Well most HEors would probably have told you the following anyhow, but it is nice to have it corroborated in the July edition of "The Psychologist" magazine, particularly when my assertions on these very points were met with such a doleful, doubtful stare from a psychologist I bumped into at work the other day.
Psychologist Brooke Feeney's
"experiments demonstrated that ample, unconditional support by one person towards their partner, leads that partner towards greater independence not increasing neediness - an effect Feeney dubs the "dependence paradox".
Feeney told us: "In many Western curltures, dependence on others is often viewed as a sign of weakness and as something that should be discouraged. But this research provides support for an alternative view of dependence on others, which is that true independence and self-sufficiency emerges becuse of an individual's ability to depend on close relationship partners in times of need. People are able to engage in more activities, accopmlish more goals, use their minds better, and fucntion more autonomously when their dependency needs are supported. "
Now just apply that to HE parents supporting their children, and you should have a pretty strong argument in favour of HE.
(HT: SF)
3 comments:
Nice one. It's like the lovely Bowlby line: "the sensible parent knows that the way to terminate attachment needs is to meet them."
Yes. I think there is so much unnecessary pain caused by people trying to force children into being independent.
Bowlby is a total hero....he was the first person in this line of work whose writings made total sense to me.
It is shameful that children's rights in this regard are not taken more seriously. As you say, Allie, this pain is so unnecessary in most instances. With just a little more knowledge on this subject and creativity in solving this problem, where would we now be, I wonder?
Thank goodness for ARCH!
Post a Comment