t think parenting, or life for that matter, fits neatly into a set of rules or concepts. Both philosophies, for me, are part of a discussion, not the end of it. I value my own insight with my own child far more than Magda Gerber’s, Dr Sear’s, or whoever’s insight – although I do appreciate and learn from people who have given parenting a lot of considerate thought.
Ditto Angie. Both AP and RIE are fundamentally rooted in respecting your child; they may come at it from different angles, but I find that having the two perspectives makes it easier for me to see what my individual children need without being too dogmatic.
My second child is now almost seven months old, and I can see how practicing RIE from the beginning is beneficial for him and our family. I like babywearing, and he enjoyed it as well, but we gradually exposed him to free-play on his back and now I only wear him when we’re out. It was a good balance of comforting closeness when he needed it, and recognizing when he was ready for some independence.
Sounds like you’ve integrated the two approaches well, Lauren.
I have integrated free play with my 2nd baby and think she’s really benefited, but she also has NEEDED to be worn. She’s needed to be in arms so much that babywearing worked for both of us, inside and outside of the house. I appreciate the mix.
“Jean Liedloff, whose book “The Continuum Concept” has been an inspiration to AP advocates” is not the be-all-end-all on AP theory. A lot of AP parents find the first half of her book inspiring (but are frustrated by the last half).
I agree with some of the other parents here that AP and RIE work very well as partners.
I suspect playing with a baby all day for prolonged months COULD become a problem… But RIE doesn’t actually advocate that, does it?! I mean, one of the things I found so helpful on this blog is the motion that it’s OK to put your baby down, not entertain him, take a moment for your self. It means trusting your infant to be capable of dealing with that,it means teaching respect through mutual respect, meeting needs even as you express your own, and, again, trust your infant to be able to internalize that. At least, that’s how I’ve interpreted RIE!
Meanwhile, I LOVED my carrier (ergo) and nursed on demand and did a lot of AP things that seemed to work well for us. Today I’ll still usually carry him if he asks me to, even though I know he’s more than capable of walking. I like carrying him. I like the feel of him in my arms. Most of the time he’d rather walk. That’s an awfully nice feeling too.
I think maybe philosophies can be diametrically opposed, but life just works out how it works out.
Meagan, playing with babies all day and seldom paying direct attention to a baby are quite different things. The RIE approach (as I think you know) is not about entertaining babies. It’s about observing their self-chosen activities in order to understand and learn about them (but in spurts…not all day long!).
Sorry… I think I was unclear. I was responding specifically to this remark: “Being played with, talked to, or admired all day deprives the babe…” I was trying to say of course this would be problematic if that’s what we’re were actually talking about with RIE… Liedloff makes it sound like there are only two options- carry/wear the baby constantly as a passive spectator, or spend your entire day as the baby entertainment director. I think she is making a disingenuous argument about what “direct attention” really entails, or maybe it’s not so much disingenuous as it is irrelevant to the kind of care you talk about here. It’s just occurred to me that I read this post as a conversation between different child are philosophers… But it’s not, it’s simply juxtaposed extracts of their commentaries. They do make an interesting discussion, but I’m not sure it’s the same discussion. The actual people might have had face to face… Does that make sense? For example, I can agree with Gerber that “aware, respectful attention” is essential, but also agree with Liedloff that the wrong kind off attention could be counterproductive.
I do get that it’s not about entertaining babies! I was trying to say that this is one of the things that attracted me. The constant dance of edu-tainment, in-uetero flash cards (ok maybe not) and Harvard planning for 3 year olds frustrates me to no end… RIE strikes me as much more natural.
This is an interesting topic. I have to say that I am not a big fan of Attachment Parenting alone. There are times when your baby needs you (teething, sick, scared, etc.) and they need to be held and soothed by the parent. Building such close relationship is important. However, in other times when the baby is curious and wants to explore, I’d rather let him (I have a son). If he wants to play on his floor mat and roll over and “chase” a ball or other toys, I let him. And I don’t help him roll over. Or I don’t help him reach a toy (at least not all the time). It’s important for him to figure things out on his own.
For example, we gave him a remote control with no batteries to play with. He was really interested in the one we’re using so we gave him one that was just sitting in the drawer. During one of his play times on the floor mat, he noticed the remote about 2 feet away from him. As he can’t crawl yet, he couldn’t reach it. He tried and tried. He actually managed to move about a foot forward by rolling over, pushing himself with his feet. Eventually he noticed that if he grabbed the blanket and pulled it towards himself, the remote was coming closer. It took him about 3-4 minutes, but he got the remote. Without my help. He found a way to get it. I have to say that I was proud of him. He is only 7 1/2 months old and he already found a solution all by himself. I was so happy, I kneeled down on the floor and gave him a big kiss and a hug and we both clapped together. He had a huge smile on his face.
So I do believe that babies need their space. They are learning about the world around them and they need to discover as much of it as possible on their own. Of course with parental supervision. I wouldn’t leave the room and go have a nap while he’s playing. However, just being there and watching him, but letting him find his own way is important.
There are other factors that also determine how you treat your baby. My son hasn’t been needy ever since he was born. He didn’t want to he held for too long. He also wanted to move, put his hands in his mouth, eventually also put his toes in his mouth. He’s always been quite independent that way. If I had decided to follow Attachment Parenting, I would have been forcing him into somethings that’s against his own nature. So baby’s character will also tell you what they need.
By now, you have probably figured out that I go a lot by what my son likes and wants. While I try to provide what I think is best for him and guide/teach him, I also “listen” to his preferences. If he is hungry but he only ate 1 hour ago, I’d still give him some food. I wouldn’t let him be hungry just because my doctor says he should normally eat every 3-4 hours.
So again, it really depends on the situation and circumstances. I have noticed that when you go to a new place, he wants to be held most of the time and when he wants to explore, he wants me to be there. So I am. I want him to feel secure. But if he wants to be alone and he’s comfortable with his surroundings, then I let him be.
Does this make sense?
Yes, Teddy, it sounds like you are making it your job to get to know your baby…and appreciate what he is doing rather than worrying about what he isn’t doing. That is a formula for happy parents and kids.
I began my parenting journey highly influenced by AP, and only learned about RIE after my second son was born. I started using RIE principles with him, which resulted in a good experience for both of us, and I became a student of RIE. My third child has been raised mostly RIE rather than AP.
When I first learned about RIE I thought it was very similar to AP, and noted many ways they overlapped and could be combined. However, the more I learn about RIE the more I see how different they are. Like you say, the purpose of both is secure attachment, the paths are very different, and become more divergent the more closely you look at them.
I read Dr. Sears’ The Baby Book before I learned about RIE. Now when I review it I see it through a very different lens and see many instances where parents are encouraged to trick babies or be manipulative — all motivated by kindness and the best of intentions. However, I don’t believe it fosters honesty in relationships which ultimately develops deeper trust which RIE advocates for and I’ve experienced with it in my parenting.
Thanks for your astute comment, Suchada.
I studied attachment theory (Ainsworth and Bowlby) in graduate school and gravitated toward AP when I became a mother nearly 4 years ago. I encountered RIE about a year ago and have slowly been educating myself via wonderful blogs like yours, Janet. I can relate to Suchada’s comment of initially being attracted by their similarities (such as the shared values of being attuned and accurately responsive to baby’s needs and cues). But, over time, I have increasingly becoming aware of the divergent points between the two, as well.
I was wondering if either of you might offer an example of an AP approach that might be considered manipulative when viewed through an RIE lens. We are expecting our 2nd child in a few months, and I’ve been feeling the need to adjust my parenting approach and incorporate more RIE, but I’m not quite sure how, yet.
I started reading about RIE because I was looking for solutions to some challenges that have emerged with my son, primarily, his hesitance to be more free and trusting with himself. While I think some of this is his temperament, I also think my lack of appreciation for his independence early on (fostered by what I’ve experienced as an overemphasis on dependence in AP circles) has contributed.
Teresa, I’m hoping Suchada will share what she meant by “many instances where parents are encouraged to trick babies or be manipulative.” Here’s something I strongly disagree with — Dr. Sears’ views on “time-out”, distraction and diversion:
“Introduce time-out early, by eighteen months. Before that age, you will be using distraction and diversion to stop behaviors. Baby crawls toward the lamp. You intercept the curious explorer, carry him across the room and sit between baby and the lamp. After much repetition baby gets the point: Certain behaviors will be immediately interrupted, so there’s no point in attempting them. These baby diversions progress to toddler time-outs. In addition to simply interrupting an undesirable behavior, you now add a place to sit, such as a time-out chair. http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/discipline-behavior/10-time-out-techniques
And this: “PICK THE RIGHT PLACE:
You may have a designated time-out chair or stool for the toddler. A veteran mother in our practice successfully uses the “naughty step,” an idea she gleaned from the book THE POKEY LITTLE PUPPY’S NAUGHTY DAY (Golden Books). The naughty step helps the puppy to feel a little less “frisky” that day.”
And here’s the way the Yequana dealt with their children’s feelings, according to Liedloff:
“One can very quickly calm a fussing baby by running or jumping with the child, or by dancing or doing whatever eliminates one’s own energy excess. A mother or father who must suddenly go out to get something need not say, “Here, you hold the baby. I’m going to run down to the shop.” The one doing the running can take the baby along for the ride. The more action, the better!”
The Importance of the In Arms Phase: http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/in-arms.html
Janet, thank you for those examples. It appears I haven’t read Sears very well or thoroughly because I *completely* disagree with those methods as well and would never even consider them “attachment oriented” according to my definition. I think I am more ecclectic in my parenting approach than I thought. The examples you give from Sears don’t even sound consistent with how I understand Bowlby’s attachment theory. I am beginning to think that the definitions of AP in pop culture (informed primarily by Sears) are diffuse and have in some ways either veered away from their roots in Bowlby’s attachment theory or were only loosely based on it to begin with. Alternatively, perhaps my assumptions about attachment theory are more informed by own theoretical leanings as a clinical psychologist than I realize (those being object relations theory and contemporary relational psychoanalytic theory; both have some overlap/compatibility with Bowlby’s ideas as well as deep roots in developmental child psychology and, in my view, overlap/offer compatibility with RIE principles).
As far as Liedloff goes, I’ve never studied that work or knew it informed AP before reading your post. It doesn’t resonate with me at all. I think I’ve been assuming AP was primarily informed by Bowlby’s attachment theory.
Very thought provoking and interesting discussion!
I’ve studied Attachment Theory, too, but never connected it with Dr. Sears’ views, which are more similiar to Liedloff’s “ancestral” or “evolutionary” model than they are to Bowlby’s, in my opinion. I found it interesting to read Liedloff’s observations about the people she based her theories on. I doubt modern parents would want to emulate some of these practices.
I have always seen attachment theory cited as the basis of AP principles. Can you point me to any sources (perhaps Sears, himself) that cite Liedloff as the (or an) inspiration of AP? Or is it that AP was originally based on attachment theory and Liedloff’s work was adopted by proponents of AP, being considered resonant with AP principals?
I totally disagree with Dr. Sears on this one, too. I make a point to tell my five month old why I am taking away something I don’t want him to play with, or why I am picking him up and taking him away from his toys. I even make sure he sees exactly where the forbidden object is going, so that he isn’t left wondering how I just pulled off that disappearing act;)
Sounds good, Storm.
Isn’t Sears pretty big on silencing any crying infant with nursing? I may be misremembering.
Teresa, here is an article that explains some of the differences between Attachment Theory and Attachment Parenting: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/what-everyones-missing-in-the-attachment-parenting-debate/257918/
Attachment Theory is about being attuned and responsive to the baby:
“Attachment theory suggests that babies thrive emotionally because of the overall quality of the care they’ve experienced, not because of specific techniques. A bottle-fed baby whose mother is sensitively attuned will do better than a breastfed baby whose mother is mechanical and distant.”
And regarding Liedloff’s book inspiring Sears’ Attachment Parenting, I found this: http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/05/19/2074981/time-magazine-baby-doctor-first.html
“Time reports that the doctor’s brand of “attachment parenting” bubbled from a 1975 book by Jean Liedloff called “The Continuum Concept.” It’s about well-behaved babies she saw strapped to indigenous people in the South American jungle.”
