 "Love Matters" | 2009-04-21 |
| - Reviewed By User: A17UDXFQENYWJT |
Before Harry Harlow, behavioral research was done on rats, and was tenuously applicable to human beings. It was he who designed and executed the elegant experiments on rhesus monkeys to show that filial affection was not merely a feeding reflex. He was the one who constructed the soft cloth "mothers" that the babies preferred even when the milk came from another source. In this smoothly written book we experience not just the surprise and delight of the experiments, but also a profile of a prickly, creative, and altogether extraordinary man.
|
| |
 "Largely Excellent, but FLAWED too" | 2009-03-02 |
| - Reviewed By mourning_cloak |
I found this a really worthwhile read. Blum puts Harry Harlow into context in terms of the mostly clueless (and often disturbed) conventional psychological thinking of his time - especially about parenting. She gets a great deal of valuable insider information from Harlow's colleagues and family about his life, his work, and his inner world. She also gives strong summaries of Harlow's experiments, and of the work of his contemporaries and the gestalt of his times.
In some ways Deborah Blum speaks openly about Harlow's weaknesses, and this is vital to rounding out the biography, but in other ways she is inconsistent in her portrayal of him, to the point of occasional forays into idealism. That gets tiresome. But let me share my conception of the book's weaknesses more clearly:
1) Very weak portrayal of the emotional reality of Harlow's childhood. Very idealized. She gives little or no hint as to why Harlow would grow up to become a laboratory sadist, a HORRIBLE abandoning father to all four of his own children, an ultra-workaholic, an at-times severely depressed man, and a hardcore alcoholic. And trust me, in a book that makes it very clear that adult (monkey/human) problems ARE rooted in the abandonments and conflicts of childhood, Blum's failure to address the deeper horrors of his childhood, or even acknowledge that they might have been there (and that she just couldn't find them), is a HUGE weakness. I was surprised she could be so blind to this.
2) In line with #1, she offered only shallow psychological reasons for why he was such a screwed-up man. She implies that he was just driven to such intense and at-times sadistic workaholism because of a simple need to "shine" and "become great" and "impress the world." Weak, surface explanation. She also describes his alcoholism and depression and abandonment of his wives and children (he was worse with his first wife and first two kids) as just stemming from career stress and career perfectionism. HARDLY. This guy was very traumatized from his childhood. Clearly.
3) His monkey-torturing experiments of separating baby monkeys from mothers to just "see what happens" is clearly a replication of his own childhood. Blum doesn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole. Instead she largely justifies his behavior as being "for the good of science."
4) At points Blum LAUDS heavy drinking. She idealizes heavy drinking at least twice in the book - once doing so far as waxing eloquent with true fondness about the "good old days" in American psychology when colleagues didn't just get together and drink a little wine, but really drank whiskey heavily. Whatever!
5) She inadequately shines the light on Harlow's deep hypocrisy in creating experiments that abandon monkey babies to show how much it damages them while all the while doing totally abandoning his own children. It was actually quite sad and sickening to read this about him, and Blum largely glosses over it. It really deserves more mention, more explanation, and more investigation. Again, more proof that we was just replicating the emotional dynamics of his own childhood.
But let me end with the basic positive thing I got out of this book, because it really IS a valuable and important book:
This book reminded me so strongly and in such a beautiful way how largely stupid the psychology field can be. Blum provides us a great window into seeing how much energy gets expended by supposed hotshots to "prove" what is self-evident to any truly self-reflective person. This is true far beyond Harlow - across the boards in modern psychology. There's no need to do all these experiments, neither Harlow's, which actually "proved" something important, nor all the thousands more that actually "prove" nothing at all - or even "prove" incorrect things.
This book is a nice, loud reminder to me that the answer for us is to look within - to where the real answers are - and to quit all these silly, and sometimes torturous, psychology experiments.
(And, by the way, if you think unnecessary psychology torture experiments don't still go on, look at all the people participating in psychotropic drug trials. Many of these drugs are extremely toxic and sometimes deadly - yet who complains?) |
| |
| "what we learned - what we still have to learn" | 2007-07-30 |
| - Reviewed By gplumb |
When Harry Harlow started exploring the science of affection it was in the face of disregard and opposition in the world of medicine and psychology. But he was able to show that affection is vital to the proper development of the newly born, as too is the measured rejection of the newly born's parents when the time is right. Consequently we now encourage the bonding of parents and children through physical handling. (Perhaps more affectionate and supportive friendships outside the family have developed as a result also.)
These were great insights for society and yet Harlow did face opposition. Just when he was saying the role of the mother (and father - but he was less vocal about that) was vital to the upbringing of the baby, the womens liberation movement was trying to get women more freedom - more equality on the basis of being the same as men. How could this new emphasis on the importance of the role of parents (principally women as men were traditionally the 'bread winners') be tolerated? To me, however, there is a mistake in this. We should not be treated equally because we are the same - but for the very opposite reason - because we are all unique. If we are to get the best from each unique individual then each individual must have equal rights and opportunity. Unfortunately Harlow's approach to opposition was often rude and confronting.
