Where do we go from here? Ongoing colonialism from Attachment Theory

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The article challenges the current interpretation of Attachment Theory (AT) which favours placement of Indigenous children in non-Indigenous homes. Historical attempts to assimilate Indigenous populations are examined in relation to ongoing assimilation within child intervention and justice systems. The goal is to stimulate discussion about possible culturally appropriate models to articulate the complex and multiple attachments formed by an Indigenous person who is brought up in an Indigenous community, compared to the popular Western and Eurocentric view of parenting through dyadic attachment derived from AT.METHODS: A review of AT literature examining key questions of cross-cultural applicability validity in relation to Indigenous populations. Consultations were held with Elders from the Blackfoot Confederacy of Alberta as part of the Nistawatsiman project. Data were gathered in a project relating to AT and the Supreme Court of Canada.FINDINGS: Cultural Attachment Theory is emerging as a preferred way to think of Indigenous contexts as opposed to applying traditional AT. The validity of AT with Indigenous families is likely not valid and perpetuates colonial and assimilative understandings of family, parenting and the place of culture.CONCLUSIONS: Pan-Indigenous methods bias child intervention, blinding them to the capacity of Indigenous caring systems’ capacity to raise their children. The use of AT sustains over- representation of Indigenous children in care and continues the colonial practices of fracturing Indigenous caregiving systems which, in turn, creates the patterns for the next generation’s over-representation in care. Indigenous ways of knowing and being are required along with Indigenous-based decision making.

At the feet of storytellers: Equity in early relational health conversations

“…Some challenge dominant views of attachment (Choate et al. 2020), and propose alternate frameworks for understanding and supporting social, emotional and relational wellbeing (Root, 2020). Others examine embedded assumptions in tools and frameworks for understanding and supporting child, family, and community wellbeing (Whitesell et al., 2015; Sparrow et al., 2011).…”

“…Indigenous scholars tap centuries of Indigenous wisdom around promoting wellbeing in caregiver-child relationships and the communities that hold them (Manitonquat, 2009, IWRI). Some challenge dominant views of attachment (Choate et al 2020), and propose alternate frameworks for understanding and supporting social, emotional and relational wellbeing (Root, 2020). Others examine embedded assumptions in tools and frameworks for understanding and supporting child, family, and community wellbeing (Whitesell et al, 2015;Sparrow et al, 2011).…”

Attachment Theory: A Barrier for Indigenous Children Involved with Child Protection

“…We posit that current policy in social work and other mental health practices, along with assessment tools, can be linked back to the colonization and assimilation policies. This is seen today in definitions within child protection and mental health practices where Eurocentric parenting and family definitions continue to be the most credible [ 32 ]. Variations from those principles are considered deficient, if not deviant, from the preferred norm.…”

Reassessing attachment theory in child welfare

“…Like the authors of a recent article on the use of attachment theory in child protection and custody cases (Forslund et al, 2021), they state that attachment theory is best applied when not using it to assess individual differences and when it is used to focus (ethically) on relationships: "it provides a way of thinking with the family about their relationships" (p. 133). They emphasise that (like many other psy-theories) attachment theory is a product of its time and was created in a specific cultural and temporal moment that reified white, Western values (something also pointed out by Choate et al, 2020) and, as such, social workers and policymakers need to exercise far more caution in using and relying upon it. They end the book on a hopeful note and explain that, as attachment theory was (historically) influenced by social work, perhaps now social work can again exert influence back on attachment theory to render it more appropriate in multiple contexts.…”