This paper will attempt to trace the roots of the recently defined field of Birth Psychology or, more properly, Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health, and place it in the context of current theoretical perspectives in the wider field of psychology. The incorporation of the biological component is a relatively recent development in psychology. The reuniting of body and mind may be one of the keys that leads us to a greater understanding of ourselves as human beings. Therefore, it is important to note that we are discussing the field of Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health. This reintegration of specialty areas is an important development in psychology and particularly important for pre- and perinatal psychology, as we shall demonstrate.The biblical acknowledgment of the awareness of the babe in the womb in these words from the book of Luke, "and when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb," is one of many references from ancient scriptures attesting to the importance of prenatal life. It is interesting to note that one of the current leading theorists in Birth Psychology, William Emerson (1995), states that, in his experience, the second trimester is primarily devoted to psychic and spiritual development for the unborn child. In the the above quoted biblical passage, Elizabeth is stated to be in the sixth month of her pregnancyThat human beings have long been fascinated with birth and origins of life should not be surprising. Who among us has not gazed into the heavens on a starlit night and wondered about the birth of the universe? And who hasn't been stimulated by the sight of a newly born baby to marvel at the unseen events within the womb of the mother that have led to the birth of such a perfect creation? What is surprising is that we have gone through a period of discounting awareness during the process of becoming human because of our limited understanding of the process and, so, placed the beginning of awareness at some point in the process that we thought we could explain. It is the moving of this point, from attributing consciousness and awareness only to adults, then to children who had become verbal, and, more recently, opening to the possibility of consciousness that does not depend upon verbal ability, that constitutes the most fascinating aspect of the history of pre- and perinatal psychology.The twentieth century brought new ways to learn about this phase of human physical development with the advent of technologies such as ultrasound, fetal heart monitoring, and interuterine photography. Previous to these technologies, direct observation of the living unborn human was not possible. Our scientific bias discounted information based on centuries of intuitive experience of midwives and individual expectant mothers. Much of the current research is reinforcing what these individuals have long intuited. For example, that the unborn hears and responds to external sounds. We now know that the unborn child's ear is fully developed at 4-1/2 months in utero. Even this may not account for the earliest fetal responses to sound. Another pioneer in Birth Psychology, Dr. David Chamberlain (1994), suggests that prenates "begin listening and responding in the 16th week, long before the ear is formed at 24 weeks, using the vestibular system and the skin, which functions as an external nervous system absorbing sound and vibration." This new data about the sentience of unborn babies, however, is still the subject of intense debate when it comes to attributing awareness or consciousness to the unborn baby. One ancestor of Birth Psychology, the behaviorist perspective in psychology, is ready to accept evidence of classical conditioning as shown in numerous experiments from Peiper in 1925 to DeCasper & Spence in 1982, but this is not considered to be evidence of consciousness to strict behaviorists nor to neurologists. The behaviorists' position, is not surprising in light of thier strict adherence to the tenet that only observable behavior is worthy of scientific study. To the neurologists, consciousness itself is only a manifestation of neurological functioning, so the debate with neurologists involves establishing that structures are in place to account for consciousness. This begs the question, what stimulates creation of the structures? The biological perspective would point to genetic programming, but the answer is turning out to be much more complex. There is some evidence that the development of fetal organs, structures, and systems are coincident to use. Liley, in 1972, stated, "development of structure and development of function go hand in hand." It could just be that intent precedes both, and that the whole question of which comes first, structure or function, with regard to organs and systems within the human body is irrelevant, as one requires the other in a circular fashion. Recent research in brain development is confirming this. Work in DNA analysis has shown that cells hold long term memory of ancestral and phylogenetic information within strings of complex memory. Integration of knowledge from many fields has never been more important. The advent of internet communications may provide the key to such integration.
