Many people subscribe to the RIE theory of raising children espoused most famously by Magda Gerber, currently popularized by individuals like Janet Lansbury. Standing for “Resources for Infant Educarers”, RIE is a philosophy that focuses on respect of a child as an independent person that we must observe in order to gain our own awareness of them. I don’t know enough about the entire theory to do a huge overview and I imagine the amount of time it would take to truly get this level of knowledge is (a) far more than I have and (b) isn’t where I want to spend my time. However, what I do know is likely the same as any parent who decides to go looking into it without immersing oneself completely so, arguably, it speaks to how an average person would interpret RIE given the articles freely available. Luckily, there are some good summaries from Janet Lansbury on the philosophies and rationale behind some of the techniques that have allowed me to gain this insight into RIE to allow for a bit of a discussion on it here.
In many ways there are good overlaps with evolutionary and attachment parenting such as respect for the child and looking to your child for cues and clues as to what s/he is trying to communicate. Like any type of respectful parenting, if you are being responsive to your child, you are noticing what they are telling you, not what you are forcing onto them. In fact, if I were to base my view of RIE on this summary by Janet Lansbury alone, I’d think it was spot-on.
However, despite these overlaps and the summaries sounding so perfect, individual articles about RIE, or components of RIE, often leaves many parents with mixed feelings (I know because I’ve been contacted by many of them). These elements can often seem conflicting with the values of someone who focuses on the evolutionary or biological underpinnings of infant behaviour. Although previously people attributed too little to infants and children, arguably RIE attributes too much, or perhaps attributes capacities in the wrong areas. Here are the four main things that I feel may interfere with full support for RIE as a philosophy for parenting.
Based solely on observation
I believe this has to be #1 because it is one of the primary problems that is part of so many parenting “experts”. Many of the principles seems to be developed just as the typical baby experts did: By only noting external, observable behaviour. The problem? Well, we know now that what we observe is only part of the story and in infancy and childhood may not reflect the inner workings as well as we’d like to think. When we think of this problem with respect to other “baby trainers”, it has led to the failure to understand the baby relationship to crying and distress, self-soothing, and the false belief that a baby who isn’t crying is soothed or calm or even happy.
Relevant Readings:
Educating the Experts – Lesson One: Crying
What You Need to Know About Crying-It-Out
Lies and Damn Lies: Babies Cry for No Reason
Ignoring the importance of touch in favour of the mind
There is a quote from Magda Gerber on this that epitomizes my own confusion with the RIE view and it’s as follows:
“What is the value of being held or touched if it’s only the skin that is in contact? What about your minds connecting, or to become more philosophical, your souls?”
I feel frustrated at this quote, I must admit. I imagine Dr. Konrad Lorenz, who studied the skin and importance of touch, eyes wide at this as it ignores the evolutionary reason touch is so important. I imagine Dr. Tiffany Field, the current preeminent researcher on touch, shaking her head in disbelief at the ignorance this quote displays about touch. I imagine Dr. Nils Bergman, the major proponent of kangaroo care, picking up his jaw from the floor after hearing this. And me? I want to scream because too many people actually believe that touch is unimportant when nothing could be further from the truth yet this seems to be the way touch is interpreted by many parents reading up on RIE.
What is the value of touch if it’s only the skin that is in contact? Well, for starters the mere act of touch helps regulate baby’s physiology – including heart rate, stress response, temperature, etc. Touch alone can calm a crying baby without so much as a word from the caregiver. Touch alone can transmit every possible emotion we may feel and remains one of the most important ways in which we actually communicate emotional information. Touch can save the lives of babies as we have found over and over again in NICU settings. Touch also serves as one of the main foundations from which we build our attachment with caregivers.
So… what is the value? I’d say a lot more than anything the mind alone can do.
Relevant Readings:
Infants are Sensitive to Pleasant Touch (from Science Daily)
Kangaroo Mother Care
Premies: Maternal Touch has 10-Year Effects
Belief of Independence from Birth
Generally speaking, RIE views infants as being independent being from birth and they are to be treated with the respect that comes with a mind ready to engage. Although I don’t debate that babies’ minds are far more developed than we give them credit for, this has two major implications: (1) Lack of belief in and respect for the fourth trimester which is actually a biological and evolutionary element of infancy (again, ignoring science for observation) and (2) potential for people to ignore child under the impression that they desire or even need independence. Although some in the RIE crowd seems to paint those who use attachment theory as a basis of care as being too clingy with the potential to inhibit a child’s development, I fear problems for those who don’t give value to the interdependence that exist between child and caregiver.
The issue of the fourth trimester should be, quite frankly, moot. Babies are born too early for their development relative to other mammals and we know this from looking at the developmental stage a human infant is at once out of the womb relative to other animals. At the very least, other mammals are born with the capacity to move independently, something human babies lack. Now, we have very good evolutionary reasons for this: Our brains grew and in order to fit the head out of the birth canal, we had to accept a fourth trimester outside of the womb. In support of this, we see how beneficial a womb-like environment is for babies in the first months of life (typically six to nine; or the age at which they start independent movement).
Relevant Reading:
Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Lab at the University of Notre Dame
The Independent Child
My Unexpected Consequence of Babywearing
A Belief in “Supported Crying” or That Babies Cry for No Reason
This is a hard one because obviously I agree with supported crying as well! I believe that all babies should be supported when crying – so long as they allow it and don’t push away (in which case give them their space, but remain close and remind them you are there when they are ready). However, RIE seems to talk a fair bit about this idea that babies just cry from stress and don’t need to be actively soothed, just comforted, or this is simply how it’s coming across and interpreted by others even if it’s not what is meant.
Here’s the problem: This idea presupposes that babies will cry for no reason, that there’s no communication happening, and therefore you don’t need to look for the cause of the crying. On that, I call bullshit. Again though this may be more an issue of interpretation than a real problem, but interpretation is key when promoting a technique or series of techniques. I have had several parents come to me confused over this very issue as written up by the RIE crowd; they wonder if they are doing a disservice to their child by actually being responsive to the cries and trying to help them stop crying. The distinction is that the idea of “end crying by all means necessary” is clearly wrong and flawed and there will be times when supported crying is all you can offer and it is incredibly valuable to the infant in terms of the stress response; however, if you assume all crying is just releasing stress or that a baby needs to figure it out on his/her own, then you’re failing as a parent. We can’t fix everything, but we can make sure we do what we can, and that includes trying to find the causes of discomfort.
Relevant Reading:
Lies and Damn Lies: Babies Cry for No Reason
Reasons Babies Cry and Wake at Night
Reasons Toddlers Wake (and Sometimes Cry) at Night
The Period of PURPLE Crying
***
All in all, RIE is actually a very good place to come to parenting from (despite my problems outlined above). The emphasis on respect for the baby/toddler/child is something that is so often lacking in today’s society and I hope this doesn’t seem like I’m out to tear it all down. I think, as mentioned, some of the problems are with interpretation and the fact that some of what is said in RIE can be misconstrued by parents looking for an easier way out. However, I do wish there was a greater acknowledgement of attachment theory, history, biology, and the evolution of the infant-caregiver dyad in the RIE mix and I believe it is for these reasons that many people have mixed feelings about the program as a whole.
I’d love to hear from anyone actively involved in RIE for your take on what I have written and if you feel I’ve done it a disservice, please elaborate. I’m always open to learning more and as said, am basing this off the more popular writings about it that are widely available today.
Here is a response from someone looking at the RIE side using Madga Gerber quotes.
I have some quibbles with RIE, as I do about most all-encompassing parenting philosophies. But I really like Janet Landsbury’s blog. I used to think her beef with AP about using breastfeeding to stifle the emotions of babies/toddlers was misplaced (it’s certainly not how I use nursing…), but then I read “Mothering Your Nursing Toddler” from the LLL and I was somewhat horrified by the number of times it suggests that distracting your toddler or baby from emotional hurts is desirable and uses it in the same breath as comfort – talking about using nursing to distract. I don’t actually think that is a good idea and while I give my toddler the breast for comfort every time he asks for it, I never offer it before he asks if it is in response to him being upset. My step is always to listen, empathize and offer to hold him.
I like all of the stuff about slowing down and connecting before you try to change a diaper, wipe a nose, clip nails, etc. I like the stuff about not making thing “disappear” when babies move towards them and not arbitrarily picking babies up to move them away from things you want them to leave alone. In general I like a lot of the scripts for setting boundaries with toddlers. I think a lot of these small things are often missed by AP parents, and I was glad of the reminder.
I also really like all the natural gross motor development stuff in general, though I think the no tummy time stuff goes a bit far (for my son it just ended when he seemed upset, but he usually liked it). I think putting baby carrying in wraps and carriers in the same category as other baby buckets (carseats, bouncers, exersaucers) is misplaced. I think if you’re not carrying your baby it makes sense to provide floor time with a free range of movement, but I think carrying for a large portion of wakeful time makes a lot of sense for very young babies (not as much for my son, but he was a bit different). But for all gross motor developments – sitting, crawling, walking, climbing, stair walking – we have tried not to interfere with our son by hand holding or otherwise manipulating his body for him and it has been very very successful. I am sometimes surprised by the number of other AP parents (and other parents generally) who talk about “teaching” their babies to walk by walking them by hand, as though babies aren’t perfectly capable of learning to walk on their own schedule. It’s not something I see addressed anywhere else, and “The Baby Book” actively encourages parents to interfere with their baby’s gross motor development by sitting them up, etc.
In sum, while I primarily identify as an attachment parent, I very much enjoy Janet Landsbury’s blog and (while I read it critically and take things with a grain of salt) I have been very glad to have it be part of my parenting research from the beginning. I think it addresses some holes in AP thought about babies and toddlers.
Oh Tracy, I am so with you on this – especially the crying part, I am absolutely OK with babies needing to cry and allowing them to do so, this happens a lot – BUT – if IMO it should be if all else has been tried and excluded first, not as an initial port of call. I truly believe that at least 90% of the time babies cry for a reason, not just for the sake of crying/releasing emotions (is it just me or is this a bit ignorant of neurological development?).
I am also incredibly frustrated at the view often held by RIE educators towards attachment theory, which they seem to muddle up with cliched attachment parenting and related principles. There is a large amount I agree with, but a lot makes me very uncomfortable and it just seems a little, well, confused and jumbled up to me. I’m so please somebody else agrees, I felt a little out on a limb!
I would go one step further Sarah and say that in the 10% of the time where they are releasing emotion, we should look at what caused that build up. Overstimulation? Pain? Stress? And then work to make sure that doesn’t repeat.
I think any RIE parent would agree that looking for the cause and working to prevent it in the future is definitely appropriate. In fact RIE advocates setting schedules and environments that are not overstimulating. But RIE also recognizes that we can’t prevent every hurt, frustration, or emotional up and down.
I also think that there is a misunderstanding of the RIE perspective on crying. I don’t think that anyone says that they cry for “no reason”. Stress, overstimulation, emotional release etc are all valid reasons to cry. What RIE parents believe is that not all of these things are in a parent’s control to “fix” in that moment when the crying is happening. Yes they can work to prevent it in the future and set the child up for success, but in that moment, not all crying is fixable, and sometimes meeting the child’s need involves simply being there. Sometimes everyone needs a good cry and simply needs the support of a loving person to witness their emotions. For me RIE is about respect and responsiveness and trying to truly understand the communication that is happening, and then recognizing the limitations of communication at this age. For me this looked like holding my colic- crying baby skin to skin (because touch IS so important), pouring my love and compassion into her and saying, “you’re hurting right now, your sad and you’re hurting and I can’t stop it, but I’m here with you and I love you” as opposed to bouncing her vigorously, distracting her, offering the breast (which I definitely tried in my helplessness, it just made her scream harder).