Thank you for those leads, Janet. I had no idea AP was more based on Liedloff than Bowlby. I’ve been talking as if I know what attachment parenting is when I actually do not. Again, thank you for starting this converesation.
You’re welcome, Teresa
Meagan, I’m not sure if “silencing any crying infant with nursing” is something Sears’ actually recommends, or if that is just a common misinterpretation of Attachment Parenting.
Sorry this has taken me so long to get back to — Janet covered a few of the examples I was thinking of. I also remember reading in Dr. Sears books about (and I’m paraphrasing here) “pretending to be asleep and baby will get the hint” and things like that.
I also agree that Attachment Parenting is not the same thing as Attachment Theory.
And I want to be clear that I don’t believe AP encourages children to be manipulative towards us, but that I feel many of the practices can be manipulative towards children.
I practice a combination of AP and RIE as well. I agree with the above poster (Angie) that baby wearing for AP is only one method of forming a close attachment; an attachment that is meant to result in emotional bonding with your child, not just merely keeping them physically close to you.
From my understanding of AP, Liedloff’s more extreme views gathered from observation (e.g. not giving too much attention to your child) are not prevalent in modern AP.
I greatly respect your views and blog but I feel like mainstream AP and RIE are much more compatible than you realize.
ATL, thanks for your comment and kind words. I don’t think AP and RIE are incompatible, but I do think they are different. I’m curious, do practitioners of “modern AP” note behavior issues as a result of parents paying too much direct attention to children?
I think your assessment of the fundamental difference is accurate. Although I think that AP parents have a little more room for growth in the “mind connection” area as RIE illustrates.
I have to admit that RIE principals took a bit longer for me to espouse. I found AP to be easy and instinctual while the perception of my tiny helpless baby as an innately competent self-learner took longer to sink in. Probably because the common convention that babies are so inferior adults was too well-ingrained in my own upbringing.
I think it may be a mistake to compare Yequana babies to Western babies because our society deems directed, standardized education to be superior to the child-adult interactions of traditional tribal cultures that are not so far removed from the hunter-gatherer style of living. I think Liedloff is very mistaken here. Bossy, demanding, angry, rude and defiant behavior doesn’t come from AP or RIE parenting, but from the unnatural mainstream culture that impedes true AP and RIE parenting.
Chris, can you elaborate on what you mean by “the unnatural mainstream culture that impedes true AP and RIE parenting”?
Great article Thank you Janet
I’m amazed by the results of a non child centered parenting. I would like to know more about those kids.They need to test and play with their bodies and their enviroment. When do they have time for that? In between “holding sessions”? I hope so!
I think RIE helps parents to let go and realize that babies don’t belong to us. One day we’ll find out when they leave anyway. But being respectful and relaxing makes the journey of parenthood delightful and therapeutical
I co-sleep, use baby carriers and breastfeed a toddler. Wouldn’t do it any other way. RIE however has helped me not to get lost in a concept and instead tune to my baby and be more aware of his clues. I like both RIE and AP and I think I can be at peace with both. Is not like with religions. You know. You are one or the other. blah
Leslie, you are insightful and I love your spirit. Regarding “play with their bodies and their environment”, in some of these societies, the babies would literally jump down from the parent’s arms when they wanted independence. Love this: “I think RIE helps parents to let go and realize that babies don’t belong to us. One day we’ll find out when they leave anyway. But being respectful and relaxing makes the journey of parenthood delightful and therapeutic.”
As a new mother with a 11 week old infant I’m new to both AP and RIE methods. While I’m more familiar with AP -there seems to be more AP talk- I’m really pleased to have stumbled upon your blog and have been scooping up the nuggets of wisdom since. While both methods seem to come naturally to me -they certainly feel right + make sense- I appreciate and will follow this article. Thanks Janet!
Thanks and congratulations, Laurie!
Like Suchada above, I was very much influenced by AP and Dr. Sears’ book with my first child (ds, almost 3), but have been leaning more toward RIE principals with my daughter (6 months). Maybe part of this is just me being a second-time parent, but I’ve found that these approaches definitely led me to feel differently about my abilities as a parent, and my choices for my babies overall. As a mom who works full time outside the home, with AP, I felt as if I were constantly falling short as a mother. I couldn’t hold/carry my baby as much as I felt I should, I couldn’t nurse him from the breast on demand (I pumped and bottle fed during the workday), and the fact that he had to go to daycare was just crushing to me. He was (and still is) a very intense little boy, and I often felt responsible for his emotions – if he was crying, it must mean I was doing something wrong. In my opinion, the principles of AP as outlined by Dr. Sears completely overlook working mothers and that always left me feeling very guilty and “less than.” I don’t know how much I may have over-internalized the AP approach (I was also suffering from Postpartum PPD due to a traumatic birth) but that was my experience with it.
Flash forward to life with my baby daughter– granted, I’m in a much better place emotionally and mentally, and she is a very different baby from my son, but I feel much more confident and at ease to just let her lead. The respectful approach of RIE really resonates with me and I strive toward that daily in my interactions with both my children. My world is not so baby-centered, but when I do give attention, I give it fully. I still babywear occasionally and cosleep but I only because I truly want to. I feel more confident as a parent and more relaxed to just BE and let HER be and do as she pleases/needs. I know that she is going to cry and it is not my job to change or fix her emotions, only to empathize with her. I know that my going to work or being away from her physically is not going to threaten our bond in the long run because I am present with her and focus on the quality of our interactions. It works for us.
This is such a great conversation. Thank you, Janet, for initiating it – and for all the immeasurably helpful information and resources you provide. I would not be the parent I am today had I not found your site. 🙂
Wow, thank you, Lauren. You sound so healthy and centered. It’s wonderful!
When my first daughter was born, AP struck a chord with me. I read way too many baby/parenting books and Sear’s advice made sense to me. She didn’t love to be worn,but did want to be in arms.But there were a lot of downsides to it…boy was she attached! She couldn’t ever handle being by herself, and was unable to self-direct in play. I was “on” 24/7. For years. She is almost 7 now and still has trouble self-directing. My second daughter, almost 18 mos.I didn’t intend to AP.but I guess that is what I knew, so here we are still nursing to sleep in my bed! It’s getting old so I may need some help there! However, I learned about RIE and have implemented a lot of techniques.so I have been using both AP & RIE. I have left her gross motor development up to her, and feel much calmer when she’s being a crazy monkey- I can see her learning her balance and feeling things out. She has a great playspace and loves to be outdoors more than anything. She wants her mama too, but when she’s in an independent mood, I encourage it and let her play by herself for as long as possible. I leave her potty out and put no pressure on her to do anything, she sometimes goes on her own, which is incredible to me! We talk a lot about what’s going on with her body. She does hate the changing table though, despite my attempts at RIE there it is a struggle. I practice respectful communication and acknowledge her feelings, which is helping me to overcome the Sears’ crying guilt (” never let them cry or you’re not meeting their needs!)
I learn great things from your blog, so thank you!
Thanks for sharing these interesting details, Melissa!
I am one of the parents who blends RIE and AP parenting styles. In my opinion, it is a mistake to hold too slavishly to any particular “method.” While parenting philosophies like AP are helpful as a guide, there is no more important lesson as a parent than to pay attention and listen to what your baby is telling you.
Now 5 and 3, my kids have times when they are clearly looking for my attention (and as much as possible, I try to accommodate), but we also enjoy long periods when they play happily on their own and my intervention would be nothing but interference.
My interpretation of AP parenting wasn’t just about keeping baby close, but also about following the baby’s lead as much as I could (without sacrificing my own sanity!). And so, I kept my babies close and fed on demand, until they started reaching for food and were motivated to try feeding themselves – and eventually chose solid foods often enough that weaning off breastmilk was no big deal. I tried to watch my babies for cues that they were tired, and attempted to create a sleep routine around their rhythms and mine (this was much harder than it sounds!). I carried them or put them down, based on whether they seemed to snuggle in or push away. When they fall down I acknowledge their hurts and let them cry, rather than jump in right away with ‘you’re ok!’
I am influenced by both RIE and AP ideas, and while the founders may have disagreed on certain points, I can see why many parents would want to blend advice from both camps as they discover their own parenting style. I have found it to be pretty effective at building close bonds with my children while also allowing them to reveal their own unique selves in their own time.
Love it, Briana! Thank you for sharing.
This is interesting – I read the Liedloff essay for the first time quite recently in fact and hadn’t thought about the differences from that perspective.
One of the things that seems to characterise AP for me is the ‘do whatever it takes to stop the baby crying’ approach which is where the babywearing, cosleeping, extended breastfeeding etc. often come in as a means to do that and where it differs drastically from RIE. RIE seems much more clearly defined than AP though, which seems to be interpreted in a number of different ways some of which seem so broad that it’s hard to imagine any loving parent disagreeing with.
I am raising my children based on the observations of liedloff. Firstly, liedloff’s observations and attachment parenting-although similar-are not the same. If we are to discuss liedloff’s ideas we cannot bundle them into the AP philosophy.
I would also propose that by carrying your baby all day you are also connecting mentally. It is nearly as if you become one and there is no need to superficially ‘gaze’ at them to learn who they are and what they want. Instead-two things happen. One- you learn what the baby needs and can meet their needs almost instantly. The baby has little need to get upset-making both baby and mother happy and satisfied. Second, baby can ‘take care of itself”. Need food? Boob is right there ready for you. Want a nap? Rest your head on mama and go to sleep. Once again baby is fully satisfied and mama gets on with her life without spending it napping and feeding the baby.
Another point that wasn’t mentioned in the article is that by carrying the baby they are also exercising their muscles and developing physically. When the mother bends the baby clenches it’s muscles- when she walks the baby holds on and turns it’s head. Pretty soon the baby asks to be put on the ground and is ready to practice sitting-rolling,crawling and standing.the mother knows exactly when the baby wants to be put down and picked up due to the intimate understanding the mother had of her child.
What an interesting question and post. I considered myself an AP mom when my first and only child was born almost 3 years ago, but I applied the 8 Principals of AP very loosely, and I used what I liked in Sears’ Baby Book. In the real world, though, other AP moms tell me I’m not really AP because I didn’t do baby wearing, or because I had a c-section. I think I felt AP was the only alternative to mainstream parenting practices. AP did lead me to do baby-led weaning, which was a watershed moment in my relationship with my daughter.
My girl was always big and strong, so we didn’t do baby wearing. Instead she lay on a quilt I’d made her. I was surprised how young she was when she protested that she was bored lying on my bed afer a nursing session! I followed her cues and my intuition. I found your blog about a year ago, and so often what you write mirrors my experience exactly. Your thoughts on getting babies to sit were spot-on, and I don’t know any other moms who felt the same way I do (even in the AP community). My girl loved to lie on her quilt, rolling this way and that, getting toys on a low shelf many months earlier than I thought she would. I’m glad she happened to have the opportunity.
Interesting, Mary! Thank you for sharing…
Thank you for posting this comparison, Janet. It’s something I’ve been puzzling out myself. I am a very practical person and with 7 month old twin boys, that practicality is a necessity! Instinctively I have always believed in connecting with and respect for children, and that they understand and are capable of much more than most people give them credit for. Before my boys were born I found your page and began integrating AP with RIE. Now that they are 7 months old, I see that I use RIE principles much more often.
For example, last night the family went out for a walk. Both boys were in their double stroller. After working all day, we cannot possibly carry both of them for as long as they would like to enjoy the outside. Half way through the walk, one of the boys became unusually fussy. When I checked on him I noticed he was squirming and wiggling towards me and away from the stroller. I grabbed the Ergo and put him in, and he immediately settled and very much enjoyed the rest of the walk. I enjoyed the closeness of him and we had a good time of bonding. When we got home, I checked his mouth and he has another tooth coming in–that explains it!
