The Observed Infant of Attachment Theory

The infant of attachment theory has been created to explain the behaviour of infants rather than to explain in the free associations of adults on the couch. Consequently few psychotherapists have become attached to it. This would not surprise its originator, John Bowlby, who has recognised our insecure profession's need to cling to established theories and to their parental figures rather than risk exploring new territories. Our clinical work is fraught with anxiety and uncertainty, and we need to rely on familiar theories to sustain us as we work. As clinicians we value the security provided by the familiar but in our role as scientists we must risk exploring the new. Attachment theory is centrally concerned with this in-built polarity between the need for security and the desire for exploration and mastery of the environment, a polarity that is most obvious in toddlers but is with us throughout life.

Why should psychotherapists explore this new territory and familiarise themselves with the attachment infant? One good reason might be a wish not to be left behind. Attachment theory is becoming the chosen language of an increasing number of developmental psychologists and of professional workers in child mental health in both America and Europe. It is, for example, the development within psychoanalysis which is now widely adopted within the World Association for Infant Psychiatry. It has stimulated a significant advance in child development research and its contribution has been widely welcomed by child psychologists (e.g. Sroufe 1986). A further good reason to explore it is the increasing relevance of attachment research for developmental psychopathology and for preventive mental health. The psychoanalysis of adults is unlikely by itself to give us further insights into the infantile origins of pathology. It is likely that more can be learned by relating these insights to observations of parent-child interactions. As Winnicott (1957) wrote, ‘By constantly