Dear Editors,
We are deeply disconcerted by the recent trend of numerous articles in The Therapist claiming that the observed correlations between “Attachment Theory” and neurological phenomenon wholly or primarily explain the processes and origins of self-regulation.
These articles have claimed that self-regulatory impairment is predicated primarily upon early child-parent interactions that solidify specific behaviors. To suggest that impairment in such basic self-regulatory competency is determined so exclusively by the attachment between child and parent is to make a detrimental dismissal of the genetic underpinnings of self-regulatory behavior and processes.
By focusing so narrowly on the relational process while paying at most a lip-service to very vital and significant biological effects is at best a disservice to our clients and at worst a violation of our vow to Do No Harm.
This is not to suggest that early parent-child relations are not necessary and important in the development of self-regulatory behavior. Rather, we are suggesting that Attachment Theory and the relations between child and parent cannot necessarily mitigate genetically mediated self-regulatory processes, especially in cases where the client suffers from a significant biological impairment.
The insistence of focusing on the relational aspect of developing self-regulation without giving credence to the genetically inherited underpinnings of this phenomenon is a critical mistake that will only serve to fragment and further alienate the MFT profession from mainstream neurocognitive developmental theory when it comes to the treatment of patients’ personal challenges and associated age related adaptation.
Respectfully submitted:
John C. Schureman, Ph.D., MFT
Joshua D Wyner, PhD, MFT Intern