Strict AP is just flat not possible in my life with twins. I can’t possibly cosleep with both kids in my bed. I can’t possibly wear both frequently without doing damage to my back. I cannot spend every waking moment with both of my kids as I’d never get anything else done. But I don’t want to miss out on the bonding that AP offers. I am so thankful to have found RIE, to have found a structure to help me observe and bond with both my children at the same time. And overarching all of it, the emphasis on respect. It just makes so much sense. Trusting and respecting both children is really possible through RIE. My family is so happy, even other twin parents remark on how easy going and relaxed we all are, despite the challenges. Thank you for teaching me this way!
WOW! Sounds like you’re handling your twins beautifully. You’re so welcome.
Hi Janet,
Thank you for this very enlightening post! For whatever reason, AP seems to be much better marketed in the general public than RIE. There are more articles on it, more celebrities espousing it, more awareness of it. If it weren’t for you, I would’ve never heard of RIE. And in fact, I still don’t hear of anyone else talking about RIE.
Anyways, all of that is to say that I used to think that I was an AP parent, who never actually did the AP-stuff. I didn’t baby wear. I didn’t co-sleep. But I strongly believed in being responsive to my child’s needs. And I also identify myself as being a “free range” parent. I always wondered if it was an oxymoron to be AP and free-range. BUT, after reading your post, I realize that I’m not an AP parent at all. I’m RIE and RIE is very compatible with free-range. Still, if I were to tell others that I’m RIE, they would have no idea what I’m talking about. Hence, my opening comment about there being much greater awareness about AP.
Thank you for your blog. I very much appreciate it.
Vi, you’re welcome! Magda Gerber had no interest in self-promotion. She believed that those who needed her message would find it…so RIE has spread mostly through word-of-mouth. But the parents and educators who have fallen in love with the RIE approach (like me) have wished her ideas could be shared more widely. I feel very privileged to have a found a way to do that (alongside my friend and associate Lisa Sunbury who shares about RIE on her blog Regarding Baby: http://regardingbaby.org )
I think RIE presents a different thought on how attunement happens than AP. I read a lot of AP before my daughter was born. I think it was a great starting point on understanding the primal needs of babies and how the modern advances in society have removed us from our biological blueprint. It was a good introduction to trying to understand my daughter, but now I see many practices differently now that I have acquired more knowledge. I think there is an undercurrent that the child’s feelings and emotions are something that needs to be managed or “fixed” by the parent in the AP community. I think this can make some parents feel desperate and out of control when they have a child that cries frequently and has a more irritable temperament. I really utilize Aletha Solter’s philosophy regarding tears and tantrums and the need to release feelings. I think attunement is not doing whatever it takes to keep a child from crying. I do not see crying as something negative, but something that is healthy when done with a loving caregiver. I do agree with Naomi Aldort that you can take the idea of a child needing to cry and rage too far. I am not comfortable using some of the sleep advice I have read associated with RIE. I believe that sleeping near a parent (not necessarily in their bed) if the child requests to is a primal need and should be respected. I think it is healthy and normal for your child to request you to be nearby while they fall asleep. I do not value independent sleep as much as it is valued in the RIE community. I think RIE is a paradigm that allows you to “step back” (eg. wait before reacting) and put the relationship with your child first. I highly value independent play as the prescursor to “flow” as an adult. I feel that independent play is seen as cruel or ignoring in the AP community. I have utilized “babywearing”, although I reject that term, as I agree with RIE that when you hold your child it should be with your arms as well as your heart and mind. I find the Ergo carrier useful when my daughter is tired and requests to nap when we are away from home or a bed to rest in, which does not really happen that often (by my choice as I value her getting enough peaceful rest). I have never had very much luck getting her to nap in a stroller and I find taking one to be bulky and inconvenient. I very much agree with you regarding distracting toddlers instead of setting clear boundaries before we feel impatient. I like to talk to my daughter like a human being and I do not use “baby talk”. I think the very basis of RIE is respect and active listening and those are two things that I value strongly. There are subtle differences that become more prominent as you read and study deeper. I sort of don’t like that I even played into the “labels” by commenting on various practices above, but I truly think it is best to not be dogmatic, acquire information that is accurate, and work on your own childhood wounds as to not spread those patterns of emotional pain to your children. I think there are many people in both communities writing very valid and heartfelt articles regarding respecting and nurturing children.
Stephanie, thank you so much for your very thoughtful, detailed comment. Such a fascinating topic! I would love to hear more about: “I do agree with Naomi Aldort that you can take the idea of a child needing to cry and rage too far.” Can you explain this? My attitude toward children’s feelings is that they all need to be accepted and also that they don’t belong to me. So, I’m unclear as to what it means to take the idea of a child expressing feelings too far.
Janet, I could write so much about this topic.
My children are now teenagers. I practiced AP-style – though the term was not in use yet – because I wanted to allow them to develop naturally. It came easily with breastfeeding, an aversion to baby-gear and with a commitment to NOT parent my children in the way I was parented (which may be a red flag). My saving grace was the fact that I was utterly fascinated by child development and the curious teacher in me was always present – so I had this mothering instinct coupled with the desire to observe and learn from my children as participants in and with the environment.
I think if I had to follow principles or force my parenting into a mold of some kind – I would have been a wreck.
Enter RIE, too late to practice with my children as youngsters, and yet Magda’s wisdom transcends age which, in my opinion, makes it timeless and authentically applicable. It is a human practice. And one not taken lightly. It asks a lot of us! To step back and not just observe the child but to observe ourselves and get to the heart of our own reactions and beliefs before we transpose them onto our child or a situation. It is beyond observational and reflective – it asks us to really question our motivations and tap into our deepest fears and desires -not just for our children but for ourselves in all of our relationships. And if we are to step back and allow for an authentic and respectful relationship with our child – we will need to examine many aspects of ourselves in order to do so.
I will admit, AP made parenting easier in many ways though prices were paid for that ease. Could my children have developed deeper relationships with others in the family if I did not literally hold them close during those critical years? What was I afraid of letting go of if I let my child be in relationship with others without my oversight? What message was I sending to them about how I felt about their competence by either avoiding situations or foreseeing and removing challenges for them?
If I could do it again I would look towards being inspired by Magda and her work as I believe it truly speaks to a long-term relationship, not just with my baby, but with the separate human being that my baby is first and foremost. There are many natural mothering instincts that I believe AP sprouted from and which I think are worth nurturing. But the baby in me (i.e. the human being) has such a desire to be seen and heard and communicated with without being tangled in someone else’s emotions or preconceptions of who I am or what I am capable of.
That seemingly small gesture of RESPECT that is demonstrated in stepping back, in giving some space, in listening and then in acting (not reacting) to the needs of another human being with compassion and empathy – is everything I want for my children to experience and to offer.
A view from the other side!
Beth
Wow, Beth, thank you for so generously and eloquently sharing these insights.
I think I relate most to the people who are reluctant to use labels. I’ve never seen myself as either AP (which is just a loose term that applies to many different sets of ideas) or RIE, and don’t see any particular reason to. What I see as central to the kind of parent I wish to be are 3 things: listening/observing; respecting; maintaining a stance where I ask and wonder about what I see and what I do, what my child sees and does. I think those are principles that many who would call themselves RIE, and many who would call themselves AP, would actually share (though I suspect most of us don’t live up to that ideal as much as we would hope).
Beyond these 3 things, which I see as core to good parenting, I think there is enormous variation in what “good parenting” looks like. What I so much appreciate in this blog is that it sometimes gets me to ask different kinds of questions, or to notice different kinds of things when I observe. What does not resonate much for me is the idea that sometimes appears that there is a specific set of RIE practices, and inherently the more one adheres to those, the better one is as a parent, and the less one adheres to those, the worse one is as a parent. That it is the practices that dictate whether you have respect for the child (if you are not doing X, Y, and Z, you are not respecting the child, if you are doing A, B, and C, you are), if you will, and not the listening/observation and continued questioning that determines what practices might be most respectful. It’s a subtle difference, but I think the latter leaves more room for the recognition, first, that different folks can listen/observe closely and carefully and see different things (especially when looking at different kids in different situations!), and that the respect that grows out of that might look different as well. I think there can be a kind of personal and cultural hubris when there isn’t enough space to acknowledge that in a conversation about parenting.
I remember an exchange a couple months ago where I was saying farewell to a toddler who had visited, and I said, “May I give you a hug goodbye?” The toddler looked at me, smiling, and said, “No.” I did not hug him, just bade him goodbye and left it at that. A dear friend observing the interaction told me: “I would have just hugged him.” Sounds like my friend is an insensitive, disrespectful guy, right, who doesn’t listen to kids? And yet, he is in fact enormously respectful (and in the many months that my daughter was terribly afraid of men, he absolutely recognized and honored that, and kept his distance, sometimes inviting her to engage with him, but never insisting on it). He is someone who is uncommonly good at listening to children — indeed, I wish I were as good at it as he is — and he absolutely makes judgments about what he does on the basis of the cues he sees in children. I was going by the child’s answer; my friend was going by the child’s demeanor. He is a careful observer and an amazingly astute asker of questions: as a result, he’s often noticed things about children, including my daughter, that I hadn’t noticed till he brought it to my attention. Children gravitate toward him in ways I’ve seldom seen, because they know he listens to them, and makes space for noticing with them what they notice and care about. And, heck, if my daughter turns out as well-adjusted, confident, and good-natured as his two adult children, I’d be delighted.
I’m not saying he was right and I was wrong — I think that, for me, I’m more comfortable with the way I approached the situation, and I’d do it the same way again. But I would never presume to say that my decision was more respectful than his would have been. We were two different people, both with a deep commitment to respecting children, who might make a different decision in such a moment. And I see some of the issues around AP and RIE in a similar light. I think any practice, whether it be having a child in a sling or letting a child cry, is problematic when it is done in a non-reflective way that is not genuinely about hearing and responding to the child. And there are plenty of times when I’m guilty of that, and plenty of ways I need to get better at my listening and responding. But if I’m simply given a rule, whether it be “no babywearing” or “never let a baby cry”, and I follow that rule, I’m not really making that decision because I’m listening. That’s not the kind of parent I aspire to be, regardless of the rule. I’d rather have a question posed that makes me think.
All that said, what is terrific in a forum like this, if we’re genuine in listening to each other, is that we can come to identify places where we might listen or respond differently, where we might stop relying on what we have thought or read in a book, and begin to make our responses more responsive to children in a deeper way.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion, Margarita. I especially appreciate: “I think any practice, whether it be having a child in a sling or letting a child cry, is problematic when it is done in a non-reflective way that is not genuinely about hearing and responding to the child.”
I agree with you, Chris, that comparing Yequana and Western babies isn’t really helpful. We raise children to survive and hopefully thrive in the culture and environment they live in – and these are two very different cultures.
When I hear people talk about how natural baby wearing is I think about the girls and women I’ve seen in developing countries whose spines are curved from having to carry babies too much and too long. Through much of history, and in many places in the world, there haven’t been safe places to put a baby down to explore freely.
To suggest that there is one right way to raise infants ignores history and culture, and sets parents up for guilt. I appreciate that Janet doesn’t do this in her writing about RIE.
Ohhh RIE vs. AP. This is a discussion very close to home for me. I’m an Early Childhood Teacher, with a huge passion for RIE. I’m now a mother, to a 10 ½ month old girl. As a teacher, RIE just resonates with me. I just assumed it would be the perfect fit for me as a parent too. In fact, I was 7 ½ months pregnant when I did my RIE foundations study. I may have become a bit zealous at that point actually, I remember sitting in antenatal class scoffing at the suggestion that you might find it useful to pop your baby in the car to get them to sleep. Pah, I knew how to do it! You just pop them into their bed, listen to then have a stress diffusing cry and watch them drift blissfully off to sleep- they were capable right! None of this carrying them round 24/7 business either, they need space to be move freely! I didn’t even buy a baby carrier.
