Parenting by Wishful Thinking

According to Wikipedia, wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence and rationality.  No where have I seen more evidence of this than in the debate over infants and safe sleeping.

I’ll explore many aspects of the debate in later posts, but one in particular that has always baffled me is the inappropriate promotion of “evolutionary parenting” and/or “biological imperatives.”  While these concepts are completely legitimate in anthropological study, they lose a lot of validity and add to wishful thinking when applied to modern night time parenting and infant sleep. 

 One of the most important tenants of evolution is that order to survive and prosper, organisms must adapt to changing environments.  You need not be an expert in evolutionary theory to realize that sleep environments have changed radically over time and that a behavior from 5000000 years ago may not be necessary or desirable today.  It also doesn't take a lot of brainpower to see how behaviors in one environment can actually be detrimental in another.  In early times, having an infant close in order to quickly flee a warring tribe or to keep it safe from wild animals may have been an advantageous behavior for the species but today our challenges are different.  If the concepts surrounding evolutionary parenting have any application in this 21^st century debate, it’s the lesson that survival is dependent on the ability to adapt to a changing environment.  Our challenges today are a plethora of adult behaviors beget in modern society as well as mattresses, pillows, duvets, blankets and comforters.

 The concept of “biological imperatives” is also completely inappropriate in the context of modern, nighttime parenting and sleep safety.  While many parents are being sold this wishful, touchy-feely bill of goods, they aren’t told that “biological imperatives” exist in a hierarchy of importance with survival as top dog.  A “biological imperative” model could be particularly troublesome for the pro-bedsharing group.  Placing your infant in an unsafe environment could be labeled as “maladaptive” behavior.

 I have a friend who I knew did not agree with the concern over bedsharing.  After several discussions, she said to me, “For me, it’s an issue much like the Patriot Act.  I’d much rather see babies at risk of death than I would the government or an organization telling me how to care for my child.”  As shocking as that statement may seem for some, it is the most honest statement I have heard in over 20 years from those who advocate bedsharing.  She had enough intelligence and objectivity to know the research evidence was there; she didn’t try to twist or re-frame it or package it in fallacies to justify her choices.  There was no wishful thinking.  She zeroed in on the fact that she valued autonomy and was very uncomfortable with someone/something telling her she was wrong.  While I was initially taken back at such a bold statement, I quickly realized that I have much more respect for her than I do many in this debate.  Disclosing that you’re willing to risk your baby’s death is much more honest and accurate than claiming the evidence against bedsharing is illegitimate or deluding yourself into believing you’ve made an “informed choice.”  For better or worse, at least her point of view is based in reality.

There has always been a fringe movement that advocates a more “natural” approach to living.  In the last decade, in what some call the greening of America, the idea has gone more mainstream and continues to grow.  Overall, I think it is a good thing – but I would never be so naïve to believe that all things natural are good. 

There is a certain comfort in believing that bedsharing is a part of an ubber-attached, exalted connectedness.  Certainly every mother would like more influence and control over their child's well-being and to think you can come closer to that achievement through such little effort while sleeping makes it even more appealing.  For most babies and their mothers, it works well.  The problem is the one morning you wake and that illusion, as well as your soul, is fractured into a million pieces.

 The natural world of ancient man was not filled with wistfully, wonderful things.  Mother Nature is far from all warm and fuzzy and can be cruel to a standard that few would find acceptable today.  It’s been estimated that through most of recorded history, 30 to 50% of babies born never lived to see their first birthday.  No doubt early man found the losses greater still.  The death of children was a very real, expected and natural thing.  I doubt most parents today would so willingly offer up half of their children to the altar of a “natural” or an evolutionary pie-in-the-sky.

Parenting shouldn’t be a robotic job always based on some sterile, rational behavior – but neither should it be completely commanded by our own desires of a perceived ideal.  We need a balance; one where we can determine when our intellect should take the helm and when we can allow our imagination and spontaneity to explore new ideas.  If those things are to be prioritized, what better impetus is there to guide us than the very life of our child?