Chapter 15
Imprinting and Freedom
As master of this planet, man today faces two major problems.
First, how is he to avoid annihilating himself with his ever more efficient
weapons and create. a universal order which will bring justice and a fair
share of the world's goods to all? Second, what practical use should he
make of his dominant position, his life, his opportunities; what line should
he take, and to what values should he ultimately subordinate himself?
Each of these problems poses a third, which must be resolved
first of all. Briefly, we must ask ourselves if it is actually possible
for us to "want what we want." A marionette moves because it is worked
by strings. Metaphorically speaking, animals are often worked by strings
in that the courses of their existences are largely dictated by certain
of the nerve structures built up by their hereditary formulas. We human
beings are vastly superior to animals in our unique capacity to observe
and pass judgment on ourselves. But what of our own freedom of action?
Do we, too, dangle from invisible strings, and if so, what form do these
strings take?
There is, first, the long period during which man approaches
maturity and acquires the abilities he needs for life. Our cousins, the
higher vertebrates, who likewise come into the world "incomplete," pass
through certain sensitive periods which finally determine their subsequent
behavior. A structure takes shape in their brain which determines certain
actions and
(original book page 163)
reactions for the rest of their lives. If the gosling
sees a blue balloon instead of its mother during the first few days of
existence, it will follow a blue balloon - exclusively and with implicit
obedience – from then onward. If a young cockerel is imprinted with ducks
during its sensitive sexual period, it will be indifferent to hens for
the rest of its days and strut into the water to court ducks. And if the
young nightingale is imprinted with the song of the blackcap, it will,
when its own capacity for song matures, sing like a blackcap. Do similar
phenomena exist in man?
During its first weeks of life, a child is receptive
to few sensory impressions. Although the eyes are quite well developed,
the brain is incapable of processing the messages they send. The child
is scarcely aware of its own mother during this period. Innate norms of
action and reaction ensure that it can find the breast and suck, but it
sleeps for more than twenty hours in twenty-four. Not until the second
month does it gradually begin to "awaken." Its first act of comprehension
is effected – as the original meaning of the word implies – with the hands.
At this period the child begins to recognize its mother and distinguish
her from other people. It learns –
in the natural course of events – that this component
of its environment is friendly and solicitous, that it bestows protection,
comfort, and nourishment, and that reliably predictable responses can be
elicited from it by appropriate behavior. This is the period when the child
develops a positive fundamental attitude toward life and environment which
Erikson has termed "basic trust."
This basic trust constitutes a pillar of the human personality.
If it does not take shape at this stage, it obviously cannot be acquired
later. Experiments conducted in nurseries and orphanages have shown that
the second half-year of life is crucial to the formation of basic trust.
During this period the child requires a measure of personal contact which
will promote a sense of security. People who say that a child needs love
are right, but only partly. The truth of the matter is that a child needs
a partner to whom it can attach itself emotionally. Inmates of children's
homes lack this personal relationship. Members of the staff change jobs
or go on vacation, thereby ruptur-
(original book page 164)
ing a contact. This has a traumatic effect on some children.
As Spitz and Bowlby ascertained, they eventually abandon their quest for
contacts and subside into apathy – indeed, death occurs in some cases.
A substantial number later exhibit grave mental disorders which are almost
impossible to eradicate. Basic mistrust has taken the place of basic trust.
Petting, fondling, and caressing are not, therefore, a luxury which one
bestows on a child but a stimulus situation for which the child has a positive
need. If a child loses its parents, it is of crucial importance that a
surrogate should be found as quickly as possible. The mother is the natural
partner, but another person is equally capable of giving the child what
it needs at this juncture.
With most primitive peoples – but also among some civilized
races such as the Japanese –
mothers carry their babies slung on their backs in a
carrier. Children carried in this way seldom cry, and then only when put
down. This is a natural and probably innate reaction which has its roots
in our remote past. If the child of primitive man lost contact with its
mother, it was exposed to attack by predators. Cries, which functioned
as a request to the mother to reestablish contact, were thus of species-preserving
importance. The young monkey is also carried about by its mother and possesses
in its prehensile reflex an excellent means of clinging to the mother's
fur immediately after birth. The same reflex is still observable in the
human baby. If the hands of a newborn child are brought into contact with
a taut clothesline, it will cling with such tenacity that it can support
its own weight.
