Book Review
Sep. 26th, 2004 12:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookofmirrorsWow. Just fucking WOW.
I've been reading bits and pieces of this book for a while now. It's one of the ones required by my Core classes, and it's the only one that we're required to read in full prior to class starting. Luckily, it's only about 150 pages. I just finished it.
Did I say wow? Wow.
The book is The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff.
I said wow, right?
Having never been a parent, I am doubly blessed at reading this book at this stage in my life. First of all, I am spared the guilt that many have clained to have after reading this book as mothers of grown and older children, suddenly realizing all the ways they went "wrong". Just to be clear, the book does not try to create guilt; rather it points out that we've all been "victims" of this for generations, and how were we to know better, especially when our "advanced" society is telling us differently. Secondly, if I have a child, I know I would want to incorporate the things in this book when raising him or her. (My chances of having a child, and views on childrearing, which really haven't changed a whole lot since reading this book, will be another of those eventual posts.)
I've never really studied much on attachment parenting, but what little I know of it makes me think that this is the book upon which it's based. I know some of you who read this have practiced some form of attachment parenting (blyssmouse? elorie? isarma?), and I'm wondering if any of you have already read this book, if it was part of the recommended attachment parenting cirriculum, if there is such a thing. And, of course, if you have any thoughts on it.
Like any theories, it's not perfect. The original edition was written in 1975, with no changes that I'm aware of other than the addition of an introduction, added 10 years later. There is some conjecture, especially regarding addictions (specifically heroin) and homosexuality, that I'm not sure I agree with. However, they make sense within the context of the book. My "civilized" education in psychology can't imagine it could be that simple. And, even though the book never once implies that things are the faults of either the mother (parent) or the child, years of being an advocate (informally, of course) for those who have different lifestyles makes we want to see language that isn't there, which somehow makes homosexuality a fault, something that can be cured. Which is never said, and I'm not sure it's even implied. But I've personally gone for the biological basis for so long that seeing a theory other than that raises my hackles a bit, out of habit, even when no "badness" is implied. However, I will say that in my extremely limited experience with lesbians (not bisexual women), I have yet to meet one that wasn't sexually abused by a father figure. And the description of the childhood of boys who are homosexual later in life certainly corresponds to what I know of the childhoods of the gay men I know well enough to be familiar with their childhoods. But, asblckwngdorcl pointed out when I expressed this to him, it's just as likely a combination of factors, like everything else in life.
It also mentions some theories about meditation, including the idea that the brain waves produced in meditation are similar, if not identical, to the brain waves produced in infancy. But it doesn't provide any empirical evidence for this. I don't know if there weren't studies on this when the book was written, or, if there have been studies of this since then, if they've upheld this theory. I'm not in the mood to look it up right now, though.
Let's just say this book makes a LOT of sense. There were many times reading the book that I cried, or felt like it, just noting the injustice of how we "civilized" cultures raise our children. Yes, the book used emotional language, no doubt designed for that effect. I'm familiar with that type of tactic in persuasive discussions. But this spoke to my heart, my soul. It felt absolutely right, and really mostly expounded on several views I already, apparently instinctively, held on childcare. (Granted, I haven't always had these theories. I've arrived at them over the years, and they feel intrinsically right to me.)
Anyway, the point is, I *HIGHLY* recommend this book. To ANYONE. Mothers, fathers, children. You all fall into that category. It's a short book, it's about $16, and, at Borders at least, can be found in the child psychology section. Read it.
I've been reading bits and pieces of this book for a while now. It's one of the ones required by my Core classes, and it's the only one that we're required to read in full prior to class starting. Luckily, it's only about 150 pages. I just finished it.
Did I say wow? Wow.
The book is The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff.
I said wow, right?
Having never been a parent, I am doubly blessed at reading this book at this stage in my life. First of all, I am spared the guilt that many have clained to have after reading this book as mothers of grown and older children, suddenly realizing all the ways they went "wrong". Just to be clear, the book does not try to create guilt; rather it points out that we've all been "victims" of this for generations, and how were we to know better, especially when our "advanced" society is telling us differently. Secondly, if I have a child, I know I would want to incorporate the things in this book when raising him or her. (My chances of having a child, and views on childrearing, which really haven't changed a whole lot since reading this book, will be another of those eventual posts.)
I've never really studied much on attachment parenting, but what little I know of it makes me think that this is the book upon which it's based. I know some of you who read this have practiced some form of attachment parenting (
blyssmouse? elorie? isarma?), and I'm wondering if any of you have already read this book, if it was part of the recommended attachment parenting cirriculum, if there is such a thing. And, of course, if you have any thoughts on it.Like any theories, it's not perfect. The original edition was written in 1975, with no changes that I'm aware of other than the addition of an introduction, added 10 years later. There is some conjecture, especially regarding addictions (specifically heroin) and homosexuality, that I'm not sure I agree with. However, they make sense within the context of the book. My "civilized" education in psychology can't imagine it could be that simple. And, even though the book never once implies that things are the faults of either the mother (parent) or the child, years of being an advocate (informally, of course) for those who have different lifestyles makes we want to see language that isn't there, which somehow makes homosexuality a fault, something that can be cured. Which is never said, and I'm not sure it's even implied. But I've personally gone for the biological basis for so long that seeing a theory other than that raises my hackles a bit, out of habit, even when no "badness" is implied. However, I will say that in my extremely limited experience with lesbians (not bisexual women), I have yet to meet one that wasn't sexually abused by a father figure. And the description of the childhood of boys who are homosexual later in life certainly corresponds to what I know of the childhoods of the gay men I know well enough to be familiar with their childhoods. But, as
blckwngdorcl pointed out when I expressed this to him, it's just as likely a combination of factors, like everything else in life.It also mentions some theories about meditation, including the idea that the brain waves produced in meditation are similar, if not identical, to the brain waves produced in infancy. But it doesn't provide any empirical evidence for this. I don't know if there weren't studies on this when the book was written, or, if there have been studies of this since then, if they've upheld this theory. I'm not in the mood to look it up right now, though.
Let's just say this book makes a LOT of sense. There were many times reading the book that I cried, or felt like it, just noting the injustice of how we "civilized" cultures raise our children. Yes, the book used emotional language, no doubt designed for that effect. I'm familiar with that type of tactic in persuasive discussions. But this spoke to my heart, my soul. It felt absolutely right, and really mostly expounded on several views I already, apparently instinctively, held on childcare. (Granted, I haven't always had these theories. I've arrived at them over the years, and they feel intrinsically right to me.)
Anyway, the point is, I *HIGHLY* recommend this book. To ANYONE. Mothers, fathers, children. You all fall into that category. It's a short book, it's about $16, and, at Borders at least, can be found in the child psychology section. Read it.
-
- lunenoire and blckwngdorcl Talking
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-26 06:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-26 07:44 am (UTC)Childfree opinion:
Date: 2004-09-26 09:27 am (UTC)Was noticing yesterday that seeing a small child in a restaurant no longer makes my stomach knot up in preparation for the kid's screeching, throwing of stuff, staring, and running around like an Apache at a wardance that almost always happens in Atlanta. *happy gurgle* I love it here.
Re: Childfree opinion:
Date: 2004-09-26 09:38 am (UTC)How fucking cool is that?
Re: Childfree opinion:
Date: 2004-09-26 09:39 am (UTC)