We turn now to the literature of psychoanalytic thought for the contributions of another ancestor. A review of the literature in the period since Freud's pioneering work reveals much in the way of substantiation for the imprinting of birth and prenatal experiences in the unconscious. Freud himself viewed birth as the prototype for later anxiety. In a footnote added to the second edition of The Interpretation of Dreams (1900/1965), he stated, "Moreover, the act of birth is the first experience of anxiety, and thus the source and prototype of the affect of anxiety." Interestingly, in light of later events, this footnote was deleted from subsequent editions. These later events include his rejection of the work of his protegee, Otto Rank. Rank's (1929) Trauma of birth, although researched and written at the behest of Freud, created a split between them upon its completion and was totally rejected by Freud. Frank Lake suggests that Karl Abraham and Ernst Jones resisted Rank's theories in fear that Freud's work would be diminished by the importance attached to the trauma of birth. Whatever the reason, the psychoanalytic community rejected Rank's work, relegating it to the background for many decades. Although Rank's work is now seen by those in pre- and perinatal psychology as seminal, some aspects are disputed in light of new knowledge. For example, he viewed the prenatal period as a totally pleasurable and even blissful primal state. We now have evidence that the prenatal period is not always blissful and that the months preceding birth can contain traumatic experiences. A wealth of data from psychoanalygic literature, from Piper (1925) through Ferenczi in 1938 and Winnecott in 1958, has addressed the impact of prenatal experience. Winnecott (1958) in The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, states specifically that the personal birth experience is significant, and is held as memory material. Another branch of the psychoanalytic community that has contributed significantly is that begun by Wilhelm Reich (1949). Although he did not specifically address birth issues, his founding of the body/mind approach in psychology has led many to realization of birth and prenatal experiences stored in the body. The field now known as Birth Psychology or, alternatively, as Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health, was defined first in Europe with the organization in 1971 of the International Study Group for Prenatal Psychology, which later became the International Society of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine, acknowledging the multidisciplinary nature of its members' work. It's twin in North America emerged in 1982 as the Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Association of North America. It too has now acknowledged its multidisciplinary nature by changing its name to the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health. The two organizations, while sharing a common vision, emerged independently of each other and remain so, although there is common sharing of research contributions in their respective journals. Because the implications of the research emerging from this field have far reaching consequences for the human race, perhaps proponents can be forgiven for unusual zeal in promoting their theories. Within the field, patience with the slowness of change is sometimes difficult. How does one explain, for example, the long period of time between the initial discovery that smoking by an expectant mother had an effect on the fetus (Sontag, 1941) and the implementation of this information into advice given to pregnant mothers? The integration of health (or medicine) into this field of research is very important. Perhaps, when we begin to see the development of the body as a result of consciousness, we will truly learn about the body, and about consciousness. The wisdom of the soul is there in the beginning. The trick is to maintain contact with this wisdom while developing a means of communicating with others on this level of existence. This seems as true for individuals as it is for revolutionary theories
References:
Chamberlain, D. (1994). The sentient prenate: What every parent should know. Pre and perinatal Psychology Journal 8(3), 9-31.
DeCasper, A. & Spence, M. (1982) Prenatal maternal speach influences human newborn's auditory preferences. Infant Behavior &\
Development 9, 133-150.
Emerson, W. (1996) The vulnerable prenate. Pre and Perinatal Psychology Journal 10(3), 125-142.
Freud, S. (1900/1965) The interpretation of dreams. New York: Avon
Ferenczi, S. (1938/1989). Thalassa, a theory of genitality. London: Maresfield Library
Liley, A. (1972). The foetus as a personality. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 6, 135-178.
Pieper, P. (1925). Sinnesempfindugen des kindes vor seiner geburt. Monatschrift fur Kinderheilkunde 29, 237-241.
Rank, O. (1929). The trauma of birth. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Reich, W. (1949). Character analysis. New York: Orgone Institute Press.
Sontag, L. (1941). The significance of fetal environmental differences. American Journal of Obstretics and Gynecology 42, 996-1003.
Winnecott, D. (1958) The maturational processes and gthe facilitating environment. New York: Basic Books
