By Tracy G. Cassels
“We view this as a central concept in examining the potential mismatch between certain contemporary Euro-American infant care practices, and our infants’ ability to accommodate these practices—and suggest that we are pushing infant adaptability (and indeed maternal adaptability) too far, with deleterious consequences for short-term survival and long-term health.”
̴ JJ McKenna, HL Ball, and LT Gettler (2007)
As the name suggests, this site is dedicated to the notion of what I have labelled “Evolutionary Parenting”, a parenting style based on the way in which humans and other mammals have evolved to raise their young. Many of you reading this will have long considered yourselves “Attachment” parents, focusing on a theory that a certain brand of caregiving promotes the best attachment between mom and baby. You will have also found that many of the practices I’ve discussed on this site and in these articles are the same as what you have found in Attachment Parenting. So why the different name? If it’s all the same, why bother to call it something else? Well, first off, Evolutionary Parenting and Attachment Parenting are actually somewhat different, though they definitely overlap and I will go into the similarities and differences shortly. Secondly, and more importantly, the basis for these two approaches is quite different and it is my hope that the Evolutionary Parenting approach may be able to cross chasms that have not been penetrated by Attachment Parenting in order to get more parents on board with many of these practices that we know are beneficial to the entire family.
Let’s start with where Evolutionary Parenting and Attachment Parenting collide. Both practices speak out for bedsharing (or co-sleeping), breastfeeding, babywearing, and lots of touch. There is little doubt that all of these practices are hugely beneficial to baby and to the relationship between caregiver (usually mom) and baby; I’ve written as many articles stating as much. But while both types of parenting preach these concepts, there are areas in which Evolutionary Parenting goes a little bit further.
First, Evolutionary Parenting has an interest in the type of play and toys given to young children. This concern with play has been outside the realm of Attachment Parenting because it really has little to do with how a mom and baby form their attachment, but it’s central to Evolutionary Parenting because of the evolutionary implications. A child who is given many toys to play with from birth learns something very different about the world than a child who is left to explore the world slowly but naturally on his or her own. Historically, children didn’t have tons of playthings but rather were strapped to mom and learned about the world by watching adults interact with it and then by interacting with it themselves. By taking this route, they not only developed the same understanding of cause and effect (one of the big things toys manufacturers like to tout), but the high rates of Attention Deficit Disorder and problem of kids who simply can’t entertain themselves were non-existent. Children who grew up with minimal toys (and none at the start) learned to use their imagination and systematically explore their environment. These children became well-equipped for the world because they had a real understanding of the world around them – they didn’t expect instant gratification and they learned that things were more difficult than simply pressing a button and getting a reward. Children grew up focused on looking at the people around them, regardless of whether they were getting lots of direct interactions or not. By a year of age, their social understanding was vast. They could decode individuals’ facial expressions, they were rapt when seeing a new face, and they had started to learn the nuances of how to interact with others – what got people’s attention, what sustained their attention, how to get what they needed without screaming. And while children today still do learn to decode emotions and interact with others, it seems that these abilities are definitely weaning. I’ve heard from teachers and day care workers that they witness the lack of emotional connectedness between kids on a daily basis and I believe a large part of that is that from day one, their focus is now on objects instead of people. So to parent evolutionarily, one has to think about what types of stimuli you want for your child – fake, company-made toys that provide instant gratification with no work or the more subtle, yet rich, stimuli of human being and the world around your child. The differences in outcomes could be vast.
In addition to a focus on minimizing toys, Evolutionary Parenting also focuses on the role of community. While this is a difficult thing for parents to control, there is a certain degree of control over how many people you let into your life and how social you are at any given point. Traditionally, hunter-gatherer societies lived together, hunted together, gathered together, and raised children together. Children were surrounded by multiple caregivers and multiple children. Mothers were surrounded by their family and typically had at least one other mother there with whom she would could socialize and work. What does this mean? It meant that the isolation mothers (and children) are faced with in mass numbers today was not the norm. Having a child didn’t mean you were ostracized from your life, your friends, and society in general, it was simply an added member to your family, everything else pretty much remained the same. Some small towns and close-knit communities still share this old feel, but by and large, our post-industrial society has changed things so drastically that to have a child is to remove oneself from the social network entirely.
