To Train Up a Primate

[emmiedahl]

The title is tongue-in-cheek; I just read an awesome book for a class and wondered if anyone else had! It is called Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species.

The book is a well-rounded look at the multitude of subjects that the title implies and pleasantly science-y. It's not really a parenting manual, but a lot of the studies it cites show the error of fundamentalist parenting, particularly Pearl-type books.

The fact that really stood out to me is that there is a good reason for newborns to be needy and demanding to the extent that they are. It is not Satan, but rather an adaptation. An infant does not just need its mother for food, but for security and protection. Because of this, newborn babies are constantly evaluating their mothers for signs that their care will continue. Studies have found that infants have a distressed physiological reaction when their mother looks at them with a flat affect. The baby respondes by wiggling and making faces and trying to get a reaction, and if this fails they begin experiencing stress and releasing the appropriate hormones. Over the course of human history, an indifferent mother means likely abandonment and death; human infants know this on a deep level.

Another interesting subject in the book was basically "why do they cry so much"? The book points out that a crying baby is usually put to the breast or carried to comfort them, which means safety. A study of Masai children found that in times of food shortage, fussy babies were several times more likely to survive. They are feeding constantly and getting every drop of nutrition available, they are kept close at a time when mothers are tempted to leave them in someone else's care so they can forage more efficiently. Nature likely selected for fussy babies because the quieter ones did not survive lean times.

A last thing that I found interesting was the repeated discussion of infanticide. Infanticide has been the safest "contraceptive" available for much of human history. The author discusses that there are abortifacient herbs used in many societies, but that they are not always safe. Some mothers resort to having someone jump on their stomach or jab sharp sticks into their vaginas; again, these rudimentary abortions are dangerous. If you cannot care for a baby, the logical primate thing to do is to simply abandon it, or kill it at birth. The author points out that abortion is not an alternative to parenting, but an alternative to infanticide. The Christian Church did not take a firm stance on infanticide until the Middle Ages, and even then women routinely killed unwanted newborns without repercussions by claiming that the infants were possessed or that they were changelings.

This book brings up so many interesting subjects and I would love to hear some other thoughts on it!

[Arete]

The early church Fathers did take a very firm stand against infanticide and abortion, and we have their writings to prove it. Basil and John Chrysostom were writing in the 4th century, and I believe their were actually works in the 2nd century. One way Christianity tried to distinguish itself from paganism was to go after the practice of exposure of infants in the ancient Roman and Greek world, and then it extended all the way to ending pregnancy (abortion).

Of course women were still getting abortions and exposure was still practiced in cases, but it was against normative Christian doctrine way before the Middle Ages.

[Sola]

That sounds fascinating Emmie, my type of read. I'll have a look for that one.

[emmiedahl]

The early church Fathers did take a very firm stand against infanticide and abortion, and we have their writings to prove it. Basil and John Chrysostom were writing in the 4th century, and I believe their were actually works in the 3rd century. One way Christianity tried to distinguish itself from paganism was to go after the practice of exposure of infants in the ancient Roman and Greek world, and then it extended all the way to ending pregnancy (abortion).

Of course women were still getting abortions and exposure was still practiced in cases, but it was against normative Christian doctrine way before the Middle Ages.

Most common law did not consider a baby a human until baptism. I know some church fathers were beginning to speak out, but they were not the norm. The norm was that 10-15% of infants were killed in early Christian cultures and this was not considered illegal or non-normative or immoral.

Constantine made it illegal for the father to kill an infant, but not the mother or midwife, who were usually the ones to do it.

Many early Christians believed strongly that evil spirits swap out healthy babies for evil and sickly ones, and the remedy was to kill them, usually by burning them alive. Th Church approved of this. When infanticide became immoral and then illegal varies by community, but the answer is not "fourth century" for any of the communities that I can find. As late as the seventeenth century in France, babies who were thin and colicky were believed to be the products of insemination from the devil. In 1720, the French king made infanticide illegal by imposing the death penalty on any mother who killed her infant for any reason.

[PennySycamore]

That book sounds fascinating! I'll have to have to read it.

One thing that researchers have learned in the past few years is that the human infant"s reflexes at birth are geared towards survival, in particular as feeding behavior. Infants when they are placed prone on mom's belly crawl towards her nipple. Doctors were long puzzled by the step reflex that newborns have, but that reflex help them get to the breast. Babies are born knowing how to feed. We just need to learn to follow their lead and let them do it. ( NB This is fairly new info. If you did not know about biological nurturing, don't beat yourself up about it.)

