The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed - Fathers' Rights

Please also explain on what basis you claim Bowlby's definitive view was that set out in his second publication - a book of 200 odd pages (1953), when he went on to publish a trilogy of 1500 odd pages on Attachment Theory and publishing well into the 1980's.

In any case the 1965 edition of Child Care and the Growth of Love' states 'maternal deprivation' could easily have been replaced by the term 'parental deprivation'(p193) as the issue is the object relationship.

gmbj27

Even today Bowlby's work is described in its original context without reference to the later qualification, for example, made by the World Health Organization in 'Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects'1962. Nowhere does Bowlby come out to say that fathers can be equally as important as mothers to their children.

Kingsley Miller

gmbj27,

I am afraid you are wrong. Your citation only goes to show how Bowlby had to qualify his own earlier findings on 'maternal deprivation' in the light of other reassessments including that by the World Health Organization in 1962 'Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects'.

Please see my video clip 'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby' to see how his work on 'maternal deprivation' is still quoted today.

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

Bowlby coined the term 'Attachment Theory', and was the main theoretician behind the studies with the Robertsons, Parkes, and Ainsworth.

Your view is not supported by the evidence: most would associate Bowlby with attachment theory not maternal deprivation which is not a systematic body of theory.

The emphasis of the link between Bowlby and 'maternal deprivation' here is exaggerated and misplaced. He is most well know for Attachmment Theory. It was only in his early career that he looked at (social) maternal deprivation. He later stated clearly in his works that the 'mother-infant relationship' (the most common scenario) might just as well be replaced with 'primary caregiver-infant relationship'. This is really an unfair assessment of Bowlby's position.

gmbj27

Can you cite a reference for Bowlby's comment? (book, paper, etc) If he had made such a comment there would have been no need for the later reassessment of his work.

Bowlby's earlier work has far out weighed his later contribution to 'Attachment Theory' which he shares with many others.

He did not 'invent' the 'Attachment Theory'. He made his name for 'maternal deprivation' but would rather be remembered in the way you suggest.

Thank you for this comment.

Kingsley Miller

'Although throughout this book the text refers usually to 'mother'...it is to be understood that in every case reference is to the person who mothers [verb] and to whom he becomes attached.' ('Attachment' p29)
Attachment, Separation and Loss (3bks) formed the main corpus of his work.

Wikipedia Mistake:A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby

ALL,

Since posting the above video clip, Wikipedia has made changes. I have now been allowed to amend the page on John Bowlby to include a section on the 'Maternal Deprivation Controversy'. Also I have created a new page called 'Maternal Deprivation' and updated the page on 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter'.

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

Dear All,

For those interested in the work of Dr John Bowlby I have just posted a new video on YouTube called,

The 'Strange Situation' procedure and Separation Anxiety

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller