One Red Hot Country Mama!

into the sunset [34/365]
Originally uploaded by moonwire.

For the past eight years, I have commuted to work. Sometimes on the highway, sometimes on the subway and sometimes on the back-streets on somebody’s used bike. Something about it used to feel very ‘pure’. When I first started working and used to party a lot , I felt that no matter what crazy thing I had done the previous night – at least I was ‘good’ for dragging myself out of bed with stingy eyes, grasping a clean skirt and button-down shirt, slipping my feet into uncomfortable shoes and forcing myself to go to work.

In the car I would go, sitting in traffic with all of the other ‘good’ workers and picking up my coffee walking past reception and putting my head down to do some reporting, meeting, planning or whatever else was in the cards for that day.

Today, I still commute but it isn’t colored with the same sense of mission. I have done research, and I didn’t have to go far to get it. Commuting isn’t good for the environment (as I see in the yellow cloud that arches over Toronto). Commuting isn’t good for people’s health (particularly in the area of weight-gain and back problems – workers with long commutes also have considerably more stress.) Commuting isn’t necessary to get a lot of the work done in today’s economy (ie. most of us are not factory workers so there is no need to sit at a ‘station’ to work). Actually, time spent working instead of commuting would be time better spent.

I read that sprawling bureaucracies were one result of the advent of air conditioning. The common practice of commuting is likely a result of (relatively) low fuel costs vs. the cheaper price of suburban land. I sense change coming as filling the tank of my little VW Golf tops $55. So, now my thinking has changed profoundly. I think that commuting is considered "normal"… but it shouldn’t be considered "right". "Right" and "normal" are terms that are frequently jumbled. I wonder what would happen if we all did the "pure" thing and stayed home from work .

I am reading a book right now called Becoming Attached by Dr. Robert Karen. It explains the history of the psychological theory of attachment, and how early relationships shape the rest of your life. It goes into detail about how some of the pioneers of the field, such as Dr. John Bowlby and James Robertson spent their lives trying to improve the lives of hospitalized and institutionalized children… and of course the biggest threat was not some evil mastermind trying to hurt children… it was the inflexible institutions themselves.

In his research on deliquent children, Bowlby, known as the authority on attachment, found that one of the biggest objective predictors of delinquency in children was a prolonged absense from parents as an infant – whether it be due to hospitalization, institutional care (ie. an orphanage) or the parents becoming sick or otherwise unavailable. Babies had an extreme reaction to these prolonged absenses and often had a very difficult time recovering afterwards. Bowlby published some very influential and accepted papers on this (some of his research was funded by the World Health Organization), and Robertson created a widely-viewed movie (A Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital) depicting the distress that a child goes through during these separations. From the book:

"Bowlby admonished governments, social agencies, and the public for their failure to appreciate the central value of maternal care, as important for the mentail health in infacy and childhood "as are vitamins and proteins for physical health" (pg. 64)

What Bowlby and Robertson pushed for was unlimited hospital visits for parents of sick children and increased use of foster care so the child could make new and lasting attachments instead of relying on a shift-schedule at an institution. These things really seem like no big deal in the face of the benefits – being more humane to children, decreasing delinquancy (and/or mental illness) and in general becoming better care-givers. So you would think that the people at the institutions would say:

"Okay, stop everything. Our procedures are harming the children that we are supposed to protect. Let’s immediately stop what we are doing, and change in the face of staggering evidence".

But… they didn’t. Hospitals especially resisted change. For example, many hospitals in England only allowed visitors for one hour a week. Nurses didn’t want parents interrupting their routines or critisizing them. A routine… being more important than a child’s present life AND future. Eventually, of course, they did let the parents in… and it really wasn’t as bad as they feared. From one ward in Glasgow:

"Staff found their anxiety about mothers’ getting in the way, mothers stuffing their children with sweets, and the like were ill-founded. On the contrary, mothers were usually welcome as valued additons to the team." (pg. 81)

So – it has a happy ending. But, it is too bad that institutions are frequently so inflexible, even in the face of such huge benefits. I don’t know why this inflexibility is not more despised in our society… and the flipside – quick adjustment to changing circumstance – isn’t more valued. At least one person here in Toronto sure values it… and also values guys like Bowlby and Robertson for pushing for it.