# Liedloff and The Continuum Concept



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

I've recently recieved this book via Amazon.. I was so excited when I did. I started reading the book with a sense of hope, but now that I've finished, I'm left feeling deflated. I'll explain why in a moment. I'll start from a positive point of view first, I loved the idea of holding a baby close (slinging) for the first 6 or so months of the baby's life. I liked the idea of encouraging independence and healthy emotional growth.

But here are my sticking points. I realise that there may be another thread out there about Continuum Concept, but I couldn't find anything when I tried to search that was specific.

1. I was very uncomfortable about Liedloff's suggestion in the book that homosexuality is a result of a defective Mother/child relationship. pg. 122-123

2. I felt uncomfortable about the generalizations about Western behaviour, such as people who may choose a lifetime of travelling the world, or a devotion to academia (pg.119) for a lot of years to be a sign of defectiveness in the Western individual.

3. I felt that men and women were reduced to nothing more than gender roles, and their identities solely related to that. I could almost sniff a biology is destiny scent there.

4. I was deeply offended at Liedloff's suggestion that any WOMAN who doesn't have the economic need to work should quit their job. pg.160

As I said before, there was so much that was positive. I have tried to ease my discontent with the fact that the book was written and printed in the late 1970's... but the knowledge of this doesn't provide that much solace.

What are your thoughts people, I'd be really interested to know?

Peace


----------



## KimProbable (Jun 22, 2005)

I just finally finished reading the book last week. My thoughts:

1. I chose to just disregard this part. It doesn't fit with my way of thinking. I'm sure there are some cases where this situation might be said to hold, but I don't think it works as a blanket statement at *all*.

2. I saw it as her looking at people who take this to the extreme, not so much as people who have a healthy, balanced desire to travel and study. I agree with that way of looking at it.

3. I think that looking at her context for the book it makes sense. In a culture where roles have been virtually unchanged for years upon years, male and female roles would be quite distinct.

4. The phrase "But very often these jobs are a matter of choice; the mothers could, if they realized the urgency of their presence during the baby's first year, give up the job in order to avert the deprivations which would damage the baby's entire life and be a burden to her for years as well" does not say to me that a woman must quit working permanently. It specifically states "during the baby's first year" which could be arranged by being temporarily unemployed, by taking a leave of absence, or by having a long maternity leave (which we have here in Canada). She also does bring up the suggestion of women taking their children to work with them, so she's not suggesting that employment is counter to attached parenting.

In general, I really enjoyed the book but questioned some things (the homosexuality issue for example). I found the tone to be a bit ominous and would have enjoyed more of a focus on what else parents can do for their children or what adults can do for themselves if they've missed out on the in-arms experience.


----------



## MamaAllNatural (Mar 10, 2004)

Here ya go:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=homosexuality

(started three years ago but still going)


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

She doesn't have children, first of all. What turned me off about the book was the complete lack of acknowledgement that we don't live in a tribe! We live in a modern world, with all of the isolation/lack of family/dangerous streets, etc., that goes along with that. So for me, most of her book was irrelevant to my experience as a parent.

(Plus, my mom met her and had lunch with her once, and said she was a nutjob.)


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I found parts of the book helpful and others not-so-helpful.

It was helpful as an affirmation of attachment parenting. I agree that her emphasis is on the first several months of life ... after which she seemed to think it was better for babies to spend most of their time being carried around by active older siblings while mothers focused on their adult tasks of living.

About the adult tasks part -- that was a little guilt-inducing for me. I started feeling bad for being so child-centered, and also for not having more hobbies that are interesting for children to watch. My writing isn't actually interesting to my kids at this point.

They do like to help me with cooking and housework -- but with them so young, I tend to do the bare minimum and spend more time watching and playing with them -- bad news in her book, I guess. I need to be their center -- not make them mine, right?

Also, I felt a lot of guilt for hindering my children's development of their self-preservation instincts. You know, how she seems to think that if we don't rush to protect our toddlers from danger, they'll do just fine protecting themselves. And when our western children do have accidents, she seems to think it's all due to our expectation that they will.

Especially her thoughts on children who get burned: she really comes across to me as saying that it happens because the mother subconsciously _wants_ it to happen.







:

And before reading her book, I'd actually thought I allowed my kids more freedom to explore than most moms: whenever they were doing something "unorthodox," I'd ask myself if it was really a safety risk, or if there was a way to make it less risky. I always tried to make it possible for them to do the things they wanted to. Still do.

But realized I was a far cry from the Yequana moms, who apparently felt okay about babies handling sharp machetes, running in and out of straw-thatch huts with hot firebrands, and going swimming and canoing in the river without any adults. Oh, and toddlers playing next to deep pits with water at the bottom.

One thing I've concluded is that the Yequana may indeed be genetically superior to us, in the area of self-preservation. Natural selection has continued, without interruption, up to the present time for them, whereas it has been interrupted in civilized culture.

Our culture has, for many years, been able to protect genetic strains that would have died out under the strict "survival of the fittest" regime that's probably even now still prevalent in the South American jungle. But I honestly don't see it as a bad thing, that so many more genetic strains can survive in the modern world.

I think those of us who are "weaker" according to jungle standards, still have many unique strengths to contribute. This may be partly why we have to be more protective of our babies than they do -- but I'm sure part of it is cultural, too.

It's often hard to divide instinct from culture -- but I know I can't pretend to feel comfortable letting my toddler run down a sloping hill which abruptly ends at a 6-foot drop-off onto hard concrete (an issue we dealt with the other day). Regardless of what a Yequana mother might do, I have to do what *I* feel good about.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

I think that The Continuum Concept is a revolutionary book, but - it should have been written by an anthropologist. What I mean is, I think her lack of academic training in this area is very obvious and a lot of her observations and the context she puts them in are highly subjective.

If Kathryn Dettwyler had written this book, I think it would be a much more useful book and would have provided a lot more context.

For a more helpful view of how traditional cultures view children and a baby's natural environment, I highly recommend "Our Babies, Ourselves" if you haven't already read it. It's wonderful!

Also, "Babies Celebrated" is wonderful just because of the pictures of different cultures and how they relate to their babies. That one is a bit harder to find, though.

This is just my humble opinion and your mileage may vary!


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

For me, I look on it as a historical document. I look at it as a reminder of the cultural biases of the 20th century- how someone can be so receptive to a new culture, and yet so unwilling to address their own privilege. Sometimes, that keeps me humble.
If you look at CC in context with the other baby books around at the time, like Dr Spocks twentrillionth edition, it's revolutionary. A parenting manual, though? No. Take what you can use, and treasure the book for what it is: a thinking parent's springboard.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
Take what you can use, and treasure the book for what it is: a thinking parent's springboard.

Good point! One thing I can say for the book is that it got me thinking. There's a lot of good stuff in it.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Thank you for all your replies ladies, much appreciated









I was a little disappointed with the book by time I finished it, but I definitely agree that there are points that are helpful. So as flapjack suggested, it's probably best to take what I need, and leave what I don't.

Peace


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
For me, I look on it as a historical document. I look at it as a reminder of the cultural biases of the 20th century- how someone can be so receptive to a new culture, and yet so unwilling to address their own privilege. Sometimes, that keeps me humble.
If you look at CC in context with the other baby books around at the time, like Dr Spocks twentrillionth edition, it's revolutionary. A parenting manual, though? No. Take what you can use, and treasure the book for what it is: a thinking parent's springboard.









:

I read it a few months back and was inspired but also overwhelmed a bit by some of it. I've processed it for a while and it's very much a "take what you like, leave the rest" kind of book for me. I did like how it inspired me to throw DD around a bit more,







. I also feel that the part where baby just is worn and I do my thing works well for us-- I finally got BWing down w/ DD and I think she thrives when I spend some time cleaning while she rides along, every day.


----------



## Woodland (Mar 6, 2006)

nak...the main thing i took away was how important it is to babywear and not just set down the baby even if the babe is "okay" with it.


----------



## linguistmama (Sep 25, 2006)

I liked the book alot, though it DEFINATELY has its faults. What I would really like to see are different views of the Yequana, partly to gain more insight and partly to check Leidloff's view of things.
The email list I have found to actually be much better than the book. They discuss many things, different native tribes, EC etc. All of the posts are very deep and well thought out and I have learned alot. Here is the website for the list. I believe there is a quote somewhere of her taking back the part about homosexuality.
http://www.continuum-concept.org/


----------



## anudi01 (Aug 11, 2004)

but I am discouraged that it just cannot be put into practice, b/c we don't have the tribal community to support it. While I agree with all of the attachment ideas, some of the freedoms that were given to children are just not possible in this day in age. And although I feel that I am extremely supportive of my children's exploratory activity, I feel that I am contradicting myself to them when I have to put my foot down for something that I know is just to dangerous or out of their control. Maybe that is too confusing for kids. I don't know...for the most part, I found it to be a great read. Like other posters have said, I take what I want from it and leave the rest.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I haven't read it, but honestly, I am afraid to.