Also, Gerber is considered an attachment theorist and is included in some attachment texts, so I think for many RIE educators it is frustrating because what the vast majority of parents know about attachment theory comes from the “cliched attachment parenting and related principles” rather than the actual theories.
Response for the they just cry for stress or no reason otherwise – bs. However- look up dunstan baby language or YouTube videos on how to tell what a baby is trying to communicate with you by body language. There’s videos to tell you exactly what every motion, paired with expression or sound is asking of you and dunstan baby language is for when – if you didn’t pay attention to the visual cues- they cry to get what they need instead- and dunstan baby language will tell exactly what each baby cry is indicating based on how it sounds. It’s universal. Every baby uses it- it’s easiest when they’re young and infants before they get to ages when they learn other ways to communicate but both YouTube and dunstan have been incredibly useful and made it so easy to tell what every cry is and there has never been any ‘no reason’ cry. The only one we can’t really do a lot to alleviate for them right away is the poop one where you just have to rely on bicycling their legs and/or putting them in poop squat position while waiting and helping them through it- which the continuous help with it helps them learn how to do it on their own without interference much quicker than if it was never any help at all.
thank you for this article. i am a firm believer, and avid proponent of RIE, and i also value attachment and evolutionary parenting and caregiving. what hurts my heart is that we spend the energy to argue about what is wrong with each philosophy. perhaps the need is for discussion. if that’s the case, i’d like to see more written about how these differing view points work together.
i completely agree with RIE and Janet Lansbury that RIE is a way of treating humans that is effective and provides positive, stable, predictable, respectful relationship building for ALL people, adults and children. and i also feel strongly that human babies need to be have skin to skin contact for large portions of the day and night, that on demand breastfeeding is important and essential, and that being present and available for our children is most valuable.
as a result, i think i see the larger picture, which is connection and relationship. there are aspects we will all agree with and disagree with. i become concerned when we choose to challenge a point of view we admittedly don’t know a lot about. again, i think it comes down to the desire for discussion. but why does that have to be facilitated by, “this is what i don’t agree with…”?
instead of attacking, let our thoughts, words, and actions show love; love for ourselves, love for all children, love for other adults, unconditionally.
I think it starts with what we don’t agree because if you only focus on the areas of overlap, it can cause confusion as to why there even are different philosophies. I hope I’ve been able to do so respectfully though because I do respect true RIE in general, though obviously I take some issues with it as a whole or how it has been interpreted by individuals.
You say: “if you only focus on the areas of overlap, it can cause confusion as to why there even are different philosophies…”
I would argue that there is no confusion needed–there *aren’t* really different philosophies. Caring, responsive, respectful, loving, attuned relationships are the core. I think that we, as parents, are the ones that put these things in different camps out of our need to have an “instruction book” or a “list” to be followed that is as simple as possible. We do so (in my opinion) out fear and insecurity, and, frankly, sometimes out of a lack of ability to think critically and follow a path that feels normal, sensible, rational, and responsive to us and that fit for us and for our children. A parent hears one or two things they don’t like and they say “Oh, that’s not right for me, I need a different list” and they go to another “philosophy”, ever searching for something that makes sense and works for them and their family. In my experience, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to a different philosophy, but that they are unable to say “here are the things that I like that this person said, here are the things I like that this person said, here is what makes sense according to what i have learned and believe about infant development.” We are fooled into thinking there are different philosophies by the extremists…all philosophies have extremists (I do not consider Janet Lansbury an extremist, for what that’s worth) who make philosophies appear rigid, when they are really are not.
A huge difference in philosophies shows up in RIE classes.
When we were there with our 21 month old child, my wife had to go outside the “class/play room” to breastfeed. When we said that we wanted to stay in the classroom, the teacher said that then we couldn’t continue the class. RIE is deeply inauthentic in how they talk about themselves vs. how they really act.
When calling the head office in LA they said that they’d talk to the teacher. When I called the teacher back later she maintained her position as if she had been reaffirmed by the head organization. After this as I called the head office they never returned my calls.
The organization and the teachers of RIE have absolutely no genuine commitment to children and parents when it comes to their legally supported right to breastfeed. They break the law and neglect the needs of the children in order to enforce a dogmatic view of what children and the parents should and shouldn’t do, regardless of science, biology and the law.
That’s horrible from ANY organization!!!
That doesn’t surprise me at all from what I read on Janet’s RIE blog and other articles. RIE seems pretty anti-nursing just from reading the blog. From what I can read, nursing is ONLY for food and hydration in RIE and allowing it to become a “comfort habit” or allowing a child to seek comfort that way is bad. Parents are told to limit toddler nursing and be in charge of how many times a day and for how long.
All I see is RIE hostility to nursing for any reason other than food and a disrespect for the needs of the child in favor of the adult having total control of nursing (being careful not to create a “comfort habit” in the child!).
Emanuele – You are extremely confused and misinformed. RIE asks parents to breastfeed (or bottle feed) on the chairs and sofas just outside the gate of the play area (which is still inside the same room) because we VALUE the breastfeeding experience. We perceive these experiences as special opportunities to provide attention and intimacy to the child. We encourage parents to treat breastfeeding (and other intimate caregiving routines) as separate from play, because we believe they deserve a separate focus, rather than being treated as a quick run to the drinking fountain or a “fix” for handling/controlling every uncomfortable moment that might come up for a child in our classes. We are also sensitive to families who are in the process of weaning whose children might find it difficult to have a child periodically nursing right where they are engaging in play.
Portraying RIE’s respectful, thoughtful approach as “inauthentic” and “breaking the law” is the height of absurdity. I can certainly understand why the instructor chose not to work with you.
Melissa,
Thank you for explaining though I hope you all understand why nursing isn’t just running to the drinking fountain or somehow controlling every uncomfortable moment for our kids. Does RIE teach you about the biological and physiological changes that occur during nursing and what they contribute to in the long-run emotionally? I feel like this idea about breastfeeding is misinformed which leads to rules like this. Further, if the goal is to challenge uncomfortable moments, why would you try to hide nursing from a child in the process of weaning? Wouldn’t that be an uncomfortable moment they could work with?
Tracy
Well said Charis!
In our RIE class, we are asked to nurse outside of the play area, so the babies have separate areas for tasks, just like the bathroom is in a separate area. We play here, we eat/comfort here, we use the toilet here, etc. It has nothing to do with hiding or being against breastfeeding. At least that is the case here in Brooklyn, NY. It is in the same room, but outside of the play “gate”.
Can I ask why you would have comfort separate from any place? Wouldn’t you want your child to know that comfort happens anywhere if needed? I think comparing nursing to the bathroom is a little iffy too.
I interpret Magda Gerber’s quote as being more about the practice of carrying or wearing a baby and then completely ignoring the baby. Not that I think much of anyone actually does that, but some people might think a mom is doing that if she’s getting work done with baby sleeping or just quietly observing on her back, and they observe no (or very little) interaction within a particular period.
I find some useful concepts in all of these theories and methods. I don’t really see them in conflict, but I do see some misinterpreting or misunderstanding going on in all directions. Discussions like these, though, can help clear these up, thankfully.
If it does refer to that I still think it’s wrong – that carrying actually allows for touch that helps physiologically regulate baby.
I do think more discussions like this are needed though! I like many elements of RIE and so finding ways to reconcile them with EP is a good thing in my books. I would hope we could all take the best of each practice and what works for us to make something worthwhile for ourselves!
The way I interpret that quote it is that simple touch isn’t enough, that you need a meeting of the skin, the mind, the heart, and the soul and THAT is where true connection and love (and healing) occurs.
And that was my interpretation – which is why I have an issue with it because what we know from science would say otherwise 😉
Please link to a study that shows that love, emotion, connection, etc. and touch were all put into the same model and only touch was a significant predictor of child outcomes. Show me a study that empirically, scientifically, isolates touch from all other aspects of the interaction, and we can agree. However, I would guess that these studies on touch failed to consider other aspects of the interaction beyond physical touch.
Here’s one that may interest you. In the face of maternal unavailability (they used the still-face paradigm), touch decreased the stress response in infants. OBVIOUSLY contact with love, connection, etc. is ideal, but as postulated even by RIE, it’s not always possible. However, the touch alone during that time seems to decrease the stress experienced by the child. Interestingly, touch during this period also kept the physiological synchrony between mom and infant that was present prior to the experimental manipulation whereas synchrony looks to be lost (looking at the numbers) in the still-face alone paradigm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136923
Indeed, the only time touch isn’t good is “bad touch” which in the case of parenting is when infants don’t want it. But no one here says that you should force touch on a child – if you’re looking to their cues, you can tell when they don’t want it. Very notably in this study is that this missynchronous touch was more common for mothers who seemed to have higher baseline cortisol – possibly indicating their own anxiety which can lead to less ability to read others’ signals. I’d love to see more research on that!
Thank you Laura! What an educated, thoughtful remark. I think singling out that one Gerber and interpreting it as Tracy has is very tendentious. Clearly Magda meant that a deeper connection was needed BEYOND and not INSTEAD of physical touch. If my husband hugged me all day long but shushed me whenever I started to talk about something that bothered me, and disregarded many of my feelings, wants and opinions, it wouldn’t be long before the value of those hugs would indeed start to diminish. I don’t need science to tell me that, it’s just common sense. I was honestly baffled at the outrage that the author feigned with regards to such a reasonable statement. I don’t follow this blog, and I’m sure there’s a lot that I would agree with here, but unfortunately this biased and uneducated post makes me not want to read anything else.
But here’s the thing: No one is saying it’s all or nothing. People here advocate for the importance of touch on it’s own IN ADDITION to connections with your child. This argument that comes often here is that somehow if it’s not a connected touch, it’s nothing – THAT’S what I’m arguing against. Touch in and of itself is very powerful.
You are speaking here of Harlow’s experiments? You simply cannot draw one to one correspondence from a study in which monkeys were deprived of all contact with another monkey and only given a non-living carpeted substitute to the degrees with which parents hold and interact with their infants.
I can’t tell from the format what this is in response to… ??? (And just in case you can’t see either – it’s the Harlow’s comment.)
I interpret Magda Gerber’s quote as being about baby being carried/held or worn and mostly being ignored. Not that I think that actually happens very much, but I could see how someone might think that was happening if a parent is getting work done and baby is sleeping or quietly observing but there is no (or very little) observable interaction during a particular period.
I find useful ideas in all of these concepts and methods and I don’t really see much conflict between them. I do see some misinterpreting and misunderstanding going in all directions, but discussions such as these usually help clear these up, thankfully.
Sorry for the repeat. It didn’t seem to go through the first time. 🙁
But anyway, yes, I agree, that even if for a period, the baby is not being specifically interacted with, the touch and carrying/wearing is still beneficial in of itself. Touch is our first language. It begins in the womb.