After his death Harlow's research faced another challenge - this time from the animal liberation activists. Harlow had done his experiments on monkeys principally, and these experiments necessarily had damaging (and surprising) results for the animals experimented on. Harlow did care for the animals and provided for them as well as he could in difficult circumstances - for example, he always tried to 'restore' emotionally damaged animals. Although we may now regret the methods he and his students used, and certainly not want to repeat them for the sake of student exercises, we should not lose sight of the vital information that was uncovered.
Deborah Blum's book is engaging and revealing - especially concerning the history of human behaviour with regard to affection and love. It is surprising how recent (1950s) some attitudes were that are now totally overthrown, at least in part because of Harlow's work.
But does psychology have more lessons to learn from Harlow? It is my belief that this is so. I recently had a workplace experience where I was confronted by a workplace bully. But immediately I knew this bully was not picking on me - this was just characteristic behaviour that was applied to everyone they worked with. All the stories and rumours I had heard - and continued to hear with more clarity - suddenly had greater presence for me. To overcome my distress at this situation I used the free staff counselling service offered by my employer. Perhaps in doing that I was already demonstrating my capacity to manage, to cope. What, however, of my colleagues who I now had insight to the terrible behaviour of the bully for them? Harlow would not have been surprised that I had bonded with these people - to some more closely than others. But the psychologist/counsellor understood nothing of this - as long as I was dealt with (the immediate client) nothing else could be done. But the only thing that could really be done for me was to smash all the bonds I had built with my colleagues so that I was no longer concerned for them. Was that reasonable?
And what of psychology offered to one of a married couple privately from the bond that links them. What is the risk that this will actually prise apart the bond that needs to be strengthened or at least maintained? I'm not sure how psychology should handle these matters but it continues to alarm me that the insights of Harlow are still being overlooked in areas where they should not be. Is it the impact of the womens liberation and animal liberation movements that have denigrated the research sufficiently to block its use in other areas?
other recommendations:
'Workplace Monsters' John Clarke (Random House Australia)
'Conditions of Love' John Armstrong
'A Crystal Age' W H Hudson |
| |
| "Even the book's cover will break your heart" | 2006-12-03 |
| - Reviewed By oldmoo |
Fifty years ago I had psych classes at the UW, and I helped tend the rats in 600 N. Park. I learned about Harry Harlow, Carl Rogers, and schools of thought in Psychology. Now, finally, I understand and see the importance of what was going on here.
Deborah Blum has clarified the conflicts in behavioral science during the first half of the 20th century as my instructors never could. She has given human faces to the names that were listed in the semester timetables, but whom most students never saw. And Harry Harlow's flaws are not whitewashed, but they are understandable.
Younger readers will be aghast at the parenting style that was advocated by child health professionals over 50 years ago. Many of us, although we were not neglected or abandoned, were not cuddled and made to feel cherished. Harlow, among others, was able to disprove the validity of a sterile upbringing in creating a human adult.
And it is truly a page-turner, well written and captivating. |
| |
| "Fascinating Look at Harlow's Research" | 2005-08-15 |
| - Reviewed By atticus1 |
This is one of the most interesting and well written books I've ever read on this or any similar topic. To anyone who studies or has studied attachment, Blum offers an amazing look at how this early research changed the face of psychology. To anyone who has read countless poorly written descriptions of boring research studies, this book is an oasis.
I don't believe Blum has portrayed Harlow through rose-colored glasses. On the contrary, anyone reading this book might even wonder whether Harlow's neglect of his own children was a good thing, given his lack of compassion and indifference toward the suffering he caused. My copy is well-worn and has been loaned out many times. I highly recommend this book. |
| |
| "Great topic, lousy subject" | 2004-09-27 |
| - Reviewed By leename |
This is an extremely interesting book in terms of underlining how damaging scientific fads can be. The early twentieth century fad of data and cleanliness may well have led to the deaths many children as cleanliness was preferred over attention.
Unfortunately, Harry Harlow is less interesting, and provides an abominable contrast to the subject. Harlow ignores both wives and his children in search for - as he wrote in his school's yearbook - 'fame'. He becomes a chain-smoking alcoholic. Bizarrely, Blum emphasises Harlow's visionary understanding of love with, at times, an almost 'here comes superman' manner. She appears incapable of reconciling her argument that Harlow is the scientist of love with the fact that he ignored his wives and all his children!
If anything, I read the book as reflecting one man's selfish, desperate desire for achievement and fame. Thanks to his interest in monkeys, he and his students seemed to fall over the answer. Not exactly visionary.
A good read though, reflecting the pitfalls of faddish thinking, and also how scientific discoveries (if the fact that a child needs its mother is a discovery) occur. The book also reflects how difficult it can be to refute incorrect arguments. |
| |
Expedited Available
