Holding on and Letting Go
Attachment vs. Free-Range Parenting
Upon recommendation from my mother-in-law, I recently read Dr. Gordon Neufeld’s Hold Onto Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. Originally published in 2006, the book breaks down attachment theory and makes a case for fostering parent orientation over peer orientation. My mother-in-law cited the book as one of the reasons she chose to homeschool. In general, the book makes the case that humans will attach to a primary influence and that a child’s primary attachment should be to their parents. Attachments begin at a young age, and impact the rest of someone’s life and relationships. Neufeld attributes many of the (then current) issues in child well-being to attachment to peers (peer orientation) supplanting parent orientation. Reading this book highlighted just how much things have changed since 2006. I kept thinking how the villain of his book, peer orientation, sounded leaps and bounds superior to the current plague among young people: tech orientation.
Gone are the days when your primary concern is your teenager being too attached to peers, sneaking out to attend a high school party, or insisting they have to go see that movie with their friends instead of being at family dinner. That dynamic (while not great) seems to me to be far more positive and normal than what is now the primary concern: an anxious depressed teenager who spends more time online, often interacting with strangers, than out and about with friends, let alone spending time with their family. The threat of peer orientation has moved online, and the results are far more sinister.
Enter, Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Published in March 2024, Jonathan Haidt’s book was an information-packed presentation of the negative impact technology has had on adolescents and their childhood. It was the perfect follow-up to Hold Onto Your Kids. Haidt shares my concern about tech supplanting peers. He mourns the loss of adolescent independence.
As a card-holding member of the anxious generation (I have the GAD diagnosis to prove it), I found his insights to be spot on, validating my concern for tech orientation over peer orientation. Haidt argues that childhood has been rewired in a highly detrimental way and time spent on a screen has edged out time spent playing outdoors and interacting with others. Part of his proposed solution includes unsupervised play, increased independence for children, and more time spent in person with their peers. These ideas are in direct opposition to Neufeld’s proposals for a parent-oriented child. Haidt’s case for free-range parenting seems completely incompatible with Neufeld’s prioritization of parental attachment for healthy, happy kids. Neufeld critiques the emphasis on independence at a young age as a major contributor to the issue of peer orientation, while Haidt presents it as a solution to the great rewiring of childhood.
In an attempt to reconcile these ideas, I took the advice my mother gave me when I began my parenting journey. She advised me to take what I thought my parents had done well and do differently what they hadn’t. She had received the same advice from her mother. It seems simple, but this sort of permission from a parent opens wide the doors for generational improvement. I plan to tell my children the same thing someday, as I’m sure in my attempt to improve upon my parent’s parenting, I will inevitably introduce some new issues and inadequacies.
In a world where there is a plethora of parenting styles, each with its own rules and recommendations, facebook groups, and how-to guides, I see nothing wrong with taking what is helpful and leaving the rest. I can use the Montessori methods that give my child tools for independence while still allowing her to include princesses and dragons in her imaginary play. I can take the useful ideas and scripts from gentle parenting styles, while still using time-out as a punishment. I see nothing wrong with a scrapbook of parenting philosophies… so how do I cut and paste Neufeld and Haidt together?
Haidt, Neufeld, and most parenting philosophies can agree on one thing - we want relationships with our children that have a foundation of loyalty, trust, and love. Neufeld’s book is about building and maintaining this foundation, Haidt’s recommendations are best employed assuming that the foundation already exists. I found Neufeld’s case for parent orientation over peer orientation compelling, and I believe that fostering a child who has appropriate attachments with parents over peers is better equipped for a happy and healthy life. This attachment is a stepping stone for the independence that Haidt proposes. Implementing Haidt’s recommendations of independent play and unsupervised time could very well be disastrous if the children are not coming from an environment where they have solid relationships with adults they can trust.
Ultimately, there’s a hierarchy of relationships, and the pyramid of attachment requires strong familial foundations before independence and peer relationships can be beneficially realized. Independence and strong peer relationships are fundamental to an appropriate relationship with technology. It calls to mind Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We need parents and families as the base layer of the pyramid to enable properly oriented interaction with other adults, followed by peer relationships, which will allow for the independence that Haidt asserts will assist in preventing the pitfalls of the great rewiring and tech-orientation.
While the language of “Hold onto your kids” is in direct contrast to Haidt’s “Let Grow” movement with the slogan “When adults step back, kids step up”, I do think there’s some room for coexistence here. Attachment is fostered in the early days. A parent-oriented child views their parent as a trustworthy leader, and this trust is formed from when they’re an infant dependent on you for every need, to when they’re a toddler who learns that you’ll prioritize their need for play over your desire to be on your phone, to when they’re a teenager who knows they can come to you for sound advice and guidance. Neufeld’s advice for attachments is about presence, and being someone your child knows they can depend on. It’s certainly worth building this by holding them close while identifying the areas in which you can comfortably let go and allow them opportunities for independence and growth.
There’s a balance to be struck as a parent between dependence and independence. There’s a necessity for trust to flow both ways. Children must be able to trust that their parents will be there when they need them (holding on) and parents need to trust that they’ve given their children the tools to navigate difficult situations and experiences on their own (letting go).