The Continuum Concept: In Search Of Happiness Lost (Classics in Human Development)

I had high expectations for this book, as it is an oft-mentioned title in Attachment Parenting circles and has its own following as a parenting style in and of itself. (Continuum Concept parenting and Attachment Parenting are not the same thing, but there is some overlap.) Though the book does contain many intriguing ideas, I found myself overall quite disappointed.The book, written in 1975 (with an introduction added in 1985), is based on the author's experiences spending extended time with an indigenous people in Venezuela, the Yequana. Based on her observations, she concludes that their way of life is more in harmony with the natural way that humans are meant to live, in accordance with the evolution of our species, than the lifestyle of modern Western society. She claims that the natural state of the Yequana is happiness, a primary example being that they do not have a word for "work" and they enjoy everything they do. The cause? She places huge emphasis on the importance of infants being held in their mothers' arms, 100% of the time, during the first 6-8 months of life, and attributes most of the unhappiness of modern civilization to the fact that infants in Western society are largely deprived of this "in arms" experience. She devotes a significant portion of the book to describing the subjective experience that she imagines an infant in each respective culture goes through, and the remainder of the book critiquing specific aspects of modern child-rearing and explaining how specific personality characteristics and modern problems are specifically the result of being deprived of the "in arms" stage.The fatal flaw of this book is that the ideas presented are purely the theories and opinions of the author. The author has absolutely no qualifications other than her personal experience with this particular group of people: she is not an anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, scientist, researcher, doctor, or any other relevant qualification. Throughout the entire book there was only one citation. In fact she is overtly anti-intellectual, stating that our overuse of intellect in the modern world has, to our detriment, taken over our natural instincts as humans. There may be some truth to this, but I found it ironic that someone writing a book primarily about the importance of following one's instinct in the care of infants is not even a mother herself. There were certainly several parts of her book that my "motherly instinct" just flat out rejected. Some of the claims of the author have since been shown to be true by research, however others contradict the findings of research. Her own cultural bias is apparent in her assumption that homosexuality is a pathology and the assumption of the existence of "God". However the opinions of the author in this book are presented as if they are objective fact. It would have been more accurate if every sentence in the book was preceded with "I think," "I believe," or "My theory is."For instance, the lengthy descriptions of an infant's experience in the indigenous and then the modern world are presented as factual descriptions, when in fact they are her interpretations of her observations, colored by her opinions. In short, they stem from her imagination. Maybe there is truth to them, but maybe not; there is no way of knowing. I wonder if Yequana mothers, let alone infants of either culture, would agree with these descriptions. While interesting to think about as a hypothesis or possibility, they don't have much value beyond the speculative.Another big problem with this book is that all of the author's assumptions about human nature and what is natural to our species come from her (unscientific) experience and observation of just one indigenous culture. Anthropologists have shown us that there is actually quite significant diversity among indigenous cultures, and Liedloff herself comments how different the neighboring indigenous cultures were from the Yequana. All cultures are unique, and adapted to their particular circumstances. She clearly idealizes all the features of the Yequana culture and assumes that modern culture would be better off by adopting them, but this is not necessarily the case. For example, she critiques parents for "chasing" their toddlers to keep them from harm or from wandering off, and the example she gives is of seeing modern parents do this in New York's Central Park! Maybe if I lived in an indigenous village surrounded by familiar places and trusted community members I could allow a toddler to wander as they pleased, but in a dangerous urban environment like NEW YORK CITY, I would definitely be keeping a protective watch on my child. The comparison of such different settings just doesn't make sense.A specific critique I have of the parenting style that the author advocates is her critique of modern Western parents being too "child-centered." While I agree with the importance of a child being immersed in the normal life of adults and society, I don't think this should be done at the exclusion of direct interaction and attention, which in my experience babies both need and thrive on. In addition to some "out of arms" time being important to physical development (such as learning to crawl and sit, which start gradually from a very young age), I think that direct interaction and attention are a quite natural way of welcoming a child into the family and community, and communicating to them their inherent worth as a person. The way Liedloff describes it, she seems to advocate just completely ignoring young babies as one goes about their daily life. Not only do I think this is not healthy for the baby or the parent-child bond, but anyone who has ever had a baby can tell you it's not realistic. Babies have constant needs and are completely dependent on their caregivers to fulfill them- eating, sleeping, comforting, and toileting, are all things babies cannot do themselves, let alone laundry, bathing, and other tasks that are inherent to baby care. But the biggest disagreement I have with the author's criticism to being "child-centered" is that it directly contradicts one of the most central aspects of Attachment Parenting, being responsive to your child. Research has demonstrated the importance of caretakers being attentive to an infant's cues and responding in a caring, consistent way in order to establish a secure attachment. It is one of the central tenants of Attachment Parenting and its importance has been demonstrated in psychological research.That said, I did find many of the author's ideas quite intriguing. For example, I agree with the author about the importance of keeping young babies close to their mothers' bodies at nearly all times. Indeed, the importance of this has been demonstrated by studies done on touch, attachment, co-sleeping, and so forth. However, I think she isolates this particular issue excessively, rather than acknowledging it as one ingredient in an overall approach to parenting. Other important factors include growing up in an environment of unconditional love, acceptance, and belonging, caretakers who respond in a consistent and caring way, positive examples and relationships with family and community, breastfeeding, and a positive birth experience, to name a few. Just carrying your baby all the time is not enough; all aspects of parenting have an impact on babies and the adults that they grow into. I thought her interpretation of personality quirks to be very interesting, for example a person being very messy because they are seeking the fulfilment of deprived infantile needs (though someone taking care of them and loving them unconditionally despite their flaws). My subjective opinion (note my qualification!) is that this might very well be the case for some people, however it must be considered in light of the whole person, which is complex and individual.Another idea I liked about the book was the concept that children, like all humans, are social animals and they do what they think is expected of them. They instinctively want to fit in and please their parents. She gives an example that sometimes parents give them messages like "Don't touch that, you'll hurt yourself" and the message the children hear is that the parent expects them to hurt themselves at some point, and so they do. I do think that expectations are powerful and the language we use is important. But again, this is one factor in a complex system of influences, and needs to be considered in context.It appears even the things I like about the book have serious qualifications. So if there is so much to criticize about this book, why does it have such a strong following? What made it so popular?I think the reason is that it makes the reader question the status quo of the way we treat babies in our society in a powerful way. This was probably groundbreaking in the time it was written, and is still groundbreaking today for people who haven't been exposed to ideas outside of the mainstream. Just the idea of putting oneself in the "shoes" of a baby and imagining what they might go through is important. Asking the question of how humans evolved and how this impacts the needs of babies is important. Questioning our cultural practices and considering more traditional practices, like slings instead of strollers, or co-sleeping instead of cribs, is important. So in summary I think this is a great book to open minds and get people thinking, but because it is so grotesquely subjective and unscientific, it should not be looked to in itself as a source of information or a guide to parenting practices. Fortunately there are many other books available now which cover these topics and make use of more objective research methods through fields like anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology. For instance, I recommend Our Babies, Ourselves, which is a more scientific version of the topics broached in The Continuum Concept.