Because of our society’s focus on work, the workplace environment is, for most people, the hub of their entire social network. They play with the people they work with. In and of itself, this isn’t new at all, but the way in which we structure work is. In our society work and family do not collide – they are entirely separate – and thus to play with work people is to shun the familial. Children aren’t welcome at work so when a family welcomes a new child into the mix, there is no place for the mother (or father) to go; she is left to stay home, ostracized by her social community, unable to continue the work she once took part in. In order to have a semblance of a social life, she must start over on a hunt for other mothers with whom to spend time and types of activities that are for her (e.g., crafts, writing) to keep her sane. It’s no wonder many mothers yearn to return to work, despite the fact that the best thing for her child is for her to stay home and care for her offspring. Evolutionary Parenting, then, asks that we not only think about the ramifications that this societal shift has caused on families (stay-at-home parents in particular), but how we can fix this. Maternity leaves are key for babies’ health, but equally good would be work initiatives that allowed parents to bring their babes to work with them. Yes productivity could be hurt, but isn’t the overall well-being of the members of society more paramount? As for the neighbourhood, we need to start finding ways to make sure we know our neighbours, whether it be by making sure neighbourhoods have yearly get-togethers or making sure every neighbourhood has a park for families to congregate and socialize. You’d be amazed at the effect these seemingly small acts can have on a community. So while community in and of itself has no bearing on attachment, it is equally important for both parents and children to be involved in a community, which is why it is a large component of Evolutionary Parenting.
A final area where Evolutionary Parenting diverges somewhat from Attachment Parenting is in the realm of pregnancy and birth. Attachment Parenting speaks of making knowledgeable choices about your birth, with an emphasis on natural birth and choices, all things I firmly believe fall into the realm of Evolutionary Parenting as well. However, there are other aspects about birth and pregnancy that do not seem to be discussed in the Attachment Parenting realm which have evolved to help our species. First is the overall health of pregnant women today. Pregnant women today are more likely to be assigned bed rest and run into myriad health complications, almost all of which could be addressed by simply eating healthier and getting more exercise during pregnancy. Historically, pregnant women were consistently active and were thus physically more able to handle the intensity and hard work that is pregnancy and labour. Second, certain birth practices like delayed cord clamping have fallen out of favour and yet the more we learn about this practice, the more it seems like there are good reasons why the immediate cutting of the cord was nearly impossible prior to modern medicine. Another practice is immediate skin-to-skin contact including the breast crawl which was common for hundreds of thousands of years for human babies and mothers and yet was replaced with immediate checking and removal of the baby from mom for no good reason. We now know that immediate contact has immense benefits and the evolutionary breast crawl has great breastfeeding outcomes for mothers and baby dyads. Finally, post-pregnancy practices like eating the placenta are not typically discussed as a part of Attachment Parenting (though many AP parents will have researched and been interested in it) but historically it has served a role in the recuperation of the mother post-birth, providing her with tons of nutrients at a time when her body is depleted and needing such nourishment.
These differences speak to the larger difference between Evolutionary Parenting and Attachment Parenting – the theoretical underpinnings of the two approaches. In Attachment Parenting, the focus is on trying to maximize attachment between mom and baby. That is, parenting is about doing things that will help baby securely attach and bond with his or her mom. While this is wonderful and a laudable goal, I do believe it turns quite a few people off because a) it sounds rather hippie-esque and b) many mothers ask, “What about me?” – they want a parenting technique that is catered to their needs. In contrast, the basis behind Evolutionary Parenting is that these parenting practices are there to make everyone’s lives easier and better. Not only do these practices help baby attach to mom (and dad), but they also enhance your child’s ability, keeps him healthier, promotes better sleep for everyone, provides social support (if you live with others who practice Evolutionary Parenting), allows mom to do her thing while also caring for baby, etc. The primary goal is to allow families to continue functioning while also allowing baby to thrive; remember that in hunter-gatherer societies, there is no long break because you have a baby – you have to get back to work as soon as possible. So these practices allow for families to care for their children – keeping them fed, safe, and warm – all the while continuing to do what they need to do in order to survive. In today’s society, that freedom still remains. However, because we’ve come up with other ways to gain “freedom”, namely shipping our kids off to daycare, we don’t consider that we can continue our lives while also caring for our children. It’s never quite the same (you have a new child after all so it shouldn’t be the same), but Evolutionary Parenting provides practices that allow for parents to continue in their own lives while also giving children the best start at life.
