Why are we so obsessed with rushing baby milestones?
And how far gone we are from our true, interdependent nature.
One thing I’ve noticed since becoming a parent is how obsessed our culture is with rushing baby milestones and pathologizing little ones when they are supposedly “behind” or not “independent enough” at shockingly young ages. This trend wasn’t a huge shocker to me. Before becoming a therapist, I was an elementary school teacher and one thing that peeved the bananas out of me was how quickly our education system is to label children as “delayed” or “underperforming”. But now I’m a mom, and I’m seeing all of this all over again, specifically in regard to babies.
I have so many wonderings about how capitolistic beliefs influence this. Our culture is obsessed with achievement and performance. We like efficiency and progress no matter the cost. It’s how we are, unfortunately and sadly, conditioned in this culture, conditioned to see and treat our bodies more like machines than beings. One part of capitalism that I also see connected to all of this is the privileging of being independent. Independence has become the holy grail of success in this world and it’s impacting our family systems (and not for the better). It’s why Europe and Latin America think we’re whack when it comes to things like parental leave (and they’re not wrong).
Because of this, we have little patience for things to naturally progress as nature intends them and that is sad to me. When there is a perceived “delay” in our baby’s milestones or when we are faced with realities that rub up against what is quick and easy or convenient (like infants still needing their mamas in the middle of the night), we don’t know how to handle it. We label these things as “problems” in need of interventions. We direct blame at our babies (and our mothers) and completely neglect the twisted and sad cultural narratives that are driving us to label things that are (typically) not actually problems as problematic.
(**Obviously, some delays or challenges are problems and should be addressed. I want to encourage you to think outside the confines of binaries here).
Here are some examples of what I mean:
A toddler still cries when you drop them off at school or somewhere new? They say, “Yikes, that toddler must be too attached to mom.” They say, “That toddler needs to be “more independent”.”
Still breastfeeding past a baby’s first birthday? Mainstream culture says, “That baby needs to wean.”
A baby isn’t sleeping through the night yet at an ungodly young age? They say, “That baby needs to be sleep-trained.”
A baby is still sleeping in your room? Mainstream culture says, “They should feel safe in their own room by now.”
Baby isn’t walking by their first birthday? Though there is a bit more awareness now about this one, you’re still going to get some side-eyes and judgments around it.
Toddler gets upset when you have to step away for a minute? They say, “They need to toughen up.”
All of these things make my body cringe. It makes me cringe because the underlying assumption is that babies need to be independent and they need to be independent very quickly after making their debut on earth. And why are we not questioning the accuracy of this assumption?
How far gone are we from the reality that we are interdependent beings?
How numb (and brainwashed) have we become?
We are so distanced from our true, relational, and interdependent nature, as are the systems that we operate within, and the cost is grave.
I was recently talking with a friend who also has a background in working with children. We were talking about this topic and also about how isolating it can feel when you’re parenting in a counter-cultural way. But we were mostly commiserating at how much it peeves us when we hear the phrase, “But babies are resilient”, when it comes to practices that push babies into independence before they’re ready or as a means of justifying interventions or ways of parenting that goes against what is developmentally best and appropriate.
And here is where we landed: It’s not that the statement is entirely false. It’s just a half-truth.
Because yes, babies are resilient, and also: there are certain conditions that babies and children need to thrive. And if those conditions are not there, if certain needs are not met, sure, they might “be resilient” and get through it but they will undoubtedly be wounded along the way. And while we will - whether we hope to or not - wound our children, when we know better, it should urge us to do better, even if it means making really painful sacrifices and being inconvenienced by our littles.
Say this out loud to the wrong group of people, though, and you will be accused of “mommy shaming”. Somehow, we’ve now decided that it’s “mom shaming” when we have ideas about what children need. We now call it “mom shaming” when two people disagree about how to raise babies. We call so many things mom-shaming to the point that we’re afraid - that I’m often afraid - to talk about what research says. Sharing research, sharing information that differs from what is mainstream is not mom shaming unless the person on the receiving end of the conversation translates it as such (or unless I, the sender, send the message using non-verbals and/or a tone that implies disapproval of you as a human being).
