Touch: Its Crucial Role in the Emotional & Physical
Health of Americans.
By Assad Malik
1. Hold me tight
2. Put me down
3. Leave me alone
Each phase represents the changing intimate needs from infancy to childhood
to adolescence. Furthermore, the progression from one
stage to another shows the children’s gradual shift in “asserting their
independence” (Davis, 1999:66).
Davis counter’s his theory
in two ways. First, she states children’s need for autonomy and touch
is not mutually exclusive. She agrees that kids want to declare their
independence, yet they desire touch on their terms vs. their parents.
Second, as children grow, they are repeatedly told that they cannot touch
objects, persons, and animals. For instance, kids are constantly
told not to touch the porcelain, not to touch someone else’s books, not
to touch the guinea pig, not to touch the little child, and more. Nevertheless,
children are discouraged from exploring their own bodies through religious
and social taboos. As a result, children associate shameful
feelings with touch. Even if children have the courage to defy parents’
orders, punishment serves as a form of negative reinforcement. Contrary
to their innate need, kids are socialized not to want touch (Davis, 1999:67).
Another
example of avoidance of touch in our society is in the field of psychoanalysis.
Members of the medical profession are highly respected in the American
culture; just as people go to preachers for spiritual guidance, Americans
turn to psychotherapists and psychiatrists for therapuetic guidance.
The basis for professions of the mental health profession has been psychoanalysis.
It has had a long history of avoiding any forms of touch. That prohibition
can be attributed to Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. He adamantly
prohibited touch. Freud believed any form of touch between therapist
and patient would inevitably lead to sex. As a result, there would be irreparable
harm done to the therapeutic relationship.
To explain why Freud prohibited
touch, Mintz pointed out three reasons that have led to prohibition of
touch within the psychoanalytic field. First, psychoanalysis grew
and developed in the Victorian era, a time known for its excessive sexual
modesty. Mintz states that Freud and his students were seen as sexual
deviants... a threat to society (Fosshage, 2000:3). Furthermore,
given that Freud focused so strongly on “sexuality and aggression”, any
form of touch could have been interpreted as being sexually or violently
suggestive. Consequently, that would have threatened the very existence
of the psychoanalytic field. Second, the strong connections of touch
with religious traditions and magic went against Freud’s objective of creating
a methodical and rational field of science. Third, Freud repeatedly
made attempts in mastering hypnosis. His hypnosis technique involved
laying his hands and placing pressure on the client’s forehead, directing
him or her to recollect past memories. Due to his failure in mastering
hypnosis, he became frustrated, abandoned the technique and distanced himself
away from it (Fosshage, 2000:3).
If loving touch is a crucial
need, what are its benefits? Infants learn through touch. Touching
physical objects, people, and themselves increase infant’s knowledge of
themselves and their environment (Davis, 1999: 42). What is more
revealing was the research done by The Touch Research Institute and J.
& E. Carton. In 1996, medical investigators from The Touch
Institute examined children’s playing fields, homes, and McDonald restaurants’
playgrounds in Paris and Miami. Researchers explored the differences and
similarities between the high tactile French kids with the low tactile
Americans. The concluding results showed that French preschoolers
were more affectionate among one other and less belligerent than their
U.S. counterparts (Davis, 1999: 81). 50 second grade children, 25 males
and females, participated in a research experiment conducted by John and
Erin Carton in examining the impact maternal warmth had on children’s learning
experience. It was discovered that mothers that frequently smiled,
gazed, and provided reassuring touches to their children increased their
self-confidence when examining their environments and the repercussions
of their actions. Furthermore, these children were found to participate
in less distracting, “off-task” behavior. The opposite was found
to be true for the children who received little or no maternal affection
(Carton, 1998: 83). Although 50 Caucasian American second graders
are not a representative sample, the results of the both studies are profound
and confirm the previous studies done on maternal warmth, reinforcing the
importance of loving touch. The loving bond established between mother
and child is so crucial because it gives child the necessary tools for
creating and maintaining future loving relationship (Montagu, 1986:206).
Before addressing the effects
of tactile deprivation, the reasons for America’s ‘hands off’ social policy
need to be explored. Montagu points out that Christianity reinforces
“fear of bodily pleasures” from sermons and lessons given in Sunday school.
For instance, children are taught that masturbation is a misdeed.
Given that touch creates pleasure, as well as, consoles, it becomes labeled
as a sin. As a result, people develop feelings of guilt whenever
they touch (Davis, 1999:80). Furthermore, the Puritan belief that
anything pleasurable is a sin strengthens Christianity’s link of sin and
touch.
