Hi Italian,
the thing is that what people are talking about here, is not simply 'toys'. When people talk about the one thing (toy, soft toy, blanket, muslin, ...) that needs to go everywhere with them, and creates huge anxiety and panics if it goes missing, they are usually talking about a 'transitional object' (or transition object, or comfort object, or security object - all different names for the same thing). You can google this, it is a key concept of child development psychology.
The way I understand and remember it (i.e. probably quite limited and patchy!), around 60% of children have a transitional object, so it is absolutely possible that your daughter never had one, and also that your new DS won't have one. The average age for 'choosing' a TO is around 8 months.
Apparently in cultures where extended breastfeeding (up to age 4 or so) and co-sleeping are the norm, transitional objects are very rare. But I'm not saying this to imply that there is something 'second best' about TO. On the contrary, TOs are seen as beneficial to development, and children (and adults!) who have a strong attachment to a TO are generally more confident, independent, and less anxious.
So in normal development, infants at some point develop an awareness of separateness from their mothers, or in other words, that they are not the same as their mother. A sense of 'me' and 'not me' and there are complicated psychological things going on here. As a result, some infants find themselves a TO (frequently, however, it is not the object their parents intended for them). This TO represents to them the space between themselves and the mother, and comes to represent the mother, and comes to feel as if it were part of the infant. As the length of separations between child and mother increases, the TO becomes kind of a 'stand-in' mum, providing al the comfort and reassurance and security that the child usually associates with its mum.Hence the huge distress when it goes missing. It's not just a toy that goes missing, it's all the symbolic value. To the child it can feel as if it had lost a limb, and its mother, all at the same time.
Now, in cases of disrupted childhoods, where there may be neglect involved, i.e. the normal bond between mother and child never existed or broke down, and the child never learned to associate warmth and comfort and security with their mum; and when a child meets a new mum years after the normal age of choosing a TO; the situation will probably be very different! I've got to say your comment about 'isn't it better to just accept that the toy is gone' got me thinking about TOs and their role(s) in adoption. A quick google didn't show anything up, so these are just some vague thoughts of my own:
- even an older child may have a much younger emotional age. It would seem to me that if you were able to recreate that missing 'building block', that sense of warmth and security and comfort (probably involving a lot of 'regression'), then that must be a good thing. And if you do achieve this, then it could well be possible that a child, even at age four, projects some of this feeling onto a TO. So where you wouldn't normally expect a 4yo to find himself a TO, if this 4yo is going through the emotional phases and development normally experienced at 8 months, then they might very well do other things normally expected of 8 months olds, such as creating a TO.
- A child might come with a TO in tow. Either chosen during foster care, or whilst living with BM. It would seem exceedingly cruel to take this TO off them. As an adoptive mum, wanting the child to transfer her attachment to me, it might feel a bit threatening that the child is so strongly attached to an object which in effect represents her BM (of FC). However it should probably be seen as a positive sign, that the child is capable of secure attachments. That the child DID experience warmth and comfort and security, else they wouldn't have been able to transfer some of those feelings onto the TO.
- I can imagine that the bonding process between child and adoptive mum could benefit from some of the attachment being projected onto an object. The 4yo child will naturally have much longer times away from their new mum, than an infant would, and having an object to 'stand in' during these times may make the process be more continuous and stable.
- As I said, it is very possible that your new DS never makes the blanket you are giving him into a TO (that doesn't mean it wouldn't have its uses, particularly during the intro phase). If he doesn't, then yes I agree with you - if it goes missing, that's sad, but that's part of life; it doesn't necessarily need to be replaced. However, if it does become a TO to him, then losing it could be very traumatic. More so than normally (and it can be traumatic for any child to lose their TO, as explained above), as it might feel like an (uncontrolled) replay of all of his original losses and traumas.
- So in conclusion, I'd say if an adopted child has a TO, that seems like a good thing, but you'd need to be doubly and triply careful about not losing it, and be sure that you have a replacement ready for if you do lose it. However, not all children have TOs, and normally they 'create' TOs at a much younger age. And even if your new DS has or finds himself a TO, that might very well not be this blanket. So (particularly if it wasn't cheap) I'd hold off getting a second one until you see if he does attach to it.