Thank goodness my baby came along set to patiently teach me some lessons or I would have been insufferable. We now co-sleep, and when we are out and about we use a baby carrier, because touch is really important to my daughter. And thank goodness for AP, for reinforcing that these tools and methods are OK, normal even. I didn’t get that from RIE. Not all the practices are a good fit for my daughter, or my family for that matter. I am an awesome mother, but I’m not RIE. In my experience/ interpretation RIE seems to be quite separatist. I understand in keeping things pure- and Magda was a genius before her time and should not be “diluted”, but RIE seems to be of the attitude that you are either RIE or you are not. There is no encouragement for the incorporation of RIE techniques into one’s toolbox- that’s not RIE. There is no official endorsement of a RIE/ AP blend (see this post)- that’s not RIE. To be honest, it’s made me feel (unnecessarily) like a bit of a RIE failure. And I know that’s not what RIE is about!
As an educator, working with other peoples children, RIE is a great fit for me. As it was for Pickler’s nurses, working with children who were institutionalized. As a parent, I need to embrace other facets of peaceful parenting to meet my daughters needs, and that is more important to me than “being RIE”.
Chantal, thank you, I really appreciate your comment for many reasons — mainly because, for me, it reflects some common misconceptions about the RIE approach.
Firstly, although I think you meant it in jest, this approach isn’t about “popping” babies anywhere, including in bed when they are tired. It’s about developing routines and a rhythm with your baby (and COMMUNICATING), so that WAY before you bring your baby to bed, the baby is anticipating falling asleep and has been gradually “letting go”… Babies like to know what to expect, and it’s up to parents to define “life” for their baby…
Secondly, yes, Pikler’s nurses used this approach with institutionalized children with groundbreaking results. These children became healthy adults, without the social-emotional issues usually associated with institutionalized children. But Pikler also had a pediatric practice (like Dr. Sears) and the unusual (and quite radical for that time) respectful practices she recommended were enlightening to parents like Magda Gerber, who first met the renowned pediatrician when she brought her ill daughter to her for treatment.
Regarding “endorsing a RIE/AP blend”, I honestly don’t know enough about AP to do that. It has not been my experience…and there seem to be a wide array of opinions about what AP really is.
I endorse PARENTS. My job, as I see it, is to help parents have an enjoyable, successful experience. When parents ask me questions, I don’t second guess them. I don’t ask, “Why do you want that?” or suggest “You shouldn’t want that” (i.e., more sleep, a less clingy child, to wean, etc.). And yet, these are the baffling responses I often hear from AP advisers. I have basic trust in parents. I trust their instincts and I trust that they know their children better than I do. I don’t know who you took the RIE course with, but I studied with Magda Gerber, and her approach was about trusting and respecting babies and parents. She couldn’t have cared less about someone “being RIE”.
Janet,
What a well-written article! Thank you for all the work you put into this site. I’ve always loved the ideas of both Pikler, Gerber and Liedloff…tho I understand there were some authenticity problems with Liedloff’s book. What I most wanted to say here is that in a talk I had with Anna Tardos, Emmi Pikler’s daughter about seven years ago, she disparaged the use of the word “respect” by the “Americans.” She said understanding was a better word to use regarding our attitude toward infants. Deep understanding, she emphasized. Keep up the great work. You are helping lots of people.
Thank you, Ruth! Interesting comment about “respect”… With respect for Anna Tardos, what is her issue with the term ‘respect’? Perhaps the idea of treating babies as “honored guests” was Magda Gerber’s interpretation? I honestly don’t think so, and would venture to say that Magda might understand Pikler’s views even better than Pikler’s daughter does. Deep understanding is obviously integral to Pikler’s approach, but respect is too. ‘Respect’ means not scooping babies up without a word, passing them around to friends and relatives, talking over them as if they don’t exist, engaging with them only at our whim, distracting them from their feelings, like Liedloff suggests doing, etc. “Respect’ is at the core of everything Magda Gerber advised and taught. She liked the word very much.
I just recently learned about RIE parenting, and had not heard of thos aspect yet. My little one does not like to be worn all the time. He LOVES to move around and watch what I’m doing. He does get fussy after a while, though, so I strap him on and go about my business with a happy baby.
I do disagree with not paying attention to your baby. I do let him explore on his own, and when I’m carrying on a conversation or folding laundry, he may not get attention. But rarely having eye contant? That to me would be ignoring them and training them to be independent to soon. IMO, they need that connection. Not constantly, but most of the time:)
Interesting article and great debate in the comments!
Firstly, I’ve really enjoyed the openness and inquisitiveness of how you’ve written this Janet (we had a discussion on another post and I will get back to you, we’ve just all been sick this week).
Secondly, with regard to the question. Like many on here, my approach has been intuitive and akin to both AP and more lately RIE. Prior to my son being born four years ago my intention was to simply listen and learn him and, from the oft, I treated him as a small person. And my key intention within my own approach has been to trust my instincts and listen to my gut.
I think there are wonderful aspects about both philosophies. Both essentially are mindful and this is why, for me, they are compatible. And it is why I enjoy elements from each, those that resonate with me, to help give me tools to enhance my own parenting choices.
But I do think it’s problematic to divide AP and RIE into one that serves the body and the other the mind. We live in a society that perpetually disconnects the two and one premise I seek as a parent is to help my children be embodied and grounded as much as they possibly can be within themselves. This to me is fundamental; a strong healthy mind and core sense of self cannot exist without the foundation of the earth, without rooted-ness.
This is an asset AP – wearing, co-sleeping, skin-to-skin help regulate to a baby’s growing nervous system. This feedback is essential: not just to an appearing happy and content smiling 6 month old but for one’s being for the rest of one’s life. It will inform choices, decisions, patterns of behaviour until one’s last breath so I see this physical connection as a primary seed for my children’s being.
And in a society that is a million miles away from tribal living, who’s ‘personal villages’ – that even for our mother’s generation consisted of their mothers, sisters, aunts, etc to help ‘hold’ the baby unit – are sparse and often exist in a virtual form online, for me this physical connection through touch, gravity and breath is a key gift I want to bestow on my children.
But I also want to relate to my children’s sentient selves – hence choosing dialogues with them that help and aid their wakefulness and their trust in me as their parent; for them to know I’m listening to their being and as they step forward in the world, make decisions (as ‘small’ and ‘big’ as learning to walk…), that they know there is someone hearing them and holding the space, someone allowing them to be theirselves in their fullest sense as best I can and this is where I feel RIE is helpful. As well as for me being able to instigate my limits, my personal boundaries of what I can and cannot give, of what I believe is helpful practice in learning in the world, this form of non-judgemental communication found in RIE really resonates with me.
Liedoff’s and Gerber’s work have spawned ways to connect / re-connect with our children over the last 50 years or so. Yes there are distinctions but also many marriages of intention: namely mindful LOVE and RESPECT. And the seeming coming together of both AP and RIE principles by many parents, will undoubtedly lead the way to deepen understandings in parenting in the next 50 years plus – as well as hopefully produce generations of sentient and embodied folk!
I think the problem here is you have used the popular/labelled form of ‘attachment parenting’ to compare RIE to. Attachment parenting really wasn’t created by Liedloff or Sears, it was based on the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, Harlow, Spitz & co. If you consider true attachment theory it does not fit into the cliche you have outlined, indeed bedsharing and babywearing are not even mentioned, neither is the 4th trimester (which is actually not an AP concept either).
I’d be interested in seeing a comparison between TRUE attachment theory based parenting and RIE, because to my mind they are no different.
Sarah
Sarah, Dr. Sears is the founder of Attachment Parenting. ‘Attachment Parenting’ is his term for the approach he recommends, inspired, I would imagine, by his interpretation of Attachment Theory. Bowlby did not use the term ‘attachment parenting’. You might be interested in this book about the major “attachment theorists”: http://www.amazon.com/Theories-Attachment-Introduction-Ainsworth-Brazelton/dp/1933653388 A chapter on Magda Gerber is included along with chapters on Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Brazelton.
Yes, Attachment Theory and RIE have much in common. Bowlby’s son Sir Richard Bowlby was the keynote speaker at the RIE Conference a few years ago and I shared what I perceived as the similarities and differences between his presentation and the RIE approach in this post: https://janetlansbury.com/2010/06/secure-attachment-and-so-much-more-magda-gerbers-uncommon-respect-for-babies/
Apologies, how that was written completely contradicted itself. What I meant to say that I find it problematic to sit AP and RIE opposingly into ‘mind’ and ‘body’ camps and believe they really serve best to sit beside each other, mutually and beneficially aiding the other. Reading the wealth of experience that has been written here, it is very evident how well they balance and compliment each other.
Sophie, thank you for your very thoughtful, eloquent comments.
Since this post was instigated by a parent’s wish to understand the difference between these approaches and how they might or might not mesh well together, my intention was to share where choices might need to be made in one direction or the other — where integrating RIE and Attachment Parenting might pose challenges. This is NOT to say that AP is only about one thing and RIE is only about another. “Keep the baby close” and “pay attention” are different focuses, but one certainly does not exclude the other (although Liedloff asserts that paying attention to “worn” babies creates problems). Both RIE and AP are obviously about both the mind AND body and that is why they foster healthy, securely attached children.
But each of these approaches puts specific practices up front as a route to healthy attachment. The focus of the practices Sears and Liedloff recommend are mostly about close physical contact (i.e., Sears’ “5 B’s” and Liedloff’s “in arms” recommendations). Neither Sears nor Liedloff mention attentiveness or verbally engaging with the baby in their primary recommendations. Liedloff, in fact, warns against attentiveness.
The focus of the RIE principles is basic trust in the infant as a competent person, respectful interaction and observation, active participation of the child in the parent/child relationship and in life. (In my view, Liedloff’s term ‘passively participates’ is an oxymoron.)
It was not my intention to divide these philosophies of care into opposing camps or present either in extreme terms! And it does seem that some aspects might “sit beside each other”, but I don’t believe it is reasonable, helpful or fair to parents to suggest that they should necessarily be able to “have it all”.
For example, it is crystal clear from the questions I receive, that some children do not adjust easily from being habitually carried to more active, independent play and self-directed learning. Carrying babies is a (however lovely) form of passive entertainment that some children transition out of easily, but others don’t.
Parents who have contacted me have also assumed that they could place their baby down after being carried most of the day and expect her to be able to achieve “mastery” the way Ruby does in this video: https://janetlansbury.com/2012/05/dont-help-this-baby/. Some have wondered at their toddler’s inability to self-soothe or have had difficulties setting boundaries as the result of using the distractive methods Sears and Liedloff advise for the first year.
I think parents deserve to know these approaches are different and balancing a mixture of both, taking them out of the context in which they work best, might not be as easy as it sounds. And that is why I was hoping that parents who ARE using both methods would share details!
But I also enjoy philosophical discussions.
I don’t think they are that different, really. From personal experience, I would have loved to gaze at my baby and let him explore by himself. But I just didn’t get one of those babies 😉 When he was tiny he screamed when put down and was content when worn. He was NOT interested in any kind of play until nearly 5-6 months. Maybe that’s unusual…But Taking cues from my baby and being respectful was being not so RIE at all..at least according to this article 🙂 I’m noticing that more RIE stuff seems to apply for older babies and toddlers.
Evs, may I ask how you went about offering play to your baby? I would never question a parent’s perspective of her child, but I must also mention that placing babies down to play is a process that parents usually have to understand and commit themselves to for it to work. Babies will generally prefer what they are used to doing…and if they are usually carried, placing them down must be approached with lots of care and communication until it becomes habit. (I’m not suggesting that you didn’t do this, but just wondering.) “Mamas in the Making” explain the process beautifully in this post: http://mamas-in-the-making.com/2012/05/playing-through-the-first-3-months/
Well, I did occasionally put him down and there was a nice playmat (that I was assured babies looove to spend lots of time on…not my baby :)) ) and some toys. I don’t know, maybe I should have done more. But I don’t view placing a baby down to play as a _commitment_. I mean play is fun, it’s in their (and our!) blood. He played when he was ready, he communicated more when he was ready. I was even one of those moms who spoke very little to him when he was tiny – I felt so guilty afterwards that I do not constantly chatter about everything and anything like other moms..But it just felt wrong. But guess what – at some point I saw that he was expecting me to talk and I did. And it was not forced anymore, it was natural. I agree that babies prefer what they are used to doing…And in some ways he did that. He preferred a “womb-like” environment a lot more than any free play or interaction. But then he grew into free play more and more. I’m pretty sure I didn’t squelch his independence when he was a baby. Mostly because I was a first time mom who was a bit AP-leaning, but not that hardcore. 🙂 I mean I was going to only wear baby a tiny bit outside for convenience, occasionally co-sleep because it’s nice and nurse on demand every 3 hours :)) This baby set me straight and I did A LOT more of these thing then I ever thought I would. If I ever have another baby, I think I would see wether he needs more independence as a newborn or not (in fact I would welcome it – my son is lovely but pretty high maintenance:) ).
