I feel the categorization by styles found in Attachment Theory is restricting the theory's opportunity to heal. I am beginning to shape my Bondability perspective because it addresses this duality. I believe the principles underlying attachment are birthed of the colonial and categorical mindsets that taught us to emphasize the definitive versus paradox. Paradoxical thinking points to the polar tensions I feel exist between the four styles of attachment. These polar tensions describe most of nature's important synthesizing processes. Attachment Theory is used like musicians who see the math in music where as Bondability is the awareness that everyone is a musician. I am trying to emphasize that seeing the math is important but unnecessary. How do you tell a musician to ignore the math and tell the child to see the patterns. Bondability is trying to do this in one sentence. This is the hope for Bondability. The chemists reached this point when seeing Hardy's paradox. We have so many counter-intuitive insights and while working with families I found that teaching Attachment as 4 possible styles did an injustice to the dynamicism that neuroscientists were revealing.
The observation is that all of these styles exist in most people just under different stressors. I found it hard to teach clients the value of seeing everything in a non-binary way. I found that parents wanted the sheet music. I couldn't express how their child was not a song to be learned, but a rhythm, at times a clanging, and yet a sound that was adapting and adjusting to the tempos around them but with a beat that was ingrained in them at conception. This broke me and still makes me cry. Some in the industry call it burn out. I don't I call it awareness for the abusive task of doing a job with the unsharpened tools. Americans or Spaniards want sheet music when the sounds are in our movements. Better yet our awareness. I could not teach this paradox very well working through the model of attachment because the tools it provided me didn't help people accept there isn't an answer, only an encounter. How do you teach that a behavior is not treatable, the culmination of events and experiences that lead up to the observable event are transcendable. Parents need the steps to change the behavior and I cannot help them understand that the encounter will be the only medicine, so make it a loving one because you don't know how many more loving encounters will be necessary to see a change in the next similar behavior. The gift of the encounter is how it landed on our history and immediately resolving it to be meaningful in the now is the talent God might have given the Angels. How do you teach this?
This is putting paradox to use. The disservice is often times seeing this contradiction as dysfunction, or worse cognitive dissonance. How can discipline be seen as chaos? Well that is what love can feel like to an abused child. Love invites vulnerability and vulnerability is most animals understanding of defenselessness, ultimately becoming the potential for demise.
I can't overlook the criticality of the science behind the concept of attachment. Dan Siegle, puts this physiology into a dense yet palatable way. Neuro scientist are giving us the tid bits of research that teach that the brain isn't compartmental more a well orchestrated nebulous mass distributing energy. We share our pain in the same fashion we share a smile. Each being too intense to keep to ourselves. This is what Bondability tries to highlight.
