ReadLoveinInfantMonkeys-WillowSprings.PDFVIP

ly d i a m i l l e t Love in Infant Monkeys arry Harlow had a general hypothesis and he would refine and prove it: that mothers are useful, developmentally. That Hthey have an intrinsic value beyond their breast milk. Call this value, for lack of a better concept, their company. He was bucking the trend in American psychology, where for decades prominent experts on parenting had been advising mothers to show their children as little affection as possible. Too much affection was coddling, and coddling weakened a child. “When you are tempted to pet your child,” said a president of the American Psychological Association in a speech, “remember that mother love is a dangerous instrument.” This school of thought ran counter to the grain of history—counter to what was believed by those not indebted for their child-rearing strategies to a rigorously monitored testing process. But it was dominant in the scholarship. To refute it, the value of love had to be demonstrated in a controlled experimental setting. Harlow worked long hours, seldom leaving his laboratory. With his experiments he made a name for himself, appearing on television programs and traveling the country on speaking engagements. He was seen as a rebel and an iconoclast. He spoke boldly of mother love, calling it “contact comfort.” He stressed its value to emotional health. And he was outspoken, which drew criticism from the faint of heart. He spoke harshly of his test subjects. “The only thing I care about is whether a monkey will turn out a property I can publish,” he said. “I don’t have any love for them. I never have. How could you love a monkey?” Another time he said, “I just have no feeling for them—at all.” To know how love works a scientist must study hate. This is simple scientific method; Harry admitted it. The suffering of lesser beings was