Mainly because I get the screaming heebie jeebies at anything that appears to be "noble savage teaches cultured people about real life".

I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Sorry, this group is not a living artifact of our hunter gather histories. In fact, cross cultural analysis of hunter gatherer communities across time and location shows a great deal of variety in gender roles, child rearing, and so forth.

Also, many hunter gatherer communities have practices we often find morally reprehensible, such as infanticide and euthanasia for the elderly or disabled - cherry picking what we like out of a culture tells us more about what we are looking for than what that culture actually is about.

I feel a bit odd about being critical of a book I haven't read - so the general caveats apply - but I have read many reviews of the book, so I am not completely clueless. It is on my list of books to read if I ever find a copy (I don't want to pay for it).

My 2 cents.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *linguistmama* 
I liked the book alot, though it DEFINATELY has its faults. What I would really like to see are different views of the Yequana, partly to gain more insight and partly to check Leidloff's view of things.
The email list I have found to actually be much better than the book. They discuss many things, different native tribes, EC etc. All of the posts are very deep and well thought out and I have learned alot. Here is the website for the list. I believe there is a quote somewhere of her taking back the part about homosexuality.
http://www.continuum-concept.org/

I will definitely look this site up.. Thanks for the link.

From a hermeneutical position, I wasn't sure which method Liedloff was using in her interpretations. She struck me as nothing more than an 'observer' and interpreted through her own western moulded lens of perception the culture that she was observing.

On closer reflection, the fact that there are no Yequana voices to be heard, only Liedloff's own interpretation of the communications and the tribe itself, made me nervous and consequently I think that many parts of the book are the authors own idealistic interpretations of events.

Without meaning to be too negative though, there are some aspects which have been helpful









Peace


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I haven't read it, but honestly, I am afraid to.

Mainly because I get the screaming heebie jeebies at anything that appears to be "noble savage teaches cultured people about real life".

I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Sorry, this group is not a living artifact of our hunter gather histories. In fact, cross cultural analysis of hunter gatherer communities across time and location shows a great deal of variety in gender roles, child rearing, and so forth.

Also, many hunter gatherer communities have practices we often find morally reprehensible, such as infanticide and euthanasia for the elderly or disabled - cherry picking what we like out of a culture tells us more about what we are looking for than what that culture actually is about.

I feel a bit odd about being critical of a book I haven't read - so the general caveats apply - but I have read many reviews of the book, so I am not completely clueless. It is on my list of books to read if I ever find a copy (I don't want to pay for it).

My 2 cents.

Excellent post. I have read the book, and I couldn't put into words some of the things that bothered me about it, but you did. That is exactly how I felt about it.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby* 
She doesn't have children, first of all. What turned me off about the book was the complete lack of acknowledgement that we don't live in a tribe! We live in a modern world, with all of the isolation/lack of family/dangerous streets, etc., that goes along with that.
.)


That is exactly how I feel. We don't live in a tribe, so to have tribal expectations is pretty unrealistic. Plus, people "glamorize" (for lack of a better word) the whole tribal thing. There are valid downsides to that culture as well...things that would never fly in our world.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I haven't read it, but honestly, I am afraid to.

Mainly because I get the screaming heebie jeebies at anything that appears to be "noble savage teaches cultured people about real life".

I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Great post. I haven't read the book either, and yeah, I know, I shouldn't be discussing it then







BUT I've read lots of reviews and have heard it discussed by people whose opinions I trust and I think I have an idea of the main ideas.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I haven't read it, but honestly, I am afraid to.

Mainly because I get the screaming heebie jeebies at anything that appears to be "noble savage teaches cultured people about real life".

I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Sorry, this group is not a living artifact of our hunter gather histories. In fact, cross cultural analysis of hunter gatherer communities across time and location shows a great deal of variety in gender roles, child rearing, and so forth.

Also, many hunter gatherer communities have practices we often find morally reprehensible, such as infanticide and euthanasia for the elderly or disabled - cherry picking what we like out of a culture tells us more about what we are looking for than what that culture actually is about.

.


Yep. This, too. And I have read it.


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

I feel the same way you do about the book. It was interesting, but nothing I was going to hang my hat on. She idealizes one culture and villainizes Western culture. Nothing is that black-and-white. I also didn't like the homophobic and anti-working-outside-the-home slant. The truth is, we are not a hunting-and-gathering society, and you can't just wholly transplant a lifestyle that works in the jungle to the industrialized world.

I much preferred the book _Our Babies, Ourselves_ which is a more objective anthropological view of several different cultures and their childrearing practices, with conclusions about what keeps children healthiest across the board. It points out practices where Westerners need improvement (physical touch and proximity), but also draws attention to some of our positives, like talking to our babies and promoting intellectual development.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I think it's a valuable book for getting some perspective on some of the things that are standard in our culture but may not be the best ideas. It is NOT a parenting manual, and there's very little concrete advice that can be directly applied to modern, non-tribal life. There are a few details that are kooky, ill-informed, or just flat-out wrong. BUT it's very thought-provoking, and if you're willing to think through how to apply it to your own real life, it can be helpful.

Mammal Mama wrote:

Quote:

They do like to help me with cooking and housework -- but with them so young, I tend to do the bare minimum and spend more time watching and playing with them -- bad news in her book, I guess. I need to be their center -- not make them mine, right?
Right. Your younger child is a few months younger than mine, and your older child is almost five years older; my son has been very involved in cooking, housework, and yardwork for over a year now, so your kids are not "so young"! I just wrote an article about kids working in the home that might give you some ideas for getting beyond the bare minimum and shifting your "center" in the process.

Quote:

One thing I've concluded is that the Yequana may indeed be genetically superior to us, in the area of self-preservation. Natural selection has continued, without interruption, up to the present time for them, whereas it has been interrupted in civilized culture.
Our culture has, for many years, been able to protect genetic strains that would have died out under the strict "survival of the fittest" regime that's probably even now still prevalent in the South American jungle. But I honestly don't see it as a bad thing, that so many more genetic strains can survive in the modern world.
I think those of us who are "weaker" according to jungle standards, still have many unique strengths to contribute. This may be partly why we have to be more protective of our babies than they do -- but I'm sure part of it is cultural, too.
Ooh! Interesting! It might be a genetic difference not in self-preservation per se but in balance, edge perception, hand-eye coordination, etc. Many "primitive" tribes are known to have unusual skill in one or another of those areas (with the usual result of such discoveries being that they are dragged to the "civilized" world for competitive sports







). I hadn't thought of that possibility for the Yequana before, but one thing I had considered was that they might have a higher tolerance (culturally, not genetically) for their children getting injured or even permanently disabled; they may be more willing to accept that as a normal part of life.

ShadowMom wrote:

Quote:

I think that The Continuum Concept is a revolutionary book, but - it should have been written by an anthropologist. What I mean is, I think her lack of academic training in this area is very obvious and a lot of her observations and the context she puts them in are highly subjective.
I see your point, and this is the cause of some of the details to which I object. OTOH, Liedloff went into the jungle free of the assumptions a trained anthropologist would have been taught, and that gave her the opportunity for a purer, more intimately felt, more mind-opening insight, IMO. It's a mixed bag in that regard.

Quote:

For a more helpful view of how traditional cultures view children and a baby's natural environment, I highly recommend "Our Babies, Ourselves" if you haven't already read it.















I also recommend this article by a mom who applied The Continuum Concept to modern, non-tribal life. And here's a _Mothering_ article about how to create your own tribe.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
Ooh! Interesting! It might be a genetic difference not in self-preservation per se but in balance, edge perception, hand-eye coordination, etc. Many "primitive" tribes are known to have unusual skill in one or another of those areas (with the usual result of such discoveries being that they are dragged to the "civilized" world for competitive sports







). I hadn't thought of that possibility for the Yequana before, but one thing I had considered was that they might have a higher tolerance (culturally, not genetically) for their children getting injured or even permanently disabled; they may be more willing to accept that as a normal part of life.

According to Liedloff, it's almost unheard-of for a Yequana child to become injured or disabled; she compares this with the frequency of accidents among Western children. Her assessment seems to be that our children are more accident-prone because they're complying with our subconscious expectations.