And I interpret the quote to say that mindful touch is better than just touch for touch’s sake. When we touch our infants (an extremely important way of connecting), that touch is more meaningful when we are doing so with intent. Like the difference between a tender hug from a friend and bumping into someone on the subway. Both are examples of touch, but one obviously has more meaning and more power. Gerber didn’t believe that we SHOULDN’T touch infants, but that we should do so mindfully. I couldn’t agree more.
That said, I think a great many points you’ve made here come from misunderstanding (which you freely admitted to in the beginning). I disagree with your interpretation of RIE, but then I’ve devoted a great deal of time and energy into learning more about this philosophy. If your goal is to simply give your opinion on a philosophy you’re only beginning to understand, then you’ve done so. If it was to give a succinct explanation of what RIE is truly about, you’ve missed the mark.
Love your interpretation of the quote, it’s perfect!
I love the RIE approach and I totally believe in the importance of touch, responding to my daughter’s cries (assuming there are MANY different reasons she might be crying and it ‘a my job to observe/know her well enough to help in the most appropriate way), on demand breast feeding, and the fourth trimester. I’m afraid you are going more on [mis]perceptions than a true understanding of RIE. Have you invited Janet to respond? I think she would welcome that opportunity and could help clarify a lot; make this discussion more helpful.
I am by no means a RIE expert, but the biggest thing I have taken away from what I have learned is TRUST in your child…and I think that means meeting them where they are and when they need you – which means lots of love and touch and respect for their individuality 🙂
Janet was clear she didn’t approve of the piece and doesn’t have the time to respond. Sadly. I would have loved it.
I have based my understanding on her writings (which I have read a lot of) and yet I continue to hear stories of many others having the same interpretational issues I have mentioned herein (including in RIE centres). I would love for more, easily accessible input 🙂 Would you care to?
Well, I am sorry to hear that about Janet. Again, I’m not an expert, but I’m happy to continue to discuss! I think a healthy debate is great. I’m realizing the more I think about this that I ,of course, have my own interpretation of RIE (as everyone does to some degree) that is also based on a lot of Janet’s articles, and also on a lot of what Lisa Sunbury has said (her blog is called Regarding Baby). I may have some misperceptions of my own because I am merging them with what I personally feel is the best for my child. I’m guessing there are some fundamentals of RIE that oppose those of Evolutionary/AP parenting – but I guess I’m also thinking (and hoping:) that there are perhaps more commonalities than one might think.
I believe there are quite a bit – well I did until Janet informed me that EP was the “polar opposite” to RIE which confuses the heck outta me. I know that the stance against babywearing is opposed to EP in that EP is for it if it works for a family as it provides touch that is very important to baby’s development (knowing you can get touch in other ways too, but that some babies require consistent touch). I would love a response to each point from an “expert” and will continue to wait as I’d love to post those responses *in* the piece for future reference. It can turn into a “misunderstanding and correction of RIE” post instead 🙂
In my experience, some of the problem with the notion of “babywearing” (not all of it, mind you) is in the semantics, which many people find offensive. We can say “oh, that’s ridiculous, it’s just a word”, but words are powerful and express intention and even feeling, and for many of us, words matter a great deal. Babywearing, as a term (and as a practice as well, but that is a separate matter), is regarded by many as offensive because, as we would likely all agree, babies are people. We wear shirts. We wear shoes. We wear pants. Things that can be “worn” are inanimate objects. We cannot “wear” a baby…and when we insist that we can and should, we are implying, even if quite unintentionally, (especially for those of us who believe strongly in the power of chosen words) that the baby is an inanimate object, not a full human being.
Again, I acknowledge that there is more to the difference in philosophy about this than simply the word, but I think it would go a LONG way to bridging that gap and reducing the inflammatory rhetoric if we could find a word or label for carrying babies somehow better reflected the humanity of the small person we are carrying.
Now THAT is an interesting discussion I’d love to continue. As someone who is big on the power of words in many areas, this I can resonate with. I wonder what a good word would be – it’s something I’ll be pondering for a while. Thank you.
Not surprised that she won’t respond. Janet has always come off as holier-than-thou in her blog, which was my main turn off to RIE! And like you mentioned, that there is little regard for actual science and is just based on observation.
Janet Lansbury spends lots of her time on her blog and forums, and is a mother of 3. I am sure she prioritises how much of her time should go towards ‘responding’ to critiques, even valid ones like this article (Which I like by the way). I personally respect the fact that she knows her own boundaries to not engage in a conversation she doesn’t want to have.
I disagree with your claim that RIE has little regard for science but it already seems like your mind is made up.
But it’s not made up – why I asked for people’s opinions! I’d love to hear your take on the science behind the philosophy 🙂
I think most people who have been parents would argue that parenting is as much art as science (and that is coming from a scientist)….so there’s that, too.
I also have some problems with RIE but I think that some of the issues raised above are missing the point of what RIE is all about. Namely, the issue with RIE’s stance on touch and crying. The Magda Gerber quote I think is trying to communicate that it’s very important to get to know the child on a deeper soul level, not that touch isn’t important. Same goes for the crying issue. RIE encourages parents to wait and assess the crying so that they can calmly learn more about the source before jumping into action with a pacifier, the breast, rocking, etc, so that the problem can be addressed with respect for the needs of that particular moment. Again, encouraging a deeper connection to the child. To this point, I believe the essence of the philosophy is engendering this connection between parent and child, to be truly present and connect respectfully during diaper changes, feedings, and all caregiving.
My issues with RIE have to do with the philosophy being against things like baby wearing, pacifier use, commercial toys, high chairs, etc. I love baby wearing, think there’s a time and place for a pacifier and love sharing the table with my kids!
Thank you for this. I agree with the issue of waiting and responding properly, but then EP/AP doesn’t support distraction towards crying either. I find it interesting that you note the baby wearing thing for you which is one of the touch issues for me – if you’re so against baby wearing, which is inherent in allowing lots of beneficial touch, how much touch can you expect for a parent to provide? Carrying a baby is not something families can do all day long, yet many babies require and ask for lots of touch which baby wearing enables. It seems to counter the idea that touch is important to be against the main way we can provide positive touch while continuing to have a balance to our lives as well.
How do we know how much touch a particular baby requires or prefers if they are rarely put down and given the opportunity to adjust to that experience? I don’t disagree with your premise. I am a committeed and long time RIE practitioner, and I carried my daughter in a sling and coslept, because she DID need a lot of touch. But not all babies do like that physical closeness. It is a highly individual thing, and I fear that we sometimes project what we think their needs are on to them without creating opportunities to find out what their needs and preferences actually are.
Are you suggesting that babies can’t signal when they don’t like the touch? Most babies I know who want their space demand it – they cry, they fuss, etc. – and if they are ignored long enough they stop. The same thing happens when they want touch and it’s not given. At some point they stop asking. I would think that physical closeness should be the default to start with and then of course look to your baby! If s/he doesn’t like it, s/he’ll cry and squirm and you need to be aware of that and then try something else (i.e., space) 🙂
Jenee, I appreciate what you have said about missing the point, that’s how I felt. I am happy to see such a good discussion and hopeful it could help us all gain new insights.
Many beliefs within RIE have surprised me, but I can say, for the ones I have pursued in order to understand better, I have always come away with a greater respect for RIE and Magda Gerber’s work – even if I don’t like it 🙂
I read about RIE through Janet Lansbury’s site when my baby was newborn. I liked her site very much and adopted some strategies such as free exploration of objects, minimal baby buckets, and almost no tummy time. My baby despised tummy time, but everyone pushes it, so this was my defense for not practicing it, because saying that she hates it and cries does not hold much water (for some people) when used as a reason not to do something. Sound familiar?
An article that never made sense to me was written by Magda Gerber herself and questioned how babies can learn to manage frustration if they are never allowed to feel frustration. I do not know if this was referring to older babies, but I felt there was an implication to allow a baby to cry so he can figure it out. Even before I read about AP or EP, I could not let my baby cry without immediate comfort. Now this quote sounds like the self shooting myth to me and I think your point about a lack of research is dead on. At the time, I saw the name Gerber and thought it must be good stuff. Now I know more and that research should back parenting concepts.
While I agree with the general gist of this article, I disagree with the author’s (negative) interpretation of Magda Gerber’s quote.
I take it to mean that I need to be present and mindful with my touches and skin to skin contact (What about your minds connecting, or to become more philosophical, your souls?” ) not just slinging a baby in a carrier while I carry on Facebook or on the phone.
I feel like the author is being deliberately obtuse in her interpretation, but you know, English is not my first language, and neither was Gerber’s so maybe that is it? There is certain blunt way that Gerber had about her (in her writing) that I find refreshing and clear, than other people project negatively onto.
Just something that I have observed.,
I do think she meant you “need” to be mindful, but I am arguing that that’s great when you can, but it’s not *necessary* for the benefits of touch 🙂
Interesting article. I am a very longtime follower and admirer of RIE who also embraced many of the principles of AP. I am also a longtime professional and academic with multiple graduate degrees in child development, so am well versed in all of the scientific theories that you mention. The problem that I have with this discussion is that many developmental and academic theories (Bowlby, Ainsworth, Lorenz, others) and medically based strategies (Kangaroo care, etc.) are being taken out of context. While developmental theory is important (very important to me), it is critical to view it in context. Attachment theory was never meant to *directly* inform parenting, though of course they have potential implications that are worth of consideration. As with all academic/experimental theories, they are largely about extremes (deprivation, the overall notion of maternal responsivity, extreme deprivation of touch), not about “average”, good, attentive, loving parents. Kangaroo care is a medical intervention that was initially designed–and still most often used–for premature infants to aid them in thriving at a time when they biologically should still be in utero. I am no opponent of touch or carrying babies when they want to be carried, and I am surely no opponent of developmental theory–it has been my entire career, but I think we need to be careful not to draw one to one correspondence between experiments and academic theories and day to day parenting strategies.
Oops. Also meant to comment on the sentence: “At the very least, other mammals are born with the capacity to move independently, something human babies lack.” This is not really accurate. Newborn infants are most certainly able to move independently. They cannot get around, but they can move their arms, their legs, their heads, and within some limits, their torsos. This is all “independent movement”, it is just not mobility, or the ability to move from one place to another. I acknowledge that maybe that is what you meant, but find it is important, especially in potentially inflammatory discussions, to be abundantly clear. I do find that RIE, in general, is much better at acknowledging and respecting the independent movement, intention, and abilities that human infants DO have at birth than most other dominant philosophies that are out there. That alone makes it a valuable contribution to our knowledge as new parents.
I did mean mobility 🙂 That is the difference between human babies and other mammals, including our closest primate relatives.
I wonder how some of the theorists would take your comment here. I know that Bowlby wrote on general parenting so clearly he felt his work SHOULD be spoken to for regular parents, not just the extremes. Ainsworth also looked at regular parenting and the individual differences that occurred in attachment in these families, not just the dysfunctional ones. And Nils Bergman of Kangaroo Care is hugely vocal about his belief that it should inform parenting more generally, not just for NICU babies – though we all know they benefit the most.
Are you aware that Sir Richard Bowlby was the keynote speaker at the RIE conference?
Acknowledging that babies cry from stress or to release feelings is VERY different from saying that they cry for no reason. RIE doesn’t say that babies cry for “no reason”. And yes, just like adults, sometimes babies cry not just because they are hungry, tired or wet, but because they have feelings/stress that needs to be released. And in those moments, it is not our job to shut it down, but to listen and to be present.
