Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Desmond Morris book on baby care

47 replies

GreenMonkies · 07/09/2008 07:48

www.guardian.co.uk:80/society/2008/sep/07/children.family

I shall be reading this at some point I think!

Morris hits at 'brutal' babycare books
Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape and one of Britain's best-known zoologists, will publish his own baby care guide next week because, he said, too many help books for parents advocated 'unnatural' and 'brutal' childcare techniques.

'I'm very angry that baby books have recently begun repeating the unnatural dictates from so-called childcare "experts" of the past, who ordered mothers never to hug or kiss their babies and ignore them if they cry,' said Morris. 'I nearly died when I was just a few months old thanks to a baby book, so I feel very strongly about it. You could say that I have a personal axe to grind.'

Morris was born in 1928 when the theories of American baby expert John Watson were in vogue. Watson, who believed parents should break the spirit of their infants in the same way that trainers tame a horse, called for babies to be put outside in their prams, regardless of the weather, and ignored if they cried.

'Babies reared under Watson's severe regime often suffered and, as a baby, I belonged to that generation,' said Morris. 'Left crying in my pram in a harsh east wind, I developed double pneumonia and nearly died. After that, my mother decided to abandon the teachings of the day and trust to her maternal instincts.'

Morris is disturbed by the recent revival of interest in Watsonian theories, pointing to the methods prescribed by maternity nurse Claire Verity, who has cared for the babies of Mick Jagger, Jack Nicholson and Sting, but whose appearance on the Channel 4 series Bringing Up Baby led to her receiving death threats, being spat at in the street, and being asked to stay away from the Baby Show at Earls Court, London.

Verity, however, is not the only childcare expert who has made her name advocating authoritarian parenting techniques. Controversial childcare guru G F's C* L Baby Book is a highly prescriptive attempt to introduce routine into the lives of parents and children.

'There are lots of good baby books on the market, but an increasing number are by so-called experts who have realised that if they want to make a name for themselves they have to say something new,' said Morris. 'Why introduce cold discipline into a relationship that should be one of total loving?

'I have a vested interest in trying to prevent the rise of these brutal and terribly prescriptive books. I want to prevent what happened to me being done to another child.'

Morris's book, Baby, The Story of a Baby's First Two Years, details a baby's development from the moment of conception. By explaining the biology, physics, chemistry and other forces which drive the changes that occur in a baby's body, Morris hopes parents will be able to make their own decisions about how to treat their child.

'I believe that, if a parent knows what the facts are, they see it's pretty easy to decide for themselves how their baby should be treated,' said Morris.

Morris blames the resurgence of interest in prescriptive childcare books on the fragmentation of modern society. 'Many young women are looking for advice because they don't have the support of their extended family, their partner or other women who have already had children,' he said. 'I can see how these women turn to strongly worded advice books. I can also understand how it is a great relief if these books claim a baby doesn't need the level of care that an isolated mother finds difficult to provide.'

Morris says he hopes his book will provide mothers with the information to 'read' their baby's body language that, in the past, would have been passed down to them from their mothers or extended families.

'We all know what a smile or a scream means,' he said. 'But it's the more subtle messages mothers will miss if they don't learn it from others - the first sign that a baby is not well or that they are not developing as they should. My book explains these signs. I hope it will empower mothers.'

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Cathpot · 08/09/2008 22:12

Actually I think the whole breast thing was pointing out that we are alone in animal world in having breasts that are permanently there rather than just nipples (think chimp mothers) to feed babies, and so they must be there for a purpose other than feeding babies. Then as men mostly find them attractive the argument runs that they are a sexual signal for men. From thence, buttocks etc. I remember his naked ape book being an interesting read but very lightweight and liable to make sweeping statements about society now based on stereotypical cavemen behaviour.

Cathpot · 08/09/2008 22:16

Acinonyx you sound like you have hugely interesting job - I may be revealing my inner geek here. What do you study in particular?

