ABSTRACT
Bowlby had turned 50 a few months before presenting his initial sketch of attachment theory at the British Psychoanalytical Society. He was in his prime and a force to be reckoned with. He was prominent at home and abroad, in child psychiatry, hospital paediatric units, social work, adoption agencies and ordinary homes. Additionally, his publications were powerful, persuasive, clearly grounded on a thorough knowledge of psychoanalytic and other developmental theories, as well as on updated scientific studies (Karen, 1998, p. 115). Bowlby’s eldest son, Sir Richard Bowlby, intimated to me that his father was
deeply hurt by the hostile response received from his psychoanalytic colleagues at the presentation of “The Nature of the Child’s Tie to his Mother” paper on 19 June 1957. Richard was 16 at the time. He can still recall that his father expected intellectual debate and opposition but not personal hostility. In September that year, Bowlby, accompanied by Ursula and their eldest daughter Mary, went to Palo Alto in California for nine and a half months: an academic year sabbatical at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS). Richard, with his younger sister Pia and younger brother Robert visited the family for the Christmas and New Year holidays. CASBS was founded in 1954 and has hosted generations of scholars and scientists
who usually come for a year as Fellows, as Bowlby did. Former Fellows include 22 Nobel Laureates, 14 Pulitzer Prize winners, 44 winners of MacArthur Genius Awards and hundreds of members of the National Academies. Fellows have played key roles in starting new fields, ranging from cognitive science to behavioural economics to the sociology of urban poverty, and have developed new policies and practices in fields as diverse as medicine, education and electoral politics. During his sabbatical, Bowlby had breathing space from the conflict generated
by “The Child’s Tie” paper at home. He felt reasonably confident that he was on the right track and hoped that by his return to London he would have gathered
additional evidence to persuade his psychoanalytic colleagues that his attachment hypothesis made sense. He worked intensely in reviewing experimental and developmental research, as well as psychoanalytic literature. During his time at CASBS, Bowlby wrote two further papers that were intended
to be chapters in the single volume monograph on attachment that he was planning to write. Things, of course, would turn out differently. The first paper was “Separation Anxiety”, of which two versions were published (Bowlby, 1960a, 1961a). The second paper was “Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood” of which three versions were published (Bowlby, 1960b, 1961b, 1961c). Both articles were to consolidate the hypothesis he had advanced in “The Child’s Tie” paper (Bowlby, 1958a). Interestingly, each of the three papers would constitute an embryo of each of the three volumes of his future trilogy – Volume 1: Attachment; Volume 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger; and Volume 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). Bowlby was particularly mindful after the rebuff to which he had been subjected at
home and actively sought to make meaningful contacts with his American colleagues. Among them, he made friends with David Eaton, an open-minded political scientist, and with Frank Newman, a lawyer with an interest in the resolution of conflict – something that Bowlby was experiencing first-hand with his psychoanalytic colleagues. He also made an important connection with the psychologist and ethologist Harry Harlow, who became a significant influence and provided a bridge to the scientific observation and study of attachment that Bowlby had long sought. Harlow was born in 1905 and married Clara Mears in 1932. She had been one
of his most talented students. They had two children together but divorced in 1946. That same year, Harlow married child psychologist Margaret Kuenne. They were very close and Harlow became deeply depressed when cancer killed her in September 1971. He was treated with electro-convulsive therapy but was only able to overcome his depression after he remarried Clara Mears in March 1972. They lived together until his death in 1981. A detailed description of the scientific and personal relationship between Bowlby
and Harlow, upon which the following passages are based, can be found in Frank Van der Horst (2011) and Van der Horst et al. (2008). Just a couple of months prior to Bowlby’s controversial presentation of “The Child’s Tie” paper at the British Psychoanalytical Society, Harlow had given a talk on Experimental Analysis of Behaviour at a conference in Washington DC on 20 April 1957. He emphasised the importance of developing longitudinal studies – a departure from the traditional cross-sectional approach employed by most psychologists at the time. Harlow was on the threshold of his rhesus monkey affectional studies, something that grabbed Bowlby’s attention. Their mutual interest in socio-emotional behaviour and development directed Bowlby and Harlow to a fruitful period of intellectual collaboration. Bowlby introduced himself to Harlow by letter:
Robert Hinde tells me that you were interested in my recent paper… and at his suggestion I am now sending you a copy…. I would be most grateful for
any comments and criticism you care to make. I shall be at the centre at Palo Alto from mid-September…. Hinde told me of your experimental work on maternal responses in monkeys. If you have any papers or typescripts, I would be very grateful for them…. I would try to visit you next Spring when I hope to be moving around USA.