There is so much that I love about RIE, and while I do understand some of your concerns, there are clearly some misconceptions here. I call my parenting “Integrated Parenting”. I weave in aspects of RIE, AP and Aware Parenting/Hand in Hand Parenting. It works for me.
I think the author took Magda Gerber’s quote out of context. If I remember correctly in Magda Gerber’s she addresses this point by saying that is more beneficial for the baby if the mother is fully present in the moment (when breast or bottle feeding, diaper changing, bathing, etc) and truly connect with him, than just being carried all day or breastfeeding him while you are on the phone. She gives babies credit of being fully aware when you’re paying fully attention to them when you hold them. So, I think the point is, that it is more beneficial to spend some time of the day paying 100% attention to your baby than being carried all day with only some attention on you part (which I think, and I might be wrong, is the point of “babywearing” to be able to do other things while you’re with your baby). Don’t get me wrong, I do have a baby carrier and I use it at the grocery store, airports or other places were stroller is not that practical, but at my house I do believe that my baby benefits more from having free movement and having my full attention and plenty of touch while I feed her, bathe her, change her diaper, or while observe her playing independently (which is a joy!) etc.
Oh! Also, I don’t co-sleep but we have a long beautiful nighttime ritual were we read a book, pray and snuggle (my baby is 15 month old) so I don’t think parents that follow RIE don’t believe in the benefit of touch, but I think we also give importance of being fully present while we do it.
I think a more appropriate term is baby-carrying. It is odd that so many people use the term baby-wearing without actually thinking about what the term implies and that is that a baby is an object as opposed to a human being.
Magda Gerber’s quote is about the importance of the connection. Popular “attachment parenting” (which is another problematic term because the implication is that if you parent differently, then you have failed at creating a connection, an attachment, with your child) tends to impart this idea:
1. new mothers and fathers have to ensure that baby is breastfed exclusively and carried around for several hours a day, perhaps all day during the initial months.
People are so passionate about these two things and these two things are perceived to be the most important components (perhaps with cloth diapering as a close third).
You may advocate for building deep connections, offering simple and open-ended toys, and close observation of baby and her signs, but the mainstream “AP” world obsesses and fixates on the above two characteristics. This is precisely why Gerber’s quote is so powerful in our current world. How many times have you seen a mother grab a baby and start to nurse without paying any attention or without any connection occurring between parent and child? Mom could be engaged in a conversation or multi-tasking or doing a variety of things and it’s as if baby is treated as a a barnacle as opposed to a human being deserving the deepest respect. If you allow yourself to be open to this thought, you will understand it’s value.
Caregiving moments (feeding, bathing, etc) are beautiful moments for fostering connections and ATTACHMENT.
You mention the NICU. I have been fortunate enough to have no experience with a baby in the NICU, but I would imagine that the touch that goes on there is deeply connected and personal and respectful. I don’t think a mom is loudly gabbing on the phone, typing an email on a laptop, and drinking coffee while holding the baby. I don’t mean to demonize moms here. It sounds as if I am. My problem is with the dominate AP community that creates immense pressure for women to nurse and to use carriers as if nursing and using carriers are the necessary and sufficient conditions for developing deep connections. They have missed the mark. Connections begin with respect. One key difference in the perception of babies is about movement. There is nothing precluding a parent in RIE from using a carrier. Lansbury herself mentions that sometimes this is about parental convenience and that this is fine and ok. The problem is that baby should also get lots of time on his or her back. Baby should be allowed the time and space to organize her or her own body in space, in the world. Baby deserves a shot at this here.
The term that is used and emphasized is this idea of ORGANIZING the body. Movement is crucial and incredibly important for baby. AP parents believe that they are responding to baby’s need to be carried for several, several hours a day. RIE parents would generally argue that the AP approach is not about responding to a pre-existing need but actually CREATING a need. “What babies get, they come to need and to later expect.”
There is nothing in RIE that prohibits using a baby-carrier. Nothing at all. The idea is that baby should be allowed plenty of time on his or her back. If you are using a baby carrier for 6-7 hours a day, then it is unlikely that baby is getting a shot at organizing his or her body. You also have to observe your own baby. Not all babies like to be placed in carriers.
Again, you may present AP differently. I am talking about the way it is commonly understood. Sears and his clan of sons also provide disclaimers about the freedom to veer from their recommendations, but the reality is that many people are strict followers of above two tenets.
I appreciate your post, but I cant emphasize how strange it is for a Ph.D student to criticize something without reading about it in very in-depth manner. If time and interest permit, you should read Gerber’s books. You might also enjoy reading Emmi Pikler’s Bulletin #14. That one is incredibly powerful and interesting to read, too!
Also – APers are commonly critical of certain carriers. For example, many people I know post images of the Bjorn, for example, and compare this to something like the Ergo. The idea is that the Bjorn is bad, very bad, for baby and that there is an adverse effect on baby’s hips/legs. Parents can be fanatical about this point. The Bjorn practically becomes a 4 letter word in some circles. In this way, an AP parent can argue that the carrier is NOT HEALTHY, not ideal, for the physical development of the baby. Well, this is not unlike a RIE parent saying that using a carrier for six hours a day well into babyhood might not be the most respectful way to treat a baby because this, too, is constricting movement.
I think the problem with “baby-carrying” is that it wouldn’t distinguish between carrying your baby or using a wrap or carrier.
Your discussion of connection was why I said I actually like a lot of RIE that I have found and read. There are, however, elements I disagree with from my own albeit brief readings. (On that note, I appreciate how strange it is too, but also realize that this was done from the point of view of a mother looking into something, not a PhD student, which is why I presumably had enough parents write me asking me to do this piece. Which is what happened – over a dozen requests from people asking why they felt so weird about RIE and did I feel the same from the readings we could find. Yes, I could and this was why. In turn, I admit it’s not an “in-depth” study, but it also speaks to the fact that if you *need* to do in-depth study, it’s not a very intuitive method and possibly very open to misinterpretation.)
I’ll say this – people who follow *anything* strictly aren’t “parenting”, they’re following rules and that’s just a problem in our entire society which I believe stems from our lack of exposure to children. People have kids knowing very little about children and in turn need manuals to tell them what to do. Evolutionarily, children spend lots of time caring for and being with other children and thus didn’t need this type of rule book or “experts” to tell them what to do. But that’s a whole other topic 😉
Why would it matter if the child was carried in arms or in a wrap or carrier?
Well, according to Magda Gerber it matters! Baby carriers – according to her – restrict the movement and shouldn’t be used. So I would imagine differentiation would be useful.
I don’t think I know of anyone who is a RIE follower that does not/has not made some use of a sling or a carrier of some sort. RIE has no strict “do’s” and “don’ts” . It’s not a set of rules or restrictions. It’s a philosophy of respect.
I very much regard myself a RIE parent and professional for 3+ years. I used a sling when my daughter was an infant…when it seemed like she needed or wanted it, or when I needed to use it on a walk or in an airport, etc. I coslept/bedshared for years. It’s not the RIE way, “officially”, but I have found RIE followers (and leaders) to be entirely supportive of what I did with my daughter, because it was done in clear response to my child as an individual, and her needs, feelings, and expressions, not for my own agenda of any sort.
So I still don’t see what the problem is with using “baby carrying.”
30+ years, not 3+ years.
I should also mention that the other main tenet of AP, in my mind, is bed-sharing.
I am a very longstanding RIE follower, and we bed-shared. I have gotten nothing by support from those in the RIE community. The difference (I think) is that we did it in response/evolution to the needs of our child and family, not because it was “the thing to do” because AP said so.
I much enjoyed your piece and it pinpoints my trouble spots with RIE as well.
[…] have written this post in response to a recent article by Tracy Cassels of the site Evolutionary Parenting. I felt strongly compelled to respond point by […]
Hi Tracy. I want to respond to this post with professionalism and productivity but I must admit that it triggers my protective impulses. I hope that stating this from the onset gives you and your readers enough preemptive notice in case you sense the passion in my response.
I am confused about your stance. This is NOT an attack, but an observation. You say at the beginning of the article “I don’t know enough about the entire theory to do a huge overview and I imagine the amount of time it would take to truly get this level of knowledge is (a) far more than I have and (b) isn’t where I want to spend my time.” However, you go on to espouse absolutes throughout the article. That feels like a contradiction to me. How can something be somewhat unknown and yet somewhat absolute? Let me explain further from the angle of a RIE intern.
You said: “Based solely on observation” as one of your main points in your problem with RIE. Where does this notion of such absolutism come from? Where did you gather, from any of what you skimmed, this impression? In fact, you state “Many of the principles seems to be developed just as the typical baby experts did: By only noting external, observable behaviour.” Do you know the 7 RIE principles? Here they are: http://www.rie.org/educaring/ries-basic-principles/. As you see, only one focuses on observation and not “solely” observation, but SENSITIVE observation. This allows for attunement to the child, challenges us to not assume what the child needs but to see deeper into what they are telling us; to listen, to wait, to wonder, before responding. “The problem? (you state) Well, we know now that what we observe is only part of the story and in infancy and childhood may not reflect the inner workings as well as we’d like to think.” Exactly! Exactly. That’s why we observe.
You said: “Interestingly, while some advocates of RIE believe Jean Liedloff’s views were the central point for Attachment Parenting and thus were also observational, they have ignored the extensive research into attachment theory from Drs. John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.” This is the furthest thing from the truth. I have been through 3 RIE Foundations courses so far (once as a student and twice as an intern) and an entire 3 hours was dedicated to the sole discussion of Attachment Theory as well as it being referred to throughout the course. In fact, just last night myself and Liz Memel, my current RIE mentor, discussed John Bowlby and Ainsworth’s work for the bulk of our evening with parents and caregivers in our Foundations class. Sir Richard Bowlby was the Keynote speaker at the 2010 conference and Janet Lansbury (who you have referenced reading but perhaps have not read all?) wrote a blog about his presence at the conference: http://www.janetlansbury.com/2010/06/secure-attachment-and-so-much-more-magda-gerbers-uncommon-respect-for-babies/. Do you still think the research has been ignored?
You said: “Ignoring the importance of touch in favour of the mind” as your second bone of contention and you used a beautiful quote by Magda as your support for this extrapolation: “What is the value of being held or touched if it’s only the skin that is in contact? What about your minds connecting, or to become more philosophical, your souls?” This is so disappointing to me. Do you not see the depth of Magda’s point? Her point is that if we touch without intention, without letting the child know we need to touch them, without waiting for the child to tell or show us that they want to be touched, without also connecting beyond the skin, then we are touching without honoring the spirit of the child and without our own authenticity. A very well intentioned parent will hold their infant, rock them, and bounce them up and down, all the while touching physically but with the absence of an emotional/spiritual/attuned connection. Her quote is poetic. You say: “Touch alone can transmit every possible emotion we may feel and remains one of the most important ways in which we actually communicate emotional information.” Touch alone can only do this if we are also connected by mind and soul! If it is truly touch alone then what the child would pick up on with the physical contact is an empty, discomforting feeling, not a comforting one by merely being contacted. You say: “So… what is the value? I’d say a lot more than anything the mind alone can do.” Yes, it is the combination of touch and true presence that matter. This is what Magda meant. Does this quote help clear it up? “When you hold an infant, hold him not just with your body, but with your mind and heart.”