The part about infanticide will be fascinating as well. We tend to forget that there's a long history of infanticide and abandonment of newborns in the West. We tend to cringe when we hear about infanticide in other societies, but it isn't that long ago when we did the same thing.

[Witsec7]

Here I was going to come in with a post about how Constantine made infanticide illegal for fathers and not mothers or other women attending births. That'll teach me to draw on the aging resources of a liberal education.

[eohiken]

Sarah Hrdy? I read that one years ago, but it left a lasting impression.

[emmiedahl]

Sarah Hrdy? I read that one years ago, but it left a lasting impression.

Yeah it's her. Sorry, I forgot to give the author's name which is kind of important. :oops:

It is hard to imagine killing your infant, until you imagine that infant as a stranger who is competing with your needs and those of your existing children. When you contemplate making a horrible choice that either way will result in the loss of a child, as has been a common situation for mothers.

[AuntCloud]

Emmie, please keep going!

Here is a baby primate, for your viewing pleasure (warning - may cause mushy gushiness in viewers).

v=_7Eh-YoCoB4

[emmiedahl]

I should add, another thing I loved about this book was its examination of mother love as what makes us human. Infants raised without a nurturing primary caregiver, as seen in some orphanages and feral child situations, do not develop empathy or analytical thought or complex language. The act of an infant watching its mother so carefully for signs of ambivalence, engaging her to keep her near, needing her and having its needs met; these lay the foundation for empathy and most of the things that we consider human. The book is not all about infanticide, that is more an interesting side note. It is about how mothering is a choice that mothers make at great expense to themselves, and how that expense pays off.

[Arete]

Most common law did not consider a baby a human until baptism. I know some church fathers were beginning to speak out, but they were not the norm. The norm was that 10-15% of infants were killed in early Christian cultures and this was not considered illegal or non-normative or immoral.

Constantine made it illegal for the father to kill an infant, but not the mother or midwife, who were usually the ones to do it.

Many early Christians believed strongly that evil spirits swap out healthy babies for evil and sickly ones, and the remedy was to kill them, usually by burning them alive. Th Church approved of this. When infanticide became immoral and then illegal varies by community, but the answer is not "fourth century" for any of the communities that I can find. As late as the seventeenth century in France, babies who were thin and colicky were believed to be the products of insemination from the devil. In 1720, the French king made infanticide illegal by imposing the death penalty on any mother who killed her infant for any reason.

I think we think we may be talking about 2 different things, common law vs how the church's patristic writing affected doctrine. In the fourth century, Chrysostom is the bishop of Constantinople, one of the 5 church centers. His writings were definitely considered normative by the church in terms of the boundaries of morality, even if they don't address legality. Women and midwives under the patriarchate of Constantinople could indeed be excommunicated if they were denounced for infanticide to the church, even if they did not suffer civil penalties. Church doctrine was not limited to Rome.

[emmiedahl]

I think we think we may be talking about 2 different things, common law vs how the church's patristic writing affected doctrine. In the fourth century, Chrysostom is the bishop of Constantinople, one of the 5 church centers. His writings were definitely considered normative by the church in terms of the boundaries of morality, even if they don't address legality. Women and midwives under the patriarchate of Constantinople could indeed be excommunicated if they were denounced for infanticide to the church, even if they did not suffer civil penalties. Church doctrine was not limited to Rome.

I consider something sanctioned by the Church if priests condoned and often encouraged or even performed it (such as the burning of small infants as potential changelings). The government and the church were overlapping and sometimes the same entity in this time period, so if something was legal throughout Europe, the Church had to be pretty okay with it.

In addition, there is significant evidence that the rare church official who denounced abortion and neonaticide did so because these were considered a *sexual* sin and not a crime against another human being.

[bionicmlle]

Emmie - very interesting, thanks for sharing.

I find the information on maternal affective reaction to infants very interesting. Studies on depressed mothers show significant overlap with difficult personality traits and/or mental illness in their children. I encounter many folks through my work that have difficulty with relationships and upon investigating, their mothers were often depressed or otherwise mentally ill at the time of birth. (Of course I get that not every depressed mom has screwed up kids or that screwed up kids means their mom was mentally ill....) There is so much power in the attachment of caregiver & infant - and it ain't about food.

[Rosa]

it could go the other way, too - mothers could be depressed by the weird reactions of infants who are going to turn out to have mental illness.

I started reading this book and then my boyfriend STOLE IT and I haven't started reading it yet. But the little bit at the beginning I got to read is pretty awesome.

Also, if you have a minute, some of the negative reviews on Amazon are total epic failures.