The association of touch
with sex influences people to avoid touch. A healthy, romantic relationship
would have loving touch as one defining characteristic. However,
loving touch goes beyond romantic relationships. It can be found
in family relationships and friendships (Davis, 1999:84). Since men
sexualize touch, they tend to view every woman they meet as a potential
date. As a result, males limit themselves to the type of relationships
they can have with women. Furthermore, women learn to be more touch
avoidant in cross-gender settings since any form loving touch can be easily
misconstrued as a sexual interest (Andersen and Lusting, 1987:99).
Davis uses the term
‘phobia syndrome’ to explain several factors that inhibit people from touching
one another in American culture. First there is the misconception
that people who casually touch other people, such as a pat on the shoulder,
are promiscuous. However, that is not the case. Most touchy
people come from family background in which loving touch was and continually
used as a form of communication. Their touch focuses on the nonsexual
areas of the body. Examples include the head, shoulders, and arms.
Promiscuous people tend to touch in erogenous zones (Davis, 1999:85).
Then there is the homosexual
factor. Although women engage in more same-sex touching, men tend
to avoid it. Although more men are giving hugs to each other, there
are still barriers that prevent men from openly expressing their nurturing
side. One of those obstacles comes from the fear for appearing
to be homosexual. Consequently, their ability to express loving touch among
their male comradeships is severely limited (Davis, 1999:86).
Finally, the influence
of Freud can still be felt today. With his theory on children developing
sexual feelings for opposite sex parents, the Oedipus complex, many parents
stop touching their children as soon as they reach puberty. However,
adolescents’ need for touch increases. Although they may outwardly
avoid parents’ touch, by acting timid and mature, they still want reassuring,
comforting touch. In addition, it is important for children to learn
and understand the different types of loving touch; some are sexual while
many others are not (Davis, 1999:86).
Just as loving touch has
the power to emotionally and physically heal, the lack of loving touch
has the adverse effects. Montagu wrote, “when the need for
touch remains unsatisfied, abnormal behavior will result”(Montagu, 1986:46).
Provence and Lipton observed 75 institutionalized infants, comparing and
contrasting their behavior with 75 family raised babies. They noted
that the institutionalized infants were uncomfortable with being held.
They described them as “saw dust dolls” in that they were bending all their
basic joints with no difficulty, but “felt stiff”. Moreover, they
noticed that by 8 months, all infants had gotten in the habit of rocking
themselves. They came up with the following explanation for
their rocking behavior: rocking was due to feelings of frustration from
the lack of maternal warmth. As a result, self-rocking served as
an “auto-erotic activity”. Moreover, infants used it as a way to
alleviate their “infantile psychoses” (Montagu, 1986:242). If it
can be assumed that the institutionalized infants were fed the same amount
of food as the family raised ones, then results Provence’s and Lipton’s
study confirms previous findings on maternal deprivation among animals
and humans. Tactile deprivation also has negative nuero-phsyiological effects.
Prescott explains that the extensive research on animal development has
repeatedly shown that the “developmental brain abnormalities” are a result
of prolonged separation between mother and child (Prescott, 1996:3).
Lack of loving touch also
affects adolescence’s sexuality. In the beginning of the teenage
years, parents cease to touch their children. This is partly due to their
discomfort with the physical developmental changes within their children.
However, as Dr. McAnarney points out, it is at this time when children’s
need for touch increases (Montagu, 1986:211). To add to America’s
touch avoidance culture, several high schools throughout the country, such
as Nicholas Junior High School in Fullerton, California, have enacted school
policies prohibiting hugging, “high five’s”, and other forms of affection
between students and teachers. (Davis, 1999:72). Since
teenagers cannot have their touching needs fulfilled by their parents,
friends, nor teachers, they focus their energies on finding a dating partner.
The search for a boyfriend or girlfriend becomes a symbolic journey for
their “sensory fulfillment”(Davis, 1999:71).
In his documentary on life
in the Ghetto, Bill Moyers was surprised to find out that a lot of teenage
boys were fathers of several illegitimate children. When the teenage
mothers were asked why they had sex, they talked about their desire to
be held, cherished and loved (Davis, 1999:74). In addition, Dr. Elizabeth
McAnarney has worked with many pregnant teenagers. She points that at a
time when adolescents need for touch increases, parents stop touching their
children. She suggests that 10-14 year old early participation in
sexual intercourse is motivated by “non-sexual motives” (Montagu, 1986:211).
However, desires of touch and intimacy are not limited to pregnant teenagers,
but apply to all teenagers. As a result, teenagers become willing
to have sex in order to have their needs for touch satisfied (Davis, 1999:71).
Moreover, this practice of having sex for affection continues on into adulthood.
History has repeatedly shown
that whenever any desire is suppressed, an alternative method will be used
to satisfy it (Davis, 1999:66). Tactile deprivation does not only
affect teenager’s sexuality, but leads them to be more violent. Harlow,
in studying the effect maternal tactile deprivation rhesus infant monkeys,
discovered violence to be leading result. He studied the behavior
of five female rhesus monkeys raised in isolation. When they had children,
none were equipped to provide nurturance to their infants. Of the
5, two were “indifferent” toward their offspring. The other three
where so brutally violent toward their young that they had to be physically
sequestered (Montagu, 1986:42). Although monkeys are not human, they
are the most similar mammal to human beings.
