While the quality of attachment to the mother or primary caregiver probably has a huge effect on long-term wellbeing, it is certainly not the only factor. A stable and loving group of people involved with the child is important, too. It can be a family, a community, a close group of friends, or anything else, but I think it is important for the child to feel constancy and love from people other than the mother.
No mother can be there for her children constantly. If there are many people involved in parenting, the child will never feel unsafe, even if the mother needs to leave for a little while. That way, the mother doesn't have to take on a superhuman amount of responsibility.
In fact, I think a child raised with only a perfect mother for support will probably be worse off than a child with an irresponsible, absent mother but a cohesive, constant, loving family, even if the child never forms a bond with any particular person in the family as strong as the bond with the mother.
I agree fully with the above. A child needs love and attention from everyone he/she encounters. If there is a lopsided amount of love, it could cause problems for the child in the future. An extra amount of care giving in on direction can lead to a attachment to the individual. However, less love in one direction can lead to detachment in the future. There is an important balance that must be maintained so that the child develops healthily.
I slightly disagree with the statement that a child needs love and attention from everyone they encounter. I think that it is an important part of development to experience age appropriate criticism, rejection, or other mildly negative experiences in order to be prepared for adulthood. There needs to be an appropriate balance.
I disagree and argue that attachment is obviously important as shown through evidence presented in the textbook. People that grow up with an absent mother are in no way better off than those who grow up with a loving family. They have to struggle every day with that fact and it definitely detracts from their life.
I do agree with what you are saying, but for reasons not give. I believe if a child were to be raised by only a perfect mother, he or she will lack social skills and will therefore have a hard time interacting, thus hurting the child's growing up, despite attachment status.
i some what agree and disagree. I agree that attachment with the mother or primary caregiver is not the only factor that contributes to an individual's long-term wellbeing and that it is also important to have stable loving group of people on top of that. But i do not think that friends and the community are important in contributing to a child's wellbeing . I think the family, mainly the parents, are the strongest contributors.
I agree that too strong an attachment could lead to severe dependence, being an obstacle to child's functioning normally. However, I feel that your argument is very skewed because you only consider the parental relationship. What was given was, I think, a person who engaged in many different relationships: friendship, brotherhood or sisterhood, teacher-student relationship, etc. Beign able to form many different relationships prove that people described are not completely attached to the point of feeling insecure when not with their partners, since otherwise they wouldn't be able to form relationship with many different people as they will always cling to one person. Therefore, I believe the question considered here does not deal with problematically strong attachemetns.
To respond to the other side of your argument that a troublesome relationship is worse than a superficial one, I disagree. Humans are bound to long for meaningful interaction. A lot of mental disorders result from isolation. Solitude cannot go on without being balanced out by engagement in society. However, there have been less cases in which people unable to act independently are inflicted with diseases to the extenet isolation brings.
