In this series of lectures, Bowlby discusses the importance of attachment, especially in the early years. Attachment is a need, like food and water. It’s a need because the individual requires an “other” to survive.
Biologically-based behavior (needs, instincts, dispositions), Bowlby writes, “are specific to the species, are inherited, and are as much of the nature of the organism as are its bones.” To a degree, Bowlby ties these “built-in patterns of behavior” to humans (“in so far as Man shares the anatomical and physiological components of these processes with lower mammals, it would be odd were he not to share some at least of their behavioural components”). In seeing behavior this way, Bowlby draws some from Darwin who he refers to as “an ethologist before the word had been coined.”
Bowlby applies these biological origins of behavior to his attachment theory (which, at its core, might be seen as the origins of tribalism): “In the wild to lose contact with the immediate family group is extremely dangerous, especially for the young. It is, therefore, in the interests of both individual safety and species reproduction that there should be strong bonds tying together the members of a family or of an extended family; and this requires that every separation, however brief, should be responded to by an immediate, automatic, and strong effort both to recover the family, especially the member to whom attachment is closest, and to discourage that member from going away again.” He calls this link between the individual and the group an “affectional bonding” that starts with instinctive imprinting behavior between the infant and its primary caregiver.
From here, Bowlby moves beyond the biological roots of behavior to the effects of good and bad parenting styles on attachment. The implication is that when kids don’t turn out well, the fault can be traced to bad parenting and the absence of healthy attachment. Through his attachment theory, Bowlby assumes an optimum state where individuals are attached to others and are socially well-adjusted (and mal-adjusted when attachment is missing leading “to one or another deviation from optimum development”). What Bowlby does not discuss is the degree to which a child’s inherent nature might be involved in the “optimization” process. Given Bowlby’s discussion of our biological roots and Darwin’s discussion on individual variability, could it be that a child might turn out badly despite good parenting? Might it also be that a loner or non-social person is that way by nature and that one size does not fit all?