Lack of loving touch cannot
only create a home atmosphere of neglect, but initiates a cycle of physical
abuse in which one, the other or both are present. Gelles and Cornel
say “the greatest risk of suffering violence, emotional abuse, sexual assault,
and murder for people in western society occurs in the home, at the hands
of other family members” (Hosking, 1997:2). For instance, the infamous
case of the Menendez brothers; they were two male teenagers who murdered
their parents.
Looking at abuse within
families over three generations, Doctors Steel and Pollack discovered that,
as children, the parents and grandparents were denied loving, physical
affection. According to three different research studies conducted
1993 by Egeland, Kaufman, Zigler, and Oliver, at least 30 to 40% of abused
children will grow up to be abusive parents (Hosking, 1999:2).
Abusive parents reinforce antisocial behaviors through physical and verbal
abuse, thus continuing the pattern of violence from one generation to the
next.
The significance of loving
touch can not be overemphasized. It aids humans in learning, expressing
themselves, and healing. Furthermore, it aids in preventing destructive
behaviors such as having sex for the sake of meeting emotion intimacy needs.
Positive experiences with loving touch have lasting impacts on people’s
lives. I know. Reflecting back on my past experiences,
I remember my Saturday morning rituals with my daddy. When I was
five years old, I would sit on his lap and watch Bug’s bunny cartoons.
Then we would have fish and chips for lunch and watch classic movies such
as To Kill a Mockingbird. These are my most precious memories because
when lying on his lap, I remember how safe, loved, and cherished I felt.
If I had not had those experiences, then I would not only be a totally
different person, but I would not have an understanding of tender, loving
relationships.
Although loving touch plays a fundamental
part in nurturing relationship, other qualities such as empathy, listening,
and friendship are vital. Concerning research on touch, more studies
need to be done in several ways. First, studies should have a representative
sample of the population. Not only does that require having
a large number of participants, but a sample diverse in race, socio-economic
background, and cultural background. Second, although
there have been numerous studies done on the effects of maternal warmth,
more studies need to focus on the effects of paternal warmth on children.
Finally, more studies need to be done on how media violence, especially
the combination of sex with violence, affects people’s attitudes toward
touch. On a personal front, men need cease the practice of viewing
women as a potential “score” and open themselves to other sorts of satisfying,
platonic relationships, such as being a big brother.
On Sunday morning, I found
myself feeling stressed because of self-doubts concerning whether I could
do a good job writing this paper. I had the strong desires to be
held and talk to someone, but I was by myself in my apartment. Moreover,
I was in a foreign country without my familiar, close friends. Due
to feelings of frustration, I started crying profusely. I tried being
“manly” about it by suppressing my emotions, but that only made feelings
more intense. Then I held on to a pillow, but that did not help.
Finally, I came to the realization, that as scary as it was, I was going
to have to reach out to someone. I called my friend Tina and cried
on the phone. She immediately came over and gave me a hug.
As I was expressing my feelings, she comforted me with her reassuring touch
and words. Afterwards, she gave me a half-hour backrub. From
that moment on, I felt confident that I could do a good job of writing
this paper.
Starting from an objective
point of view, I have found the evidence to validate my personal, positive
experiences with loving touch. Loving touch is many things.
It is comforting, reassuring, and healing. Most important, it is
a crucial need that every Amercian can no longer afford to live without.
References
Andersen, J.E., P.A. Andersen, and L.W. Lusting (1987) ‘Opposite Sex
Touch Avoidance:
A National Replication and Extension’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
Vol. 2, pp.
89-109.
Carton, J.S. and E.R. Carton, (1998) ‘Nonverbal Maternal Warmth and
Children’s
Locus of Control of Reinforcement’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
Vol. 1, pp.77-86
Davis, P. (1999). The Power of Touch. California: Hay House, Inc.,
Fosshage, J.L., (2000) ‘The Meanings of Touch in Psychoanalysis: A Time
for Reassesment’,
Psychoanalytic Inquiry, Vol. 20, [On-Line] Available:
http://www.psychoanalyticinquiry.com/vol20no1.html [2000, Nov. 9]
Hosking, G. (1997), ‘The Root Causes of Violence’, [On-Line] Available:
http://wwwave.org/Root_Causes_of_Violence.htm [2000, Oct. 17]
MSN Encarta World English Dictionary (2000), [On-Line] Available:
http://dictionary.msn.com
Montagu, A., (1986), The Human Significance of the Skin, 3rd
edition. New York, Harper
& Row Publishers.