Some may question the distinction when the end-result is the same, but when it comes to trying to convince people to try a different way of parenting and to change our collective mindset over how we treat babies and new families, the distinction is critical. We live in a society that is overrun with corporate gimmicks to care for children. Be it strollers, cribs, toys, formula, we have an abundance of “things” that we are told we need in order to raise our children properly. My goal with Evolutionary Parenting is to get people to realize that we don’t need these things in order to be the best possible parents – in fact, using them to an excess means we aren’t giving kids the best we can because they’re replacing one of the most important things kids need – human contact. We have in our capacity the means to care for children in a way that not only provides them with the chance to thrive, but in a way that provides us the best chance to be sane and happy individuals who parent. You don’t need to be rich. You don’t need to worry about “spoiling” your baby. You shouldn’t have to worry about the isolation that exists in modern parenting. Simply put, if we return to the way things were (and are elsewhere) when it comes to family and community – namely Evolutionary Parenting – we’d have happier kids, happier parents, and a happier society. All we have to do is what we have evolved to do.
Related posts:
Bedsharing Siblings
June 19, 2013
Giveaway and Review: Spark of Amber
June 17, 2013
Happy Father’s Day
June 15, 2013
One Year Later
June 11, 2013
Playing at the Park
June 08, 2013
Interview with Darcia Narvaez
June 02, 2013
Being Vegan, Breastfeeding, and Infant Safety
May 28, 2013
Guest Post: Instinctive Parenting?
May 24, 2013
Long-Term Effects of Breastfeeding
May 23, 2013
Press Release Re: Carpenter et al. Bedsharing Study
May 20, 2013Share
Samantha S
I loved this article! Thank you!
Jespren
Good post, I started saying ‘historical’ or ‘anthropoligical’ parenting espressly because people were refering to me as an ‘crunchy’ parent. And, while there are aspects to the whole crunchy/attachment/back-to-earth parenting styles that I line up with, other points are diametrically opposed or not mentioned and over-all I feel those terms are very focused and narrow. Of course, I’m still annoyed I have to say more than: hi, I’m a parent. That we have to classify what *kind* of parent we are is, I think, a big part of the overall societal problem.
On a completely separate topic, was having difficulties with my email so didn’t get to join the convo on FB about my blog post (which is no big deal or anything, did get 2 new comments on my blog, which is cool). But, since you are in Canada there was one thing I wanted to clarify for you. As of 2010 (it’s possible something has been passed this year that I’m unaware of but unlikely) there is not a single state in the union which bans spanking by a parent or legal guardian. Spanking is legal in all 50 United States. There are a dozen or so that have banned in loco parentis spanking, like by teachers or camp conselors, but physical discipline is absolutely legal. I can only think that one commented (nursinmamas on my blog but don’t remember her FB name) was mistaking in loco parentis for parental spanking, either that or was just misinformed.
Tracy
Interesting. In Canada, spanking is legal but again, only by parents or guardians and only if the child is between 2 and 12 years of age – not under, and not over. What are your thoughts on spanking? Personally, I don’t object to it all the time (my mom spanked me when I wouldn’t stop running out onto the street as a kid and that spanking finally did stop me), but I think it can be vastly overused. With respect to the link to circumcision, it suddenly becomes murkier because if we ban spanking (or condone it, as the case is), what is the problem with circumcision? I know people say it’s mutilation, but spanking is in a way too. So difficult…!!!
Jespren
Got to say, a spanking isn’t mutilation, as it doesn’t mar the body on a permanent basis, but yes, I think the issues are interlinked just because we are talking about things that are divisive in today’s parenting world.