This is getting long…Sorry! One last point: I think my son is a “people person” . IMHO, his lack of completely independent play is not due to lack of imagination but through wanting some feedback and companionship. Since he’s an only child it mostly comes from me and my husband.
Sounds like you enjoy your boy and have a lovely relationship. Can you describe how he is “high maintenance”?
What I meant by “commitment” is that there is a gentle process involved. Fostering play has to be the parent’s choice, just as placing babies in carriers is the parent’s choice…and the choice to spend much of the day carrying the baby will usually cause the baby to object to being placed down. To a great extent, if not totally, we define for our baby the way their day should go and babies generally accept what is offered (while we, of course, stay tuned in and listen to them).
Child-led play IS in a baby’s “blood”, but it is seldom an agreeable idea for the baby if we just decide to “put him down” occasionally when we feel like it. Attachment Parenting does not offer a process for encouraging play in the first year, because baby-led play is not an AP value.
Evs, I totally agree with you that your boy’s lack of independent play does not reflect a lack of imagination! And independent play IS about giving babies feedback and companionship (feedback that they initiate a desire for), although once it’s established, parents can take time away from the baby while he or she is happily occupied.
Janet,
I should have elaborated more about what I meant there. I think you should scaffold experiences for your children and make sure the struggles are developmentally appropriate. Set up a safe play environment, like you talk about, so you don’t have to say “no” all the time. Allow daily life struggles to come up, but not go out of your way to make your child’s life difficult (eg. play into power struggles). For example, if you don’t get dressed we will not make it to playgroup today or if you throw your toy and is breaks you will not have one to play with…these just happen naturally they are not parent imposed. Set up a peaceful daily rhythm that allows plenty of time to play, a peaceful transition to sleep, and support for feelings. I guess what I am talking about is preventing unnecessary conflict. Taking responsibility as a parent for your role to provide a safe and nurturing environment…and look inward when you feel your life is getting too chaotic or you are unhappy with your relationship with your child. I think that is a big difference between RIE and AP. AP seems to be more about outward practices and RIE is more about inward work and really preventing reacting to your children in an unconscious manner. Just really feels like mindful parenting to me!
Thank you for your wonderful explanation, Stephanie. I totally agree.
I refer to your site, ahaparenting and handinhandparenting for all of my baby/mommy needs.
I was greatly influenced by Leidoff’s book while pregnant but also read your site.
For me personally, I side with AP on sleeping- I feel my daughter (8 months) needs a warm body present while she sleeps. In the first several months, this meant wearing her while she sleeps. I still do wear her while she sleeps or often, like now, I lay with her.
If I’m honest with myself, I could see that perhaps my own childhood abandonment feelings contribute to my decision to wear her.
I also just feel passionately that babies shouldn’t sleep alone. Unless they indicate they want to. Which my daughter hasn’t.
I don’t mind being an “all night diner” as you have written about. She can nurse at night as much as she asks. Where some children have pacifiers or “lovies,” I feel passionate that my child receive the real thing and believe the former to be mommy-substitutes.
For play, I use RIE methods. I observe more, interfere less and enjoy most.
Honestly, your articles go to a level that most don’t. Or at least with such clarity. Your parenting advice fills in the gaps where AP leaves off.
As someone who had a traumatic upbringing, I can see how others like me might be attracted to AP. Unlike many, I’ve had intensive therapy with phenomenal therapists and have a lot of recovery. I’ve met my wounded inner child and try not to let her make decisions for me. I try to stay in my functional adult.
I am so thankful for your articles, Janet.
You talk about the things that are important to me.
My baby is treated different because of the knowledge I’ve acquired through recovery, AP, Dr. Laura Markham, handinhandparenting and your articles.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences, Katherine.
I read so many comments, wondering if I was an odd one out. And thank Katherine someone else refers to Dr Laura Markham for specific guidelines. Maybe Dr Sears and Leidoff wrote original works on AP. But what I see, hear and learn from ahaparenting and fellow AP moms is about understanding your baby, positive discipline, safe play space, lots of empathy, letting feelings out in toddlers so not ignoring or quieting the cry. I do thank AP for giving me the confidence to trust my first instincts and bringing up a confident, v social child. Maybe AP overlaps with RIE. And maybe that’s why I am gravitated to RIE. It was on AP forums that I first heard of Waldorf education, and then stumbled upon RIE. Maybe we are in a generation where more people are finding out what really brings up confident, loved children. Maybe the answer to the original reader would be how the two styles were theorized differently, but being practiced so hand in hand. And it’s OK to accept the other style. I have heard so many AP parents openly talk about non-AP practices positively, but see a purist RIE parent cringe at the mention of AP.
The more I read about RIE the more I recognize my own parenting in it. You have beautifully discerned how it differs from AP, in a way that makes me treasure it all the more! I found the ideas of cosleeping and baby wearing foreign, but see my son as a human being worthy of my respect and attention. Your blog is helping me with the smaller decisions of daily parenting. Thanks for a great post!
Hmmm… Interesting discussion. I’m reading all the comments, and I keep coming back to one question about babies’ “needs” and “wants” for closeness and holding. I don’t have any doubt at all that babies need and want a lot of holding and closeness, and some need and want much more than others. But, I’m still not sure that “babywearing” actually meets that need for either the baby or the parent. I think for me, the differences between AP and RIE comes down to a matter of conscious, focused attention, (so yes, full engagement part of the time), vs. bodily closeness most of the time- which AP DOES promote- (babywearing, co-sleeping, and breastfeeding for comfort).
A baby may need or want a lot of closeness and holding, and there is nothing in RIE that precludes that, but my understanding of RIE is that my baby will let me know if I give her the opportunity, and then it is a conversation between us.
If she’s needing more holding, then I stop what I’m doing, hold her in my arms, and give her my full attention. If I can’t stop what I’m doing, for whatever reason, I acknowledge her need and let her know I’ll be with her in a minute.
But if I have her strapped to me, what opportunity is there for her to experience herself as herself, and in terms of offering “closeness” , how respectful is it to her (or to me) to have her physically close while my mind is on other things and my hands and body are busy doing other things?
The best analogy I can make is that “babywearing” is akin to snuggling up to a partner when they are absorbed in something else, like say, watching a football game. Sure, your bodies might be close, but his attention is elsewhere, and there is no opportunity for any meaningful connection or dialogue.
I think maybe that’s not really so satisfying for either person on a emotional level, and babies are little people, who are learning about and absorbing lessons about how to be in relationships, so I wonder what messages they get when they are held physically close, but without focused attention from the person holding them?
I obviously have a preference for RIE (because it works for me, and I’ve seen how it woks beautifully to support other parents, and most of all, babies).
I certainly respect other peoples’ right to make their own choices, but I feel really strongly that it’s helpful for people to understand what the possible choices are and what the differences are in different approaches.
I think AP and RIE share similar stated goals, but the paths to the goal are very different, and to me, NOT fully compatible.
AP does NOT seem to recognize the infant (let’s say newborn to one year old), as being a fully formed, fully capable participant in relationships, until sometime in toddlerhood.
As an educator, (and as a parent), I think our babies deserve a bit more credit than that. They are so much more than just a little bundle of needs that we have to try to satisfy.
Lisa, your comment brings up something I have been wondering about RIE for some time now:
RIE seems like such a wonderful philosophy for an only child. I have loved doing as much RIE as I possibly can with my firstborn. However, I am expecting my second any day now, and I have not yet heard anyone explain how I am supposed to be so dedicated and attentive to more than one child at the same time! I suspect that I will be carrying my second child in wraps and carriers much more than I carried my first, simply due to the practicalities of getting food on the table and getting my toddler outdoors to play. (I try not to use the word “babywearing,” it sounds so wrong to me.)
I would love to hear more about practicing RIE with more than one child who have competing needs/wants. Obviously I will continue to listen and observe and respond and communicate with both children as best I can, but I just don’t see how either one of them will ever get as much of my full attention as RIE seems to recommend.
Brigitte, great topic. In my experience with 3 children, the RIE approach is even more of a blessing when there is more than one child, or the parents work, or for whatever reason the parent has minimal one-on-one time with his or her child. RIE is all about “quality time”. Children don’t need mass quantities of our attention, as long as we give it fully at least once or twice per day. Some days, for some parents, full attention might only be paid during diapering, feeding, bathing and bedtime rituals, and maybe not even all of those times. We do our best. But when we DO have the opportunity, we put away the phone and other concerns and give ourselves fully to our child…and that carries them through, even though they object to the attention we pay the baby.
If I were you, I would work towards arranging your day so that your infant goes to bed as early as possible in the evening… That will give you special time with your toddler that he or she can count on. Then, when you are diapering or feeding the baby attentively, you can calmly let your toddler know, “I hear how much you want my attention right now, but I’m feeding the baby. I’m so looking forward to our time together tonight. Think about what you want to do together before bed!”
I also recommend giving your infant a safe, enclosed place to play and be (a playpen is fine for the first months). Cultivating your baby’s independent play will be a godsend and your toddler will probably need this boundary, because the impulse to test the parents by bothering the baby can be strong. But also don’t worry when your infant is interrupted more than your toddler was… This is life for a younger sibling. And the uninterrupted time she does have can become even more precious.
I’m realizing that I need to write a post about this!
I would love to read a post about this. We’re expecting our second child in a few months, too.
I would also really love for you to address how to handle cross-age socialization. It seems much simpler to let two two-year-olds who are both interested in the same ball work that out than it does to step back in situations where there is a child considerably older exerting her/his will on a younger child who is upset about the outcome. I don’t think the answer is necessarily always to intervene, but I do think that consistent non-intervention in such settings could be problematic.
I’d like to know more about this also as I am a nanny for a 2, 4, 6 and 9 year old.
Lisa, I thank you so much for your illuminating comment. You’ve touched on some ideas I missed and expressed them beautifully.
Hi Lisa-
Lots of food for thought there. When I look at it, both carrying a child regularly in a sling and RIE have times when the adult is not attending to the child. For RIE, the baby is in a safe place on the ground during those times, and in some forms of AP the child may be in a sling. In neither situation is the child getting focused attention during those times (assuming the mother is, say, folding laundry). But that does not mean that, in either situation, the adult is unable to be responsive (to the restive child who wants out of the sling; to the crying child on the ground who appears to be super-hungry and ready to nurse). Whether adults are responsive enough or in tune enough in either situation is another question, but I don’t think either environment precludes the adult from refocusing attention on the child when the adult task is done and/or when the child indicates that another kind of interaction is what is needed. To use your analogy, if someone is watching football, is it better to be snuggled with that person on the couch, or in another room entirely? I think the case can be made both ways, and may differ depending on individual preferences of both parent and child, but I don’t think that one can assume that the person watching football in the other room is inherently the one who connects better. (Personally, I can think of times when I’d prefer each of those circumstances — it depends!) What really determines the amount of respectful connection is what happens when there is intentional focus and connection — and I feel fairly confident that that can happen in juxtaposition with either circumstance (though neither is a guarantee of it). When we make a caricature of either position, they look bad (the child who never gets held, the child who is never put down), and there are probably parents who do both of those things more than they should, but if we assume that the parent is alert, aware, and responsive in both circumstances, I think we’d have a pretty respectful parent-child relationship either way. It may be enormously helpful to many parents to realize that they don’t have to use a sling to be connected to their child, and I think that’s a contribution of RIE, but it just doesn’t seem helpful to make the assumption that RIE treats babies as little people and anything that isn’t “pure” RIE doesn’t.