There may be some truth to this -- but I also think that if Yequana babies really are able to safely run around with hot firebrands, play with sharp machetes, and so on, it sounds like there may also be a genetic difference caused by the uninterrupted reign of natural selection. It's interesting to think about, anyway.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:

I see your point, and this is the cause of some of the details to which I object. OTOH, Liedloff went into the jungle free of the assumptions a trained anthropologist would have been taught, and that gave her the opportunity for a purer, more intimately felt, more mind-opening insight, IMO. It's a mixed bag in that regard.
well, since even experts such as Margaret Mead were shown to have been snowed by her informants and heavily biased to find what she was looking for, I actually think the lack of training makes the book even more suspect.

It is hard enough to have objectivity when studying human subjects - inside or outside your own culture; without any training in identifying the impact of your biases or having methods to test your assumptions, the validity of the analysis is suspect.

In my mind, it turns the book into an autobiographical account of someone's time in the amazon. It becomes more a philosophical musing than an academic analysis.

This isn't a bad thing - I have been very moved by much travel literature - but its ability to tell us something meaningful about how all humans, everywhere should raise children is limited.

What I am confused about is not the popularity of the book - clearly it is written convincingly enough to sway opinions - but rather how some folks seem to use it as an authoritative voice in how to raise children. I think this is what I am most curious about - the folks I see who quote it often brandish it as their "proof" - like it is equivalent to an academic study - that their approach is better.

Btw, I have never found any detailed analysis or critique of the book on the internet, despite looking on several occasions. One of the hallmarks of academics is peer review - it is what keeps science honest. If something has not been peer reviewed, I have no basis for faith in it.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 

In my mind, it turns the book into an autobiographical account of someone's time in the amazon. It becomes more a philosophical musing than an academic analysis.


which is exactly what it is. It isn't meant to be an anthropologic monograph or anything. It's one persons account of like with a tribe and her philosophical thoughts on society, parenting, homesexuality and thrill seeking (among other things). For me it opened a door to a different way of parenting - it affirmed what I felt I knew deep in my soul. People needed coerce other people into doing things - even little people. We could bring children into "our" world, rather than changing our world completely to meet theirs (the whole parenting REQUIRES sacrifice argument). In my case, I was quite fine nursing and slinging my child AND going back to work for her to stay with her father while she drank my pumped milk. It made me MORE secure in that decision.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
According to Liedloff, it's almost unheard-of for a Yequana child to become injured or disabled; she compares this with the frequency of accidents among Western children. Her assessment seems to be that our children are more accident-prone because they're complying with our subconscious expectations.

There may be some truth to this -- but I also think that if Yequana babies really are able to safely run around with hot firebrands, play with sharp machetes, and so on, it sounds like there may also be a genetic difference caused by the uninterrupted reign of natural selection. It's interesting to think about, anyway.

If you look up an anthropologist named Sorenson, he talks about this phenomenon wrt to several tribes that were becoming more westernized. He found there were more accidents as they had more contact with industrialized society. I think the idea was that the families were losing their awarness ideals/links to each other. I think he uses the term liminal awarenss or liminal consciousness. Scott Noelle (parenting coach) may have something about this in his writings. I think he's posted this on the big TCC listserv.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
If you look up an anthropologist named Sorenson, he talks about this phenomenon wrt to several tribes that were becoming more westernized. He found there were more accidents as they had more contact with industrialized society. I think the idea was that the families were losing their awarness ideals/links to each other. I think he uses the term liminal awarenss or liminal consciousness. Scott Noelle (parenting coach) may have something about this in his writings. I think he's posted this on the big TCC listserv.

That's interesting! I'll have to look into that more.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
According to Liedloff, it's almost unheard-of for a Yequana child to become injured or disabled; she compares this with the frequency of accidents among Western children. Her assessment seems to be that our children are more accident-prone because they're complying with our subconscious expectations.

There may be some truth to this -- but I also think that if Yequana babies really are able to safely run around with hot firebrands, play with sharp machetes, and so on, it sounds like there may also be a genetic difference caused by the uninterrupted reign of natural selection. It's interesting to think about, anyway.

Actually, I have to say that I read that aspect of The Continuum Concept very differently than many people seem to do.

Primitive life in a jungle...be careful of sharp knives, hot fires, falling into the river, poisonous insects and wild animals (I may be missing some things, but those would be the biggies, imo). So, the kids are watching the adults handle all those things _cautiously_ right from the time they're in arms. I don't mean cautiously in the paranoid sense that we tend to use it in...but the kids are watching people handle these things carefully from day one.

Western child...beware of automobiles, strangers, stairways, electrical outlets, sharp corners on tables, poisons, etc. etc. How often do we model any kind of caution with respect to these things? How many times a day does a child see a parent plug in/unplug a toaster, a vacuum, a lamp, or whatever? Is there _any_ way for a child to understand that the electrical outlet is potentially dangerous? Sure - we give them dire warnings about it. We, as a modern, industrialized culture, have dozens of dangers in our homes that we never even think about...and we model that to our children, while often simultaneously giving them dire warnings about how dangerous these things are. I really don't think people are wired for that. Dangerous items should be treated with respect, and we don't model that for our kids.

"Don't talk to strangers." Okay - I don't support that one, anyway...but the parents who do it are subverting their own message on a daily basis, because their child sees them talking to a cashier, gas station attendant, bank teller, person waiting at the bus stop or whomever. We're giving our kids mixed messages about many dangers, by modeling one thing, and telling them something else.

I don't think they injure themselves out of some attempt to fulfill our "expectation" that they will do so. I think they get injured, because we have too many dangers around them, and we're totally inconsistent in how we present them.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

You make a good point, Lisa!


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
1. I was very uncomfortable about Liedloff's suggestion in the book that homosexuality is a result of a defective Mother/child relationship. pg. 122-123

2. I felt uncomfortable about the generalizations about Western behaviour, such as people who may choose a lifetime of travelling the world, or a devotion to academia (pg.119) for a lot of years to be a sign of defectiveness in the Western individual.

3. I felt that men and women were reduced to nothing more than gender roles, and their identities solely related to that. I could almost sniff a biology is destiny scent there.

4. I was deeply offended at Liedloff's suggestion that any WOMAN who doesn't have the economic need to work should quit their job. pg.160

Like you, I've attributed these issues to the fact that the book was written in the 70s. To me, the value of The Continuum Concept is the way it's written...it's personal, it's convincing, and it's intriguing. It gets you emotionally in the right place to think about baby care. I'm willing to forgive some of the small stuff and the blatant idealism because it seems like our society swings SO far the other way...we need more strong, clear voices like Liedloff's making a counterpoint to the baby trainers out there.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

I've read it, and I thought it was racist, heterosexist, misogynist, classist, and, to add insult to injury, full of appallingly bad "research."

I've always been surprised at how often it's touted here.

So, yes, OP, I pretty much agree with all your points.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
It gets you emotionally in the right place to think about baby care. I'm willing to forgive some of the small stuff and the blatant idealism because it seems like our society swings SO far the other way...we need more strong, clear voices like Liedloff's making a counterpoint to the baby trainers out there.

Yes! I've learned some powerful things from _The Continuum Concept_; I'll always be glad I read it.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

GOOD point, Storm Bride! But at least in my own family, I think my child IS seeing some caution/respect in the use of dangerous things and also not hearing so many warnings as some Western children. For example, he has seen us use knives correctly and carefully--of course, we do it with some casualness because we use knives every day (and this must be the case with Yequana adults, too), but we keep our fingers away from the blade, point the knife away from ourselves, and set it in a special out-of-the-way place (not in a jumble of dirty dishes) when finished. Now he is beginning to use knives and clearly is imitating what we do and understanding that the knife is dangerous. He still needs a lot of supervision and instruction in the details, but he's catching on. (Interestingly, his most risky behavior with the knife is his tendency to keep holding it as he rearranges the food underneath it or turns around to look at something. It's quite logical that when using a dangerous tool, one would keep hold of it in order to keep control of it. It's also logical, having seen that the knife cuts when you press it down toward the cutting board, to think that holding it up in the air prevents it from cutting. It's not readily obvious that there are situations in which the safest thing to do is set down the knife at the far side of the work surface. He hasn't seen what happens if someone falls on a knife!)

When it comes to safety in traffic, we'd never said anything to him about it before he took his first outdoor walk on his own feet at 15 months old. We live on a fairly quiet street, so I was able to keep back a bit and see what he would do. He walked up to the corner, stopped right on the curb, and looked around--he wasn't looking both ways, exactly, but he knew that at the corner we stop and look! I never told him that; he learned it while riding in the sling.







He is a lot more trustworthy in traffic than my friend's child who's been raised with the rules, "You must hold my hand the entire time we are walking in public." and "It's not safe for you to walk in a parking lot; I must carry you."

So I feel that the continuum attitude toward danger can be applied to modern life. Probably the most important factor is giving the child many opportunities to see adults practice safety skills. If adults treat dangerous things as if they weren't dangerous, while telling children that they are, then of course there's going to be a problem.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

EnviroBecca, those are some really interesting points. I think a lot of that is valid. I wonder if having a child worn promotes this sort of learning in a different way than just having a child in the stroller, walking with you, or just being held for that matter.