I have read this book at least three times, and have bought this book for friends at least a few times as well. I really love it. Even though you can tell at times that it was written in another era, the main story and message is really really cool.I was very worried about being a mom when I was pregnant with my little girl. Everything I had seen about motherhood looked so commercial and high tech, and miserable. I didn't know how my personality would fit with being a mom. I read this book during my last trimester for the first time, and all of the sudden everything kind of made sense, and I didn't feel like I needed to worry so much anymore. All I needed was my baby, my arms, my breast, and my instincts. Knowing this was felt very liberating. And the idea of continuing to be an adult--doing adult things and carrying on with my life--but now with my baby at my hip observing me, just made a lot of sense.After reading this book, and others like it, I decided to carry my baby ('babywearing") through my little girl's babyhood, and cosleep etc. My little girl is 4 years old now. We still go through all of the normal difficulties of a young human being coming into her own emotions etc., but all of the really frustrating moments are offset by a very strong and very deep bond that we have, which always bring us back to that harmony we felt as a mother and baby. I really believe that the strength of our bond is due in part to the fact that I carried her so much, and slept beside her, and had her in contact with me through the bulk of her babyhood. Carrying my baby during her babyhood was such a beautiful and special experience. I wouldn't trade it for the world.Carrying our babies only makes sense. We're primates after all. And it's in our DNA to be carried as an infant. It seems that sometimes the simplest and most obvious solution is also the most right one.The only criticism I have of the book, is that it unfolds this beautiful vision of motherhood, but is pretty short on details as to how to actually make that work in modern day life. Which is fine--it's not a parenting book per se. In the end I felt like it was important not to get obsessed with the idea of having someone to tell you exactly how to do everything. But instead to learn to listen to my instincts and figure the rest out on my own.But a word of advice to expecting moms who are serious about implementing babywearing... I bought a ton of different carriers to help in babywearing and tried them all... slings, wraps, ergo, moby, bjorn, mai tai, babyhawk...etc. And I found some I really loved and used all of the time. But here is the thing... If you plan on trying to carry your baby most of the time, like Jean Liedloff recommends in this book. YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF YOUR BACK!I was a seriously dedicated babywearer-- but I will be honest. My back and neck went out about every 3-4 months carrying my baby as much as I did.BUT...there was a couple of reasons for it (which I learned in the process). And if you do it right, you don't have to ruin your back. Once I figured this out my back has stopped going out and is completely fine. They are:1. You need to stop using the baby carriers as soon as the baby is strong enough to hold it's head up, and grip a little with it's legs on your hip. The slings, and wraps and ergos are great, because they help you hold the young "floppy" baby so you can stabilize that little floppy body with one hand instead of two. So you at least have one hand free, maybe two. BUT-- don't get stuck on them. No matter how good they are--they will concentrate all of that dead weight on specific areas of your back and neck. And the static strain WILL eventually do a number to your back. Once the baby is stronger and better at clinging-- you need to cut loose from the carrier, and just hold that baby with your hip and arm. Your arms are going to have to get a lot stronger and trust me--THEY WILL GET SUPER STRONG. But you've got to cut out the carrier, and just adapt without it. When you are using just your arms--it's crazy--but the weight distribution into your arms, and the more natural way you shift their weight around-- you're back doesn't get a beating at all. Just your arm muscles. And they adapt and get super strong, so it's not such a big deal anymore. YOU NEED TO DITCH THE (beloved) CARRIERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.2. You need to develop proper back posture. Period. One of the main reasons that these beautiful mamas in these indigenous cultures can do all of this stuff with a baby on their hip--is because they have this very old-world perfect (and beautiful) posture. You need to read a book called "8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back" by Esther Gokhale. She is super highly recommended. Her work follows indigenous cultures and shows how their almost zero incidence of back issues stems mainly from their absolutely perfect posture. The problem, however, is that none of us know what perfect posture even is anymore, because none of us see it. READ HER BOOK. It's awesome. And will change your life back-wise.

