I've been reading issue 50 (Lent Term 2007) of the Cambridge Alumni Magazine which has an article on page 18 called 'Imaging ourselves'.
It has some interviews with some academics at the university.
Professor Michael Lamb talks about his work in Africa doing a 'fifteen year study of mother/infant attachment among hunter-gatherers little influenced by western society' mostly in the Congo. He contrasts the emphasis that American psychologists placed on the mother/child relationship with the wider social network that the children he studied grew up in.
I believe that while a child does have a primary attachment figure which is the preferred choice there are secondary (and more) attachment figures which a usually acceptable. A child brought up in an extended family group would have ample opportunity to develop attachment relationships with other members of the extended family.
An important aspect of my grandfather's work is that it stems from the ethology of humans. Humans have evolved in an environment that is both physical and social. Natural selection will select those best suited for the environment and adapt the species to better suit the environment. This does get rather circular when the species is, in part, the environment! Over the last two thousand years or so human society in many places has changed radically to the one in which it is assumed that humans evolved and adapted. That environment being one of living in an extended family group of hunter-gathers. As such, it is worth studying and understanding the social structure of such groups. It may not the the best structure but it is probably the one for which we evolved.
Knowing and understanding the social environment for which we are adapted should help us to understand the social environment in which we now find ourselves.
Susam Golombok heads the university's Centre for Family Studies and is doing research into modern family structures including lesbian-mother and one parent-families.
While lesbian-mothers and one parent-families might not compare well against an ideal environment of adaption, they will still be better than nothing. The question to answer is, given that they're not ideal (I don't think that the nuclear family is ideal either.) can they be good enough?
When it comes to gender identity and sexuality it seems that the differences between ideal and actual environments counts for little if anything. Professor Lamb finds that the presence of fathers is not an important factor in 'shaping and reinforcing a child's gender identity, both among boys and girls'. Susan Golombok finds that 'a parent's sexual orientation doesn't make any difference to the well being of the child.' It should be noted that most gays and lesbians are the offspring of heterosexual couples. If heterosexual role parents don't not raise purely heterosexual offspring, why do so many people behave as if homosexual parents would raise purely homosexual offspring or turn adopted heterosexual offspring homosexual?
Much of the gross aspects of sexuality seems to be innate. Most animals seem to sort theirs out many different parenting and family structures. From fish spawning in the sea to the family groups of great apes. The mechanisms which lead to homosexual humans are also present in seagulls and many other animals.
One aspect of homosexuality that seems to confuse is why does it not get bred out of the gene pool. Well, it looks like that whatever causes some individuals to be gay causes others to be very fertile. Research from Padua University, Italy, suggests that genes that boosts a mother's fertility can cause sons to be homosexual. Given that the mother will probably have lots of offspring the odd gay son is no real problem. In fact, it could well be a positive advantage if they stay home to raise the brood!
So, the quality of a child's attachment seems to have very little effect on their sexuality.
It has some interviews with some academics at the university.
Professor Michael Lamb talks about his work in Africa doing a 'fifteen year study of mother/infant attachment among hunter-gatherers little influenced by western society' mostly in the Congo. He contrasts the emphasis that American psychologists placed on the mother/child relationship with the wider social network that the children he studied grew up in.
I believe that while a child does have a primary attachment figure which is the preferred choice there are secondary (and more) attachment figures which a usually acceptable. A child brought up in an extended family group would have ample opportunity to develop attachment relationships with other members of the extended family.
An important aspect of my grandfather's work is that it stems from the ethology of humans. Humans have evolved in an environment that is both physical and social. Natural selection will select those best suited for the environment and adapt the species to better suit the environment. This does get rather circular when the species is, in part, the environment! Over the last two thousand years or so human society in many places has changed radically to the one in which it is assumed that humans evolved and adapted. That environment being one of living in an extended family group of hunter-gathers. As such, it is worth studying and understanding the social structure of such groups. It may not the the best structure but it is probably the one for which we evolved.
Knowing and understanding the social environment for which we are adapted should help us to understand the social environment in which we now find ourselves.
Susam Golombok heads the university's Centre for Family Studies and is doing research into modern family structures including lesbian-mother and one parent-families.
While lesbian-mothers and one parent-families might not compare well against an ideal environment of adaption, they will still be better than nothing. The question to answer is, given that they're not ideal (I don't think that the nuclear family is ideal either.) can they be good enough?
When it comes to gender identity and sexuality it seems that the differences between ideal and actual environments counts for little if anything. Professor Lamb finds that the presence of fathers is not an important factor in 'shaping and reinforcing a child's gender identity, both among boys and girls'. Susan Golombok finds that 'a parent's sexual orientation doesn't make any difference to the well being of the child.' It should be noted that most gays and lesbians are the offspring of heterosexual couples. If heterosexual role parents don't not raise purely heterosexual offspring, why do so many people behave as if homosexual parents would raise purely homosexual offspring or turn adopted heterosexual offspring homosexual?
Much of the gross aspects of sexuality seems to be innate. Most animals seem to sort theirs out many different parenting and family structures. From fish spawning in the sea to the family groups of great apes. The mechanisms which lead to homosexual humans are also present in seagulls and many other animals.
One aspect of homosexuality that seems to confuse is why does it not get bred out of the gene pool. Well, it looks like that whatever causes some individuals to be gay causes others to be very fertile. Research from Padua University, Italy, suggests that genes that boosts a mother's fertility can cause sons to be homosexual. Given that the mother will probably have lots of offspring the odd gay son is no real problem. In fact, it could well be a positive advantage if they stay home to raise the brood!
So, the quality of a child's attachment seems to have very little effect on their sexuality.
Comments
Post a Comment