I have noticed that even with my older DS, his "state"... his awareness, emotional state, and other things, are different while being worn. It's a very passive activity, physically (being worn) while being very active mentally.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Obviously if that is the case (that being worn promotes learning of norms and adult behavior versus other forms) I'm not trying to volley criticism at any parent who has not done that.







Just thinking out loud.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I haven't read it, but honestly, I am afraid to.

Mainly because I get the screaming heebie jeebies at anything that appears to be "noble savage teaches cultured people about real life".

I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Sorry, this group is not a living artifact of our hunter gather histories. In fact, cross cultural analysis of hunter gatherer communities across time and location shows a great deal of variety in gender roles, child rearing, and so forth.

Also, many hunter gatherer communities have practices we often find morally reprehensible, such as infanticide and euthanasia for the elderly or disabled - cherry picking what we like out of a culture tells us more about what we are looking for than what that culture actually is about.

I feel a bit odd about being critical of a book I haven't read - so the general caveats apply - but I have read many reviews of the book, so I am not completely clueless. It is on my list of books to read if I ever find a copy (I don't want to pay for it).

My 2 cents.

Excellent post. I'm very fond of ethnographies. I highly recommend spending some time with the Human Relations Area Files if you have access. The CC shows one of thousands of hunter gatherer cultures, with diverse practices about just about everything. Honestly, I'm baffled why this one, which wasn't particularly well done, would have such a following.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
Excellent post. I'm very fond of ethnographies. I highly recommend spending some time with the Human Relations Area Files if you have access. The CC shows one of thousands of hunter gatherer cultures, with diverse practices about just about everything. Honestly, I'm baffled why this one, which wasn't particularly well done, would have such a following.

I think it's because the author had such a life-changing experience while living among these people.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

EFmom wrote:

Quote:

The CC shows one of thousands of hunter gatherer cultures, with diverse practices about just about everything. Honestly, I'm baffled why this one, which wasn't particularly well done, would have such a following.
I think it's because some of the descriptions of our "civilized" society and feelings of emptiness and wrongness are so vivid, and because it offers an alternative approach to life. Okay, the Yequana are only one culture; does that mean we can't learn anything from them?? The claims about the Yequana way being the universal right way to which we all long to return may be overblown, but that doesn't negate the idea that they're onto something we're missing.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
The claims about the Yequana way being the universal right way to which we all long to return may be overblown, but that doesn't negate the idea that they're onto something we're missing.

Yes! I agree with the posters who recommend that we read the book as we would a thought-provoking essay, and not a how-to parenting manual. I've realized I need to let some stuff go in one ear and out the other --

Such as the stuff that makes me feel inferior for having a toddler who heads right into the street, practically every time she gets the chance -- in spite of being a sling-baby, and seeing me looking both ways. Also the stuff that makes me feel inferior for having a sometimes aggressive toddler -- in spite of all the continuous holding and nursing-on-cue.

There's a lot of good stuff to be learned, if I just don't take the author's criticisms too personally.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I think it's because the author had such a life-changing experience while living among these people.

There are lots of writers out there, though, who have amazing, life-changing experiences while living in other cultures and who write books about it that are vibrant and at the same time manage to avoid the racism that I thought was pretty endemic in CC. Yet those books don't have anywhere near the same following.

I also am a little puzzled as to how this one in particular managed to become so popular.

The cynic in me says that it's because she fear-mongers. Fearmongering always sells. Ask Dick Cheney!


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Mammal Mama wrote:

Quote:

There's a lot of good stuff to be learned, if I just don't take the author's criticisms too personally.








It really got to me when my baby started spitting up several times a day. Liedloff says Yequana babies never spit up unless they're sick, and the fact that spitting up is common among modern babies shows how wrong our feeding practices are and how deeply troubled babies are by the way they're treated.







Not only is she not an anthropologist, she's not a pediatric gastroenterologist...and my baby was fine! I don't know why Yequana babies don't spit up, but it's not because I'm a bad mama! So, yeah, I had to stop taking it personally.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I think it's also important to realize this book was written in a time-period when (I think) popular philosophy veered more in the direction of attributing characteristics to socialization and not genetics.

I think it's possible that some of the differences Liedloff observed, such as the uncommonness of spitting up, or the toddlers who never pinch or pull hair, could be (similar to the stronger self-protection instincts) more genetically than socially influenced.

I can't help thinking there's a genetic difference between the average American with a mix of ancestry from all over the globe, and the average Yequana with all his/her ancestry firmly rooted in the jungle. I'm not saying socialization has no part to play -- just that I don't think we should discount genetics.

Also, there are dietary differences to consider. Whereas Yequana mothers consume a regional diet that's evolved over millions of years, and that their bodies are fully adapted to -- we American mothers, even if we're health-conscious, find it challenging to always eat food "that knows where it came from" (to borrow LLL terminology). Our food usually comes from all over the world -- and some of us eat food laden with non-food substances.

So ... when my exclusively nursed, cue-fed, co-sleeping, continuously held infants did some spitting up before our supply-and-demand got sorted out, I assumed it was normal, at least for us. No, it may not be normal if I'd had a genetic-mix and diet that had stayed in one place for as long as those of the Yequana.

But you know, I honestly wouldn't want to trade places, even if it IS healthier in some respects. I like it that I can eat Chinese, German, and Mexican all in the same week. So I guess I'll accept (and not feel guilty for) the juggling act we Americans sometimes have to do, ever trying to find the right balance between our enjoyment of new and varied experiences and our need for stability.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

That's a good point about the genetics and the nutrition, mammal mama.

I don't really know why I'm feeling a need to defend the book, since all the flaws that have been pointed out on this thread are legit, but I did want to say that most of them have nothing at all to do with her core points in the book. The main points in the book were 'hold your baby,' 'don't CIO,' and 'make your baby part of your life.' The stuff about not spitting up and babies not falling down a 5 foot hole were just a couple of sentences.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
...but I did want to say that most of them have nothing at all to do with her core points in the book. The main points in the book were 'hold your baby,' 'don't CIO,' and 'make your baby part of your life.' The stuff about not spitting up and babies not falling down a 5 foot hole were just a couple of sentences.

Yes, exactly! And while there may *now* be other books that say similar things without having the same flaws -- I don't think many realize how unique Jean Liedloff's perspective was back when TCC was first published. She brought some totally unheard-of ideas into the world of American parenting.

I no longer see her book as "the final word," to be elevated to nearly Scriptural status -- but I'm not about to discard all the good stuff I got just because Liedloff's imperfect like the rest of us.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I hated that book.

I'm right there with you on the homosexuality thing.

I also think that she presented everything in terms of "the right way" and "the wrong way," with no recognition of multiple right ways, and gave the impression that in American society we do things the wrong way and are, therefore, inescapably damaged people.

And she doesn't even have kids ...

dm


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
That's a good point about the genetics and the nutrition, mammal mama.

I don't really know why I'm feeling a need to defend the book, since all the flaws that have been pointed out on this thread are legit, but I did want to say that most of them have nothing at all to do with her core points in the book. The main points in the book were 'hold your baby,' 'don't CIO,' and 'make your baby part of your life.' The stuff about not spitting up and babies not falling down a 5 foot hole were just a couple of sentences.









:


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama* 
I hated that book.

I'm right there with you on the homosexuality thing.

I also think that she presented everything in terms of "the right way" and "the wrong way," with no recognition of multiple right ways, and gave the impression that in American society we do things the wrong way and are, therefore, inescapably damaged people.

And she doesn't even have kids ...

dm

I'm right with you in agreement concerning the homosexuality thing.. It caused me a lot of concern when I read it.

But I also agree with nina, that there are many good points about the book too









Peace


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I just simply don't believe her when she says these kids never had tantrums and never acted up. I would have to see it myself to believe it. That "noble savage" stereotype was pretty popular in the 70s and I think she idealized the group of people she studied.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

I don't recommend this book for pretty much all the reasons mentioned, but this

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
I don't really know why I'm feeling a need to defend the book, since all the flaws that have been pointed out on this thread are legit, but I did want to say that most of them have nothing at all to do with her core points in the book. *The main points in the book were 'hold your baby,' 'don't CIO,' and 'make your baby part of your life.'* The stuff about not spitting up and babies not falling down a 5 foot hole were just a couple of sentences.

is why I totally get why people still read it and love it, and why I think the "Continuum Concept" _as an idea_ is pretty much right on.

