4. Serve and return (II)
It is all about relationships
Reflections on how attachment theory makes us think differently about responding to people facing challenging times
To my eye, the attachment literature makes the single most important contribution to understanding how relationships help resolve significant challenges in people’s lives. There is good evidence that attachment patterns influence future child and adult development. Bowlby’s theory shows how relationships in the early years are the bedrock of close relationships in later years. It is one of the most eloquent and robust ways of explaining a close connection between two people.
To my eye, the attachment literature makes the single most important contribution to understanding how relationships help resolve significant challenges in people’s lives.
This is not a matter of secure attachment equals good, insecure attachment styles equal bad. It is more complicated than this, although it probably is true to say that people who enjoyed secure attachment to their caregiver develop better relationships skills in later life. They see themselves as worthy and capable of overcoming challenges and so are better prepared to handle the world as it unfolds before them. Better too at shaping that world. They better understand and regulate their emotions more successfully. Those with insecure attachments are more likely to develop behavioural problems, such as conduct or anxiety disorders, although it is important to add that the majority do not and that these links do not always endure.
These findings lead me to reflect on the attributes of people I encounter in other parts of my research who have a lot of might be called, for want of better words, relational capability, people who seem to effortlessly connect with others seeking help and who do so without any apparent training or other preparation. Were these natural relaters all securely attached in childhood, or did some strain in their bond with their primary caregiver bring out new skills and capacity? It seems possible that relational capability, at least in the context of helping people dealing with multiple disadvantages, is either something one has or doesn’t have. If this is true, then I find it hard to imagine that attachment styles are not implicated in some way.
It seems possible that relational capability, at least in the context of helping people dealing with multiple disadvantages, is either something one has or doesn’t have.
Bowlby reminds us that we need relationships to survive. Wanting to keep close to our caregiver is an evolutionary response to threat, a response which increases our chances of survival. This instinct returns every time we are faced with difficulty in life. So what is happening for the many people I have studied whose multiple disadvantages has led them to disconnect from society, to turn away from help from relatives and from the state? Does something happen for them to reject the primeval urge to relate?
Bowlby, Ainsworth, Main and those who followed their lead put sensitivity, serve and return, at the core of effective relationships. A sensitive response means predicting the other’s needs and reacting promptly and adequately to alleviate distress. This makes me think very differently about how we respond to people facing major challenges in their lives. It is not about intervening, nor is it about instructing. It is not a programmatic response. It is about listening, waiting, asking questions, explaining in the way that the other feels worthy of being attended to.
Does something happen for them to reject the primeval urge to relate?
According to Bowlby, in time, the message enshrined in sensitivity becomes part of how we see ourselves and the world. The repetition of the ball flying over the net, hitting the net, staying in court, going out of bounds at various points across the life course, in the relationships with our mothers or primary caregiver especially, but with all other subsequent relationships also, create what Bowlby calls an internal working model, a mental representation of the world, a view that encapsulates varying degrees of opportunity, hope, and threat. This representation guides how we interact with the world and others (and which then re-shapes our internal working model).
It is not about intervening, nor is it about instructing. It is not a programmatic response. It is about listening, waiting, asking questions, explaining in the way that the other feels worthy of being attended to.
In my previous research, set in the book Bringing Everything I am Into One Place, I put forward an idea about how relationships influence the trajectories of young people facing severe disadvantage in their lives. I hypothesised that a good relationship changes cognition, leading young people to reflect “It does not need to be like this, do I have to sleep on the streets tonight?”, a question lodged that won’t go away. I also suggested that it reactivates agency, the young person’s sense that he or she can make the decisions to change whatever they want to change in their lives.
For me, the world of Bowlby and the attachment theorists map onto this idea. A healthy relationship is one that exhibits sensitivity, lots of serves and returns. The cognition is the internal working model, a sense of what is possible in the world. And a secure base relates to agency, with good relationships giving the young person confidence to see they have a big part in deciding their own destiny.
I hypothesised that a good relationship changes cognition, leading young people to reflect “It does not need to be like this, do I have to sleep on the streets tonight?”.
Those that experience a healthy, secure attachment to their primary caregiver develop a secure base from which they feel confident to explore the world. They are not weighed down with fear. They know a world where good things happen, where somebody will protect them from things that are dangerous or go wrong. So they take opportunities to play, learn, and discover the world. They have agency and they use it.
