Human Attachment

Eons ago, when I was in college, I had a discussion with a post-modern philosophy professor about the possible biological underpinnings of morality. His view, of course, was that there was no such thing, that all we had were more or less persuasive arguments that people believed or didn't. I had decided to study anthropology because I believed I might discover universal human truths through understanding the wide variety of cultural adaptations that were known to science.  My professor was intrigued by my idea, though skeptical. I remember him asking me, "You mean that your view is based on something like health?"  He had understood completely, but neither of us had heard, at the time, about the emerging fields of evolutionary psychology or experimental philosophy or other interdisciplinary studies of all sorts that were just beginning to take off. Since then these disciplines have come into their own, and many current thinkers are confirming what I intuited back then--we are biologically adapted to certain kinds of behaviors, and when we act in accordance with our biology, we are actually happier as human beings.

One of the obvious standouts of human behavior is that we are social creatures. We cannot survive in isolation. We do not lay eggs in a hole in the sand and take off to let our babies fend for themselves. Our post-industrial society has led to a bit of a conundrum in this area. We are simultaneously less able than ever before to forage and fend for ourselves in the most basic ways. Most people I meet wouldn't know an edible wild plant, if it jumped into their salad bowl. On the other hand, people *feel* less dependent in a mechanized world where human beings are treated as "resources" that are used for specific functions and are easily replaceable. How many people notice when their favorite cashier at the local grocery store moves away, gets fired or dies? Even if we notice they're missing, it doesn't change our lives in any significant way. Contrast this with the loss of the best hunter or the "medicine woman" in a band of foragers. These losses would have deep and significant impact on day-to-day realities of survival compounded by the emotional stress of losing a beloved family/community member.

Bands of foragers (hunter-gatherers) tend to be biologically and/or matrimonially related. Groups tend not to get larger than 60 people. Everyone is known intimately, for a lifetime. New members come in through marriage and birth, and members leave through marriage or death. Marriages tend to take place between groups that are well-known to each other and have kinship and language ties. All of this is to say, relationships are extremely close, probably to an extent we cannot really even grasp in a modern context. In our world, it is not at all unusual for a baby to be born, be fed with a bottle of artificial milk and placed in the care of virtual strangers within six weeks. The caregivers will change within the given institution, even if the parents strive to maintain continuity of place. Within a couple of years, the child will be transferred to a "school" type setting, where her peers and teachers will change every year until she graduates and moves into a world that is even less stable. There is a 50% chance that her parents will split up (if they were ever married) during her childhood, and she will lose even that stability. There is also a good chance that she will not live near her extended family, that she will not stay in one neighborhood for the duration, that if she does, she will not really know her neighbors, etc.

I remember watching a PBS reality show called "Frontier House" a few years ago. People were selected to live in conditions that were similar to those of the settlers of the American West, and were filmed doing their daily chores and having interactions with their peers. The challenges, as you can imagine, were formidable. Though people understood that their survival did not depend on their abilities, there was still a lot at stake. No one wanted to be seen as a failure on national TV, plus their actual comfort was very much on the line. One of the things that really struck me about the follow-up interviews was how everyone, when back in their comfortable homes, seemed so much unhappier. They recalled their time on the show as being some of the most satisfying weeks of their lives. When surveys of happiness are conducted, we in the "modern world" are always at the bottom, people in traditional societies are at the top. I have heard people conclude that "stuff does not bring us pleasure", which I believe is only partly true. I have no desire to live without indoor plumbing or electricity. I do not believe for a minute that giving those things up will add to my or my family's happiness. It seems obvious that it is the human connection, the real interdependence, that makes the difference.

In fact these ideas are not even very controversial within the psychological community.  For instance, there is almost no debate about the critical importance of childhood attachment to one's primary caregiver, the data on divorce are clear (it is detrimental to kids in every measurable way, in almost all cases), people who report more close relationships with friends and family members also report being happier (and healthier!).  Yet when these studies are published, we hear a tremendous amount of debate.  Though these ideas are understood by science, our current cultural adaptations are at odds with our more basic needs.  So we hear people rationalizing by citing the "resilience" of children, the importance of economic success, and the primacy of one's own "fulfillment". It seems that we are terribly ill-equipped to manage worthwhile relationships and especially to stay committed (whence our examples?) and since we feel so cheated ourselves, we have a difficult time giving to others (we are so needy) and breaking the cycle of disconnection and selfishness.

So how can we live in a more connected way without giving up the comforts of technology, without overturning our current cultural practices in one fell swoop (which could never work anyway)? I believe that technology, in fact, holds part of the answer. People can now work from home in a way that was simply not possible a generation ago. My husband does. He is in the house most days, but with the aid of a computer, an internet connection and a telephone, he can interview people all over the world, write articles, blogs and tweets, edit and publish without needing to go to his office in New York (we live on the West Coast). There are dozens of other ways to increase our closeness with one another, and improving connection with our fellows, in any way, will benefit us as individuals and as a society. Some examples that will be explored in future posts are: knowing oneself in order to make wiser personal and career decisions; choosing one's life partner carefully in order to stay committed; bonding with one's children and maintaining a safe and loving home; staying connected with one's extended family, especially by living nearby; choosing a neighborhood and community and settling down; actively participating in the local community, through recreational activities, politics, religious affiliation, volunteering, and/or economic activities.

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
http://www.livescience.com/14402-divorce-plagues-kids-social-academic.html
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/christakis_happiness.html
http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/12/religions-secret-to-happiness-its-friends-not-faith/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630541486290052.html