In America, Europe, and other civilized parts of the
world, infants are deposited in a cradle or baby carriage – and cry frequently.
This crying is natural, under the circumstances, and need not be a symptom
of illness or bodily discomfort. A bottle or a pacifier is a suitable and
expedient device in this respect. It is, in the truest sense, a dummy surrogate
for the mother's breast which simulates maternal proximity for the benefit
of an innate mechanism in the child's brain. Rocking has the same effect,
though the effect is stronger if the child is supported on the arm. -It
is popularly said that leaving a child to cry occasionally does no great
harm to the child. This may be true.
(original book page 165)
Eibl's theory is that the American and European's more
critical and independent basic outlook on life stems at least in part from
the fact that American and European children are generally reared partly
isolated from the mother from an early age. A moderate attenuation of basic
trust may thus help one cope with the problems of contemporary life.
Next, the child proceeds to crawl and explore its immediate
surroundings. Once again, tactile comprehension precedes the far more difficult
visual evaluation of environment. The nature of material objects is tested
with the hands. At first everything is conveyed to the mouth. Some time
later comes the ability to investigate things by means of repeated exploratory
"attacks." Each material object has to run the gauntlet of all the senses.
The child gains experience with his environment and an insight into the
relationship between cause and effect. The first games are of a destructive
nature. The child overturns things, tears them, dismembers them, smashes
them. Parents who consider such behavior to be negative and punish a child
for indulging in it, are mistaken. Not only is it innate and clearly present
in all children, but it enables the growing youngster to gain experience
with the properties of the material in question. Such action is a natural
prelude to the constructive games that come later. Overturning, tearing,
dismembering, smashing, and dirtying things are sources of vital and fundamental
experience.
The third half-year of life is often marked by a sudden
transition to the constructive game. The tower of bricks the mother erects
is no longer knocked down. Instead, the child starts to arrange bricks
in accordance with its own desires and may even erect small structures.
A phase of intensified experimentation sets in, coupled with greater deliberation.
Hand in hand with this comes the growth of a capacity for contemplative
enjoyment. The child derives pleasure from examining a picture, from the
sound of a musical toy it operates itself. The truly human element now
begins to unfold. The child starts to experience things and mold them-and
derives pleasure from so doing. Intent on training their charges to be
orderly, nursery school teachers often make them dismantle their half-finished
"buildings" at the end of a day and stow the pieces away
(original book page 166)
neatly. At such an age, this is wrong. The child has just
begun to set its first objectives and should be allowed to pursue them
to the end. Most child psychologists consider that the child's later attitude
toward work is decisively influenced at this stage. If a child is prevented
from pursuing constructive games, this may later result in an unwillingness
or inability to carry out tasks consistently and effectively.
Experimentation with material objects is accompanied
by experimentation with personal mobility. Having learned to walk in response
to an innate urge, the child proceeds to try its hand at climbing, hopping,
balancing, standing on one leg, and so on. As with the young of other learners,
every conceivable movement is tested and the knowledge of the ability stored.
In this respect, girls have an innate penchant for dolls, boys for climbing,
wrestling, and hunting games. Both sexes build "houses" and play "families."
Not too long ago parents tried to instill a maximum of decorum into their
children and did their utmost to prevent them from coming into contact
with dirt, let alone danger. This has since been recognized as a mistaken
policy. Playing is a form of preparation for life, and too many restrictions
can thwart the growth of the initiative which is so important in later
years.
No less important are the defiant spells which parents
find so disagreeable. Today's view is that these coincide with phases of
accelerated growth. By about the beginning of its third year, the child
discovers the strength of its willpower and starts to experiment with it.
It opposes parental injunctions and thus tests the possible consequences
of saying no. Similar periods occur later, at about five and twelve years
of age. All these phases are essential to character formation, because
this is when the individual and independent will takes shape. The best
parental policy at this stage is to steer a middle course between being
too strict and being too indulgent. In order to develop properly, a child
must learn to subordinate as well as to assert itself. During defiant spells
the child deliberately courts opposition and strives to discover how far
it can go before encountering a veto. If this veto is not forthcoming,
the disorders in later life can be just as serious as if a child were starved
(original book page 167)
of the approval which helps develop its personal and egoistic
will.
