The Biology of Belief - Bruce H. Lipton [80]
He followed up these studies with an assessment of human cultures based on how they raise their children. He found that if a society physically held and loved its children and did not repress sexuality, that culture was peaceful. Peaceful cultures feature parents who maintain extensive, physical contact with their children, such as carrying their babies on their chests and backs throughout the day. In contrast, societies that deprive their infants, children, and adolescents of extensive touch are inevitably violent in nature. One of the differences between populations is that many of the children not receiving touch suffer from somatosensory affective disorder. This disorder is characterized by an inability to physiologically suppress surging levels of stress hormones, a precursor to violent episodes.
These findings provide insight into the violence that pervades the United States. Rather than endorsing physical closeness, our current medical and psychological practices often discourage it. From the unnatural intervention of medical doctors in the natural process of birthing, for example, separating the neonate for extensive periods from the parents into distant nurseries, and the advising of parents not to respond to their babies cries for fear of spoiling them. Such practices, presumably based upon “science,” undoubtedly contribute to the violence in our civilization. The research regarding touch and its relationship to violence is described in full at the following website: www.violence.de.
But what about the Romanian children who come out of deprived backgrounds and become what one researcher called “the resilient wonders”? Why do some children thrive despite their backgrounds? Because they have “better” genes? By now you know that I don’t believe that. More likely, the birth parents of these resilient wonders provided a more nurturing pre- and perinatal environment as well as good nutrition at crucial points in the child’s development.
The lesson for adoptive parents is that they should not pretend their children’s lives began when they came into their new surroundings. Their children may have already been programmed by their birth parents with a belief that they are unwanted or unlovable. If more fortunate, they may have, at some crucial age in their development, received positive, life-affirming messages from their caretakers. If adoptive parents are not aware of pre- and perinatal programming, they may not deal realistically with post-adoption issues. They may not realize that their children did not come to them as a “blank slate” anymore than newborns come into the world as blank slates, unaffected by their nine months in their mother’s womb. Better to recognize that programming and to work, if necessary, to change it.
For adoptive and non-adoptive parents alike, the message is clear: Your children’s genes reflect only their potential, not their destiny. It is up to you to provide the environment that allows them to develop to their highest potential.
Notice I do not say that it is up to parents to read lots of parenting books. I’ve met lots of people who are intellectually attracted to the ideas I present in this book. But intellectual interest is not enough. I tried that myself. I was intellectually aware of everything in this book, but before I made the effort to change, it made no impact on my life. If you simply read this book and think that your life and your children’s lives will change, you’re doing the equivalent of accepting the latest pharmaceutical pill thinking it will “fix” everything. No one is fixed until they make the effort to change.