Attachment theory originated in the work of Bowlby (1907-90). The theory was that an infant’s ability to form emotional attachments to its mother was essential to its survival and later development. This raises important questions about what circumstances could affect the mother-child bond, and the effects on the child of different kinds of separation. This essay looks in particular at Bowlby’s work on maternal deprivation, and at how early research and the later work of Mary Ainsworth seem to support Bowlby’s Attachment Theory. It also looks at later challenges to that evidence, which suggest that short spells of separation may not have bad effects upon attachment nor on the child’s development. The relative effect of these theories on attitudes towards day care will be explores throughout the essay and brought together towards the conclusion.
Bowlby’s Attachment Theory originally claimed that if bonding was to occur between a child and its carer, there must be continuous loving care from the same carer (the mother or a permanent mother substitute). Without this, he argued, chances of bonding were lost forever, and the child was likely to become delinquent. Originally this was formulated as a theory of ‘maternal deprivation’. Later Bowlby focused more specifically on the first year of life when, he believed, the child organises its behaviours to balance two complementary predispositions. These predispositions are firstly, ‘proximity-promoting behaviours’, which establish the mother as a secure base, and secondly, ‘exploration’ away from the mother. Bowlby argued that the infant develops ‘internal working models’ of its relationship with the mother which become the basis of all later relationships. He argued that the mother should be at home with the child for these behaviours to develop, and that day care was harmful.
Bowlby’s ideas were popular with governments at the time, as there was a shortage of jobs for men returning from the Second World War: day...