I agree with spanking, or rather, physical discipline. My 1st and last word on any life choice is the Bible. Most of what the Bible says about parenting is rather broad, things like ‘does a father not give good things to his child’, ‘like a mother comforts a babe at breast’, ‘train up a child in the way he should go’, but the need for physical disciple to properly raise a child is among the few specifics it gives. Rare is the child who can be brought to adulthood properly without some form of physical punishment. (I expect they do exist but I’ve yet to know what I would consider to be a properly adjusted and successful adult who was NEVER spanked or given a smack on the head or hand.) But I think spankings are most effective in the 2-5 age range and almost never needed in the over 10 age group (provided they had them at the younger age, I have seen physical discipline and threat of such disciple salvage a mess of a teenager into a well behaved and properly chanelled young man). I think there is a huge difference between a ‘wake-up and pay attention’ smack and a real SPANKING. The first is good for use as needed, the 2nd is reserved for serious infractions. The 1st makes you pay attention in the moment, the 2nd is meant to make a long term point (the classic ‘wait til your father gets home’ type thing, I remember pretty much every spanking my dad handed down but the day to day ones mom gave were water under the bridge, no biggy). I think they are needed to a various degree with different kids. One kid might need only very rare physical correction while other kids, to quote Cosby ‘and the children would smile at me as if to say ‘dear, sweet father, you know we can’t go to sleep until we have had a good beating’, I love that skit. Even if I didn’t feel the Bible had the last word, rare is the society throughout history that hasn’t practiced some form of physical punishment (spanking, switching, strappings, caning, or full out beatings with a rod, whip, or other item). When a thing is so widely considered necessary and so widely used it’s absurd to consider it ‘abusive’ or detrimental. Now I would *never* take a strap to a 3 year old, or a switch to a 5 year old. But boy do I know a lot of 12-18 year old (heck, I know a lot of 18-50 year olds!) that would benefit greatly from an application of leather to butt or wood to back.
Which leads to a related point, the (U.S. at least) anti-spanking crowd frequently tosses out ‘well let’s see how *they* like it!’ In reference to physical punishment for adults. I think a criminal justice system can do one of two things, it can either prevent and punish crime OR it can warehouse those who society says *will* commit crime. If you just want to remove the inevitible criminals from ‘civilized’ society, by all means, toss ‘em in jail and treat them as well as you are able. But if you want to prevent and punish crime, then the judicial and public use of physical p.unishment is essential. I don’t mean permanent cripplings like cutting off of hands, (excepting rape, I think castration and/or emasculation is a very good punishment for rape) but if some punk thief knows he’s going to get a public caning that’s going to leave him bed bound for a week he’ll think twice about knocking over the 7eleven for $80.
Jespren
Btw, personally I wouldn’t hit my kids in the face, because of what I know *my* mindset would be under those circumstances, but my favorite ‘physical disciple’ story is: I was about 2ish and started throwing a tantrum, the 1st honest to goodness full tantrum. Mom smacked me on the forehead, I stopped and thought about it for a second and started again, louder, my smacked my forehead again (like a forward slap, fingers only), and again I paused and tried again. She smacked again, I stopped, lip began to quiver, and I sniffled and stopped my tantrum, and never threw another (which isn’t to say I didn’t throw the screaming fits of anger, just never a real temper tantrum with the out of control shrieking and flailing so common amongst toddlers).
Unfortunately my son (my daughters not to that age yet) took no such profound lesson from any attempts to keep him from temper tantrums, although finally getting close to 3 he is outgrowing them and learning to calm himself down better. Spankings, or threats thereof have worked wonderfully for other issues though.
Last point (probably) I agree that there is just no cause to spank the under 2ish crowd or even give a light hand slap to the under 1 crowd.
Oh, and I HATE ‘time outs’.
Megan
Interesting. My experience of Attachment Parenting here in Australia is exactly what you describe as Evolutionary Parenting. I have the same motivations and goals as you and we regularly discuss all the issues you have raised on the various groups and mailing lists I’m on. I don’t know if that’s a cultural difference or not but I think you could benefit from digging into AP theory a little more because you don’t seem to have a complete grasp on it.
That being said, in terms of reaching new parents I think it’s probably useful to have a different term for it! AP does have a lot of misconceptions attached to it and the term probably turns a lot of people off before they’ve looked into it properly. The information is too important to be overly nitpicky about labels.