Freud, whose great merit it was to have recognized the
importance of these critical phases in child development, christened the
particularly important period bounded by the third and fifth years of life
the Oedipal period. It is during this. phase that a child's subsequent
sexual behavior is decisively influenced-indeed, determined. The child
now shows a willingness to identify with its later sexual role and uses
its parents as practice aids for subsequent partnership behavior. The boy
becomes particularly clinging and affectionate toward his mother, modeling
himself upon his father. The girl flirts with her father, thus assuming
the mother's role. If the parental partner is insufficiently or excessively
responsive, this can – as psychoanalysts have proved in numerous instances
– lead to grave disorders in later sexual behavior. It is, however, just
as traumatic if the child cannot identify with the parental partner of
its own sex. If the mother constantly bemoans a woman's lot, the daughter
may become imprinted with a false sexual role. If the father is a chronic
drunkard, the son may be afflicted with identificational disorders. To
the psychoanalyst, male and female homosexuality is largely rooted in experiences
undergone during this period. This signifies nothing more or less than
that parents largely determine their children's later sexual behavior by
their own behavior.
An even more critical phase, especially for boys, begins
during the ninth year of life and continues throughout puberty. This is
when the growing human being emerges from the immediate family circle and
seeks contact with society at large. He now develops a readiness to adopt
patriotic, religious, and ideological positions and looks around for people
on whom to model himself. This phase determines whether a person accepts
or rejects the ethical concepts of the society in which he has grown up.
The strength of the fixations formed during this phase can be gauged in
people who have been educated with a strong ideological bias. In later
life – even in the face of contrary experience – they normally find it
difficult if not impossible to disregard basic concepts inculcated in them
in their youth. Girls are less affected by this development because, in
(original book page 168)
accordance with their biological role as future mothers,
they remain more strongly oriented toward the family group. In the man,
by contrast, a firm consolidation of beliefs which influence and, indeed,
restrict his later judgments now takes place. These beliefs provide the
basis on which his later value judgments are made.
Are these steps which take place during a child's development
the same as or similar to the phenomenon of animal imprinting? Both Hess
and Lorenz, who laid down the exact criteria for animal imprinting, regard
the "irreversibility" of this process as a determining characteristic.
The behavioral student accordingly applies the term "imprinting" only to
those fixations which cannot be altered during the animal's subsequent
life – which are, in fact, irreversible. Biological research has determined,
however, that the life process seldom admits sharply defined terms and
is full of transitions and exceptions. It may, therefore, eventually be
proven that irreversibility is not unalterable in animals either.
The extent to which such fixations are, or are not, irreversible
in human beings has not yet been sufficiently explored. Grave disorders
in the realm of basic trust, the development of initiative and willpower,
and sexual behavior may truly be beyond hope of complete correction. Considering
our peculiar capacity for building behavioral formulas and curbing our
instincts, it is nevertheless probable that we can combat the effects of
such fixations to a degree – in other words, that these are not fundamentally
irreversible in man. As a method of therapy, psychoanalysis ultimately
stands or falls on its claim to be able, after the event, to remove mental
abnormalities developed during childhood.
Thus, whether we refer to this process in man as imprinting
or prefer-considering the ethological delimitation of the term – to use
some other label is more of an academic and secondary problem. What is
certain is that animal learners and human beings alike pass through developmental
periods in which the individual seeks certain combinations of stimuli,
and that a behavioral structure takes shape according to whether or not
these are present. Freud and his pupils discovered these critical periods
at a time when virtually nothing was known of animal
(original book page 169)
imprinting, and animal imprinting was discovered quite
independently of psychoanalysis. If, despite this, analogous results have
been obtained in both fields of research, it strongly suggests that at
the very least a close relationship exists between the phenomena that occur
in both man and beast.
The first answer to the question "Is it possible for
us to want what we want?" therefore goes as follows: That which we describe
as our wants, in the broadest sense, is substantially influenced by processes
which occur during childhood. just as a human being's behavior is necessarily
impaired by a defective hand, heart, or other organ, so the malformation
of certain motor-control structures results in corresponding limitations.
The performance of certain actions is inhibited, decisions are restricted
in advance, reactions channeled in a predetermined direction. Each of the
innumerable control formulas which the brain reconstructs again and again
for every action undertaken in life takes shape within a fixed organizational
framework. Once this framework is destroyed, the construction of even the
simplest formulas may be impaired, thereby affecting each successive judgment,
decision, and movement. Thus, one prerequisite of basic human freedom is
an unimpaired cerebral apparatus which has developed in a certain way.