Acinonyx · 08/09/2008 22:17

Edam - the idea is only about the shape of breasts - i.e. that they are hemispherical unlike all other mammals. It does beg an explanation - and that is one speculation (because it certainly doesn't add to the breast's primary function). It's not my area so that's as much as I recall. But from a biological perspective, some kind of explanation is needed - but IMO we will probably never get a certain answer.

edam · 08/09/2008 23:27

That's just one passing example, there are loads of others. But as far as I remember, Morris didn't say 'this is something unusual, here's one possible explanation'. He was very didactic. A veneer of science covering a Viz-style phwoaarrr - but actually nothing like as charming.

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 00:26

Edam - I read Manwatching as a schoolgirl and less discerning (or maybe I kid myself). Pop science came of age in the 70s and some of it is still somewhat simplified in favour of sensationalism - so if that is the charge it would not surprise me. Of course publishers encourage it (and I speak as an ex-publisher).

I happened across a review of BBCs recent 'Ape man' the other day and it had gaven a theory on walking upright as fact - presumably because it was simpler and better viewing than giving all the caveats etc.

Cathpot - I don't mean to pass myself as an experienced expert as actually I'm finishing my PhD - it just seems simpler to say it's my field. I was originally a biochemist/geneticist and my current area if the evolution of the mind, especially social cognition.

There is something of a turf war between social anthropology/social sciences and biological anthropology though, and for many, no matter how well explained and non-sensationalised the content, the content would still be essentially unacceptable. It's basically a problem of whether human nature exists, or we are blank slates, whether gender is 100& socially constructed - or not etc. At that time especially, to say that sex directly influenced gender was extrememly un-PC - he's lucky to be alive

dittany · 09/09/2008 00:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cathpot · 09/09/2008 08:34

Dont get me wrong I am not excusing DM's worst excesses but there are all sorts of interesting aspects to our physiology when it comes to sex (like our hidden ovulation for instance) which are worth discussing. I think as long as you bear in mind that above all we are an adaptable animal and human societies have found lots of ways to skin the same cat so to speak. Having said that I am very much in the cuddle new babies as much as possible camp, and if pushed I would say this is because this is what they 'need' to feel safe and develop emotionally. I would be putting this down to biology and saying it is the natural state of human babies to be held, and this is therefore ..'right'. I would not of course say it is the natural state of human women to stay in caves wiggling their hemispheric breasts at men returning from the hunt, so I may be picking my battles there.

Acinonyx- do you think the tide is turning re blank slate/ genetics? I have seen quite a few articles recently about gender differences in area such as brain structure and it just seems like its a topic it is suddenly OK to discuss ( I am not in academia by the way this is general reading so feel free to raise eyebrows and sigh at the ill informed).

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 08:56

I think the tide has been turning for a while now. Unfortuntely it has turned a bit too far in some cases. People tend to use a kind of short-hand when talking e.g. about behaviour genetics which can give a very simplistic idea. The fundamental problem is that understanding the real impact of these biological differences relies on an understanding of statistical probabilities - we are talking about populations trends and norms, not predictive statements about individuals. So many topics that are filtering down into popular culture depend on this kind of analysis I wish schools would give some general instruction to under 16s so that they can make better sense of the issues.

I also part company with the AP dogma (which by a different route comes to the same parenting principals) as I don't think that just because something 'is' that is how it 'ought' to be (the naturallistic fallacy, in philosophy). It should inform, but not dictate our behviour. After all, most of us don't refuse medical treatment because it's not natural - we are not living in the stone age thankfully.

Must get in shower...

cyberseraphim · 09/09/2008 09:47

Science, even real science , can only answer 'how' questions, it cannot explain any of the 'why' questions. Psuedo science can explain how babies feed, sleep etc but cannot explain why human adults choose different approaches because this is a question to do with human complexity which is not found in animals no matter how much DNA we share with them.

nickytwotimes · 09/09/2008 09:51

Desmond Morris is a twonk and a psuedo-scientist and speaks a load of shite, imo. However, he does make some salient points re: childcare 'gurus'.

zippitippitoes · 09/09/2008 09:54

i do think its ok for babies to be outside in prams rather than inside all the time

when someone has been around for as long as he has i think its possible that their ideas might develop and he wrote the naked ape years ago (1967) so a bit unfair to judge him on that

no idea what he says in this new book tho

i also think breasts do have a sexual function as well as feeding babies

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 11:09

cyberseraphim - I guess that dismisses the entire field of psychology then

cyberseraphim · 09/09/2008 11:24

Would that be a bad thing ? It was psychologists who used to try to convince the parents of autistic children that they had damaged them by bringing them up the wrong way. Science can inform us that the disorder is genetic and neurological in origin - although not very much of the how question has been answered. The why question is beyond earthly understanding. Psychologists seem to be prone to finding explanations that fit in with the current society which might a psychological question in itself.