As a quick aside: It’s sad that we live in a culture now where offering information that is meant to be illuminating and empowering is often interpreted as “shaming”. It says a lot about people’s ability to accept feedback with curiosity and reflection. It’s also sad that we can’t healthily and respectfully disagree anymore and still be friends with each other. But I digress…
Okay, so whenever you call out our culture of hyper-independence or rushing babies into independence before they’re ready, people always seem to ask the same question(s).
“But aren’t you afraid of overly coddling kids? That’s also not good.”
First of all, babies and toddlers aren’t “kids”, and based on what we know about the highly relational, interdependent nature of their brains, my resounding answer is “NO!” In this cultural moment, that is not a fear that I have at all anymore (though it of course happens, but that’s not what we’re talking about here). And if you want to learn more about what I mean by “highly relational, interdependent nature of their brains”, this is a fantastic read.
Coddling is about a mother’s unmet emotional needs and when she seeks from her children what she did not get/isn’t getting in her adult relationships which then negatively impacts the child. When we emotionally attend to our baby’s needs for connection and significance from a place of care and nurture, we are wiring their brains to know that relationships can be safe, loving, and dependable. This is not coddling, it is emotional attunement and it quite literally grows and shapes their brains.
And - this feels important to say - when I speak of not rushing independence I’m not talking about intentionally stifling independence when our babies and toddlers start to show natural signs of it or when they have a temperament that is more genetically oriented towards independence or introversion. My daughter, Emmy, is starting to show some signs of being more independent, like wanting to walk into school instead of being carried by me. I’m celebrating it while also holding space for feelings of sadness that come up for me around it, too. And at the same time, I’m still welcoming and honoring her desire for nursing when she initiates that. This is interdependence.
The point is this: we should be following our babies lead instead of forcing them into behaviors or patterns that they aren’t ready for. We should normalize that our babies will need us intensely for many, many years, especially for the first 5 years of life.
Sadly, we’ve confused nurture with “spoiling”, and emotional attentiveness with “coddling”.
“But what about codependence?”
I absolutely understand where this question comes from and it’s often rooted in an inaccurate understanding of codependence. Codependency patterns are typically signs of someone who has an insecure attachment style. Interdependence, or healthy reliance and dependence on others while still having a strong sense of Self, is related to having a secure attachment style.
These ideas are grounded in both Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB) and also what is called attachment theory. Attachment theory teaches us that the most interdependent, capable, and well-adjusted kids are kids who have a secure attachment with at least one primary caregiver. A secure attachment is created in the context of regular, consistent, responsive, and regulated parenting during critical periods of brain development (infancy and toddlerhood). When we rush babies into independence before their brains are ready for it, we risk them developing insecure attachment patterns.
Attachment theory is incredibly well-researched and it’s really interesting to learn about if you want to dig into it. A fascinating and important study called the Strange Situation Experiment helped to explain different attachment styles and supports the importance of consistent and responsive nurture in fostering a secure attachment.
When we view children’s relational patterns through the lens of attachment theory, we see that what is sometimes praised as “independence” is actually just a child who is avoidantly or insecurely attached. Because they experienced inconsistent emotional attunement during critical periods of development, they learned not to communicate their needs (despite very much still having them) and to instead be highly self-sufficient. This is sometimes called masking.
All of this privileging and idolizing of independence - which is a very uniquely American value - has led to the development of some not-so-great parenting practices, and when we utilize them without question, we perpetuate a culture that doesn’t actually benefit children and families.
And people will say, “But we don’t have a choice” because of XY and Z, and while it’s true that sometimes people don’t have choices, most of the time, this just isn’t true. It’s hard to face the truth that by ascribing to certain cultural values or choosing certain jobs or refusing to take a look at how your past might be influencing your parenting, you are in fact, making a choice. And please hear me say that with utmost compassion.
So, here is my prayer for all of us parenting littles in the year 2024:
May we let our littles be littles.
May we do the hard work of showing up for our littles, imperfectly yet intentionally.
May we allow our littles to need us fiercely.
May we grant ourselves, and our babies, the permission to grow at their own pace and in their own ways.
And when we become tempted to believe that our babies should be independent - that we should be independent - may we remind ourselves that interdependence is our true nature and that we deeply need each other.
With love,
Rachel