I ask this question because I would be genuinely fascinated should a rigorous study be carried into just which method is best.
I will come out now and say that, although not a parent, I am a firm believer in the rightness of the Continuum Concept. I was excited to find out that this criminally underexposed concept was to be gaining the exposure of a mainstream programme. Although the programme was more concerned with drama then any serious attempt at objectivity I'm happy to have seen it because to my mind it offered some sort of evidential support to Jean Liedloff's claims about the concept's rightness. Unfortunately, my belief is 90% instinctively feeling it's right, and 10% being bits of observed evidence here and there. That's why I would truly welcome some sort of rigorous study which sought to robustly investigate the claims Liedloff makes about it. For example, she says that children that don't experience such a method of skin-to-skin nurturing are failing to have their needs met. This can manifest itself in many ways, namely a feeling of longing or of something being missing in one's life.
According to Liedloff human's are not meant to feel like that. if we have had our in-arms needs met we will feel a sense of rightness in the world. Happiness is the natural state for humans to be in!
Of course, I never expected much in the way of objectivity from channel 4 but, although i predicted it, I was disappointed with the inconclusive wishy-washy concluding statements of the last episode. Does it really not matter that much which method is used? Is it really just a matter of personal choice?
If Channel4 really wanted answers one method would be to conduct a survey on a sample of children once they'd grown up, perhaps at different stages of the life, up to and including adulthood. But what criteria would you use? What would you measure? Well there are many indicators of people's not feeling right within themselves: for example, depression, alcoholism or other addictions, various manifestations of mental illness etc. Or you could simply find a way to ascertain how happy each person sampled feels- such scientifically acceptable tests exist.
If you could find a large enough sample of people having been brought up by Continuum methods, then they should display significantly reduced levels of alcoholism, depression etc (if any at all.) They should also report greater levels of happiness. (This assumes that they haven't been abused, or significantly failed to have other essential needs met- this would be factored into the testing.) This could then be compared to a similar sample of people raised on a different method of child-rearing, such as the 1950s way.
I would love for such a study to exist because i strongly suspect that it would add great weight to Liedloff's claim that people would be significantly happier if they are reared as children in the way humans have been reared for thousands of years.
Then, with scientific support, if it gained widespread grassroots support from parents, even Government support, the potential would be revolutionary! The more children raised in such a way the happier the world would be.
Okay, if that's too cornucopian for most of you (and I suspect it is) then you must concede that an idea concerning the upbringing of our children with such wonderful claims should at least be investigated scientifically. If the claims are wrong then so be it. So... what do you reckon? I'd be very interested in your responses to this.
I doubt there's a rigorous way to do the kind of randomised controlled prospective trial you're suggesting. However, there is substantial non-clinical evidence available that provides backing for some of the ideas in the continuum concept. For example: 1) It's extraordinary but true that most babies around the world do not cry. It is only in some developed world countries that most babies cry. Crying is associated with parenting styles that are atypical in human evolution and in most human societies to this day. For more on crying, see Deborah Jackson's (wonderful) book "When your baby cries". 2) As alluded to above, even a moment's cursory reflection suggests that the central ideas of the continuum concept (eg cosleeping, babes-in-arms, feeding on cue) had to have been the only method for raising babies throughout human evolution -- several million years. It would have been much too risky to have your child sleep separately from you, to put them on the ground for any extended period, or to have them cry from hunger when that noise could have alerted predators / enemies. Babies are evolved to sleep next to adults, to be held, and to feed on cue. For more on this, see Meredith Small's "Our babies, ourselves"
Thanks for that. I'll check out those recommendations.
I'm aware that there is much non-clinical evidence in support of these ideas. However, the idealist in me would love for their to be convincing quantitative evidence. This is because I'm not content with just a minority of informed parents choosing the Concept: I want relevant organisations and the Government to be convinced of its worth. Then they will promote it, invest resources in its furtherance and introduce relevant legislation.
Only then are you likely to see a significant change in child-rearing culture.
I realise that it's difficult to establish causation with these sort of studies because there can be so many factors which inform why a person grows up to be as they are. However, it would be my hope that a survey of Continuum raised people would demonstrate such a marked deviation from the norm in terms of levels of happiness and well being, that it would be difficult not to attribute some causation to the merits of the Continuum Concept... then they would have to do give it some credence/ investigate it further...
Is that completely out of the realms of the possible do you think?
I'm just so glad that even non-parents can use their human intsincts to see that the continuum concept is a form of evolution that should have been carried on in this western society, and it is an utter shame that it is seen as so 'radical'. Also did anyone else see the guilt and doubt on the parents faces of the twins whilst reflecting on how the continuum concept provided better bonding than the 50s method?!
I too wish there had been a bit more science to back up continuum, I'm sure Claire Scott did offer it but I know what editing is like! There is plenty out there, with regards to less crying in babies held more and the general field of neuroscience, how chemistry effects the brain so it backs up how you should be responsive and not cause undue stress to babies. I have never found scientific reasons why you should be detached and leave them to cry, it's all anecdotal "it works", as in achieving the holy grail of an all nighter nonsense.
According to a United Nations report that came out I think last year, here in the UK we have the unhappiest teenagers in Europe. Teenagers surveyed felt unhappy at home as well as at school and in society in general. Many said they felt bored and bullied both at home and in school. I will look it up and post it here, although it may get deleted if you are not fast enough to look at it !
I would like to see more studies like these too. I think they will confirm that attachment to infants/children works and the opposite doesn't.
In terms of scientific research there is plenty out there. Humans are social beings. Just commonsense and logic would indicate that neglect can lead to serious physical, psychological and emotional problems.
C4 Forums 