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 11:33

That is definitely a problem I agree. But I don't think the answer is to stop trying to answer the 'why' questions. I really don't think this is beyond earthly understanding. It's just complicated and largely beyond us right now.

The interesting thing about autism is that it isn't necessarily entirely genetic, at least not in all cases. There is now an expanding field of gene-environment interaction research which I think has the potential to somewhat unify the fields of biological and social sciences.

The problem is how we handle new information as it comes through the research pipeline - leaping on every new thing as if it were Moses' tablets - our inability to live with uncertainty.

cyberseraphim · 09/09/2008 11:41

It depends how you define environment I suppose - Asperger mentioned environmental factors meaning not necessarily the parents but the wider society, school, community, etc that could 'cause' what he called autistic psychopathy. Autism is not a true diagnosis so in theory any form of brain damage caused by an environmental factor such as rubella or thalidomide can be characterised as 'autism'.

It does make me laugh though when you read any baby guru book - they all assume developmental normality in the child (because they are selling the fairy tale). Anyone who follows an ASD child's lead is going to have interesting life !

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 13:07

My research derives partly from the study of autism - I agree it isn't a 'real' diagnosis in the sense that it describes a collection of ill-defined characteristics without reliable biological markers - but that's rather like most psychopathologies and even a lot of other medical conditions.

My particular interest is epigenetics - the way in which environmental factors modify gene expression in ways which can be heritable. In mice, for example, we know that maternal behaviour alters gene expression in infant mice: poor maternal care changes the methylation status of some genes such that the mice develop to be more anxious than mice who have had good maternal care (this is not meant to be relvant to autism btw). These kinds of changes sometimes carry over to the next generation. It's a pretty radical discovery since it used to be thought that the environemt could never have heritable effects.

Must run - potty training today...

edam · 09/09/2008 13:34

Fascinating stuff, Acyinonyx - will there be a paper one day on the application of epigenetics to potty training?

Cathpot · 09/09/2008 14:01

Epigentics must make the whole process of trying to pin down cause and effect in behavioural studies mindnumbingly complicated, if you cant even trust genes to behave themselves in straightforward manner.

What about how society at large treats children? That must also have an effect, this coutry seems hugely unwelcoming to kids compared to other societies. It feels like we overindulge them at home and 'under indulge' them outside the home. May be the whole country needs a manual to tackle that one.

casbie · 09/09/2008 14:05

fasinating stuff!

cyberseraphim · 09/09/2008 15:30

I am a convert Aci - though you had me worried at first when you mentioned poor maternal care. Is there anywhere I can read about this theory?

Acinonyx · 09/09/2008 20:55

I swear I'd sooner do anotehr PhD in turd viscosity than go through potty training again. What a nightmare.

Cathpot - yes indeed. Fortuntely there are a lot of new developments in maths that help. And while the environment is potentially undefinable, genes are not. Different genes interact with the same envirnment differently and vice versa. The nuts and bolts of the process are more easily worked out by studying deseases like diabetes.

Our attitude to kids perhaps reflects the smaller proportion of under 15s in our population - I don't suppose this has ever happened before so it's very new territory. We invest so much in so few - creates quite a paradox.

Not sure what to recommend as reading. My specialty within epigenetics is genomic imprinting - there is this Edge piece (recommend Edge for interesting stuff in general):

www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haig/haig_print.html

A paper on the maternal care aspect:

www.mindfully.org/Health/2004/Maternal-Epigenetic-Programming1aug04.htm

And on diet (the links with diabetes and obesity are strong - this was where the effects were first recognised):

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/484120_3

taralee · 10/09/2008 15:47

DH has a couple of his books - I've always found DM's writing to be very sexist.
This book doesn't seem that different...does he talk about fathers at all? The reviews and quotes I've seen only mention mothers. I am not a cavewoman and expect dh to do as much as me when it comes to raising & nurturing kids.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page