Important consequences stem from this. The first and
most obvious is that parents should be taught about these sensitive periods
in their children's development. The importance of further research in
this field need hardly be stressed. If the growth of important behavioral
structures is dependent upon essentially trivial and, thus, easily created
environmental situations, it obviously is important to investigate these
conditions. On the basis of clinical experience, most psychoanalysts go
even further in their theories as to what can be destroyed during development
in early childhood than I have related here.
Considerable attention has been paid to these views in
the United States. It is doubtful if mothers in any other country have
been as well instructed by their educational advisers. This makes it doubly
important to point out that the United States accords widespread recognition
to a concept of upbringing which is incompatible with the results of behavioral
research.
In Frustration and Aggression, published in 1939, the
psycho-
(original book page 170)
analysts Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, and Sears advanced
the theory that all instances of aggression are the result of frustration;
that aggressive tendencies and acts directed against fellowmen always stem
from the inhibiting or thwarting of some wish or action. The natural corollary
of this doctrine is that "evil" human tendencies can be eliminated by eliminating
their cause, namely, frustration. Applied to upbringing, this would mean
that parents can make their children goodnatured and nonaggressive by avoiding
frustrating them-in other words, by not preventing the fulfillment of their
wishes. By and large people take far more notice of children in the United
States than in Europe. Youngsters are thwarted as little as possible for
fear of producing frustrations and the mental disorders to which they automatically
give rise. Although bollard and his associates were in the tradition of
Freud, their theory tended to conflict with Freudian doctrine. Freud regarded
aggression as a wholly autochthonous urge and espoused the view that urges
ought to work themselves out.
The frustration theory quickly gained ground and was
widely applied, probably because it accorded so well with existing ideas.
The Americans, who had always ranked liberty high among their ideals, made
it a maxim of child education as well. By the turn of the century Stanley
Hall was already advocating greater freedom in childhood, a trend which
John Dewey, another prominent educationist, carried much further. Children
had to be allowed self-expression – a chance to develop their personalities
with the minimum of restraint. The theory put forward by Dollard and his
associates fit in with this trend admirably and was also in step with the
dogma of the influential behaviorist school of psychology, which rejects
the existence of innate urges and holds that practically all human behavior
is the product of upbringing. If the frustration theory were correct, the
widespread application of permissive methods of upbringing and education
in the United States should have caused aggression to decline. Nevertheless,
where crimes of violence are concerned, the United States certainly does
not lag behind the average European country, and in their professional
lives the Americans display a toughness and ruthlessness which Europeans
find remarkable.
(original book page 171)
Behavioral research indicates that aggression in animals
is not solely a product of environmental stimuli but a genuine instinct
which cannot be unlearned. Everything suggests that this also applies to
man. Like every instinct, this one may be blunted – but not eliminated
– by diminished indulgence. To avoid crossing a child under any circumstances
can only produce unsatisfactory results. From another angle, it is, as
we have shown, a mistake because the child has just as much need of an
opposing "no" – in other words, it needs frustration. Only frustration
can prepare it for the restrictions which the framework of human society
later imposes on it. Without such opposition the child lacks a stimulus
situation which is just as important to its development as the opportunity
to express its own will. Since neuroses appear commoner in the United States
than elsewhere, it may not be untenably speculative to associate this phenomenon
with American methods of upbringing.
A further consequence of imprinting like processes in
man is the vexed problem of whether it is right to imprint a child with
subjective ethical concepts and value judgments during the appropriate
sensitive period. Is it fair to a developing human being to build up cerebral
structures which will later inhibit or obstruct the formation of its own
will?
Every human society before our own has been convinced
of the rightness of. its own approach to life, so it was completely natural
for parents and educators to imprint children with the then-prevalent basic
moral attitudes-patriotic and religious concepts as well as class and party
attitudes. Considering the very changed conditions which prevail today
– with special regard to the increased dangers of modern warfare-some rethinking
is indicated here. Parents and state alike would do better to refrain from
building up cerebral structures in children which will later bring them
into conflict.
