Sociology Of Attachment Analysis

The universal process of attachment is conducted through out the individuals life cycle. Objects, bodies and things, play a important role in mediating that attachment. But how much do we know about attachment? What it is and how it is constructed. Sociology attempts to answer these questions, by defamiliarising attachment by viewing it through a broader sociological lens. In this essay we will use the 'Sociology of Attachment', in its two orientations, practical mechanism and emotional investment, as an enquiry into the study of social connectedness, to evaluate to what extent objects and material techniques mediate attachment and how other processes of social practice, culturally shared social meanings play an equally important role in mediating
attachment, helping to shape the social world.
What is attachment? Through a sociological lens, attachment can be referred to a way of connecting ? through material techniques or 'practical mechanisms by which people, and people and objects, get connected to each other,' (Redman, 2008, p6). 'Emotional investment', another orientation of attachment, can in a sense be defined as engaged, have your emotions given, or "invested," towards someone, bringing that thing life with meaning. To understand emotional investment better we have to analyse '...the processes by which people develop emotional investments in other people and other things,' (Redman, 2008, p6).

Social practices, such as gift giving, can allow us to understand the process involved in connecting people to things and how this attachment is maintained. Marcel Mauss (1990, cited in Muniesa, 2008, p119) describes how in some There’s a quote mark here, but no indication of where the quote ends. 'archaic societies gift exchange plays an important role in the economy. The rhythm of cyclical rotation of gifts and the exchange involved, can construct a relationship between the giver and receiver, based on obligation and duty. In these societies there seems to be a cultural obligation of giving, receiving and returning a gift. The practice of giving can create an intimate relationship between the giver and the receiver and at the same time create an obligation of returning, 'the giver shares what he has, or what he is with the receiver...a relationship of superiority because the one who receives the gift and accepts it places himself in debt of the who has given it, thereby becoming indebted to the giver...' Maurice Godelier (1999, cited in Muniesa, 2008, p121). The giver is in some sense 'the embodiment' within the gift and where the receiver becomes indebted to the giver.

But we need to ask ourselves how does attachment become identified with a circulating object in the first place? In similar context to the 'archaic societies', where beliefs are held that gifts are endorsed with spirit of the owner. 'The presence of the giver contained in the gift so that the receiver can recognise, in the object', The quote is incomplete, and doesn’t make sense. (Muniesa, 2008, p122). In contemporary societies the spiritual input is replaced by the personalisation of a gift, the use of symbols like a personal message on a card, can illustrate some form of personal marking of objects, an embodiment of the giver, which can carry sentimental emotions of bonding, which can be seen as an important mediation of attachment. Yes, good point. Earmarking or tagging and personalization of exchanged objects, the self within the gift, helps to mediate attachment. 'Something has been done in order to create some kind of obligation: an obligation that stems from the fact that the person who gives is still present, through earmarking, in the given object,' (Muneisa, 2008, p123). The earmarking or personalisation of a gift, banknote with a personal message, in the form of a letter or card attached, can determine the relation of between the giver and receiver, can create an obligation for the receiver to act with responsibility. Material techniques, thank you letters, involve material devices of the letter in the envelope, and conventions, e.g. A cultural shared belief that it is acceptable to say thank you when writing a letter or email, also plays an important role in the process of attachment. In a sense you are attaching something to something and creating responsibility, an obligation of attachment. Yes, here you might have illustrated the process with Zelizer’s example of the twins’ relationship to the widow. The love letters transformed what would have been seen as an economic transaction without attachment into an attached relationship. This mediated the twins from a criminal social world into an innocent one.

Attachment and detachment both play an important role in organising economic exchanges. In the economy, attachment processes are characterised by techniques such as branding, advertising, which are used to entice the consumer to a certain product, through techniques and their such as voucher card. This really is unclear. A marketing strategy such as the individualisation of goods, which is met by manufacturers c by personalising goods for the customer, who themselves can invest individual meaning and emotion, can also be viewed as a process of attachment. Lizabeth Cohen (2003, cited in Muniesa, 2008, p133) points out how the African-American audience was targeted by white owned companies in the 1970's, personalising hair products for black women through the media. The singularisation of goods such as Clairol through the 'art of attachment', advertising, was an attempt to create consumer attachment. Detachment devices also in the financial markets contribute to the smooth running of the financial world. 'The process of detachment is clearly important in disentangling people and goods as well as disentangling from each other,' (Muniesa, 2008, p129). Clearing mechanisms such as clearing houses, or a receipt, which mediates all payment has been received, is in itself a detachment device, detaching the buyer from the seller. This existence of materiality allows the clearing house to function and have effects on the social world, an example of a intertwining relationship between the social and material.

