COMMENTARY—OCTOBER 19, 2000

Newsweek magazine recently published a special 2000 edition of Your Child: Birth to Three. This issue is a sequel to a hugely successful issue, published in 1997, that also covered the first three years of a child's life.

On a very positive note, this issue emphasizes the importance of a child's first three years of life.  Many of the articles discuss the enormous impact parental nurturing has upon the well-being of young children.  In the first article, “21st Century Babies,” Barbara Kantrowitz writes that "scientific breakthroughs have given us an extraordinary new understanding of early childhood—and a renewed appreciation for the importance of a parent's nurturing care.”  In my opinion, this statement is nearly revolutionary for a mainstream news magazine.

In general, it is incredibly rare for the mainstream media to recognize the importance of young children's well-being because the entire subject of child-rearing is so highly politicized.  Since so many mothers of young children are in the workforce, the media tiptoe around the issue of what young children need.  To mention the needs of young children is considered egregious to many activists who wish to promote women's right to work outside the home above all else.

From this perspective, it is extraordinary that a national newsmagazine would offer a wide array of information that supports young children's need for their mothers.  In other words, this issue of Newsweek actually tries to enlighten the general public about the needs of young children.  Therefore, I applaud this issue of Newsweek, and I hope that it helps many parents to realize how important early childhood nurturing is.

It is difficult to know whether or not the magazine's writers or editors knew either now or three years ago of the significant contributions to child-rearing made by the distinguished scientist and anthropologist Ashley Montagu.  When the 1997 issue appeared in my mailbox, I quickly scanned it to see if there was any mention of Ashley Montagu.  I was sorely disappointed to learn that the issue did not mention Ashley Montagu even once.

I penned a letter to the editor to point out the omission, but my letter was never published.  As far as I was concerned, it was a terrible oversight to neglect the importance of Ashley Montagu's many writings about child-rearing.  In the current 2000 issue, I find the same perplexing neglect of Ashley Montagu's work. Throughout this essay, I will try to clarify in what ways Ashley Montagu's writings have been ignored.

A recurrent theme throughout this issue is the now generally accepted idea that nature and nurture are completely dependent upon one another.  In brief, a set of genes cannot express its potential without experiencing the influence of the environment in which it exists, be it the cell, the organ, the body, the family, the community, or the world at large.  Although the magazine writers present this idea as if it only makes sense, as it certainly does, it took decades for scientists to reach this conclusion (and, outrageously enough, some are still not convinced of its validity).

Ashley Montagu long ago posited that human beings are born with two sets of heredity:  genetic and social.  Genetic heredity, or nature, and social heredity, or nurture, influence one another to direct the development and growth of every single individual.  Neither heredity can manifest its potential without the other.  The consequence of understanding the interdependency of nature and nurture is to comprehend how profoundly nurturing can affect nature. Ashley Montagu explained this concept in both biological and philosophical terms decades ago.

Fundamentally, parents need to understand how important their presence is to the healthy growth and development of their children.  Instead of just assuming that superior genetic endowment will guarantee any child success of the sort our society covets, the need for more nurturing parenting is more than evident.  Many of the articles in this issue of Newsweek attempt to clarify to parents the basic fact that young children do not grow up in vacuums.

In the essay “Our Window to the Future,” pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton and child psychiatrist Stanley Greenspan write:

Parents cannot underestimate the importance of their role in these early years.  Each child is born with a unique biology but that doesn't mean his or her future is preordained. The way a parent nurtures a baby as a profound effect on how the child develops. Recent research on the way genes work in the body suggests that their expression or influence depends on interactions with many different environments, including those in the cell, the body, and in the social and physical world. These interactions in part determine how we function. Nature and nurture thus appear to act together seamlessly, in a developmental duet. (Newsweek, Fall/Winter 2000, 34)

This paragraph is written by two prominent child-rearing experts, and it underscores the significance of the interaction between nature and nurture in child development.  

The writers also express their understanding of the impact that less than optimal human interactions can have upon growing and developing young children. They write in the same essay:  “Most recent studies have found that family patterns that undermine this ongoing nurturing care may lead to significant cognitive and emotional problems, while even the simplest interactions help a child grow.”  Simple interactions such as gestures and emotional cues lead to the development of “complex system of problem-solving and dealing with others.”  It is the most basic of human interactions, involving of course the presence of a loving caregiver, that provide the stimulus for complex and long-lasting brain development in children.