You say: “The second issue about forced independence and the failure to give value to the interdependence is a bit trickier.” RIE does not see independence as needing to be forced. RIE sees the child as capable of BEING independent. There is a big difference. If your baby has all of their basic needs met – food, sleep and diaper – then laying them down in a safe space to explore independently is how they will be supported in being without us. While they do depend on a caregiver to meet their needs their need to be independent is just as valued. When a parent feels like they can’t put their baby down then their baby feels like they can’t be put down. I have known many parents who won’t put their baby down so that they can meet their own basic needs, like needing to use the bathroom. This is a recipe for an unhealthy relationship between child and caregiver. I agree there is a fine balance required and that some parents may read fostering independence through giving children time and space to figure out their own bodies and how they exist in the world around them as an opportunity to spend less time with them and therefore checking out completely, but that would be a parent who is missing the point.
You say: “Here’s the problem: This idea presupposes that babies will cry for no reason, that there’s no communication happening, and therefore you don’t need to look for the cause of the crying.” I am not sure what you read to (mis)interpret this from but RIE absolutely supports trying to find out the reason a child is crying through observation of their cues that they actually need a caregiver to help them resolve something. Supported crying is empathetic. Supported crying allows the child to have their feelings without another person fixing what is wrong for them. What older child or adult do you know that succeeds at wanting other people to fix things for them? Of course when a child asks for something – help, a hug, comfort – the adult provides it! RIE is not a “don’t do this, don’t do that” approach, but THINK deeply about what you are doing! This reminds me of a story of a parent in one of Magda’s classes who called her after one class and said, “Magda, I don’t know what to do! I laid my baby down when we got home after feeding him and changing his diaper and he won’t stop crying.” Magda said, “Pick him up and hold him!!” RIE is not about extremes or rules!!
Not only does RIE support children being able to meet their own needs or desires but RIE sees children as ABLE to do so. An example of this is an infant who is attempting to roll over from their back to their stomach. After much hard work and perseverance they finally do this and once on their stomach they begin to fuss to get back over. Should a caregiver step in and fix this because the baby is expressing some frustration? Should the caregiver watch and see what the baby does? Should the caregiver do nothing? Should the caregiver comment to the baby that it looks like hard work? Or should the caregiver trust that the infant knows how to get back over and that working on it, facing the struggle and succeeding builds intrinsic motivation? Learning to be okay with struggle is a lifelong lesson, is it not? And yes, there is a point where the struggle crosses a threshold where the baby won’t be able to get through the struggle without help and then, by all means, help them, but do it respectfully by talking to them, giving them a hug to re-fuel them so that they can return to the work they started.
You said: “However, I do wish there was a greater acknowledgement of attachment theory, history, biology, and the evolution of the infant-caregiver dyad in the RIE mix and I believe it is for these reasons that many people have mixed feelings about the program as a whole.” Here are some ways that RIE answers this misunderstanding: topics of discussion in Foundation’s classes have included Attachment Theory (as I stated earlier), Regulation Theory, the history of how children have been seen and are now seen, brain development, epigenetics, psychomotor development, initiation/cooperation/reciprocity, the importance of play, self-discipline, language acquisition and so much more.
Nowhere in any of my experience with RIE have I ever heard or gleaned forced independence, ignoring Attachment Theory, ignoring the importance of touch (how could anyone do this to an infant???) or that babies cry for no reason. I would love to know what you read that lead you to these staunch conclusions you have made even though you claim that you think overall the RIE approach is sound and that you haven’t done enough research to really know. The examples you have given – especially the Magda quote that you failed to see the depth of – feel jumbled to me and your arguments against RIE are quite concerning to the entire parenting population, let alone advocates of RIE.
If you have enough time to write this type of blog with such strong opinions, please give enough time to re-think your efforts and do some deeper digging before publicizing such extreme, inaccurate rhetoric.
In your “about” section you claim that one of the goals of Evolutionary Parenting is “to help parents be better parents for their babies by providing research-based education about infant development and parenting practices”. Have you done that with this blog?
Just asking.
As you know, I replied to this comment on FB so I’m not going to repeat myself here 🙂
Very well put! Thank you for writing this! Spot on!
Melissa, thank you for putting into words the frustration I felt while reading this piece. Tracy, I wish you had replied here as well as I didn’t see your fb response and I would have loved to read it.
Lesson learned as I should have, but it was so long ago, it’s gone from FB too. I apologize.
However, I hope you read further comments because Melissa’s take sounds wonderful yet seems totally incongruent with people’s experiences in RIE groups and with some of the “big names” in the field today.
I don’t understand your comment. You say RIE doesn’t force independence on a child but in the same comment you describe forcing independence on a child and making the child struggle to roll over so they learn they can do it on their own and face frustration. This is why I find RIE proponents so confusing. They describe doing a thing and recommend doing a thing, then in the next breath say RIE never recommends such a thing (that they just recommended).
Thanks for posting this. My exposure to the concept is fairly recent but this post just puts into words the same problems I had with RIE which turned me off of it, although there is plenty that I do agree with. I’ve read through all the comments as well, and I’m confused that one of the commentors mentioned the power of using the right or wrong words, yet the philosophy of RIE seems very easy to misinterpret. The other issue I have is the contention that rocking, bouncing, patting, nursing to sleep etc. are all purely sleep associations created by the parent(s) which I just can’t see myself agreeing with. From the start, my son made it abundantly clear when he did or did not want to nurse, be rocked, held in a certain way, etc. If it was solely about sleep associations that I had created for him, I would not have had to find out what worked for him. And trust me, it would have been a lot more convenient for me. And since what infants find comforting is usually whatever reminds them of the womb, isn’t the nine months spent in the womb creating “sleep associations”?
[…] over at Evolutionary Parenting wrote a piece titled Problems with RIE. She openly admits that she is not well versed in the RIE philosophy, and her article highlights […]
Very well written and respectful article. I do not understand the rabid hatred exhibited by RIE devotees towards attachment theory. I tried to understand the RIE point of view, but I struggle to get past the pretentious way the lead practitioners respond to questions. They are wholly inconsistent: strollers are ok, but baby carriers are evil? That’s bizarre. Respect newborns by letting them spit up on themselves flat on their backs? Kind of odd. Don’t feed your infant when they cry, i.e. communicate for food, because you are just projecting and creating a bad habit?
At first I was intrigued, but after a pretty involved amount of research I think that the lead people in the movement, namely Lisa Sunbury, are just whacked out on self-importance.
If a baby is hungry, we feed them. We just don’t automatically stick a boob in their mouth to stop crying. We NEVER leave a baby to spit up on themselves lying on their back. And we do use baby slings for transportation, we just don’t keep them in one all day while we go about our business. Your interpretation is outrageous.
I used to love Janet’s work, actually, but I had to disconnect from her after realizing that she not only allows, but endorses, blatant sexism. I detailed a very bizarre and disgusting situation that occurred on her Facebook page on my blog – http://rebootyourkids.com/janet-lansbury
I offered to speak with her to make sure there wasn’t some sort of misunderstanding and she refused, while continuing her verbal assault, calling me “creepy” and “overbearing.” As you’ll see from the detailed interactions, the only thing creepy and overbearing are some of her followers and herself.
Wow – I just read the piece and that’s quite the exchange! I think the only thing I would suggest moving forward with your ideals (which I agree with) is how you phrase it. Even online things like socratic questioning can lead people where you want instead of trying to drag them there with them resisting all the time. I’ve learned the hard way on this one though 😉
I definitely hear you and am fully aware. I have a very good “reason meter.” I knew immediately who in that thread was interested in having a reasonable conversation and who wasn’t. Truthfully, once I saw where it was going I wanted it to go all the way there. I think it’s best to expose people for who they are in these situations since changing their mind is futile. If that makes sense. Most of all, I just wanted to plant the seed for the mom who originally asked the question in the hopes that she would take information she was likely not privy to and make a better decision.
I am RIE trained and have used this approach with all 3 of my children as well as a RIE infant Toddler program for 7 years. The quote about touch was misinterpreted. Touch is important, but so the emotional and mental connection. As is attachment theory, we studied Ainsworth and Bowlby in our RIE foundations course work. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with using a baby sling. Many of use them, for transporting our infants. The point is made that free movement is important. This is true both for motor development and cognitive development. And that we want to be 100% present when we are with our infants. Therefore we don’t advocate “baby wearing” as in keeping them strapped on, dangling there while we do our house work. We do not believe this practice aids in attachment. This doesn’t mean that we don’t hold and comfort our babies. And observation is a tool to really be in tune with our babies cues. We don’t just sit around “watching” our babies. When they need us, we respond them. We are available to them when they want or need us. But we don’t feel the need to constantly entertain them. They let us know when they want interaction, and we allow them to explore without being interrupted. I could go on and on, so I will stop here. I haven’t heard any criticism of RIE that wasn’t based on a misinterpretation.
My sister is raising her child using REI. I know nothing about it, and have been reading articles online today to better understand it. Maybe someone can answer this question for me….Does the principle suggest that everyone that interacts with the baby should be REI certified/trained? She is asking us to read the book, and to not be “exuberant” when we are around the baby, and threatened to leave during the holiday meal if we didn’t quit cooing at the baby. Seems very extreme to me, but, maybe that is just her take on the principle. Or, maybe that is what the book suggests? Any clarity would be appreciated. My kids are older and turned out great ;-), so I don’t plan on reading a book on the principle at this time in my life. Just sad that I won’t get to hang out with my nephew until this REI stage is over…second question…when is the REI stage over?
No, RIE says nothing about special training and even Janet Lansbury has written a number of pieces on the importance of allowing baby to build their own relationships with family and friends. That said, my experience has been that most new parents who have found an approach they love can share the same intensity as anyone who has discovered a new way of seeing: I’m thinking particularly of recent religious or political converts, recent ex smokers, newly discovered vegan ism, etc …
I am very new and green to RIE. I just recently landed a position as Assistant Director at a Preschool program. On three seperate occassions I went to visit the infant room and came upon a crying infant. After a few moments I asked the teacher why won’t she hold him and her reply was ” RIE encourages them to be independent” Since this statement I have done reseach and will go tomorrow to rent some books about it. However so far I’ve read the philosophy requires caretakers to observe the child’s need and determine how the child requires support from the adult without making assumptions. The teacher clearly communicated to me she undersatands his needs but according to her “he wants to be held but he needs to learn to be independent”. The child clearly communicated his need but it is being ignored becasue RIE encourages independence. Help me understand please!!!
Oh yes I have this trouble with RIE too!!
That is not a RIE position. Responding to the infant is the step after observing and understanding the need. Lots of misunderstanding and misinterpretation here.
Do you see the problem here though. Many people are reporting getting these misinterpretations FROM people in the RIE world. I was even told by Janet Lansbury that RIE is the “polar opposite” to Evolutionary Parenting which strikes me as utterly odd IF both are focused on responding to the individual infant. Which is exactly what EP is.