It's a bit dreary. A white privileged woman visits a tribe in South American and decides we parent all wrong in the West. I tend to agree but she doesn't come up with any evidence apart from her probably culturally biased observations. This is referred to as the manual for Attachment Parenting but it's not an 'anthropological study' it just seems to be a carefree woman on a mind opening holiday. Perhaps the ideas were revolutionary during a time when children were expected to learn independence for the sake of parental convenience. I guess these ideas still pervade but if you want to explore reasons for keeping your kids close and parenting in a more loving way, this book isn't really that helpful. Perhaps it kick started a movement with it's popularity but it's dated and is not evidence based.

Every child that is born, up until age of 1 or so, wants to carried almost all the time, and that is a very biological thing to do. Our daughter has been a strong, healthy, very social, intelligent and confident one, even if sometimes a bit attached to us at times. Nonetheless we are both very happy that we did more skin to skin contact than less, and despite the disadvantages (much more work and effort for us the parents, and less freedom) it has been the right thing to do. We did not 100% skin to skin, but more like 80 or 90% of the time, with plenty of breastfeeding on demand up to age 1.5 and also co-sleeping for at least 2.5 years.

The concept is awesome and everyone should do it when bringing up their children. There are some gems in the book and good stories however her writing style is odd; as if she's trying to show off all the long words she knows. Some sentences are about ten lines long so don't make sense. read the intro and then the actual child raising section. If this was revised and backed up with stats rather than anecdotes it would be brilliant. Check out 'PJ does life' and 'Bringing up baby' on YouTube for a great overview of the continuum concept.

Still haven’t actually finished the book as I keep putting it down as I’m finding it really difficult to read.As said in previous reviews she uses very long, complicated words, every other word and makes it a very difficult read.As someone else said I hate to say it but she does seem to be showing off (you will understand when you read, that’s the vibe she gives) which is a shame as I really wanted the information out of this book.Disappointing

This book is not for everyone. Certainly it shook my world, and questioned the little confidence I had as a mother, and a person battling my own mental and emotional monsters. I love this book, and equally strong I hate it! I am grateful to it, and I wish I never knew about it at the same time! Very deep, very provocative read, digging well into the depth of one's mental and emotional worlds. SOme paragraphs I had to go back and reread about 5 times not being able to believe my eyes! Feeling stupid for not being able to realise things myself, hating the fact how much not in touch with the inner self I am, we are, feeling lost and amazed by how damaged our "advanced" societies are....Guilt is the worst feeling for me after and during reading this book. It is indeed a life-changing book as it made me want to work more on myself....to fix myself. So my son doesn't have to fix himself.Do think about if you really want to read this book!....