Hi Lisa, from my experience of my own parenting and watching those around who’s approaches have also been akin to AP, it’s very greatly about conscious engagement and connection. Yes at times in a different way to RIE but from seeing it in practice (as opposed to what Sears etc might write) conscious presence it’s at the heart of AP and baby-wearing isn’t just about mindlessly strapping the baby on to get on with jobs or whatever – it’s about listening to the baby and finding out if that’s what they need at that particular time. For me it was never like cuddling up to my husband whilst his mind was elsewhere or vice-versa and I don’t believe this to be true of many friends of baby-wear. The highlight of wearing my son for me was spending hours walking around the park every day, feeling him breath, enjoying our closeness and the immense stillness that it gave him, the walks became ‘our’ walks in our rhythm together and a very different experience than if he was in a pram – which was something I also offered but he rarely chose it until he could sit up and watch everything that was going on.
Yes, yes there are both differences and similarities but AP is also a very mindful, albeit in a different way, approach.
So enjoying this thread! I keep having flashbacks to various moments in my mothering life that relate to the “signatures” of each of these philosophies. I frist read Continuum Concept when I was 13, so some of those ideas were pretty firmly entrenched when I had my first.
I remember many times when my 2,3,4 month old first daughter was so content to spend time alone on the floor, and how racked with guilt I would feel if I did laundry or read a book and neglected to “engage” her at this happy moment.
I think my biggest challenge with following the AP model, which at the time I considered “instinctive and natural” rather than culturally created, came once we entered the toddler years, and I was at a complete loss for how to respect her, to have boundaries, and to guide in a meaningful way. It was a very long, painful learning curve.
When I first encountered Pikler’s work I felt this deep relief–it was okay to not to have been in my baby’s face all the time! Phew! It has been a long process to learn this new way of being with my children, and I honestly resisted Gerber a great deal at first, though now I can’t remember why. I think it’s hard to really get what RIE can look like, and how to “do it” when unable to witness or participate in a class like yours. Yes, we can strive to respect, observe, etc, but much of this is very counter to how parenting is done in America today, whether it is in the mainstream or the natural parenting world. Without mentors, it is hard to learn. Of course, the babe is quite a teacher, when the student shows up for class.
When my second child was born, I had a very different approach. Yes, we co-sleep, but I have no problem saying no to night nursing. I have never used nursing to pacify her hurts. I certainly didn’t feel bad to let her play on the floor, but did feel guilty when I had to carry her to keep her away from her big sister (I regret never getting a playpen, but Dr. Sears was still influencing me deep down!) My dear AP friends and I have a mutual horror for how much/how little we carry our babies around. Perhaps the key is to treat each other and ourselves with the same respect and care we all strive to give our children.
“Perhaps the key is to treat each other and ourselves with the same respect and care we all strive to give our children…”
Couldn’t have said it better, Kyce, and I know Magda Gerber would agree.
I love hearing more about RIE. I especially love the philosophy of “Pay attention and respect.” Yes!!
Are you at all familiar with Attachment Parenting International and the 8 Principles of Attachment Parenting?
You seem in this article to be conflating attachment parenting (which, you are entirely correct, does have many definitions) strictly with the work of Dr Sears and Jean Liedoff. Many people in the AP community aren’t even all that familiar with Liedoff, in my experience.
The 8 principles of attachment parenting as defined by API are:
Prepare for Pregnancy, Birth, and Parenting
Feed with Love and Respect
Respond with Sensitivity
Use Nurturing Touch
Ensure Safe Sleep, Physically and Emotionally
Provide Consistent and Loving Care
Practice Positive Discipline
Strive for Balance in Your Personal and Family Life
None of those principles require babywearing or cosleeping, though those are frequently seen as useful tools.
For me, the core of AP is having respect for my child and building attachment with them, following their cues in terms of feeding, sleeping, and comforting. I had not heard of RIE til my son was a toddler, but I did practice attachment parenting with him. It wasn’t about holding him all the time though. I wore him a great deal, but even from 2 or 3 months old, I could tell when he was “done” being in the wrap, and would want down to stretch and play on the floor for a bit. He has always been wonderful about playing independently, and I’ve never hesitated to hold him close and be involved with him when that was what he wanted. I have a daughter now too, and have followed the same practices with her–she’s very different in personality, and having a preschooler to keep track of has meant I have worn her much more than I did my son, including wearing her for some naps so that we could go out and play and go about our active daily lives while still respecting her need for sleep.
In passing, I strongly disagree with some of the advice quoted here from Dr Sears about time outs/distraction/etc, had never even read it, actually, and am a bit shocked. I have read many different discipline resources in an attempt to “Practice Positive Discipline” including RIE resources, Jane Nelsen’s work, Ross Greene’s work on Collaborative Problem Solving, Dr Laura Markham’s work on discipline, and other AP sources. We don’t use time outs or other punishments/rewards at all, and I very much consider myself a practitioner of Attachment Parenting. I’ve found RIE resources very useful, and was doing many RIE “things” with my toddlers before I knew what they were. I’ve also gotten lots of wisdom from Montessori’s work and the concept of free-range parenting, and I integrate those things into our daily life as well.
I have more to say on this topic as to where I feel RIE and AP might be in conflict but will be back later, I got caught up in this fascinating conversation and forgot I have an appointment soon 🙂
Thank you so much for these explanations, Chelle, but now I’m confused. Are there two kinds of Attachment Parenting: the approach to child rearing that Sears termed ‘Attachment Parenting’ and API’s version? I thought the two were one. Is there conflict between Sears and API?
BTW, Laura Markham concurs with Jean Liedloff: http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/attachment-parenting/continuum-concept and in Markham’s new book she names Liedloff and Sears as primary influences. Markham also condones distracting babies, which RIE definitely does not consider a respectful practice:
“The bad news is that babies often want everything they see. The good news is that they’re generally distractible during the first year” – Laura Markham, Peaceful Parent – Happy Kids
I don’t know that there is conflict between Sears and API, and I wouldn’t want to imply that there was, but Sears and API are two separate entities, and I find that in my parenting choices, I identify more with API as an overarching philosophy. I don’t specifically follow Dr. Sears (though I’ve certainly found support and useful ideas in his Baby Book and baby care info from his website).
I’m actually looking into becoming an API group leader, and I still have a lot to learn, but I find that API’s definition of attachment parenting is broader based and resonates more with my core goals as a parent than Sears’ “Baby B’s” (though there is definitely overlap between the two).
Another issue, which hasn’t really been touched on here, is the difference between “attachment parenting” and “natural parenting”–many people do both, and as such it’s easy to confuse the two, but they are two separate communities.
Natural parenting has many overlapping areas with AP–natural parenting values, as much as possible, following the biological/evolutionary norm for humans as mammals, and protecting the environment. So, natural parenting would encourage breast-feeding, sleep-sharing, and lots of physical proximity between infant and caregiver/babywearing, all of which are also valued by the AP community. Natural parenting also encompasses things such as promoting natural birth, holistic or naturopathic medicine, using cloth diapers, eating organic foods, and other environmentally friendly practices. But those things aren’t tenets of AP per se, even though many AP parents do them and Dr Sears and Liedoff both endorse many natural parenting practices along with AP practices. You can be an AP parent even if you have a cesarean birth and formula feed from day one, for example, as long as you are feeding “with love and respect”, following baby’s hunger cues rather than forcing an exact schedule. But a c-section or formula feeding wouldn’t fall under “natural parenting” practices since neither are the biological norm for mammals (even though they might be what is required for that particular child to survive and flourish). Does that make sense?
Chelle, thank you again for all of this information. I’m sure readers will appreciate it.
If you don’t mind, I have another question: who founded and developed API’s approach?
That does make a lot of sense and thanks for clarifying that. I’ve always heard people say they AP and cloth diapering is part of it and I always wondered what the hell does cloth diaper has to do with attachment. That just opened my eyes.
And I totally agree with you with the difference between API and whatever Dr.Sears does. To me it’s kinda like the whole “The Secret” kinda thing. There is a whole spiritual idea behind that that is really pretty and emphasizes knowing yourself and how your beliefs drive your life, but some people just took it and made it into a ‘commercializable’ thing by putting it into steps you have to follow in order to achieve something. That’s what I feel like Dr. Sears did because the whole ‘steps’approach to philosophy is so much more simple than actually stopping to think about those concepts and try and apply or mold them into your family. It also brings a bunch of problems with it, but that’s another story.
http://www.attachmentparenting.org/principles/respond.php
I think this link about responding with sensitivity is probably the best explanation of how I view attachment parenting’s role in bonding and responding to a child’s emotions. I’m interested to see where you think it might intersect with or differ from an RIE approach.
For me, one key difference between the infant and toddler stage is the ability to communicate explicitly. My 20 month old, when upset or crying, is able to tell me with words and gestures if she wants to be held, is hungry or thirsty, wants to nurse, if something hurts, or if she needs help or wants to do it herself. She can tell me, as she did the other day, “shoes off, ouchy, feet hot”. So if she is crying, I feel comfortable simply being with her, listening, supporting and not rushing to fix the problem before I know what the problem is–similar to RIE’s approach (as I understand it) of recognizing/validating emotions or Aletha Solter’s “crying-in-arms” approach from “Tears and Tantrums”.
But for a pre-verbal infant, I don’t feel comfortable with that being-present-and-allowing-crying approach, because they have no way of telling me something is wrong or what is wrong, and in my 15 years of caring for infants and toddlers, it’s been my experience that young babies don’t cry just to “release feelings”–there’s nearly always something wrong, whether it’s hunger, discomfort, overstimulation, overtiredness or some yet-undiagnosed physical issue such as reflux, allergies, or an ear infection. There have been so many times when I thought at first that baby was crying over “nothing” only to find out upon closer investigation that something very tangible was making them uncomfortable. Example: the time my 4 month old daughter was wailing in her carseat, fed, well rested, should have been happy–except that I hadn’t noticed her older brother had slid a matchbox car under the carseat cover and once I strapped her in it was poking her leg in a way that must have been quite unpleasant. I comforted and nursed her while trying to figure out what was wrong. I had every reason to assume she was merely voicing her displeasure about being in the seat, when in reality she was hurting. I don’t always figure out what the problem is, but I believe that until they are old enough to communicate more clearly, I’m going to err on the side of comforting and trying to make it better.
This article from API about comforting crying probably is a pretty good explanation of where API might differ from RIE in it’s approach to infant cries (though it sounds like they are more describing Solter’s approach than RIE when talking about allowing crying):
http://theattachedfamily.com/membersonly/?p=1255
With that said, out of the infant/pre-verbal stage, I don’t see any big conflict between RIE practices and AP practices of positive discipline as I understand them. I have learned a lot from your blog and many AP families that I know incorporate similar discipline practices to those you describe for toddlers. I support approaches that respect and value children, and I definitely see that in RIE even if there are some aspects of infant care I might not agree with.
Chelle everything you’ve said is so very clearly laid out and resonates with me exactly. I’m so glad to have someone else say what I was thinking, only better!
Chelle, now that I have a moment, I would like to address some of your misunderstandings about the RIE approach. RIE is definitely about “responding with sensitivity” and we would NEVER, EVER consider a child to be crying about “nothing”.
“Sensitivity” means listening long enough to discern why the person cries and addressing his or her true need, rather than jumping to a conclusion just because babies cannot verbalize their needs as accurately as an older child. When advisers say they would support the feelings of an older child, but not allow an infant to cry, I always wonder… At what age do you start listening? Is there a crossing-over period? How are parents supposed to know when it’s time to adapt their approach? And how do they get comfortable with this transition when they have always believed that calming their child is their reponsibility?
If we consider infants human beings — people — as RIE does, we would understand that they have a right to cry, just as adults do.
Very young infants can communicate their needs if we make it clear that we want them to…which we do by talking to our babies, observing, and listening to them and responding as accurately as possible, so they are encouraged to keep trying to tell us what they need. Communication must begin with us.
Your suggestion that we shouldn’t listen to infant communication because infants don’t communicate as well as toddlers reminds me of Dr. Sears’ comment (on his website) that babies should be “worn” rather than allowed freedom to move on their backs because infant movements are so “jerky”.