Hi Tracey I’m so glad you wrote this because for the last few weeks I’ve been beating myself up for being a terrible parent after reading Janet Lansbury’s blog. Overall I really like most of her work but where I come unstuck is all her stuff on independence. I would REALLY love to hear your thoughts on this article
http://www.janetlansbury.com/2015/04/help-my-toddler-cant-play-without-me/
My three year old often asks me to play with her and yes if I’m honest she isn’t always great at independent play…but I love spending time with her and feel like this time is so precious.
My mum has also commented on my daughters lack of ability to play by herself very much. I haven’t ever seen it as a problem until I read this article and started to feel like I am a crap parent and have set my child up to fail.
She has recently started kinder (ten hours a week in a play based environment) and does miss me a lot when she is there. She hasn’t been too bad but has cried a couple of times…
The RIE article made me feel like I harvest her up to fail…
Please help!!!
Dear Tracy,
thank you so much for this article. I found out about RIE just today and though it does appeal to me but I have ideological doubts.
I’m from Germany, so when someone like Berger (who was born in Austria-Hungary and an adult during WW 2) so easily deemphasizes the bodily aspects of attachment I see traces of black pedagogy preached by the Nazis. I was really glad that you too pointed out these red flags
.
I’ve never really noticed the works of Magda Gerber before but I know a little bit about the work of Emmi Pickler. So while reading Janet Lansbury’s well written blog I really started wondering why she kind of ignores the fact that Pickler studied and worked with ORPHANS. She primarily developed practical guidelines for state orphanages in order to provide the best possible care to children who are deprived of the amount of touch that can be provided in a family. One cannot expect a nurse who has to take care of 5 babies to carry and hold each one of them as often as a parent would who cares for only one child. So showing the baby respect and full attention while interacting with her is the next best thing. In a family where the baby/caregiver ratio is way better (7 potential caregivers for 1 baby in my family) the real thing must be respect AND all the touch and attention the baby wants – no more, no less.
I hope I was able to put RIE a bit into a historic perspective, though I’m not an expert. I’d love to know what you think.
Thank you again for your great blog!
Liebe Grüße from Germany
Anna
Thank you so much for this insight! I had no idea the history there specifically on orphans and it makes complete sense. I am shocked that it’s not a part that’s discussed in RIE though at all. How disappointing!
It is totally discussed in RIE circles. Maria Montessori also developed her approach while working with orphans.
[…] https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/my-problems-with-rie/ […]
Your article is incorrectly portraying the REI methods in several ways. Reading a few articles doesn’t make you a subject matter expert. I suggest you do more research before giving your incorrect interpretations as fact.
I was very clear in where I got my interpretation and that it was MY opinion. The problem is that if I’m getting the incorrect interpretation, so are many other people and that’s something those working with RIE may want to consider.
Thank you for writing this. It appears evident that some ideals/theories of what is inferred in popular RIE is not based in scientific, empirical psychological evidence or reasoning concerning infant and childhood development, which is a great shame as there is so much (and new) information to offer parenting perspectives and models. Much is left open to interpretation by the “experts” who are educating thousands based on their own personal ideals. A huge concern of mine with RIE is that RIE advocates don’t seem willing to discuss RIE pitfalls (which raises alarm bells for me personally). I agree, touch is the most important thing for infants and babies, which has been empirically and scientifically proven! Everything in moderation, I believe, is key here. Look for and find the modern parenting approaches that you feel are appropriate for you personally and resonate with you….but also please check out the latest scientific and psychological research and findings available for you to read, so you maintain a balanced, well-informed view.
I have just discovered this article after searching for “RIE and AP”. Coming from an AP style of parenting, I recently discovered RIE but was finding it difficult to reconcile some aspects of these two parenting styles that are seemingly conflicted. Tracy you have put into words what I have been thinking about RIE, although I do disagree with some things you have written (for example, that RIE says babies cry for no reason. The research I have done into RIE does not suggest that this is the case).
I recently joined a closed FB page for supporters of RIE. This page says that only RIE advice is to be given and other advice is not welcome. Fair enough, I understand that they want to keep the page RIE-focused.
Melissa’s comment above (Apr 10th 2014) was interesting, she clears up a few points for me. The practice of RIE that she describes sounds wonderful, but is far from reality on the FB page I joined. In particular I refer this quote of Melissa’s:
“RIE is not a “don’t do this, don’t do that” approach, but THINK deeply about what you are doing! This reminds me of a story of a parent in one of Magda’s classes who called her after one class and said, “Magda, I don’t know what to do! I laid my baby down when we got home after feeding him and changing his diaper and he won’t stop crying.” Magda said, “Pick him up and hold him!!” RIE is not about extremes or rules!!”
On the RIE FB page the other day a mum posted about a similar scenario. Her baby (almost a year old) hated independent play and would scream whenever she placed her in her “yes” space, and had done so since birth. The response from the page admin (Lisa Sunbury I think?) was, and I quote, “let her cry.” Followed by advice along the lines of, acknowledge her feelings, but don’t let her out, she needs to learn how to play independently. How is that not forced/extreme?? I think the idea behind this, and please someone correct me if I’m wrong, is that often parents will project their own fears and uncertainties onto their children. So if the parent is worried their child will not like independent play then the child most likely will not. The mum was encouraged to confidently tell her child that she would be staying in the “yes” space and then leave her there.
Someone suggested babywearing to the mum while she was re-organising her child’s “yes” space (in the hope that it would encourage the child to play independently), but that was immediately forbidden by the page admin with the explanation that RIE does not advocate the use of baby carriers – which is in direct contradiction to what another RIE advocate had said in a comment above. The mum was told that babywearing would cause more problems as the child would then expect it, and that she should instead tackle the problem of independent play now rather than delay it.
A few people have mentioned in these comments that aspects of RIE are being misinterpreted by yourself Tracy. It seems from what I am seeing on the RIE FB page that this misinterpretation is happening even in RIE circles, and that people are overlaying their own opinions onto the RIE philosophy. To me it is coming across as quite a rigid “don’t do this, don’t do that” approach that Melissa (commenting above) said it is not. I am learning a great deal about parenting my 2 and 4 year olds from RIE pages, but the kind of advice I have just mentioned is very off-putting.
On reflection, AP can also come across as quite rigid “you must follow Sears’ 7 B’s” depending on who you talk to. Others are much more relaxed about and and use whatever aspects of AP fit in with their family. So this issue is not restricted to RIE by any means. Anyway, if you’re still reading these comments Tracy I’d be interested to hear what you think.
I absolutely agree that AP can be taken the same way – as a set of rules – and that’s one of the big problems with it. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the interpretation issues that are going on not only outside the RIE community, but as you’ve seen, within it. I’m glad you haven’t read about the crying for no reason, though in some of the readings I’ve seen, I have seen that mentioned which is very disconcerting to me (just as I’ve read in AP circles that a baby should “never” cry which ignores a lot).
As for the mom in that post – my heart kind of breaks to hear the comments made to her. Not all children are ready for independent play at the same time, especially babies. Some need more contact with people, not just socially, but physiologically too as we can help regulate those who have trouble physiologically regulating themselves. I hear the concern that we pass our anxieties onto our kids, but I’ve seen very little evidence for it being so specific. Rather, we do have synchrony (if there’s a good relationship) and we can pass on immediate anxiety through that or when our children are older and look to us for information, but the idea that a mom not liking independence means she has to force her child into it is asinine. It’s again promoting the idea that all children are the same and we know that’s patently not true.
Thanks for your reply Tracy. Ive just come to understand another aspect of RIE that I find strange. RIE advocates giving a child your undivided attention during caregiving activities (feeding, nappy changes, bathing, etc) to really form a connection and give the child all he/she needs from you emotionally. And then the child gets placed in their yes space for independent play. If the child enjoys this then all is fine, but if they don’t (or like you say, they are not ready for independent play yet) then wouldn’t it be confusing for the child to be left there without their parents attention other than an occasional acknowledgement of “you really don’t like being in your yes space, you want me to come play with you” ? As in, sometimes mum loves me and other times she’s ignoring my needs. RIE does tell you to listen to your baby and respond when they are upset, but then the FB page admin and other RIE advocates would tell you to leave your child in the yes space so they will get used to it.
The other thing with this undivided attention is that RIE says if you have more than one child it is recommended to give your undivided attention to one child at a time rather than trying to keep 2 kids happy with half your attention each. So it’s not ok to, for example, wear your baby while tending to your toddler. Or, an example that was posted the other day, help 2 kids to fall asleep together – it’s apparently better to put one to bed while leaving the other one to cry, then once the first one is in bed go and put the second one to bed. Which is exactly what happened to one mum, only her poor toddler fell asleep on the floor next to the gate at his bedroom door crying for his mum while she was putting the baby to bed. Another post I saw was a mum who wanted to know what to do about her 4 year old who was screaming and banging on his bedroom door after his parents locked it every night ??!! The boy sounded terrified to me, which some replies to that post pointed out. Other replies encouraged the mum to reassure the boy from the other side of the door and project confidence that he could go to sleep on his own.
So yes, I’m finding it all a bit confusing and contradictory at times!
Respectful parenting makes a lot of sense to me. A friend introduced me to Janet’s blog, I read one of her books and was inspired but also rolled my eyes a lot. Still, I decided to have patience and joined the FB group where I was told by Janet or Lisa that unless I was locking eyes with my child, I was not really connecting even if we were carrying a conversation. That’s pretty extreme (not to mention very difficult to achieve), and I am suspicious of extremists.
I was also told that RIE works for ALL children. I am a researcher and a data geek and I know that life is a lot messier than that. Nothing works for absolutely everybody. I know we all want to believe in neat panaceas for all that bothers us ( for example, cutting X food cures everything!), and I think that’s actually where RIE’s appeal is partly coming from.
Which takes me to two points I want to make about Janet’s marketing of RIE. She uses a ton of success stories and they are all very neat and inspiring but I am not sure they will remain that convincing if we start unpacking them.
I just read her piece with three success stories on sleep. One claims that between the ages of 4 and 10 weeks, the author’s friend’s baby increased the number of hours he sleeps thanks to RIE approaches. Hm, many babies start to sleep longer stretches after 4 weeks regardless of what you do.
The third story is by someone who is thanking Janet because “last night” her baby put herself to sleep after two hours of kicking by herself in her crib. I wonder if that success was repeated in the following nights. The point I am trying to make is that neat stories do not replace the need for solid backup/supporting evidence.
And finally, before I go, I want to question the ethicality of using Magda’s name relentlessly to lend gravitas to Janet’s ideas. Janet keeps telling her readers what Magda would and would not approve of, but she is dead and we can’t possibly know what she would have approved of today, if she knew what we know today about babies, the brain, etc.
This has been bugging me all week and I am glad I found a place to talk about it.
I loved this article! It’s hard finding an article online that does such an analysis on RIE. I don’t practice RIE, I looked into it and was very turned off by its principles of letting babies cry, no skin contact, etc.. But I do know a lot of RIE moms and honestly they are not consistent at all. They claim that they don’t intervene on child conflicts, but I did see them intervene and defend their kids when they were being hit. So it just doesn’t resonate as something you could put in practice and overall it seems as kind of philosophie that seems to end childhood, treating kids as adults when they are not. Everyone should receive respect, love and kindness, be that an adult, elderly, kid or animal. But RIE makes parenting seem so cold and distant, not touching babies, letting them cry, no baby carrying.