Most parents comprehend the enormous impact that their love, particularly maternal love, has upon the healthy development of young children.  We live in a society, however, that will praise any nurturing in order to de-emphasize the importance of maternal love.  In fact, we rarely hear much about maternal love these days.  We often hear, instead, about the antithesis of maternal love, the kind of hatred that leads to mothers hurting or even killing their children.

Maternal love, in other words, is taken for granted, misunderstood, or plainly abused. Thus, it is a tremendous boon to mothers to have a national newsmagazine dedicate an entire issue to what truly interests mothers:  the healthy and happy growth of young children.  There is much that parents can do to support the healthy growth and development of young children, and it is clear that maternal love plays an inordinately large role.

At this time, I plan to offer critiques of some of the articles in this issue of Newsweek.

In “The Real Parenting Expert Is...You,” writer Heidi Murkoff (of the What to Expect book series) offers advice to parents on how to deal with the multitude of information that is now available to parents.  She uses the word “instinct” often and mistakenly.  For instance, she writes the following: “Too much information can also suffocate a parent's instincts, stifling that small, smart voice within us all that tells us what's right for our child. (Yes, we all have instincts; they just take longer to surface in some of us.)” (Newsweek, 21).

What are instincts?  An instinct is a biologically programmed reaction that manifests itself in response to an external stimulus and without any conscious input.  Ashley Montagu wrote frequently that human beings shed instincts during the course of evolution because the possession of instincts would have impeded survival.  In other words, human beings do not have instincts. 

Ashley Montagu's logic was so clear and sound that he convinced Albert Einstein that human beings do not possess instincts.  That said, it is imperative to understand that when one refers to instinct, one is probably talking about intuition.  Ms. Murkoff is probably referring to intuition, and the distinction is significant.

Intuition is the wisdom one accrues through the experience of daily living.  Most individuals develop intuition that enables them to live humanely and cooperatively. Unfortunately, many individuals have been reared in violent environments that teach them wrongly that violence (including corporal punishment) is right and good.  From this type of environment, it is possible to develop the intuition to believe that spanking is fine and good for young children.  Obviously, not all intuition is good.  Much of what one perceives to be intuition, then, may not always be helpful when parenting.

As much as I would encourage parents to trust their intuition, I would also advise that we open our minds to different schools of thought that would promote healthier and more humane parenting practices.  In essence, I do agree with Ms. Murkoff that the abundance of information available to parents can be overwhelming and lead parents to believe more in parenting experts than in themselves.  We have only to look at the past several generations of American mothers who believed religiously in child-rearing experts who based much of their advice upon biased, unsound, and unscientific personal opinions. Good information, however, is available to parents to encourage them to refine intuition by broadening their knowledge base and wisdom through education.  

From this perspective, I can offer praise to Newsweek for featuring Hallie Levine's article "Helping Your Child Sleep Soundly" with beautiful photographs of a mother falling asleep with her baby on a bed.  The photo caption states “‘Co-sleeping’ isn't for everyone, but some parents rest better themselves with the baby nearby.”  Ms. Levine quotes noted sleep researcher, anthropologist James McKenna, as saying the following:  “I think we're the ones getting it wrong,” referring to the nearly world-wide and long-standing tradition of having children under the age of three sleep with parents.  

Nearly every culture outside the Western world advocates co-sleeping, yet American families cling stubbornly to the tradition of keeping babies and young toddlers out of parental beds.  It certainly does not help that respected pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton offers opinions like the following:  “A baby's job is to learn to sleep and become autonomous, which means they shouldn't be sleeping in your bedroom” (Newsweek, 47). It seems fairly ludicrous to me that Dr. Brazelton can advise parents to respect the needs of their young babies and children only during daytime hours, as if night time hours can be ignored simply because parents need sleep.

It is very important to recognize a baby's inability to distinguish day from night because his or her needs are constant.  In navigating the difficult transition from life in the protective and nurturing womb to life outside the womb, a baby faces great challenges. Physically, the baby needs to receive oral nourishment because his body is hungry and cold.  Breastfeeding is the primary activity that provides both nourishment and warm comfort to a baby outside the womb.