Babies learn to control their movements and to communicate because we allow them to and encourage them. Sometimes babies are expressing a particular need when they cry, other times there is nothing an attuned parent can do but listen and accept the baby’s feelings. (I realize you don’t agree that infants have feelings to express, but after observing hundreds of babies over the years, I can assure you that they do.)
In RIE’s view, we need to be even MORE careful with a person who cannot tell us. The least sensitive thing to do is to try to shut a baby down. When you say, “I don’t feel comfortable with that being-present-and-allowing-crying approach”, that implies that your goal is to make crying stop. If that is API’s goal, I can only conclude that their approach is not as sensitive (or as healthy) as the RIE approach.
Psychologists and psychiatrists know that beginning at birth, babies adapt their emotions to the responses they get from parents and caregivers. This is a survival tool. Babies need to please us so that they will continue to get their needs met. Feelings that are inaccurately “soothed” or responded to with alarm or negativity will be discouraged. The baby will learn to put those “unacceptable” feelings aside, store them away, stuff them. Infancy is the most crucial time to be open to our children’s feelings if we want a healthy child. This is one of the most important messages we can deliver to parents, in my opinion.
I realize I’m coming into this discussion late. But hearing Janet say that reminded me of what happened to the child I nanny which is a good example of that learned behavior (which btw I don’t think is just that they wanna please us, but that they naturally seek for order and if you give them the message that this is how things are done than there you go, that’s what they’ll do).
When she was born mom was clueless about caring for babies. A well intentioned nurse told her that whenever a newborn baby cries is because she’s hungry. As we all know most newborns make a lot of noises like that ‘eh’ sound they do a lot when they stretch. So every time the baby made that noise she’d pick her up and start feeding her, even if she was still half asleep. Within a few days baby actually started waking up and crying expecting food every hour, she’d nurse for a minute and fall back asleep so she was never completely satisfied but too tired to keep going. Soon mom was about to lose it. And it took her a while to recover from that.
I just want to say it’s so nice to see AP explained so reasonably like that. And I have to say it sounds very similar to RIE to me. And I don’t believe RIE is about letting them cry unattended but about trying to figure out what’s wrong before just trying to shut them up(which is usually the nursing or the pacifier). But I’m no expert so please ignore me.
Your story and thoughts are wonderful and not to be ignored! Thanks for sharing.
API was founded by Barbara Nicholson and Lisa Parker about 17 years ago. I truthfully don’t know a lot about either of them, other than what their bios on the API site say, one has a Masters in Education and the other a Masters in Child Development:
http://attachmentparenting.org/blog/2009/06/11/attachment-parenting-international-celebrates-15-years/
And API was not founded in conjunction with the man who coined ‘Attachment Parenting’?
I don’t know the answer to that question. Their website doesn’t say that Dr Sears was involved in creating API, and I’m not finding much detail on internet searches. His wife Martha Sears is part of their current board of directors so it’s entirely possible he was involved with API’s founding in some way. I spent some quality time googling and I can’t find any evidence of it–whatever that means. Perhaps they wanted to distance themselves a bit from the Sears family’s commercial empire? I’m just speculating here.
My point in bringing up API is that it seems most people that I know (both here in my hometown and around the interwebs/parenting forums) who practice attachment parenting don’t take Dr Sears’ work as the gospel-be-all-end-all of Attachment Parenting, but when I describe API’s 8 principles they usually agree that those fit or are close to their parenting values.
Even though Dr Sears claims to have coined the term, it’s grown to be considerably bigger than he is. There’s huge variation within the AP community, certainly, but a significant portion of AP parents seem to be more aligned disciplinarily to authors such as Dr Laura Markham, Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, Alfie Kohn, and Jane Nelsen than to the passage you posted from Dr Sears about time outs. I’m not saying that he’s not an influence, I think he most definitely is, but there’s a lot more to the AP community than just Dr Sears’ voice.
Whether people are familiar with API’s 8 principles or not, the most consistent values I’ve found in people who claim the AP label are: pro-responsiveness (via baby-led feeding and sleeping schedules and high levels of parent-child interaction), anti-corporal punishment (and against punitive/manipulative discipline in general), and being anti-cry-it-out (particularly extinction style CIO sleep training, but in general any sleep training method where infants are left to cry alone).
In passing, Harvey Karp, the “Happiest Baby”/5 S’s doctor/author, doesn’t claim to be AP as far as I know. Some AP parents have used his methods and they aren’t considered incompatible with AP if they work to soothe a particular baby but I don’t know that he has a higher percentage of adherents in the AP community than in the general population. Dr Karp is strictly anti-bed-sharing, which doesn’t exactly endear him to the AP community, even though not all AP parents bed-share.
Thanks, by the way, for creating an open forum for this discussion, it’s been very interesting to see the different things people have drawn from AP and RIE methods for the benefit of their children.
Thank you again, Chelle, for sharing your perspective. The situation between API and Dr. Sears is certainly an unusual one…and I guess that explains the apparent confusion about what AP really is. This is the first I’ve heard (including from the many Attachment Parents who have commented here and elsewhere) that the source of AP guidelines is not Sears or Liedloff or a combination of the two.
I cannot think of another philosophical approach that has so distanced itself from it’s orginal source. And I’m surprised that Dr. Sears would be amenable to this situation (did he not copyright ‘Attachment Parenting’?), although it does garner him even more publicity, I suppose.
My thought would be that it’s a bit like Montessori–the name isn’t trademarked, so anyone can take the Montessori name to their school, because they do some practical life activities or store their toys and materials on open shelves, whether they truly practice as Maria Montessori advised in her books or not. Pop-culture Montessori and pop-culture perceptions of what Montessori is are not necessarily the same as the Montessori philosophy and given the lack of trademark, there’s considerable variety from one Montessori school to another.
Dr Sears’ “Baby B’s” have some similar material to API’s 8 Principles, but API is based, I believe, more on Attachment Theory (Bowlby et-al) than Dr Sears. It’s not a founder-driven method like RIE or Montessori or Waldorf.
Here’s a link of API’s 8 Principles vs Dr Sears’ Baby B’s, perhaps that will provide more clarity–this particular blogger calls the Baby B’s “Dr Sears’interpretation of API’s 8 principles”–seeming to imply that API existed before Dr Sears which I don’t think is the case, but, again, I’m not finding a lot of information on API’s founding. http://mamammalia.blogspot.com/2011/03/outline-of-attachment-parenting.html
I don’t think you can compare the Sears/API discrepencies with Montessori. There do seem to be a variety of interpretations of Montessori’s teachings, but I cannot imagine a Montessorian strongly disagreeing with any of Maria Montessori’s specific advice, or being “shocked” by it, as you say you are by Sears’ time-out recommendations and “naughty step”. And Sears is a founder who is still very much alive and actively promoting these views on his website. This situation is quite different.
Actually you can. I’m an early educator and I’ve studied the Montessori philosophy with a professor who studied it in Italy with people who worked with Maria and she worked with it her whole life. I’m very found of the original Montessori philosophy and yet I see Montessori preschools here do things that Maria Montessori would certainly be shocked about. For example, children being taught about land forms and waterways in preschool through preset worksheets. Nothing could ever be more far away from Montessori. And that is a highly successful accredited Montessori preschool where I live.
In a Montessori group I’m in they debate quite often how strictly you should follow MM. Many of them point out she was a scientist and would have gone with the evidence, and are quite comfortable advocating differences to her original teachings.
If Harvey Karp is considered compatible with AP, this is another fundamental difference between RIE and AP. Dr. Karp’s approach is the polar opposite of what RIE advocates.
Did you by chance view this video of Karp demonstrating his method for quieting babies? http://www.regardingbaby.org/2012/05/05/is-the-happiest-baby-on-the-block-the-most-oppressed-why-im-not-a-fan-of-the-5-s-method-of-calming-crying-babies/
His treatment of the baby reminds me of an appliance salesman demonstrating his product. There is absolutely no human-to-human connection with this infant. This man clearly does NOT respect babies and respect is step one for the RIE approach. Sorry to rant, but I find it extraordinary that this charlatan is as hugely popular and influential as he is or that any gentle parent would follow his advice, especially after viewing this appalling video of him in action.
Yeah, I’ll admit that makes me pretty uncomfortable to watch his lack of connection with the baby. I would assume a parent using those techniques would be more connected or gentle with the baby. For example, if I have a sleepy baby and I’m holding them snugly in my arms and nursing while rocking them to sleep, I’m essentially doing suck/swaddle/side/swaying, but not in a detached or disrespectful way, IMO.
The thing to remember is that AP is about listening to one’s individual child and following their cues, not following a system to the letter–as LLL leaders often say when asked about how to plan feeding, “watch the baby not the clock”. So blindly following any system that didn’t fit a baby’s temperament, wouldn’t be AP.
Let me give you an example of how Dr Karp’s methods might or might not be AP compatible, depending, as I said before, on a particular child:
Both my babies were swaddled at birth because my midwife insisted they “needed” to be swaddled at birth to stay warm (which I now know is not so, but that’s a story for another day). However, both made it clear that they did not enjoy or need swaddling, so I didn’t continue it.
In fact, my daughter, the second or third time I swaddled her, was only a few weeks old, and managed within seconds to get her fist up and out the neck of the Woombie swaddle sack–it was very clear she did not approve). It wouldn’t have been at all AP of me to continue swaddling her when she disliked it and didn’t find it soothing. I never used white noise (which is the purpose of the shushing, to create white noise that blocks out other sounds)–She napped beautifully while my toddler played and the dogs barked and people went in and out of our thin-walled apartment complex.
On the other hand, one of my daughter’s playmates, just a month younger, found swaddling and white noise very comforting. She has gradually outgrown the swaddle, but at 19 months still finds white noise soothing at bedtime–when I cared for her last weekend while her mom was in the hospital overnight, all she needed was her favorite blanket and doll, and for me to turn on the whooshing air purifier, and she immediately settled herself down to sleep and only woke once in the night, even though it was a completely unfamiliar room and crib. I was amazed at her confidence in a new environment (she had spent plenty of time in our home before, but never in the bedroom or the crib). Having known her over the course of the last year and watched her grow, it seems that the sleep methods her parents used have worked well for her temperament.
My daughter sleeps in our bed at night, with the ambient noise around us, because that’s how she sleeps best. My daughter’s friend sleeps in her own crib with a sound machine because that’s how she sleeps best. Her parents tried cosleeping with her since they had coslept with her older siblings, and she didn’t like it. It wouldn’t have been respectful or in keeping with AP to force my DD to sleep alone or swaddled. It wouldn’t have been respectful to her friend to force her to cosleep in a noisy environment. Both babies are in physically and emotionally safe sleep environments and any night-time distress is responded to with the physical presence and support of a loving caregiver. My friend at first used all of Dr Karp’s 5-S’s, gradually removing them as her daughter no longer needed them. I did not use that approach to sleep, as our night-time routine involves stories, nursing, and snuggling together in the family bed. However both of us treated our daughters in ways that are compatible with AP, because AP is about the philosophy of attachment/responsiveness/respect, not the specific method. Both girls are getting the sleep they need. And both are quite opinionated and energetically vocal toddlers too–I don’t think they’ve been a bit “shushed” or suppressed by having access to white noise or the breast as part of their night-time routine with a responsive caregiver.
In conclusion, blindly following Karp’s methods wouldn’t be AP–but if something like swaddling or rocking or white noise or a paci helps a baby sleep calmly and securely, it’s not considered un-AP to use those tools–it’s about the individual baby and their needs, not about an exact method.
The impression I am getting from this conversation is that one of the core differences in AP and RIE’s philosophy of infancy is that AP considers proximity to the caregiver to be the default for infants, with separation offered as the child requests it, whereas RIE considers separation from the caregiver to be the default state for infants, with proximity offered as he child requests it. RIE also appears to have clearer guidelines for specific caregiving practices (like swaddling or tummy time) being unacceptable for all infants, whereas AP is more focussed on how the individual infant responds to a particular caregiving practice.