So happy I am not a RIE mom.
you have no idea what you’re talking about and you are misrepresenting RIE. you describe in an absolute erroneous ways.
Well the only part I completely agree with is the fact that you most definitely don’t know enough about RIE philosophy to be making such a review on it. It is quite obvious in reading what you have written that you are missing about 80% of every point you touch on. I don’t understand how you could possibly NOT understand the quote about touch, you need to think a little harder and outside the box on that one. Very uneducated review in my opinion.
Sadly then, RIE isn’t doing a great job given the number of comments I get on this post and how much it speaks to so many people’s understanding.
[…] My Problems with RIE […]
Your understanding of RIE is embarrassingly incomplete and, well, sad. I think you would agree that it is incredibly strange to post about a philosophy that you don’t understand. Writers (even bloggers) have responsibilities. The world works best when people take the time to research topics or to just write about what they know.
I am not a parent but have worked with 0-5 year old for 9 years and am passionate about early learning. I agree Janet’s tone can be holier than thou but I have learned a lot from her articles, more from Gerber’s books and so so so much from the RIE Foundations Course. I would never call myself strictly a RIE inspired practitioner though, there is so much valuable knowledge out there. What I have learned from RIE has changed my work and life for absolutely the better but no one school of thought has a monopoly on the truth.
With all due respect, I do not get how anybody can get so worked up about other people’s parenting values (outside of abuse and neglect obviously). There’s been some good discussion but also so much unnecessary tit-for-tat comments. By all means do your research, do what’s best for your kid, yourself and your family and accept that different people have different ideas.
Hi, Tracy- I’m a RIE Associate who received my RIE Foundations training initially with Magda Gerber and now mother of three. After twenty years studying RIE and reading the teachings of Magda Gerber, I find a gem each time I revisit the material. Magda was a very special person and pioneer in bringing attention to valuing the importance of the first two years of life. What I mean to say is I continue to reinterpret and understand more deeply the lessons of Magda and RIE depending on where I am in my own life and learning. And it’s worth noting that not all RIE Associates agree on all points- some are an ongoing discussion. I’m having one now on the topic of tickling : )
I have also begun studying with Anna Tardos of Pikler- Dr. Emmi Pikler was Magda Gerber’s pediatrician and mentor. I am AMAZED by how much more I have learned from their research in the orphanage and their continued work within childcare centers and children in institutions. We have discussed the very points you bring up in this post- and, yes- some of Dr. Pikler’s work has been misinterpreted in practice by RIE proponents. This may be because Magda provided parents an introduction into a very intricate approach and also- both RIE and Pikler are interpretive models. Anna Tardos is very passionate about sharing her mother’s work. One thing I hear often from her each time I am with her is “The Mother is always right” and that the Pikler Approach is only one way of being with babies and young children- it’s not the only way. Thank you for opening up the discussion. As a “P.S.” both the crying and independence are often the most mis-understood interpretations of RIE. Oh… and that being with babies from a parent’s perspective is not the same as being with babies in centers and institutions. Janet speaks mostly to parents. Beverly Kovach (my mom) is a good one to turn to for discussions regarding RIE/Pikler Approach implementation in center base care as it relates to the United States.
Thank you so much for your insight – it is interesting to know that some has been misinterpreted! It’s sad too because it seems like there is valuable information there.
Thank you Tracy, this article and the ensuing discussion was very valuable to me. I fully support you and find how you have spoken to be quite kind and thoughtful.
Hi Tracy. I read this post a few weeks ago. Your post brought up a few interesting questions, so I decided to pick up my copy of Your Self-Confident Baby, by Magda Gerber for clarification. Low and behold almost all of the clarification you are looking for regarding the RIE method is written in the first 2-3 chapters. I like to fully educate myself on topics that evoke a rise in me (the way RIE does for you). I hope you will read the book, not with the goal of changing your mind about RIE, but to educate yourself. It’s a fascinating read. RIE was a paradigm shift for me and helped me develop confidence in myself (and my children) as a parent. I found I was trusting my parental intuition more as a result of RIE.
A few passages from the book:
“I’ll let you in on a little secret. This book can serve as a guide, but the real answers won’t be found here. Look to your child. Observe her. She has much to teach you.” (Page 11)
“RIE’s philosophy is not a dogma or set of hard and fast rules. Rather, it is a resource for parents. You don’t have to agree with everything. You can incorporate into your family’s life what you find useful.” (Page 11)
” The newborn baby, up to three month old, is between heaven and earth, not quite here yet. She uses a set of reflexes which may appear at times abrupt or jerky, to make the adjustment from womb to world.” (Page 23) I feel like this passage from the book touches on the idea of the 4th trimester and goes on to say that newborns, especially, “…need quiet, calm handling in order to help them relax.”
Your local library should have a copy of the book.
Thank you! I do believe – and did when I wrote this as I mentioned in it – that the problem may very well be with the way RIE is being pushed by the mainstream now. That poses a problem when people aren’t going to the source and people pushing RIE are taking it in a very different direction (as the stories in this thread attest to). However, I will add it to my list of books to read 🙂
Thank you so much for this article! It puts into words exactly what I’ve been feeling about RIE. My other issue has been how dogmatic, rigid and really quite judgmental and mean the people who espouse this can be. I was on their FB page for awhile and the responses they gave to desperate first time moms made me sad and angry. I love the idea of it but if people who follow it treat others the way they do I don’t find it child or parent friendly for that matter. I was roundly criticized for asking questions. Apparently questions aren’t welcome. It’s too bad- there is a lot of wonderful information but everyone I “met” on the FB page who were die Garda left a very bad taste in my mouth. Janet herself was not above being snarky and mean to people asking questions and begging for help/advice. I’ll take some of what they espouse and incorporate it into my more AP/EP style of parenting. Thanks again for the article!!
I would love to see research that looks at how RIE type of parenting impacts frequency/duration of crying – it seems to me that children who learn to self-soothe early cry less than children whose parents think it’s their job to soothe their child. I see that to be the case with my friends and their parenting styles, but I do wonder if that’s just my impression or if there is something more to it? It seems that in sparing a child from feeling discomfort and rushing in to help creates a lot more tears than trusting a child to work through it on their own. I don’t know.
Actually, children don’t learn self-soothing early. You have to look at emotion regulation research to see that co-regulation is actually the start to real emotion regulation. However, we do have research on crying and parents who respond to their children’s cries cry less in the long-run than those who don’t respond. This is across different temperaments as you need to include that in any analyses.
The primary difference is in avoiding discomfort versus responding to it (e.g., distraction does not help, but comfort and nursing and all that does). But leaving them to “figure it out” is not linked with later emotion regulation skills.
Hi Eva,
this is a link to a very old article, but you get other links on the right side, you can take up your research from there. I was looking for a particular article I can’t find at the moment. It shows very clearly that soothing nurtures the babies ability to self-regulate its own emotional states later in life. The neuronal circuits have to still be built for babies to self soothe.
Do look into Polyvagal Theory by Dr. Stephen Porges. There are different free articles that are easy reads, his book, however is a bit dense.
Hope this was useful information for you
Best wishes,
Tamara
Sorry, this is the link I meant!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3517799
There seem to be some fundamental misunderstandings of the RIE method here. I hope to clarify these and hopefully the article can be edited to reflect your newfound understanding. I enjoy a critical evaluation of any approach, and share some of your concerns re supported soothing. However, some of these critiques are based on straw men (ie not the real RIE but a caricature):
1. Re: The touch quote – The quote about touch is referring to the fact that so many people just breastfeed or hold their baby without looking at them. It’s not saying not to use touch. It’s saying while you are holding your baby, observe them, make eye contact with them if they are awake, try to connect with them mind to mind. Magda advocates holding babies and feeding and changing their diapers with gentleness, intimacy, and by talking to them. The quote is about people just holding or wearing their baby while ignoring the baby as though baby is an object, not a human.
Re: independence – RIE expressly says that babies are dependent. They absolutely never say that a baby is independent. One of the main tenets of RIE is that babies are dependent and capable, but not helpless. This is supported by research as babies within their first hour of birth have been shown to wriggle from their mother’s abdomen to her nipple. Newborns will tense their body when a caregiver comes to pick them up, for example after changing a nappy, in order to assist with making it easier to pick them up. Babies are born with a sucking reflex and know how to feed on the nipple even though they have never done it before. Babies are born with amazing capabilities.
This seems like a total mischaracterisation of RIE.
“Ignoring the importance of touch in favour of the mind”
~Seems like this section misinterprets the quote. It isn’t saying don’t touch, it’s saying “be more mindful”. Don’t just spend all your time wearing your baby and going about your day, spend some time devoting 100% of your attention to your baby, and signaling to them that’s what your doing.
“Belief of Independence from Birth”
~”RIE perceives infants as dependent but innately competent self-learners” according to http://www.janetlansbury.com/2013/03/bonding-with-babies-where-rie-and-attachment-parenting-differ/
“A Belief in “Supported Crying” or That Babies Cry for No Reason”
~It doesn’t teach that babies cry for no reason, but rather that not all cries are problems that parents need to solve.
Tracy I’m curious what you think of RIE parenting theory on Natural Gross Motor Development.
I would have to look into it more to make a comment. Currently I haven’t looked into that as much.
Hi Tracy! Thank you for writing this. I am a first time mama who found RIE initially very appealing (i found it when my daughter was about 3.5 months and hating tummy time but starting to enjoy being put down on her back to squirm around) but as I have read the books and gone more in depth into the philosophy, I have been slowly mentally putting together a “problems with RIE” post, too. Even though I really like so much of it! And I think RIE and AP could really compliment each other very well — in fact i think EP might be name i would give to that evidence-based, best-of-both-worlds sort of style.
I have read Magda Gerber’s book, The Self-Confident Baby. Most of it is great. It really is about paying attention to your baby. But I do think MG ad RIE in general dramatically underestimate how much many babies do need to be touched all the time in the first few months, and some babies for longer than that. Although it’s open to interpretation, my impression of the RIE philosophy on touch is that touch is important but ONLY in conjunction with attention. If you’re not giving baby your full attention, put her down. No matter how young. And when she’s having independent play time, that’s when it’s fine to walk away and not pay full attention. For older babies I do think that can work, but I also trust the research on the inherent value of touch. A newborn sleeping twenty hours a day does benefit from being worn while mom (or dad) does chores while baby sleeps. It also helps get mama into baby-carrying shape!
There are some other weird things. In her book, Magda Gerber opposes rocking newborns to sleep (what?!), endorses the Ferber method of sleep training, and recommends strollers and *prams* for walks over being carried in arms or a carrier. She even says something to the effect of, “carriers were probably a better alternative than a cold dirt floor for primitive people, but now we have central heating so we can do better.” I’ll post the exact quote when i find it. Obviously there’s a privileging of, well, privilege there that I think is the opposite of the ideas I see on your blog. This is one of my general problems with RIE. (And not just because I don’t have central heating or a separate room available to be baby’s.)
MG does recommend soft lighting and sounds early on to comfort a baby who’s used to the womb, so maybe if she were alive and familiar with today’s research on physical contact, kangaroo care, vestibular stimulation, and neurological development, she would revise her perspective on the first few months in particular. But Janet Lansbury is definitely not having it. She’s waiting for science to “catch up” with her personal beliefs rather than actually reading up on existing research.
