Dearest Daughters,
There's new research published in Psychology Today by Darcia Narvaez that shows that letting a baby "cry it out" like we did with you two is, basically, THE WORST THING EVER IN THE WORLD. Exclamation point!
So. One thing. She's talking about crying, in general. Not, specifically "crying it out" or even, at bedtime, which most of the Internet discussion seems to be focusing on. Because people want to feel justified that the way they did something was the RIGHT way. There's no right way.
And, Dear Internet: I don't just let my children sit in dirty diapers and cry all day. But, I do let them cry at night. Gasp!
Firstly, stop worrying about the research: your children will be awesome
We, American parents, read and worry about EVERYTHING. Well, except for the ones who don't. And it's a great American irony that the privileged, well-informed (and usually well-educated) parents like me are the ones reading the research about putting babies to sleep on their backs or how abusive it is to let babies cry it out. Meanwhile, the parents who have the most to benefit from The Latest Greatest Research, don't have the time or the opportunities to learn why breastfeeding is good or why you shouldn't feed a baby soda from a bottle or why just talking to your child is the least and most you can do for them.
There is a lot of early childhood information that overflows our bookstores and computer monitors. And if you are from a demographic that reads that information, that has books in the house, that talks to your kid and worries about feeding it healthy food, then I say calm the fuck down. Your children will be awesome. No matter what.
Well, that's my approach at least. If I skip a day of reading to Bel, if I haven't taught her the ABC's and she can only count to ten at the age of three, it's not the end of the world. Granted, she has no discernible learning disability. That would be another story. But, she's going to turn out alright and read at grade level and go to college, simply because of the demographic circumstances she was born into. Recognizing this, is recognizing your privilege.
But, back to sleep.
Ancestral Parenting
Narvaez notes that there is an "ancestral parenting" approach that our society has lost. I have two self-contradicting points about this. Because I like to contradict and debate with myself. I'm crazy like that.
I live around the corner from my mom. And people tell me, gosh, you're so lucky! And I think, THIS is the way it should be. THIS is how it used to be. Before moving away for college and jobs and cheaper real estate, generations of people lived together, surrounded by kin that not only cared for your children, but probably delivered them, grabbed your boob to show you how to breastfeed them and gave you every ounce of unsolicited advice they could muster, a practice that our current society has come to scorn. And all things my mother, basically, did for me.
My parents let us "cry it out" with the intention of teaching us to self soothe. I don't think my mom's policy involved more than fifteen minutes of crying. And listen, I survived without a lion killing me. I don't think cuddling and helping a child soothe him or herself is a bad thing. But, it's about culture and using the "ancestral" methods that were passed down to me. My mom also told me that "you can never spoil an infant." We only used a form of my parents' "methods" when we were all good and ready for sleep training.
Anyway, there wasn't THAT much crying involved for us. You do what works for your family. I'd certainly be singing a different tune if my children had more needs, cried more, or were less easy-going. And comforting versus allowing a child the opportunity to comfort herself is still something we go back and forth with as Danjo doesn't sleep through every night yet.
2) Though, I don't think the above is the "ancestral parenting" that Narvaez discusses. She's speaking anthropologically of the practices of our ancestors or currently nomadic or "ancestral" cultures. Parents didn't let their children cry because it alerted the aforementioned lions (you know, the ones that didn't kill me).
In many cultures, out of practice or necessity, children co-sleep. There's an American movement of attachment parenting based on some of this. When I got the Ergo (that I swear I swear by), the instructional DVD kind of made me barf. It was these white American women who wanted to model their child rearing after the brown women in indigenous cultures who carry their babies on their backs. And I was like: lady, that woman HAS to carry her baby on her back. She and all her relatives and five other kids probably had to get back to work in the rice paddies or picking coca leaves for drug traffickers because their lives depended on it.
Someone on the On Line responded to a comment I made about teaching children to sleep being beneficial to everyone. They said that humans are the only animal that have "problems" sleeping, but that is only because of our cultural constructs around sleep that do not reflect our "natural" biorhythms. I hear ya. But, the fact is, I'm not raising my children in "nature." I'm raising them in this human-constructed world, this culture, the 5-day school week, the 40-hour work week, the safety of a home in a city (not the African veldt) where uninterrupted deep sleep is possible.
So, yes, I'm going to "teach" my child to sleep, teach them to conform to our society's habits, not because I scorn their natural biorythms, but because we all need to function, not in our "ancestral" habitats or in the jungle, but HERE and NOW. So, if that involves a little crying up front, it's worth it on the back end.
Lose a few, gain a few. Eh.
More sleep for everyone = better moods + more time for positive brain development.
I don't question the veracity of the research that crying kills brain cells. I'd just like to see the bar graph of exactly how many brain cells are killed by fifteen minutes of crying on three nights of sleep training versus huffing household chemicals versus your sister hitting you on the head with the remote control while watching Calliou the brain-killer cartoon. Versus, on the other hand, how many brain cells are grown and developed by well-rested, calm and caring interactions during the course of the rest of our day together.
On the other hand: my natural anxiety
I will concede, there is a natural (and I'll even say) mother's anxiety when you hear a crying baby. I'm not heartless. It is always difficult to hear my babies cry. Over a skinned knee, in the car in traffic or piercing the silence of night. I agree with the research that children cry for real reasons and it's our job as parents to determine and address those reasons.
Any anyway, crying isn't the worst thing ever
One reason children cry is because they can't express those reasons in words. An adult, I still cry when I'm overwhelmed by anger or joy or sadness. Or when I can't find the words to express how I feel. In that regard, crying is okay.
With the same breath that we use to comfort our crying babies, whether trying to "fix" the situation or just holding them tight, we also need to teach them that sitting with and processing their emotions is a valuable skill. It's not a bad thing to feel sad. And in the thick of emotion, it isn't always the right time for a quick fix. While we certainly can't go around crying all day, and though we deserve to be, we don't always have to be happy.
I'll accept the research, if it means I don't have to get up at night.
Beadle frequently shushes you or tells you girls, "stop crying," and "don't be a baby" to which I'm always like: DUDE, THEY ARE BABIES. Let's just acknowledge their needs and teach them to cope. Beadle was the one who forwarded Narvaez's article to me. So, if nothing else, beadle, the crying baby doubter was turned believer by this article. He's been getting up the last few nights when Danjo cries, holding you, rubbing your back, telling you it's okay.
So, despite some of my contentions with Narvaez's research, there's that. It's easier to stomach when I'm not the one waking up at 3am.
Love,
P.S. I am seriously lacking in any amount of scientific credibility.
Comments