My kid is now old enough that he wants some floor time, time to crawl around without me hovering, and just do his own thing, but if he doesn't get at least a couple hours a day on my or his dad's back, doing chores or going out or whatever, he ain't happy. I actually do _more_ housework since he was born, for just this reason.









On the impractical-for-modern-life note - yea, it is sometimes. But just because I am forced by my culture or finances to live in less than ideal ways doesn't mean trying to do as much as possible isn't a worthy goal.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
I could almost sniff a biology is destiny scent there.


First -- absolutely NO biologist or biological anthropologist has EVER claimed that biology is destiny. That's something the cultural anthropologists made up and attributed the phrase to the biologists/biological anthropologists (because they didn't really understand what the biologists/biological anthropologists were talking about).

As for the book -- I appreciated the things within it, but I don't like the fact that so many people use it as THE natural reference. There are many different native peoples and they all have their own ways of doing things. The Masai, for example, beat their children with no qualms. The Toba almost never hit their kids. Some hunter-gatherers are male-driven and use the women as property, others are female-oriented and the woman calls the shots. Etc. etc. etc.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
I am especially troubled when any person (be they amateur anthropologists or professionals) takes ONE group, at ONE point in time and universalizes them as "the way humans are meant to be".

Sorry, this group is not a living artifact of our hunter gather histories. In fact, cross cultural analysis of hunter gatherer communities across time and location shows a great deal of variety in gender roles, child rearing, and so forth.

Also, many hunter gatherer communities have practices we often find morally reprehensible, such as infanticide and euthanasia for the elderly or disabled - cherry picking what we like out of a culture tells us more about what we are looking for than what that culture actually is about.


Yes, yes, and yes!!!


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I just simply don't believe her when she says these kids never had tantrums and never acted up. I would have to see it myself to believe it. That "noble savage" stereotype was pretty popular in the 70s and I think she idealized the group of people she studied.

I agree. I think it's pretty clear in the phrases she uses that she embraced the noble savage concept.

Also, field studies themselves are limited even where the anthropologist isn't racist. Say you have an anthropologist who spends two years living with a small nomadic tribal group. During that period perhaps four babies are born. As children they are happy-going. Anthropologist duly notes that "the children are happy" and reports on their baby-wearing habits.

OTOH, say one of the children is born with colic and has a very difficult three months. All the babywearing in the world doesn't calm her down, and she screams constantly. Anthropologist notes instead that while some of the children seem calm, their baby-calming techniques don't work with all children.

Where there is a small group, it takes years and years of observation to get a statistically valid sample. Good field anthropologists are aware of this flaw and write about their experiences accordingly.

However, where one is trying to sell a book based on fear-mongering (which I think Liedloff was doing, in that she was trying to sell to that portion of the population that feared the dominant American culture), those accurate statistical analyses go out the window because they don't sell. She instead reaches absurd conclusions about the evils of "Western" culture (as if there is such a monolith) because it sells books IMO.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Gosh, am I the only person in the world who simultaneously believes
1. that homosexuality is a morally acceptable practice
2. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of trauma in their lives
???
Notice I use the word "some". I have known gay and lesbian people whose orientation is, as far as I can tell, 100% healthy and naturally occurring in them as individuals. I've also known men who were abandoned or rejected by their fathers and now seek lovers who seem "fatherly" to them...women who can't love men because they fear male sexuality because they were molested by men when they were little girls...men raised by domineering mothers who prefer playing with the boys to the risk of getting involved with a woman who might control them like that...and so on. The fact that these causes of homosexuality were identified and discussed by psychologists of the past who also held the assumption that homosexuality is wrong, does not mean that noticing these cause-and-effect patterns is a symptom of bigotry. Sexual orientation is an extremely complex phenomenon. Liedloff had noticed just one vector that leads to homosexuality and failed to point out (in the book) that this does not mean ALL homosexuality is caused by bad parenting.

Dharmamama wrote:

Quote:

And she doesn't even have kids ...
So? She WAS a kid. IMO, anyone who has been a kid has the right to have opinions about how kids should be treated. It's true that people who have been both a child and a parent are more able to see both sides of the child-parent interaction and thus may give more insightful and realistic advice. But I think that sometimes parents get too far into seeing our own side and react defensively to suggestions that our children may not perceive our actions the way we do. (The most classic example of this is the defensive reaction of "my job is to prevent my child from manipulating me" type parents to AP principles.)


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I agree with the poster who said it helps to consider the time period when the book was written -- in other words, look at it as a "historical document." I can enjoy Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" books, and also learn a great deal from them, without adopting Ma Ingall's racist attitude toward Indians.

Do we have to discount everything written by people of other eras, simply because to some extent, we're all products of our eras and some of our opinions are going to reflect the times we're immersed in (meaning anyone not of my era is bound to have some views I find objectionable)? I personally prefer to take what works for me and leave the rest.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
cause-and-effect patterns

I'd hardly call it cause and effect, considering that gay and lesbian people make up an estimated 10% of the population. If controlling mothers, distant fathers, and molestation _caused_ people to become gay, there would be loads more gay people in the world.

It's like noticing that _some_ people who stutter come from blended families and then saying that blended families _cause_ stuttering.

dm


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
It's true that people who have been both a child and a parent are more able to see both sides of the child-parent interaction and thus may give more insightful and realistic advice.

Bingo. Of course she's allowed to have opinions on how kids ought to be treated. But that's not really what she expresses in the book, imo. To me she is making cause-and-effect statements about why people behave the way they do without any personal experience with the entire situation. And she is very strict and judgemental in telling people what to do without ever having had to deal with the situation she's talking about.

I'm sure that people who aren't directly in a situation can give excellent advice and be very insightful about that situation. (In fact, I was a social worker in my PK days, and I worked with lots of people and situations I had no firsthand experience with.) But to me, Liedloff didn't achieve that goal at all. She just came across as very much on her high horse, absolutely certain that she had all the answers if we would just listen to her, and considering that she isn't actually raising any kids in this environment she rails against, it doesn't come across well.

dm


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama* 
It's like noticing that _some_ people who stutter come from blended families and then saying that blended families _cause_ stuttering.

dm

I agree that it's overly simplistic, and assuming a lot, to label every case of stuttering where the child comes from a blended family as "stuttering caused by a blended family." But it would be just as simplistic to say that no child's development has EVER been impacted by divorce and remarriage.

Also, most people acknowledge that heterosexual women who grew up with abusive fathers are more likely to be attracted to abusive men in adulthood. And so on. I guess the difference is, we don't hear people using childhood issues to "expain" heterosexuality.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

That makes sense, m_m, but I really wonder whether sexual identity is plastic enough to be formed by experience. Do the things we discussed "cause" homosexuality, or are they a synergistic part of a constellation of things that brings an innate trait to the forefront?

To me it makes more sense that an abused girl would grow up to be a woman who chooses abusive partners than it does that a molested girl would have her sexual orientation created/changed by that experience.

But it's entirely possible that I am letting my biases/ignorance show!!

dm


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
Gosh, am I the only person in the world who simultaneously believes
1. that homosexuality is a morally acceptable practice
2. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of trauma in their lives

Probably not. I think a lot of people censor themselves because it's un-PC to say so.

I don't really know enough about it to form an opinion.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
2. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of trauma in their lives
???

Umm, you are implictly assuming that being a homosexual is inherently damaging/a result from damage by not including the possibility:

3. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of a *wonderful experience* in their lives.

In your statement on potential causality, you are assuming that homosexuality is a negative outcome of a negative circumstance. If there is potential for causality, I think it is fair to also include that homosexuality may be a positive outcome of a positive circumstance.

Let's not buy into the nasty stereotype that homosexuality = mentally damaged individuals, please?


----------



## Artymisia (Jul 5, 2006)

I am a waldorf teacher and loving the ways of the classroom vs: learning the philosophies behind it were sometimes WORLDS APART. As with any person who claims to have the answers or know it all you have to just take what works for you and leave the rest.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
Gosh, am I the only person in the world who simultaneously believes
1. that homosexuality is a morally acceptable practice
2. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of trauma in their lives
???
Notice I use the word "some".

I do agree that it's completely possible that some homosexual people are the way they are because of something that has happened in their lives.

I think in this case, more likely the people are bisexual as their "innate" sexuality (I'm probably way misusing these words, sorry), but the way they express it may tend more toward homosexuality rather than hetero because of certain experiences.

The reason I believe this is possible is simply based on one lesbian (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say she was probably a bisexual but expressing herself more as a lesbian sexually at that time?) because she told me about her first relationship, which was with a man, and how she had basically had enough of them after that... and she likened it to falling off a bicycle and getting injured, how she was not the sort to keep hopping on.

So, like I said before, I think these people probably are actually bisexual, but have chosen to get their sexual outlet with the same sex for the time being, rather than the opposite sex. And it could be based on how some life experiences turned out.