This is the thing that really turns me off: the public leaders in the RIE world seem totally closed-off to integrating their practices with any others, and are pretty hostile to people who are pro-hybridizing.
Janet Lansbury has a post, for example, in which she critiques AP (and she seems to know even less about it than you knew about RIE when you began this) and there are several moms in the comments who say something like, “I wore/carried my baby All The Time for the first 3ish months, and then he/she started liking to be put down to play and I let them do that RIE-style (not propping them up or handing them toys, etc) and it worked great!” and criticizing the post for misrepresenting AP and being too insistent that there is One Right Way. Janet’s response to all the initial criticisms was, “Can you please be more specific and tell me where I’m being biased?” and then when people did that, she ignored them. She also continued to insist that RIE and AP are incompatible opposites. Very off-putting, made me regret buying her books. Even though the books are mostly all the good parts of RIE and do have some helpful ideas.
I haven’t actually read much from the authors known as the AP originators, I just bedshare because it makes sense in my home situation and carried/wore my baby all the time at first because that’s what she seemed to want. So maybe as I get into it I’ll find the same problem, maybe all “experts” are the same, overly attached to their own philosophies. But as individual parents we can pick and choose what works for us. Toward that end, I appreciate your style and commitment to research!
Thank you for sharing. Yes, I think RIE is wonderful for toddlers and up, but I still struggle with it for babies!
New mom to a 4 month old baby girl here, also an Early Childhood Educator. In the beginning felt like I’m being pulled from different directions when it comes to parenting (AP, RIE, CIO, Ferberize, and all the ever growing acronyms and terms related to child rearing/dev’t, some of which are pretty new to me!) before my daughter’s birth I thought that motherhood would somewhat be easy since I have the knowledge and education, but boy, oh boy was I ever wrong! and the more I read, the more confused I got. Finally, I’ve had enough and decided to just follow my mama-heart, If my baby is done exploring by herself (RIE) and showing signs that she wants to be held then I will hold her and if she wants to be held longer than my arms could handle then I would wear her and wrap her close to me until she falls asleep. When she wakes up I know she’ll be ready to explore and wonder about her rapidly changing world.
Beautiful 🙂
Thank you!
[…] https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/my-problems-with-rie/ […]
Hello and first of all thank you very much for this article, it has opened my eyes. As a biologist and therapist I have this love for Attachment and Polyvagal Theory and all the clues and hints about what people and especially babies need. And as a mom of two year old twins, I have had a lot of occasions where I successfully tried out the principles myself.
Also I just found out about RIE and found it highly interesting, but having read your article makes me reconsider its approach as useful if we want to raise kind and gentle beings. I do believe that everybody has the right to choose whichever method works best for them. However, seeing a lot of parents who desperately want their kids to be independent, choose method without considering the basic needs of a human being, makes me think that we might be evolving backwards into more fight and flight temperaments than forward toward tend and befriend-empathy.
[…] “I will be honest that this issue seems to be one of interpretation as I don’t believe anyone who truly follows RIE believes in things like letting kids cry it out or ignoring their needs,” she wrote on her site. […]
Thank you for this post! I recently encountered RIE. and there is much that speaks to me, but also parts that I found confusing, some of which you highlighted here. This post and the ensuing discussion has helped to give me some perspective.
I do think that part of my struggle is a lack of self-confidence and a lack of baby experience. Thus feeling at a loss when it comes to the idea that if I just observe, I’ll know what to do. I’d like to believe that, but I don’t think it’s true (but then I’m an imperfect being, as are we all). Which I think leads to the desire to latch on to a methodology that provides us some structure in our parenting.
I think one of the most valuable things about this post is the reminder that all methodologies can become dogmatic in the hands of either the experts or the adherents. And even if one could be sure what Magda Gerber meant, that doesn’t mean it should be set in stone either, because she likely would have evolved her ideas as new ideas about child development came about.
I think your approach as an “average” person reading some but not all of the material is useful. Yes, ideally one should do the research, but that just isn’t always possible, particularly as an exhausted parent. And yet I’ve done enough therapy to see how issues can perpetuate from one person to another, so I am at times skeptical that just because something feels like the right thing is is. It may be from an unhealthy origin. Or perhaps just that one should be mindful of extremes. Babies shouldn’t be left to cry, but as someone who has struggled with repressed emotions, I can see how quickly shushing all crying might not be the best thing either?
I do like the idea of trusting one’s baby (to an extent). And the idea that they can play independently. Some other advice out there has made me feel like I’m doing something wrong if I’m not carrying and stimulating my baby every waking second, and that’s probably not right either! Seeing what they do with the world around them when you give them a chance can be pretty neat.
So many more thoughts, but they are scattering. Thanks for putting this out there!
Yeah…I don’t think you have a great understanding of RIE, as you admitted pretty much. RIE DOES encourage figuring out the source of crying (Magda Gerber states so in your self confident baby) but if all their needs have been met, staying close by to allow release is what is encouraged. You even said you think staying nearby while they cry is important!
Soothing is about comforting in a way that doesn’t force crying to stop. There is nothing wrong with crying.
The touch thing…well i mean RIE doesn’t encourage you NOT to touch your baby? They just believe in a less intrusive form of it. They state if you want to pickup your baby do so-but let them know you are going to and ensure you are interuppting their play first. They say holding your baby is important too! “If not in their crib or your arms a baby should be on a playmat” (your self confident baby) jeez, you haven’t done much research at all? And feeding time is all about closeness of touch.
Unforunately a very misunderstood practice. I feel that your bias towards attachment parenting clouded your ability to understand RIE from the start.
Interesting article. I think a lot of people who subscribe to Attachment Parenting have a misunderstanding about what RIE really is.
RIE is completely aligned with the Attachment THEORY, which is what Dr. Sears butchered to start his Attachment Parenting movement.
I don’t understand your misunderstanding of that lovely Gerber quote. She’s simply saying a connection of the emotions and of the soul is vital to attachment. I have a friend who co-sleeps and baby wears, but she completely ignores her children’s actual emotional needs in favor of simply keeping them from crying…these children are pacified, but not satisfied. It shows in their behavior.
I encourage you to take another look at RIE with out any preconceived notions from the echo chamber that is the AP community.
[…] Respect for babies as human beings is what I would take from this approach. Be present and communicate with your baby and observe to allow your baby to show you who s/he is. [Magda Gerber and Janet Lansbury] The huge problem with RIE is that it ignores what science and evolution have taught us about babies, believing that CIO is good and co-sleeping is bad and devaluing touch and trust. [Laura Markham and Tracy Cassels] […]
I just wanted to say that I agree with many of the comments above. I have been a member of gentle parenting and RIE groups and I have noticed myself an all high and mighty style as well as a quite ironic way of responding in the 2nd.
That put me off quite a lot. I also had the feeling that if my question didn’t align with the RIE approach, I would be told off , so I very often refrained from posting questions and concerns in order not to trigger such reactions. So, they might claim that they aren’t, but it all felt very hardcore to me. It wasn’t about the responses to my questions, by reading the responses to other people’s concerns I was amazed to discover the exact same style of responding.
I would also like to respond to a comment above regarding the baby carriers and different brands. It is important that the carrier is ergonomic in order to avoid hip problems, no matter the brand. So, it’s not a matter of a style of parenting or a trend but more of a medical matter.
But there IS a biological underpinning to RIE. Respect of the child and the allowance of feelings (even feelings the AP community thinks are bad) and the allowance of freedom.
It’s a very gentle method.
[…] also removed references to Lansbury’s chosen method of parenting, RIE, as being gentle due to the problematic views of founder Magda Gerber, which I learned as a result of my discoveries about […]
[…] within this blog to Lansbury’s chosen method of parenting, RIE®, as being gentle due to the problematic views of founder Magda Gerber, which I learned about as a result of my discoveries about […]
…this is literally not even how RIE works. You even state in the beginning that you don’t really know how RIE works. Perhaps don’t choose to write about topics you aren’t familiar with.
Except that all these people seem to be clear it’s exactly how it worked for them. Which is why I acknowledged the issue is likely in the implementation by others.
Thank you for writing this article! I was recently delving into the RIE approach for infants and had concerns in these exact areas! I’m also concerned about potential flat spots on the head with the amount of floor time they recommend, and their argument against being held too frequently. I love attachment parenting and feel it is so natural and intuitive! I couldn’t imagine *not* holding my son when he was an infant or *not* responding to his cries as if he’s trying to communicate something to me. I would still like to incorporate some of the RIE respect methods with my next baby (telling them everything I’m about to do, and not pushing toys in her face), but thanks to this article I will hold onto my baby as much as we both like! We all know how fast they grow. 🙁
I am not a RIE expert either, just a parent looking into different approaches and retaining what works for me, my child, our family. Since we are, despite our underlying human biology, all different individuals and shaped by different experiences, cultural and social heritage and privilege, I am personally not convinced that one recipe fits all. For us, during the infant stage, it was all about physical touch and baby wearing, soothing when my baby cries, breastfeeding on demand and bed sharing. My son now is about to turn two and we still breastfeed happily. In four out of five times he will sleep in bed with us, and also breastfeed at night. Especially now during the toddler years J must say, that I do find the communication strategies proposed by the RIE approach really helpful and I use them, while still being physically available to the extent that I feel comfortable with. What I mostly retain as useful from RIE though is the constant call to awareness for our own perspective As parents, and the invitation to shift this perspective into seeing a little more through our child’s eyes. Especially with a toddler, where conflict becomes more complex and where I often feel my own (traumatic) childhood issues come up, the RIE approach helps me to get out of a place where I act upon an impulse that I mistake as intuition when actually allI am doing is to repeat a harmful inter generational pattern. In short, I resonate with the criticism of RIE especially during infancy, and I wouldn’t use all of their strategies exclusively when tending to my baby. But I can be really close AND talk to my infant and respect them as a whole person. And especially now with my toddler, a lot of it is useful and I feel grateful for Landsbury’s work and how openly she provides access to her insight, resources and experience.
I am SO glad that I came across this. I loved Janets advice on co regulation and towards kids behavior. But when it comes to babies and toddlers, wow I am extremely sad about her stance. Nursing for comfort is a great thing. For one , if you believe in co regulating a child then you should believe in nursing a baby /toddler for comfort because nursing is exactly the same as co regulating a child. Except babies NEED more touch. That’s how they connect. I don’t believe it’s in comparison to an addict seeking drugs or alcoholic for comfort. Which I have seen Janet say. This goes against what we know about the brain and the benefits of comforting.
You started the post by saying that you don’t actually know much about the theory, so is that really a professional way to come at this….? I have used RIE ideas for years and I wouldn’t want someone to write ideas about attachment parenting that hasn’t actually looked into it that well. This seems like a preaching to the choir type post, which is honestly damaging to childcare and parenting in general when people encourage squabbling like this instead of meaningful discussion. It makes us look like a bunch of fools.
The quote on touch- I read that as saying that touch is incredibly important, but so is connecting with your baby’s mind and soul. To focus on one without the other two doesn’t seem adequate. To me, the quote is promoting connecting with your baby on a deeper level by talking with them, making eye contact, singing, listening to them… it’s to say that physical touch alone isn’t enough in building secure attachment, not that you don’t need physical touch. I can’t imagine any child development expert in their right mind would dare suggest that physical touch isn’t crucial for survival and development.