Paradigm shift

I was recently discussing the tension of two conflicting aspects of childcare whilst savouring a pint of Foster's... I say savouring, but let's face it, there's not much to savour in most lagers and especially not Fosters. Here's another attempt...

I was recently discussing the tension of two conflicting aspects of childcare whilst quenching my thirst with a pint of the cheapest draft available. The two conflicting ideas were that i) babies from birth to 2 years old just need unconditional love, and that ii) that it may possible to over stimulate young children by giving them too much undivided attention.

(I'm aware that some reputable child psychologist or doctor has written that it's not possible to spoil babies under a certain age, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is still possible to over-stimulate them so that they come to need a constant stream of frequently changing stimuli to be content.)

So then the tension is, that as LB's primary carer I want to give unconditional love by being available when he cries, and by playing and generally spending time with him, but I don't want him to become over-stimulated and unable to play quietly on his own. ('Neglect vs Spoiling' if you like, at risk of over-simplifying the debate.)

So I suggest there are two ways of dealing with this tension - a traditional way and an alternative way (although these terms are maybe only relevant from a Western European perspective).

Traditional way:

Going straight to the point, if you are going to let a baby learn to be content on its own, then you are going to have to ignore it at some point or other. Unless you have a particularly passive baby, then at some point the baby is going to ask to be picked up, and either you respond or you ignore it. For obvious survival reasons, babies are genetically programmed to behave in ways which make adults want to pick them up, and they're very effective at it. However if you respond everytime then you risk overstimulating, or creating an expectation of adult attention on demand.

This could be best summarised as the 'cry it out' philosophy. Whether during the day or the night, baby wants attention from you, but you want them to learn to be content on their own, so you let them cry it out. Eventually baby learns that crying has no effect, and so goes back to playing/sleeping or whatever.

The problem, or rather my problem with this approach, is that it appears to severly compromise the 'unconditional love' aspect of baby care. Any talk of 'it's best for them in the longterm' seems to be at best optimistic guesswork (it may well be true, but how on earth do you know before it's too late?) and at worst it's just a stock answer which hasn't actually been thought through.

Alternative way:

Before I start, I realise that this is not exactly revolutionary stuff, and that a large alternative movement exists which has thought through these kind of issues and come up with solutions. Also every child & family is different, so of course I'm generalising in all of this. However this point-of-view is where my family and I have come to in our relatively short experience of raising a child, and it seems to be applicable even to single parent families or babies with brothers or sisters.

So the paradigm shift is very simply, baby carrying. Also known as baby-wearing. We're not talking about holding baby in your arms, but in some kind of sling, cloth, bag or harness. This concept completely changes the range of possibilities when responding to a crying baby, and more specifically, it allows you to stay in physical contact with a baby whilst effectively ignoring them. This is the compromise we were looking for between unconditional love and overstimulation.

My small amount of research on this issue has revealed that some cultures have embraced baby-carrying, and others have largely ignored it. Swaddled babies tied to boards and hung from trees was a common practice in the west by all accounts, and the bouncy chair with safety harness is probably the modern equivalent. However the Chinese and many African cultures have used baby carrying for centuries, perhaps out of necessity due to the hot climate where babies need to be fed frequently to prevent dehydration.

Whatever the history and the original reasons, baby carrying around the home today seems to offer a great way to offer the best care to a baby whilst getting on with life. LB was very happy to watch me making a salad on Tuesday while strapped to my back. He would occasionally peer over my shoulder but generally was very content just looking around. I would occasionally pass him a bit of cucumber as an acknowledgement that he was there, but it wouldn't have been necessary. The physical contact between parent/adult and baby tells him everything he needs to know - ie that someone is looking after him, that he can trust adults to look after him, and that the world is a safe place. I would love to have your comments on this topic - and if you think I'm totally wrong then please do feedback. I'm listening and fully aware I have a lot to learn from billions of other parents across the world and history.

As I write these words, LB is sitting on the floor beside me trying to get my attention. He's been happily playing with Sophie for 30 minutes but he's had enough of being ignored and is now letting me know about it. Time to practice what I preach...