To be fair to children, one should probably ground them,
from the age of six onward, only in those moral concepts which are everywhere
the same. They should be warned of the dangers of premature fixation and
made to understand that they have an inalienable right to form judgments-a
right which they will one day exercise for themselves, perhaps in opposition
to their parents and the community. This is a utopian concept
(original book page 172)
at present, but it is possible that just such a trend
is already perceptible in today's youth. At least a passion for guitar
players or pop singers does not give rise to fixations which may bring
subsequent disaster. Thus even the discredited beatniks and their successors
have a positive side. The older generation still have an implicit belief
that children are more or less a prerogative of theirs and that their own
ideals should live on in them. To summon up the courage to ignore the ideals
of the older generation is in itself a sign of self-development which should
not be underestimated.
This brings us to a third consequence. If our humanity
is to develop further, we shall probably have to refrain completely from
regarding children as an unlimited personal prerogative. It is remarkable
that moral doctrines, religions included, have up to now concerned themselves
almost exclusively with safeguarding the fruit of sexual intercourse-the
child-while bestowing virtually no thought on how to prevent its unwanted
arrival. Imprinting-like processes in man indicate how very important it
is for a child to grow up under more or less normal conditions. Thus the
idea that it is better for a child to come into the world under any circumstances,
rather than remain unborn, also merits reexamination.
Among animals, specific survival depends upon maximal
procreation-hence the direction of their instinctive urges. This has also
been true of man up to the present, and many communities have actively
encouraged the production of as many offspring as possible. Today, thanks
yet again to our increased knowledge, we have reached a point where the
birthrate is becoming catastrophic and will have to be controlled within
the next half-century or so. Given this situation, it is reasonable to
suggest that it is not the prevention of unwanted births which must be
discouraged but the sanctification of every conceivable human whim. It
is illogical to solicit sympathy for starving children instead of penalizing
parents for having caused the situation.
The idea of limiting the birthrate by imposing fines
– and, eventually, by sterilization – may still seem an intrusion into
the rights of the family which is incompatible with human dignity. But
has the general attitude which has prevailed up to now
(original book page 173)
been genuinely moral? Is it really compatible with human
dignity? If we consider ourselves special and superior beings which we
have every right to do-should responsibility for the existence of a human
being be left to the random effects of an emotional condition? Our oftquoted
observer from another planet, being unaffected by human emotional fixations,
would probably take an entirely different view. He would no doubt see us
as more deeply rooted in our animal past in this respect than in any other.
The idea that each individual and marriage is entitled
to an average of two children will have to become part of our basic moral
code-,and only if there is a reasonable willingness and ability to offer
those children the conditions they require for proper development. The
notion of an arbitrary right to beget children will have to give way to
the concept of responsibility and obligation. Man must here learn to separate
two things which do not, in themselves, bear the least mutual relationship.
Until the advent of man, the sole function of the sexual
urge in the animal world was to produce sufficient offspring. Man now displays
a sexual behavior which is not restricted to a particular season of the
year but has a continuous effect on his life. Because many domestic animals
exhibit a similar hypertrophy, man's excessive sexuality used to be construed
as a product of self-domestication and, thus, a rather negative phenomenon.
This approach has since been superseded by the theory that human sexuality
has acquired another quite distinct function, namely, that of aiding a
bond formation. In view of the peculiarly long brood-tending period required
by the young of our species it was of great importance to early man that
parents should maintain a close protective partnership. The pleasurable
sensations occasioned by the sexual act were, so to speak, a mutual incentive
to the partners to remain together. Since this second function did not
interfere with the first and even promoted it, no complications arose.
Multiplied sexual acts reinforced the bond and simultaneously produced
a larger number of children. Major evolutionary changes have occurred since
then, and we have now reached the stage where one function interferes with
the other. Medical progress en-
(original book page 174)
sures that too many children survive, and for the first
time in evolutionary history procreation is threatening to endanger the
existence of a species.
For this reason, it may now be time for us to divorce
the problem of procreation from that of sexuality. Our pronounced sexual
urge is a legacy which must be coped with, and one to which we owe much
more than an enhancement of sensual pleasure. It is probable that many
of the greatest human achievements, and the flowering of art in particular,
are influenced by this motive force. The making of a new human being, on
the other hand, is an act which brings immense responsibilities in its
train. The higher man rates himself, the higher he must necessarily rate
this process. That is why it should no longer be left to chance and whim,
and why any method of separating the two functions of sexuality merits
support. As long as the world remained ignorant of imprinting, it was possible
to contend that a starving and unloved child was better off alive than
unborn. However, our sense of values ought surely to apply to children
themselves. Entirely in their interests, we should ensure that no mental
cripples come into the world in the first place.