For those who comprehend how breastfeeding works, it is a 24-hour job.  It is the job of a breastfeeding mother to provide nourishment and loving warmth to her baby.  It is not the job of a baby to learn at night that he needs to be autonomous and alone, as Dr. Brazelton suggests.  Such misguided thinking undermines the efforts that loving parents make throughout the day to provide loving and caring nurturing.

It is no wonder, then, that parents struggle mightily to get young babies and children to sleep at night.  Ms. Levine's article clarifies how tormented many parents become because they believe adamantly that their babies do not belong in bed with them.  For example, Ms. Levine describes one couple who battled with two children because of nighttime sleeping problems.  Another mother felt terrible about forcing her baby to cry himself to sleep, knowing that there was something wrong about not being there for her son.

Yes, there is something wrong when expert advice expects parents to make themselves unavailable to their young needy children at nighttime.  It makes sense, then, that the reason why parents are beginning to choose to co-sleep is because they rest better; it is not because they comprehend how much better it is to co-sleep with their babies.

As always, the emphasis on parenting is what makes life easier for the parents and not what is better for the children.  This biased emphasis, in the long run, helps neither the parents nor the children.  We must stop pitting the needs of young children against those of their parents.  If we could just accept the fact that parents have the responsibility to do what is best for our young children, all our lives would be greatly simplified and much more fulfilled.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the constant debate about infant feeding.

In a sidebar to his article about child nutrition, Stephen P. Williams, offers an essay entitled “Better Bottle Feeding?”  He writes:  “Among the hundreds of nutrients that bottle-fed babies miss out on are two fatty acids called DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and AA (arachidonic acid).”  Apparently, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has yet to approve the addition of these two fatty acids to infant formula in the U.S. although DHA and AA fortified infant formula is available abroad.  

Despite acknowledging the obvious superiority of breast milk over infant formula, Mr. Williams writes the following in his article: “But don't feel guilty if you can't breast-feed. Most formula-fed babies do fine, and some experts believe they'll do better when products fortified with LCPUFAs (Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids) reach the U.S. market” (Newsweek, 44).  It appears that, even when armed with irrefutable scientific evidence of the superiority of breast milk, journalists are still inclined to remark casually that babies will do just fine with infant formula.

It is not that parents treat the well-being of their babies cavalierly:  parents think that they are making good, reasonable choices for their young children.  Thus, if a couple decides their baby will drink infant formula, they can cite the support of their pediatricians, nurses, friends, family, and the pharmaceutical and food industries.  Are parents, however, informed enough to make wise decisions?

Honest healthcare workers would admit that a community of healthy individuals has less need for health care workers and products.  Indeed, healthier individuals purchase less health related goods and services.  The general public, however, is unaware of the numerous ways in which the medical community and pharmaceutical industry are intertwined.  Basically, innumerable health care products are being sold daily to an uninformed public by the medical community and pharmaceutical industry.  

Included in the category of health care products is infant formula since it is manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, as well as food companies.  As a rule, the general public is kept in the dark about the overwhelming superiority of breastfeeding.  As a concerned pediatrician and mother, it is amazing to think that only a minority of individuals understand the irreplaceable benefits of breastfeeding.

I should be content that scientific research continues to confirm the benefits of breastfeeding.  A friend, however, recently asked a very good question:  why are there not more studies being done to show how profoundly breastfeeding positively affects every aspect of a child's well-being?   I responded that breastfeeding today is so poorly understood that the definition of breastfeeding is not even clear.  Moreover, the infant formula industry underwrites most studies of infant feeding, including breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding should be defined as the exclusive feeding of breast milk to a baby for at least the first six months of life, and the continued offering of the breast on demand for as long as the baby wishes (preferably the first three years of life).  Many women may breastfeed as little as once a day and claim to be breastfeeding.  Is it any wonder, then, that supposedly “breastfed” babies may be just as susceptible to all the illnesses and ill health that bottle fed babies experience?  With the current confusion surrounding the definition of breastfeeding, the true validity of breastfeeding's benefits cannot be correctly evaluated.

Those mothers who exclusively breastfeed for the first six months of life and then continue to breastfeed on demand for years afterward, nevertheless, comprehend the tremendous value and benefits of breastfeeding.  I am optimistic that the continued production of valid scientific studies of breastfeeding will help to promote the one activity that helps to guarantee the best health for every single child possible.

The current issue of Newsweek is one more step toward helping parents to comprehend the humanity of child-rearing.

Mizin P. Kawasaki, M.D.
Revised April 12, 2006