From a quick perusal of some articles on Kagan, he seems to be saying that both biology and the environment are important determinants in the development of children. This is just the nurture vs nature argument. I have no quarrel with this view, nor do I see how it negates attachment theory. For instance, my W has the personality to fight when threatened, when her sisters would rather flee. They both were raised in the same environment, so it may be possible that genetics affect their behavior. But even though they react in different ways, they are both traumatized by their FOO.
The manifestations are different. My wife has issues with respect and has always felt the need for more education. Her sister does not care so much for either of these, rather wanting to surround herself with material goods and trying to climb the social ladder and “keeping up with the Joneses.” But both of them have had panic attacks and both are compensating for inner fears and insecurities.
The idea of adult attachment is an offshoot from reactive attachment disorder, a very well documented and studied field, especially pertaining to abandoned, orphaned or traumatized children. The classic studies of baby monkeys and the degree of self confidence they develop due to the level of attachment to their mother is a clear example.
Your quote and Kagan’s work seem to support this, rather than refute it. If people were not adaptable, neither soothing nor acclimation therapy would work, right? Once traumatized, always traumatized. Only in the most severe cases such as PTSD of war veterans or other equally violent events does it seem that soothing, bonding, acclimation or what ever, does not seem to work. For the less severe cases, therapy usually does work.
Furthermore, Susan Johnson says in her book that “normal” people can become traumatized as adults in a dysfunctional relationship. There are plenty of people on this board who can attest to walking on eggshells, afraid of the next explosion by their spouse. These are people who did not exhibit that behavior before marriage, only after the abuse started. These very same people (and their abusers) can be rehabilitated. So yes, people are adaptable. But reversing trauma requires soothing the right hurts in the right way.
Does it really matter whether the biological predisposition to fight or flee comes from a unique structure in the brain? Whether it is a special form of neural pathway or simply “your mother’s genes,” isn’t this all nature (vs. nurture)?