Emmy if you have time later you should follow up with Stephanie Coontz' history of marriage. Her idea that changes in marriage norms are part of a larger project of fleshing out Enlightenment ideas seriously changed the way I think about a lot of things. (And of course she debunks, well, everything about the "courtship" model for starters.)

[lilah]

Yeah it's her. Sorry, I forgot to give the author's name which is kind of important. :oops:

It is hard to imagine killing your infant, until you imagine that infant as a stranger who is competing with your needs and those of your existing children. When you contemplate making a horrible choice that either way will result in the loss of a child, as has been a common situation for mothers.

I wonder how infant mortality rates might affect attitudes toward infanticide? Sure its still an emotional issue but when it's more common for babies to die young it is somewhat normalized by society. It could be annother reason why early bonding, at the hormonal level was important to the survival of our species

Also interesting other bit of history I recently read about how in early Christianity there was a huge stigma against suicide so often suicidal people would commit a murder, confess, repent and be executed. You have to wonder if any women suffering from post partum depression commited suicide by infanticide and execution.

[DarkAnts]

I think that infanticide is more common in times of famine. Starving to death is one of the most painful ways to die. Its also painful for the parents to watch their children die and know that there is little they can do for them. Sometimes, it was the most humane and kind thing to do.

[lilith]

I think that infanticide is still mor

[lilith]

e common than we would like to think. Some infanticide is swept under the carpet under the umbrella diagnosis of SIDS.

[FlorenceHamilton]

When my currently insane life settles down, I am going to read this book. Thank you, Emmie, for sharing this with us.

[latraviata]

That book sounds fascinating! I'll have to have to read it.

One thing that researchers have learned in the past few years is that the human infant"s reflexes at birth are geared towards survival, in particular as feeding behavior. Infants when they are placed prone on mom's belly crawl towards her nipple. Doctors were long puzzled by the step reflex that newborns have, but that reflex help them get to the breast. Babies are born knowing how to feed. We just need to learn to follow their lead and let them do it. ( NB This is fairly new info. If you did not know about biological nurturing, don't beat yourself up about it.)

The part about infanticide will be fascinating as well. We tend to forget that there's a long history of infanticide and abandonment of newborns in the West. We tend to cringe when we hear about infanticide in other societies, but it isn't that long ago when we did the same thing.

Sorry wrong quote.

Unfortunately the first experiments were done by the Germans during WO11. They deprived young infants, from birth on of any affectionate interaction or contact. They were only fed, cleaned and changed, nothing more.

The babies all died before they reached 12 months.

[ilovetchotchkes]

So Emmie- this is so true. I looked at the baby, and said in a flat affect "hello baby, you're a baby. Lets go change your diaper" and she started cooing and laughing. Which of course tripped a switch in me and I was all "OMFG YOU'RE SUCH A SQUISHY LOVEY BABY I LOVE YOU SO MUCH" and covered her with kisses. (which is how we normally interact because she's so effing smiley. She's like the happiest baby around)

I'm putting that book on my amazon wish list!

[2xx1xy1JD]

Interesting, although chilling, information about infanticide.

I'm wondering what sources and evidence exist about the practice? I did a quick Google search, but often don't trust many of the results (esp. if they come from religious sources or otherwise have an agenda). There does seem to be some solid evidence of infanticide in the Roman Empire. I'm wondering if this was another example of the Church having to adapt to the pre-existing pagan culture, or newly-converted Christians adapting their old practices to the new theology? (More benign examples are making Yule into Christmas, or goddess worship into veneration of the Virgin Mary.)

I'm also wondering what happens where we read religious texts in light of this background.

[2xx1xy1JD]

On another note - does the book talk about baby sleep habits?

It occurred to me (around the time that I was struggling with my oldest baby's refusal to sleep in her crib or be without physical contact) that for most of human history, it was probably far safer for human babies to cry when placed alone somewhere. Sleeping next to a mother meant being near a source of food, heat and protection from predators.

[rock_girl]

The myth of the founding of the Roman empire was based on infanticide. Well, attempted infanticide.

I think there was a fair bit of it in Greece. The Spartans were pretty big on killing defective babies and I think it was mentioned by Plato several times. Or is that Aristotle? One of the important philosophers.

[rock_girl]

Oops, can't edit my post anymore.

Eta: I was just reading through a couple of papers and the high infant mortality rate in those times does seem like it would make infanticide mostly irrelevant. A lot of the argument appears to be over whether boys were favoured over girls and girls therefore killed at a higher rate in the few instances when legitimate, healthy babies were killed. But it does look like infanticide was somewhat accepted and practised, particularly if the child was ill or illegitimate.