But, do I really believe that someone's innate sexuality could be changed by their life experiences - molestation, etc.? I have a hard time believing it. Sexuality is so innate that I think it's shaped so early on this would not change a person's orientation. JMHO though.

As far as relating this back to Liedloff goes, I really think she is the blind leading the blind in a lot of ways. If she had written a book saying, "Wow, here's what I experienced in this different culture, and here's what I think about it" and left it at that, I think I would be OK with it. But to come to very narrowly stated conclusions, and THEN to get to the point where she's advising other people on how to lead their lives and how to parent based on these conclusions... she has just taken it WAY TOO FAR. She is not qualified.

If you check out her web site, you can see where she has "advised", and continues to advise, people having problems in their life and she relates it back to this hypothesis she's formed about childhood. I just think that has taken it way too freaking far.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Still, the person listening to the advice has a responsibility to weigh it against her own inner wisdom, rather than viewing any opinion as sacred just because it comes from an expert, or a seeming expert.

For instance, it makes me really mad when I hear that doctors and nurses are still giving bad, out-dated breastfeeding advice to new mothers -- and some of the new mothers are trustingly following it.

But the problem really isn't the bad advice: the problem is that we're schooled, early on, to revere certain professionals as experts who know more than we do about our bodies, our babies, our families, and ourselves.

Yes, I realize that in a dire, life-and-death emergency that I have no skill to deal with, I would have to put my loved-one's life in the hands of a doctor (but really in the hands of God), and just pray that the best choices are made in the saving of this life. But most of our decisions don't have to be snap decisions: taking some time to think things through isn't going to end anyone's life.

So, usually, there's no good reason for us to feel compelled to "go against our better judgment" because of what some expert said.

If we could just receive everyone as a fellow human being on a journey just as we are (and if all people were willing to present themselves this way) -- we could respectfully listen to what each person has to say (and they could respectfully listen to us), and we could each come away with some new ideas to process.

I guess you can tell I have a real problem with authority and hierarchy.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Dharmamama wrote:

Quote:

I'd hardly call it cause and effect, considering that gay and lesbian people make up an estimated 10% of the population. If controlling mothers, distant fathers, and molestation caused people to become gay, there would be loads more gay people in the world.

It's like noticing that some people who stutter come from blended families and then saying that blended families cause stuttering.
No, it's like noticing that some babies who've been vaccinated for measles have died within one week and saying that the measles vaccine kills babies. That doesn't mean it kills EVERY baby who gets it. But the fact that the majority of babies receiving measles vaccine survive does not mean that measles vaccine never causes deaths.

I'm not basing the idea that certain types of problems early in life can cause homosexuality simply on having noticed a correlation. I'm basing it on in-depth conversations with some real people, some of whom themselves believed that the problem was a major factor in shaping their orientation, others of whom talked about both the problem and their sexual orientation but didn't make a connection.

Quote:

Do the things we discussed "cause" homosexuality, or are they a synergistic part of a constellation of things that brings an innate trait to the forefront?
Of course they are part of a constellation of things. Almost all human behaviors have more than one cause. The "innate trait" that allows the possibility of same-sex attraction seems to be present in most people. Some things strengthen it; others weaken it.

Siobhang wrote:

Quote:

Umm, you are implictly assuming that being a homosexual is inherently damaging/a result from damage by not including the possibility:

3. that some homosexual people have the sexual orientation they do because of a wonderful experience in their lives.

In your statement on potential causality, you are assuming that homosexuality is a negative outcome of a negative circumstance.
I'm sorry you read it that way. I was listing two of my beliefs on the subject, not all of them. By saying that ******SOME****** homosexuality is the outcome of a negative circumstance, I did not say that all homosexuality is, nor did I say that homosexuality is a negative outcome. (I do, in fact, believe that it CAN be a negative outcome--that a person can wind up feeling attracted only to the same sex and be very unhappy with that--but a negative triggering circumstance can lead to a positive outcome, too.)

ShadowMom, I agree that it would be hard for a person's "innate sexuality" to change, if there even IS such a thing. What I am talking about is the person's orientation as perceived by him/herself and expressed in his/her behavior.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
ShadowMom, I agree that it would be hard for a person's "innate sexuality" to change, if there even IS such a thing. What I am talking about is the person's orientation as perceived by him/herself and expressed in his/her behavior.

Wow, I am so impressed (and sorry) that anyone actually read my rambling post. I am on a lot of allergy drugs right now and I shouldn't be allowed to post anything longer than 2 or 3 sentences...


----------



## bluezephyr (Jan 12, 2006)

Just found this conversation because I've got a question...So there are zillions of reasons to critique her book--got it. I'm not looking forward to looking backwards from the 2040's to critique my work now. Ouch.

I'm interested in the good points--what has worked for people. I haven't actually read her book and I may at some point, but I have been following continuum concept articles around the internet reading about real parents' experiences--like this one: http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm.

I'm parenting pre-schoolers at the moment and simply can't seem to find the answer to a question I have. I thought one of you might. One observation coming out of Leidloff's work is that we give children too many choices (or we give them choices in a way that is too child-centered in an unhealthy way). What I can't find is any advice in what kind of choices to start giving a child when along the developmental path (insert requisite caveats on child's personality, etc). Anyone know where to find discussions on this kind of thing?

Thanks!


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I can't point you to any discussions of choices, but here's one thing I've learned since my kid started talking: Don't start out by offering a choice; say what we're going to do, and offer a choice only if he objects.

Example #1:
ME: Time to brush our teeth!
KID: Okay.
(no choice; no problem)

Example #2:
ME: Do you want to brush teeth first or take a bath first?
KID: No! I want a snack!
ME: You just had a snack ten minutes ago. It's time to get ready for bed now. Brush teeth and then bath, or--
KID: No! I want to wash dishes! I want to go for a walk!
(unnecessary offering of choice gives impression that many options are open and he can choose freely among them)

Example #3:
ME: Time to brush our teeth!
KID: No! I'm not ready!
ME: We have time to read three stories. We could read one story and then brush teeth before reading the--
KID: No! I am playing with trains!
ME: You can play for five more minutes and have just two stories.
KID: I can have one story downstairs on couch, and all trains will listen to story too, and then brush teeth, and then two stories in bed, and then go to sleep. Does that sound possible? [







I love the way he says that!]
ME: Okay! Good plan! What story do you and the trains want to hear?
(Choices are offered ONE AT A TIME, and ultimately he tailors one of them to suit him, but I never cede control of the situation to him.)

HTH! I still have a lot to learn about this issue, but this realization has been a helpful addition to my grandmother's advice: "Don't ask a child IF he wants to do something unless 'no' is an acceptable answer."


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Happened upon this thread in new posts.

Our son has choices which involve his body. And I have choices which involve my body. I don't "cede control" to him of his own body, any more than others "cede control" to me of my own body.

When our choices are in seeming conflict, no one has to do anything they don't want to do. And we work to discover/create mutually agreeable solutions, which is not a self-evident process to a Westerner's observations. Our process, through the filter of "cede control", would be that I "cede control", which I don't. Because I don't "own" control over another, which is consistent with Leidloff's observations of the Yequana dynamic, imo. Abet, her *interpretation* is that the parents were in control. A paradox of her Western filter, imo.

I believe that Scott Noelle articulated the *attunement* of a parent/child dynamic more accurately than Leidloff could understand, having no children herself.

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I had another thought about Liedloff's comment regarding homosexuality.

When reading Alfie Kohn's _Unconditional Parenting_, I stumbled across a paragraph where he referred to Judaism and Christianity as "offering the ultimate in _conditional_ love" (as opposed to _un_conditional love; this isn't a literal quote, as I don't own the book, and it went back to the library).

I felt kind of disappointed by Kohn saying that, because I'd been learning and growing so much through what he'd been saying prior to that. In *my* life, when I embraced Christianity, that's when the whole world of unconditional love opened up to me.

I just had to accept that Kohn hadn't had my experience of Christianity: he was basing his opinion on his experience -- and of course, I've met judgmental Christians and sometimes heard a punitive sermon. It's not beyond comprehension that some would perceive Christianity as a long list of do's and don'ts.

In the same way, I'm sure Liedloff's perception of homosexuality was based on her experiences of the lifestyle at that time. She probably knew very few, if any, openly practicing homosexuals in the 1970's.

So if Liedloff met (or heard about) even one homosexual who attributed his homosexuality to a dysfunctional childhood, and if Liedloff didn't have other information to balance this out, about homosexuals who'd had predominantly happy, healthy childhoods, her opinion was based on her limited experience, as was (I believe) Kohn's opinion about Christianity.