Not ignoring objects and their practical mechanisms, social constructionists argue that emotional attachment in the family is constructed through practices of everyday life. They begin with stressing that the social world is 'made and remade as we go about our ordinary lives, by the meanings and practices of these' (Gabb, 2008, p21), nothing is so natural as it seems, it is socially constructed, it's existence is dependent on our selves, it could not exist without human activity. What ‘it’ refers to here is not clear. Social constructionists argue that to understand the mother and child attachment is to understand the mediation of the relation between individual and the social. The mother and child emotional attachment is not a natural phenomena, rather it is from the way parenting is socially organised, 'taught and learned, reliant on normative understandings which emerge through mediated and culturally specific notions of parenting', (Gabb, 2008, p20), it ? through the medium of social meanings and practices that this learning develops, emotions which are dependent on the self conscious ? and this is mediated by cultural resources e.g. Television programmes, handbooks on parenting, and cultural guidelines for feelings. This type of mediation helps the parents to construct emotional investment between themselves and their children. These cultural resources and shared meanings allow parents to understand and feel comfortable with the action of their feelings I’m not sure what you mean by ‘actions’ here. in a family environment. Mediated knowledge also constructs bodily boundaries for the child, defining appropriate behaviour, a way of protecting the child from outside risk. Parents use precursive mediation, television and shared understanding of what is appropriate and what is not, to allow her to negotiate and construct her own view. These feeling rules, with it's social guidelines, determine not only how to feel in a situation but further shape family practices. The main points are there, but the way in which some of the points are expressed is confusing.

Feelings assumed as natural are actually constructed and maintained by pre-existing mediated by social practices ? and social meanings and cultural resources. Culture and meaning impact on our meanings, our internal state, emotions which are socialized, which then shape our emotional response. Rather unclear – meaning impacts on meanings? Emotions shape our emotional response. Instead, you might say that society provides a set of norms about what are appropriate emotions in particular contexts. We then internalize these norms, through the socialization process, and they affect our emotional responses in a range of situations. Society expects us to behave in a certain way in relation to its event. We interpret the world with our culture and meaning framework, which come to shape our emotions. What links culture to meaning is what Arlie Hochschild (2003, in Gabb, 2008) calls 'feeling rules', a situational mechanism, rules shaping our emotions in given context in relation to where we are, who we are with, what emotion to express. This explanation is outlined by Jacqui Gabb who concludes from her case study of a family diary, that the husband (Henry) is not so close and involved with his children as compared to his wife (Helen) this can 'derive from the way in which parenting is socially organised,' (Gabb, 2008, p26) it is the cultural constituted rules mediated through cultural shared resources that help to shape the conduct of the husband and wife. Yes However the reorganisation of parenting roles in the face of social change, can tell us that these roles are not of a natural process but rather are the construction of gendered roles, from where family attachment is constructed through social meanings and practices.

The practices of mothering, gives the false perception that biological sex is a precursive precursor to social practices, which determines action. It is this construct of biological sex that comes to mediate the mothers attachment to the child. Judith Butler argues 'biological sex is the outcome rather than the foundation of gendered social practices', (Butler in Gabb, 2008, p28). She points to repetitive gender practices that shape and reshape the body into categories of sex. The materialisation of the body, is defined by its creation through gendered practices e.g. caring and intimacy of the female. The subject identity is a precursive to the individual. Through the practices of mothering, care, support, the women is translated into people who care for their children, which mediates her attachment to her children, which gives her the feeling of naturalness.

As we have seen, the analysis of the processes of attachment and detachment are important in order to understand social connectedness, the way people and objects are brought together, and separated. Attachment is not a natural phenomena, it is mediated by not only material techniques, objects and their attached markings, or even a sense of obligation, but social practice and meaning, translated through the media, mediate attachment and detachment equally, allowing people to connect to each other and to things.

Different theoretical perspectives have contributed to this debate of attachment and its mediation.
Social constructionists see attachment as socially constructed, something that is mediated through social practices and meanings. Whilst material approaches do not disregard the importance of social meanings and practices but remind us that these processes have to be considered in relation to the materiality of the body and non human objects. Both serve in their own way as an enquiry into the study of attachment. This however does raise the issue of what is the relation between material and the social, is matter more important than mediation? This is unclear – matter is a mediator, as your discussions earlier demonstrate. The question should be: is matter more important than meanings? We can argue bodies have inherent properties, that can determine what kind of relationship is forged between the parent and the child, which can have a materialised effect on the social world. We also need to point out how the social can shape the individual or how the individual relies on the social, as illustrated by the parent and child attachment, something not naturally given but in more terms constructed. The process of attaching is constructed, attaching something to something involves medium, through which attachment comes into existence. Attachment needs mediation in order for it be mobile. Mobile? I don’t understand. What you have presented here is a comparison of perspectives, but it is not really an evaluation. An evaluation requires examination of the strengths and limitations of particular approaches. So, for example, you might have pointed out that constructionists do not deny that matter is important in processes of mediation. Social practices always involve matter; it is, for instance, through learning to read, dressing in gender-specific ways, playing with gendered toys, imitating parents, etc, that we internalize sets of expectations about what is normal and
‘natural’ for us as males and females. Hence constructionism cannot be accused of denying the importance of matter. We have also seen how the 'Sociology of Attachment' has attempted to analyse the varied processes of attachment and detachment in this essay, and how this has been met with a diverse explanation of its workings. We have come to see the understanding of attachment through different types of mediation as a way of understanding social connectedness and separation, a way seeing how the social world is shaped and reshaped.
Attachment and detachment, an equally important phenomena, are part of the social world we live in, where materiality, people and other objects, are organised into the social fabric of society, shaping the social world, both coexist to give stability, continuity and order to the social world.