Chelle, I must also add that RIE does not propose a “default” activity for infants, since we perceive them as full-fledged people, not tech devices! RIE advocates offering babies free play time, since it is quite hard (if not impossible) for young infants to “ask” for this time. They don’t know that free play time exists unless we introduce it…and if we wait until babies are scooting, crawling or walking before we let them play, they’ve missed out on on many months of powerful learning experiences (from the RIE perspective). Through sensitive observation we learn not to interrupt our babies (by picking them up, etc.) when they are occupied with thoughts or engaged in other self-directed exploration. Unlike experts like Dr. Sears, Leidloff and other AP thought leaders, RIE values these experiences of freedom and choice for infants as well as toddlers.
I don’t know if Liedloff was the best example of AP values for comparison. I, at least, have never even heard of her. Most AP parents or those leaning towards AP (that I know of) would quote the Sears’. This Liedloff person’s views are just shy of offensive in treat the baby as thought they are a non-entity. In the end I don’t believe it’s a competition so much as a balance between the two. AP is very intuitive and natural in many ways. RIE can be a little bit more cumbersome to learn (e.g. sportscasting, talking to a baby like a small, capable adult) although once learned it certainly makes sense and can become natural. As with anything it is about balance. But my main point here is that while AP does heavily endorse baby-wearing, I have never met or heard of one AP parent who took with this Liedloff character’s ridiculous notion to treat the baby like a passive spectator (in other words, a non person and a non activity). So I’m just not sure these are the best examples to use when people who know nothing about AP may be reading this. It’s a little bit unfair to quote something I’ve never heard of an AP parent actually using or going by.
In the end though, I still love your blog and the tenants of RIE. I certainly understand you may be a bit biased towards that POV but it’s always good to remember to be fair.
Nickelle, I was also thinking that setting up Liedoff as representational of AP philosophy was a bit of a stretch. I certainly don’t think it was an intentional straw-man argument, given that Sears was inspired by some of her work, as well as having a general interest in hunter-gatherer/tribal parenting practices. Quoting Dr Sears is certainly fair game, since many AP parents do take his advice very seriously and he claims to be the “father of Attachment Parenting” but as I said earlier, many people who take the AP label have never heard of Liedoff and the Continuum Concept. I have a copy of Dr Sears’ “Baby Book” on my shelf upstairs, and I’ll have to check the index, but while I recall him mentioning how different cultures carry their babies and handle infant sleep, and his own experiences visiting Bali, I don’t recall him quoting Liedoff anywhere.
I have a friend who is passionate about attachment and natural parenting and wears her children far more than I ever have. She does a wonderful job of talking to them/narrating/sportscasting in a style similar to what RIE advocates. The value of conversing with your children is very evident in her just-turned-three year old and her one year old. Both their vocabularies, and in the case of the 3 year old, her conversational skills, are far beyond a typical child their age, and until they were big enough to sit unassisted/roll over, they were worn almost constantly. I think she would agree whole-heartedly with Nickelle’s assessment of Liedoff.
I don’t understand, if you thought it was a bit of a stretch why did you do it?
Oh sorry, thought you were the author. Reading about RIE it sounds pretty much like what I’ve done as an AP, this article really does seem to have misunderstood and misrepresented AP quite a lot. It’s no wonder we’ve an RIE parent on one of the groups I’m in making judgemental and misinformed comments, including the quite unpleasant “if only there were less AP parents in the world”.
Hmm, I responded already but it doesn’t seem to have been included. I thought the response was from the author, I’ve just realised it wasn’t so my above comment is no longer relevant.
I did want to point out though that some of the information about AP written in the article is just wrong and inaccurate (as is already being debated on the thread) and actually misrepresenting AP in this way is quite unfair. In a group I’m in we’ve had a RIE parent be quite unpleasant about AP in general, including wishing there were less of us in the world, and if she’s gotten her infromation from AP from articles like these (for she’s freely admitted she’s never actually read up on it herself) I’m not surprised.
Is there an RIE book that I can read to explain all the concepts or a website? I am primarily AP — but now question if I have understood it correctly — It sounds like I do many AP and RIE things naturally — but I love a lot of what I read on this site and would like to understand RIE better.
JC – I recommend Dear Parent – Caring For Infants With Respect and Your Self-Confident Baby.
Another thought: API on time-outs:
http://attachmentparenting.org/forums/forum/api-reads/peaceful-parent-happy-kids/57454-ch-4-time-in-vs-time-out
One great point this article from “The Attached Family” (http://theattachedfamily.com/?p=2455) makes is that “time out” is used as a name for many different discipline techniques, some of which (including that described in the quote from Dr Sears that you posted) would not be considered compatible with AP.
It won’t let me highlight and copy a quote, but if you are interested, you can scroll down to the blurb that begins “Parent directed time out: Not recommended”, it describes the type of time-out most AP parents would find unacceptable/not compatible with AP.
But again, Chelle, isn’t it a bit bizarre for a parenting approach to be brushing its founder’s views under the rug? Sears’ advice is plainly visible on his website. How can what he shares be “not compatible with AP” when he invented AP?
I love this respectful discussion. It’s so rare to see anything like that online these days. I’m learning a lot just reading the comments. I’m not a parent but I’ve closely help raise a 5yo little girl from age 3 weeks. I work as a nanny and to her and her sister (6 weeks) and I’m and early educator with an specialization in infant development. In other words, I’m actvely interested in infants and how they develop and how I can better help them grow. I’d often hear about AP a lot and it always rubbed me wrong because it made me feel like whoever wasn’t doing the whole cosleeping babywearing breastfeeding on demand (what does that even mean) was not being a good parent. They do have good arguments though but as soon as I studied attachment theory (which is that, a theory not a law), AP and RIE I saw that a lot of the bad impression I had came from parents who took AP recommendations way too religiously. I believe they both ultimately want the same thing they just have different approaches to it. The thing is to know which approach or combination of both to use with your family.
I too don’t like labels and as a very independent person I identify more with the ideas of RIE but I understand that other people are different and have different needs. The infant I currently nanny had to be held constantly for her first month (I believe it might have something to do with her first four days of life spent in the NICU) and I did use a sling since I too had to take care of her sister and do stuff around the house and give my arms a rest. Now she’ll push against me and fuss a lot and I put her down and she’s happy. I haven’t used the sling in over a week. It’s all about reading the baby’s cues and helping them get what they need. And I think in their core both philosophies ‘preach’ that. People just interpret and pratice them differently much like some religions do with the Bible.
I know this is an old discussion, but I just read this article and all the comments and had to put my thoughts down here. Warning- this is incredibly long!
In college, I took a child psychology class, and we discussed other cultures and how they raise babies, as well as our human hunter-gatherer ancestry. This led me to adopt what I believed to be an AP approach to parenting. For example: bed sharing. In the hunter-gatherer society, babies would always sleep with their parents. To leave a baby alone would be certain death, as they’d be perfect prey for predators. Similarly, in other cultures, particularly non-western ones, babies (and children) still sleep with their parents. These children sleep better and do not fight bedtime. Babies and children still feel the biological imperative that being left alone = danger. They resist it by stalling (in older children) and crying (in babies and infants). They feel scared and in danger and don’t have the logical faculties to recognize that they are actually safe, nor the verbal capacity to articulate these feelings. And we, in western society, don’t realize it either, so we force our children to sleep seat from us and sleep train them to get them to deal with it. After learning this, it was a no-brainer for me- my babies will sleep in bed with me, until they are ready and willing to sleep in their own bed.
Another example: responding to babies needs and cries. Again, leaving a baby alone to cry at any point (night or day) would draw attention to them and could put everyone in danger. So babies were not left to cry. Crying is the late stage of a baby trying to communicate their needs. So I wanted to be present for my children and not leave them to cry with needs unmet.
I thought these things were AP. I see baby wearing as a way to keep baby close when he needs the closeness but you need a hand free. I’m a very physical person with my loved ones and this completely reasonates with me. I don’t mind when my husband is watching a movie or playing a video game, as long as I can snuggle up to him, I’m happy to be close, and I don’t need his full attention. Our souls and minds are connected regardless. I do, however, trust that if I were to need (or want) his full attention, he would be present and available and stop whatever he was doing to give it to me. That’s how I feel about carrying or wearing baby when doing other things.
So I do these things and considered them to be AP. However – I have never read any Dr. Sears books. I’ve never heard of the Continuum Concept (though strangely, that was literally recommended to me today). Reading the Dr. Sears quotes shocked me. And I also discovered today that Harvey Karp is ridiculous as well. I absolutely believe that distracting or tricking a baby is wrong. That’s one thing that bothers me immensely about my husband (he’s an amazing father otherwise) – when our baby cries, he immediately says “oh no no no no” and “it’s ok” and starts trying to settle/distract her. If nothing works, he will eventually hand her to me and say “I dunno, do you want to try and feed her again?” – because that’s sure to calm her down. I was never able to place the source of my discomfort until I discovered the aware parenting “crying in arms” approach and that the baby’s need might, in fact, be a need to cry!
I found RIE when the pediatrician told us to do tummy time when our baby was a newborn. She hated it and it felt wrong to me (as does bumbo chairs, baby walkers, etc.). I was thrilled to discover that there were others out there backing me up. I never did forced tummy time after that. I naturally tend to explain to her things before doing them, but I’ve made a conscious effort to do it more and better, to ask her permission, respond to her feelings, etc.
I think the way that AP and RIE and aware parenting and natural parenting (as someone mentioned, which I definitely am that as well) work together can just happen in real life, seemlessly, even if they don’t in theory. I believe I gave my daughter opportunities for free play as a newborn, but she tired of them quickly and preferred to be held pretty consistently the first 3 months. At 4 months old, there was a huge shift. All of a sudden, she was ok in a safe place that wasn’t my arms, and there was no adjustment period or protesting because she expected to be held all the time. She rolls from back to tummy and back again. She pushes herself up on her hands. She tucks her legs under her. She can move, in all directions, to reach and grab toys, and just to be mobile. I’m amazed at what she can do. I put her down now more than ever because she actually wants to be put down now. So of course I let her. I feel like every time I put her down she does something new. It’s incredible to watch.
Often, if she’s in the playpen and I leave her there for a few minutes to go to the bathroom, she’ll start fussing- but instead of that meaning she’s done and wants to be held (like it used to)- she just wants me there. Once she sees me, she’s perfectly happy and content to stay where she is and play by herself or play with me. She always lets me know when she’s done and wants to be held, or fed, or to sleep.
I still bed share, breastfeed, carry her (and occasionally wear her), and tend to her needs (including night nursing and not using a pacifier) as soon as I’ve figured out what they are (AP and natural parenting), but I also respect her boundaries, allow her safe free play, observe her, talk to her with respect, and empathize with her emotions and allow her to express them as she sees fit (RIE and aware parenting). I keep her close to me- I love holding her and I love her cuddling with me. I also pay attention and respect her- I love observing her and gazing at this marvelous being in my life. Somehow, it just all works together beautifully. My overarching parenting motto is the remaining half of my pregnancy motto “(trust my body and) trust my baby.” She is an intelligent person who can indicate to me her needs and wants, and I do my best to figure out what she is saying. I don’t believe she can be manipulative or spoiled. So I hold her when she wants and put her down when she wants. So I feed her on demand, day and night, and will to allow her to self wean (according to research, the natural human age of weaning is between 2.5 and 7 years old). I will to do baby-led weaning when introducing solids. I will allow potty-training to be baby-led. I will to allow her to tell me when she’s ready to sleep in her own bed.
I’m not perfect. It isn’t easy. I often feel that I’m holding her too much or putting her down too much. I worry that I’m not meeting her needs and I worry that I’m going to allow her to cry because I’ve misunderstood it as her needing to cry when she actually needs something else. I worry when she cries too long because I can’t get to her right away. I need to be better at talking to her about what I’m doing to her and what we are going to do.
I don’t think I’m strictly any one type of parent; it’s a strange amalgamation of parenting styles and outlooks. But somehow, despite their differences, they just DO work in practice. This is the best way I can describe how.
Sorry for the novel!