And now my point: I kept reading Kohn's book, and my life was expanded in ways I hadn't imagined it could be. There was this one blip I found objectionable, and then there was this whole wealth of life-changing, thought-provoking essay. I actually credit _Unconditional Parenting_ with helping me to move into a new realm in my Christian faith.

I feel a similar way about _The Continuum Concept_. Really, people are only human. We're all very fallible, but that doesn't mean we should cast aside the pearls each person has to offer, just because a few of those pearls are chunks of gravel.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I feel a similar way about _The Continuum Concept_. Really, people are only human. We're all very fallible, but that doesn't mean we should cast aside the pearls each person has to offer, just because a few of those pearls are chunks of gravel.

I agree, with one caveat.

There are different standards for evidence and different standards of trust for any written assertation based on the source and the intention of the statement.

For example, a scientific assertion requires a standard of evidence agreed to by the scientific community in order for that assertion to be taken seriously, and considered reasonably likely to be true.

Other assertions - opinions, observations, ideas, fiction, etc - have different or no requirement for evidence. They express the opinions of the author.

The importance of differentiating between these standards of evidence is that it gives us some indication of how much we can trust any given statement.

I know, for example, if a statement is published in a peer reviewed journal such as Nature, that folks a lot cleverer than me with more detailed knowledge of the subject, have looked at the statement and found it reasonable and highly likely to be true. It may well be overturned by further evidence, but at least there is some consensus of reasonableness.

On the other hand, if I read a statement that someone published in a travel memoir, I have no independent verification that the individual didn't just make up the observations, have a particular agenda s/he is trying to push, or is so biased as to make the statement not particularly accurate. Heck, unless published by a reputable publisher, I have no way of confirming the individual even traveled to where they supposedly traveled.

My issue with the continuum concept is not whether it is factually true or not. My issue is that it seems to be trusted by some readers as fact, when no such assertion is possible.

This doesn't mean the book isn't valuable or useful - clearly many readers found it to be very useful to them. But everything Liedloff writes (and frankly, everything written, period) needs to be taken with a grain of salt, based entirely on what we know about the integrity of the author, and the publication and review process.

My 2 cents.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Without searching for my copy of the book to review, my memory of the statements she made about homosexuality (and also the other statements many of us find offensive), is that these statements were worded in a very speculative nature, kind of like she was brainstorming and encouraging us to brainstorm with her.

I never "got" her intent as being that gays continue to be ridiculed and subjected to discrimination, or that mothers of burn victims be under suspicion, for subconsciously orchestrating things so their little ones were able to reach pots of boiling water, or what-have-you.

It seemed like she was speculating out loud, and her perspective was that of of a non-parent who has no idea what it's like to have your child badly hurt in an accident. Both my girls suffered fractures in toddlerhood, and I assure you it wasn't because I craved more "babying" from my husband.

I guess you can tell I was rather p!ssed at the tone of some of her ruminations. But I got over it, because overall I've found the book, as well as the whole concept, to be a thing of wonder.

I agree with siobhang that everything we read should be taken with a grain of salt. Even Holy Scripture is subject to misinterpretation! So beware, humans are fallible!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
When our choices are in seeming conflict, no one has to do anything they don't want to do. And we work to discover/create mutually agreeable solutions, which is not a self-evident process to a Westerner's observations. *Our process, through the filter of "cede control", would be that I "cede control", which I don't. Because I don't "own" control over another, which is consistent with Leidloff's observations of the Yequana dynamic, imo. Abet, her *interpretation* is that the parents were in control. A paradox of her Western filter, imo.*

(Bolding Mine.) Excellent observation! And one I hadn't thought of.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:

My issue with the continuum concept is not whether it is factually true or not. My issue is that it seems to be trusted by some readers as fact, when no such assertion is possible.
So your issue is with some readers' interpretations, not the book itself? I have those issues around nearly every book (not least the Bible).









I have many (many - I simply can't recommend the book because of them) issues with the book, but how other people interpret it (embrace it, read it as gospel, what have you) isn't one of them. That's an issue I have with people, not with a book, and it can happen to any book, no matter the quality (or lack thereof).

Or do you think in some way Liedloff deliberately contributes to that problem?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn* 
I have many (snip) issues with the book, *but how other people interpret it (embrace it, read it as gospel, what have you) isn't one of them. That's an issue I have with people, not with a book, and it can happen to any book, no matter the quality (or lack thereof).*

(Bolding mine.) Exactly!

Quote:

Or do you think in some way Liedloff deliberately contributes to that problem?
Other than by strongly believing in her own concept?

It seems kind of harsh to fault Liedloff for being passionate about her own passions, or to blame her when other people catch the flame as well.

Are people totally devoid of responsibility when it comes to reading and interpreting the written word?


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

By the way, _are_ there any TCC-like books that don't have that book's problems? I often recommend Our Babies, Ourselves, and I do love that book, but it lacks a lot of the baby-should-orbit-adults ideas that I value in TCC.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn* 
By the way, _are_ there any TCC-like books that don't have that book's problems? I often recommend Our Babies, Ourselves, and I do love that book, but it lacks a lot of the baby-should-orbit-adults ideas that I value in TCC.

I don't know if there are -- but, since we're supposed to read everything with a grain of salt anyway, why the need to find a book without problems?

Also, you say you can't recommend it because it has parts you disagree with -- but, if you haven't found another book with all the stuff you value in TCC, why not recommend it while sharing your reservations...you know, let the reader read it and come to her own conclusions?


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ewcarvill* 
Just found this conversation because I've got a question...So there are zillions of reasons to critique her book--got it. I'm not looking forward to looking backwards from the 2040's to critique my work now. Ouch.

I don't think it's fair to say that because we're critiquing the book 30 years later, the critiques are out of line. Furthermore, Liedloff's book and other books the same "noble savage" genre WERE heavily criticized at the time. It's just that they mostly weren't criticized by the Western white UMC readers to whom they were directed. If you read criticism from Latin American authors or Native American authors from that time period, you'll find a lot of very angry criticism about how they were tarred with the noble savage brush.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the number of people who are willing to ignore the remarkable racism and classism (not to mention heterosexism) rampant in her book for "the good stuff." I feel like it's a bit like being willing to eat a pie made out of rotten apples. The crust may be look appealing and even taste tolerable, but the inside is rotted through. I found her work so pervaded by racist stereotypes and imperialist fantasies that the whole was rotted.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
Frankly, I'm surprised at the number of people who are willing to ignore the remarkable racism and classism (not to mention heterosexism) rampant in her book for "the good stuff." I feel like it's a bit like being willing to eat a pie made out of rotten apples. The crust may be look appealing and even taste tolerable, but the inside is rotted through. I found her work so pervaded by racist stereotypes and imperialist fantasies that the whole was rotted.

I guess I don't see where anyone's ignoring the stuff they found objectionable. I certainly haven't ignored the stuff I didn't like. I've said I disagreed with it -- I put it down to her being human and fallible, and having some holes in her perceptions just as we all do.

A rotten pie with an appealing crust? That just sounds kind of insulting, even condescending, toward those of us who feel we've discovered real gems throughout Liedloff's writings.

I'm sorry you had such a bad time with the book; it's clearly not for everyone -- but it almost comes across like you're saying, "Anyone who doesn't find that 'the whole is rotted' must be seriously lacking in integrity and/or analytical skill."


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

I don't mean to be condescending. I'm sorry you perceived what I wrote that way.

I'm not sure what to say in response, to be honest. To me, as I wrote, the book is rotted through because of the endemic racism and other problems. I find the noble savage stereotype in particular to be a deeply harmful one, one that has physically and emotionally harmed many, many people across many cultures over the years. I don't think it's trivial or harmless. Nor do I think it's out of line, in a discussion of the flaws of the book, to point out how I feel about that issue and to express surprise at how other people perceive the book. People here have implied that those of us who don't like the book are overreacting and not understanding the cultural context of the book. That is certainly a valid argument. I think it is equally valid to state that there are those of us who find the enthusiastic embrace of a book that I believe so heartily endorses a racist and hated stereotype -- the noble savage -- surprising and troublesome.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Also, I think what I saw in Liedloff is very different than this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
When reading Alfie Kohn's _Unconditional Parenting_, I stumbled across a paragraph where he referred to Judaism and Christianity as "offering the ultimate in _conditional_ love" (as opposed to _un_conditional love; this isn't a literal quote, as I don't own the book, and it went back to the library).

I felt kind of disappointed by Kohn saying that, because I'd been learning and growing so much through what he'd been saying prior to that. In *my* life, when I embraced Christianity, that's when the whole world of unconditional love opened up to me.

Here, you have one paragraph in a book that is otherwise not about Christianity at all. And interestingly, though I am not Christian, I think I remember that paragraph and I also think I thought it was off (don't remember exactly). However, I was able to discard that bit and move on because the entire book wasn't about stereotypes of Christianity.

