Psychodynamic Debate: MD Flashcards
INTRO OF DEBATE
-Traditionally, mothers were seen as the PCG of an infant due to many factors – biological and societal
-As society has changed, equality and opportunity for all is important
This change raises questions such as:
-Is the mother the best person for the role of PCG?
-Could this role hold women back from progressing in society?
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| FOR |outline
Bowlby’s concept of monotropy suggests that the mother-child bond during the critical period creates an internal working model (IWM), which serves as a blueprint for future relationships.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships | FOR | example
Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers, finding that poor attachment with their parents was associated with poor attachment with their children.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships|FOR | ethical implication
ETHICAL: Bowlby’s theory may make mothers feel guilty for returning to work, believing this could harm their child’s future relationships, potentially impacting maternal mental health.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| FOR | link
Highlights the mother’s centrality in the child’s relational development, supporting the argument for her role as the primary caregiver.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| AGAINST | outline
Not all research supports the concept of IWM, suggesting the mother-child bond is not the sole determinant of future relationships.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| AGAINST | example
Zimmerman (2000) found little correlation between early attachment and adolescent relationships.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| AGAINST | ethical implication
(ETHICAL) This finding could alleviate pressure on mothers to stay at home, reducing guilt and promoting gender equality in caregiving roles.
POINT 1/3 influence on future relationships| AGAINST | link
Challenges Bowlby’s emphasis on the mother as the sole key figure in attachment formation.
POINT 1 MINI CONCLUSION
There is evidence supporting and challenging the claim that the mother must be the primary caregiver to influence future relationships. Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and research such as Bailey et al. (2007) provide compelling support, but studies like Zimmerman (2000) suggest other factors play a more significant role.
Ultimately, while the mother-child bond is important, the evidence does not conclusively establish it as uniquely vital for future relationship success.
Therefore, I believe that the role of the mother as the primary caregiver should not be overstated.
POINT 2/3 feeding| FOR | outline
Breastfeeding is recommended for the first six months due to its health benefits and the emotional bond formed during feeding, reinforcing the mother’s role.
POINT 2/3 feeding| FOR | example
The NHS highlights that breastfeeding releases oxytocin, strengthening the emotional bond between mother and baby.
POINT 2/3 feeding| FOR |social implication
(SOCIAL) Encouraging breastfeeding can create stigma for mothers who struggle to breastfeed, especially in public settings, potentially isolating them socially.
POINT 2/3 feeding| FOR | link
Aligns with Bowlby’s idea that emotional closeness during feeding supports the mother as the primary caregiver.
POINT 2/3 feeding| AGAINST | outline
Feeding alone is insufficient for attachment; emotional interaction matters more.
POINT 2/3 feeding | AGAINST | example
Harlow’s monkey study showed that monkeys preferred comfort over food, indicating that emotional security outweighs feeding in forming bonds.
POINT 2/3 feeding| AGAINST |economic implication
(ECONOMIC) If feeding is not uniquely tied to attachment, fathers or other caregivers can take on feeding duties, allowing mothers to return to work and support family income.
POINT 2/3 feeding| AGAINST | link
Refutes the idea that feeding is a unique responsibility of the mother in attachment development.
POINT 2 MINI CONCLUSION
Both sides of the debate highlight the importance of feeding in attachment formation but differ in attributing it exclusively to the mother.
While breastfeeding may strengthen the bond, studies like Harlow’s demonstrate that emotional security is more critical than feeding alone.
Given the potential for shared feeding duties to support economic equality without harming attachment, I believe that feeding should not be seen as a role exclusive to the mother.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| FOR | outline
Grandparents as primary caregivers can strengthen familial bonds and provide a stable caregiving environment, particularly in situations where the mother is unable to provide care.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| FOR | example
Research by Smith et al. (2007) found that children raised by grandparents in multigenerational households displayed similar attachment security to those raised by mothers.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| FOR | economic implication
(ECONOMIC) Grandparents as caregivers can reduce daycare costs, making it a financially viable solution for working parents.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| FOR | link
Demonstrates that caregiving can extend beyond the mother without negative developmental effects.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| AGAINST | outline
Bowlby’s theory of monotropy emphasizes the importance of one primary attachment figure, often the mother, for optimal emotional and social development.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| AGAINST | example
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves study linked maternal deprivation (even when other caregivers were present) to emotional and behavioral difficulties.
POINT 3/3grandparents as primary caregivers | AGAINST |social implication
(SOCIAL) Reliance on grandparents might reduce the emotional connection between mother and child, potentially leading to instability or feelings of neglect.
POINT 3/3 grandparents as primary caregivers| AGAINST | link
Challenges the notion that grandparents can fully replace the mother as the primary caregiver in Bowlby’s framework.
POINT 3 MINI CONCLUSION
Grandparents as primary caregivers provide a viable and often beneficial alternative to maternal care, particularly in reducing financial strain and strengthening family bonds.
However, Bowlby’s emphasis on a singular primary attachment figure raises concerns about the potential social and emotional drawbacks.
While grandparents can successfully fulfill the role of primary caregiver, I believe that the importance of the mother-child bond should not be dismissed entirely.