Meanwhile, am I the only person who finds it amusing that someone is referencing the Bible in a discussion about “Evolutionary” parenting? With regards to that discussion, I would never prevent my 2yo from having a tantrum. It’s a healthy, normal expression of frustration, anger and sadness that needs to be expressed, not repressed. I’d be heartbroken if my daughter felt like she couldn’t be emotionally authentic around me. The only lessons spanking teaches are ones that aren’t worth learning, IMO.
Tracy
Megan, I’m glad that AP has different (and broader) implications in Australia. I did look into it very deeply here and it’s part of what led me to come up with something a little different to describe my own set of beliefs and research into parenting. Of course, there’s nothing that says AP can’t involve those things, but that the groups I’ve spoken to and the literature I’ve read here lacked those elements discussed in this particular article.
That said, I also wholeheartedly agree about the term. Lots of people still view it as a only-child-centered parenting style which requires parents to forfeit their own desires and needs, which couldn’t be further from the truth. And I will add that I love AP as a practice and love that it’s gained traction because the biggest things are covered in both AP and EP. But I felt that making it clear what EP covered was a critical thing to do
Tracy
I’m intrigued by your comments about placentophogy – everything I’ve read indictates it has always been a rarity among humans?
Tracy
I do plan on doing a post on it, but you’re right it’s not common in humans because we do typically have enough nourishment. I refer to it more in terms of our mammalian counterparts, but it has been practiced for thousands of years, suggesting there is still something to it for humans as well
Amanda L
I’m interested in why eating placentas isn’t common in humans too. I always figured it had to do with one or more of these factors: 1. Because we developed fire and began cooking our meat (generally) the idea of a raw placenta seemed ‘disgusting’ because we naturally have an aversion to raw meat due to the possibility of parasites or bacteria. But then in that case, why didn’t we just cook the placenta? 2. As we developed socially, it seemed ‘wrong’ to eat something that came from your body (aside from breastmilk, of course!), which is why cannibalism isn’t very widely practiced. (I don’t know numbers, but I’m assuming it’s not widely practiced)
We also don’t eat our own faecal matter, as some mammals do, even if it was cooked… (not that there’s any comparison to the nutritional value of a placental vs poop! Just that many mammals eat poop and we don’t) Anyway, I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on this 
I’m not sure how much it has to do with nutrition… is it more common in areas of famine? I don’t think other mammals are generally malnourished compared to early humans. If anything, there are more malnourished people today eating McDonalds then mammals eating their natural diets.
Tracy
Amanda, I’m so glad you ask this because it’s on my list of posts to do. So I will get there! Unfortunately this summer will be a bit slow. I was supposed to be doing my dissertation however my mother suddenly passed away a couple weeks ago so that’s on hold while I handle everything surrounding her death. But I will get to that. If you keep checking up (or join us on FB) – you WILL get an answer
However, I do believe you’ve hit on the main reason which is our sense of disgust with the human body. The closer we are to bodily functions, the less disgusting they become, but as we become more sanitary and separate things from our bodies from our bodies, we view them as “gross” and “disgusting” even though they can have huge benefits!
Tracy
Looking forward to when you do that post. A lot of the businesses offering placenta-encapsulation suggest you benefit from the hormones in it but I haven’t been able to find anything to substantiate the fact that they’d still be present after drying (or cooking) it. I was talking to my father-in-law about it, as he’s a retired microbiology professor, and he was very dubious that they would still be in-tact. I can imagine there might be some benefit in consuming it raw, but would imagine that cooked or dried it’s benefits are more comparable to steak or beef jerky (still, in a hunter-gatherer culture, clearly that’s still a valuable resource – just much less so today)!
Angela
That is SO in line with my thinking, especially taking babies to work with us! I told my husband it would have made me so much happier if we had a family business so I could have had work and babies. However, I stay home with the kids because we do have to choose, and now my kids are 2 and 4 and I would love more than ever to have work AND my kids!!!!
Anyway, I agree that this all seems AP. But who knows and who really cares about “terms” anyway.
Mia
Loved this article, it totally summarises all I’ve been wanting to do for my kids whilst paranoid on treading on others’ toes and causing offence/misunderstandings.