In contrast, IMO the entire CC book is about the noble savage stereotype. I felt when I read it that Liedloff was deliberately trying to set up an idealized "native" culture to contrast with what she considered a monolithic "Western" culture. That is exactly what the noble savage stereotype is about. I think it permeates the entire book. It's not a paragraph here and there. It is there from page one.

Obviously other people feel differently, but in a thread about criticism of the book, I feel it is important to raise this issue.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I don't know if there are -- but, since we're supposed to read everything with a grain of salt anyway, why the need to find a book without problems?

Also, you say you can't recommend it because it has parts you disagree with -- but, if you haven't found another book with all the stuff you value in TCC, why not recommend it while sharing your reservations...you know, let the reader read it and come to her own conclusions?

Because the way the book communicates the idea, and all the, well, rotten stuff in it makes it very, very hard to find the good ideas that're in there. And I would not be surprised to find that if I did recommend the book, reservations and all, that others would be turned off the core idea simply by being associated with the problematic parts (racism, homophobia, and sexism, to start). I know I was, for a long time. I think she hit on a key idea or three, but almost more by luck than anything else. I'm not looking for a book without any problems (there aren't any such things), just one that doesn't upset me so much to read. (I spent the day or three I read the book in yelling and ranting and writing angry notes in the margins.)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
To me, as I wrote, the book is rotted through because of the endemic racism and other problems. I find the noble savage stereotype in particular to be a deeply harmful one, one that has physically and emotionally harmed many, many people across many cultures over the years. I don't think it's trivial or harmless. Nor do I think it's out of line, in a discussion of the flaws of the book, to point out how I feel about that issue and to express surprise at how other people perceive the book. People here have implied that those of us who don't like the book are overreacting and not understanding the cultural context of the book. That is certainly a valid argument. I think it is equally valid to state that there are those of us who find the enthusiastic embrace of a book that I believe so heartily endorses a racist and hated stereotype -- the noble savage -- surprising and troublesome.

I haven't read every post in this thread. So, perhaps I missed this the first time. I am curious about this "noble savage" construct that you are perceiving and how that is related to racism or stereotyping. Bring me up to speed, please. I am intrigued. Specifically, in our travels, I have found the sociocultural/anthropological observations of other cultures to be most enlightening. Of course, there are "generalizations" when one is comparing and contrasting observations of a culture through my own Americanized filters. Removing those cultural memes is a difficult process, even having traveled a great bit. But, having studied/lived in cultures different than my own, I don't see the dichotomy that "noble savage" seems to represent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

The idea of denying a culture as representing a "noble savage" seems as much of an ethnocentric filter, as that which elevates another culture. Both seem to "globalize" the assumptions about another race. The dichotomy seems to be in the projection that there is nothing to learn from the differences, or everything to learn. Could it be *both*, but each is focusing on different variables? For instance, in our travels to communal cultures, there are both "positive" and "negative" aspects such as subsistence living. They don't perceive it as the negative that Westerners do. Or the primitive buildings are easily replaced; abet seemingly "shanty". How is the glorification of a primitive culture different than the glorification of "civilization". (I don't see you glorifying civilization, but I don't see the "deeply harmful one, one that has physically and emotionally harmed many, many people across many cultures". )

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding. Because, the counter perspective through the ages has been of an "ignoble savage". And I believe _that_ ethnocentrism is actually what has done the harm of which you speak. And I'll throw in the construct of "original sin", and needing to be "saved" from ourselves, is a core aspect of that religious-centrism. The saying "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind. Our Western (Judeo-Christian) assumptions that the primitive is "broken" and needs to be "saved", is the root of the harm, in the eyes of the primitive. Abet, historically, "for his own good", we "save" them.

The belief of "knowing best" for another culture is the philosophical pivot, not the observations of another's culture, imo.

I'd love to hear your thoughts to help me to clarify the points that you are making.

ETA: ok, I just read through your posts on this thread. I do agree that fear-mongering sells in America. And, I would agree that is not originated/specific to Leidloff, as you observed. But, I would assert that our fear based culture originates in our belief systems, rather than in a book. Fear-mongering only sells if one buys into that belief. Fear IS a cultural product of the Westernized "civilization", ime. (Not that fear is absent in China, of course.) You may be familiar or interested in *Systematic Ideology* (about how cultural memes are proscriptions of behaviors and beliefs).
http://www.gwiep.net/site/whatissi.htm

Basically, the observed can not be separated from the observation.

Thanks,

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
I don't mean to be condescending. I'm sorry you perceived what I wrote that way.

Well, I never perceived you as intending to be condescending. It just seemed to me that you were saying that those of us who could actually acknowledge, and then set aside (not the same as ignoring) the things we disagreed with, and go on to enjoy the rest of the book, were somehow not very wise.

Quote:

People here have implied that those of us who don't like the book are overreacting and not understanding the cultural context of the book.
Yes; now I realize that I've said just as many things that could have come across as condescending to you and others -- and I'm sorry, because I never meant to be condescending, either.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Well, I never perceived you as intending to be condescending. It just seemed to me that you were saying that those of us who could actually acknowledge, and then set aside (not the same as ignoring) the things we disagreed with, and go on to enjoy the rest of the book, were somehow not very wise.

No, I do not think that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Yes; now I realize that I've said just as many things that could have come across as condescending to you and others -- and I'm sorry, because I never meant to be condescending, either.

I did not think you were being condescending. We are having a critical discussion of a book, and I expect that people will see things differently. It does not offend me that people may believe I am not understanding the cultural context of the book or overreacting. I disagree, of course, but it doesn't offend me.

WuWei, I read your post, but I am not exactly sure what you are asking. I will think about it some more and try to respond.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 

WuWei, I read your post, but I am not exactly sure what you are asking. I will think about it some more and try to respond.

How is a "noble savage" construct, which is being emulated, harmful to the culture of origin?

Pat


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

I think any stereotype that paints an entire civilization or culture with one brush, be it "positive" or "negative", is harmful, because it means you're not really seeing what's actually there, which is all the beautiful, complex, ugly, messy, human reality.

Margaret Cho has a really good rant in her book "I have chosen to stay and fight" on stereotypes, both "positive" and "negative".


----------



## bluezephyr (Jan 12, 2006)

I'm just getting back to this forum after a few weeks of having no time, and I just wanted to thank those of you with ideas about choices and preschoolers and the TCC thing. They've brought some improvement and every little improvement helps right now! The kids we're parenting have been through a TON and so some huge percentage of the temper tantrums are really, sad, scared, insecure, confused, etc, etc. That's just the way it's going to be, but we don't want to inflame the problem, nor be drawn into always giving them what they want to prevent them because that just makes us irritable regardless of what else it may or may not teach them.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn* 
I think any stereotype that paints an entire civilization or culture with one brush, be it "positive" or "negative", is harmful, because it means you're not really seeing what's actually there, which is all the beautiful, complex, ugly, messy, human reality.

I do recall Liedloff describing how one tribal group practiced cruelty to animals -- and wasn't there also something about the medicine man in another group figuring out who was to blame for a death, and then the dead person's relatives murdering that other person, based on his guilt being proved by some ceremony?

I can't recall the exact details, and don't know where my copy of TCC is right now. I'm just saying that I didn't "get" the image of these tribes as being 100% good and loving, or as being places where I'd want to spend the rest of my life. Liedloff obviously hasn't made it her permanent home, either.

What I got it that they're no better or worse than us: the main difference is that they get to grow up in a community that meets their evolutionary expectations: of continuous skin-to-skin contact, nursing on cue, riding around all day on the hip or back of a busy, active person (initially their mother, later an older sibling who takes them back to mama to nurse).

Much, or all, of this is stuff we actually CAN incorporate into our modern way-of-life (and many of us have and do).

Also, the way that the adults just go about their daily tasks, and let the little ones participate as they get interested, and to the degree that they're interested, with no pressure for them to do more or to finish what they start. There's no "chore-chart," or making the child feel guilty for not being more responsible. And yet the children all end up fully participating in adult life, when they're ready.

I've found much of this to be a confirmation of what I've instinctively felt is the best way to raise my own children. It's good to get reassurance wherever I can, especially when others warn about the dire consequences of raising kids with "no work ethic."

While I value what I can learn from primitive peoples, I can't say I'd want to trade places. Especially if it meant giving up the written word. The books I've read throughout my life are such an intrinsic part of me.

It reminds me of Madeleine L'Engle's _Ring of Endless Light_, and the discussion of what dolphins may have gained when they gave up hands, and what they lost. We've definitely gained some valuable things by giving up the primitive way of life, and it's not all just industrialized "progress," either.

We've got a lot to celebrate.


----------

