REBELLIOUSNESS vs ATTACHMENT

Rebelliousness and Attachment are two sides of the same social mechanism in human nature. It is the social mechanism describing how a person experiences dependence on others and on authority (relationships with parents, bosses, and powerful friends).

We say social because its manifestations are activated in a social context.

The Rebelliousness vs Attachment Scale as a trait of human nature represents a spectrum ranging from rebellious tendencies to strong attachment within social dynamics.

How does it all actually work?

In early childhood, different family circumstances occur in our lives. Those circumstances create different early attachment experiences towards our parents which in turn, shape our attachment styles.

Quality parenting and “adaptive attachment” with both parents in early childhood contribute to positive relationship dynamics later in life, while “maladaptive attachment” can lead to challenges in forming and maintaining future relationships and social bonds.

We call “adaptive attachment” one where both parents do reasonably well with the 3 core parenting tasks:

1) To take care of the child’s needs;

2) Taking care of the partner’s needs, demonstrating this to the child through their behaviors;

3) To provide the child with all the necessary knowledge and skills so that later on the child could be able to take care of his own needs;

In contrast, we call “maladaptive attachment” the cases when one or more of the mentioned 3 core parenting tasks are not performed sufficiently.

*(More about adaptive parenting techniques, as well as neurobiological mechanisms “unlocked” in the child’s brain as a consequence of different types of parenting, can be found in the chapter “Social-Functional Parenting”)

Depending on these early experiences, various neurobiological processes are activated in the child, causing neuroplastic changes, thus “rewiring” different neural pathways in their nervous system and brain, predisposing the child to specific future emotional, intellectual, physiological, and behavioral reactions to their interactions with other people and in dependency situations.

In other words, if the child is exposed to proper parenting and adaptive communication between both parents, it develops abilities for normal attachment and is capable of co-existing normally in dependent circumstances later in life.

On the other hand, if the couple has experienced different dysfunctions and/or difficulties (for example, due to single parenting, professional problems, or physical impairments), this can easily lead to neglect of the child’s needs and consequently to dysregulations in the mentioned neurobiological processes in their brain.

This, in turn, often leads to the formation of rebellious tendencies towards behaviors that serve the child to “win their freedom” from the “tyranny” of dysfunctional parenting, which is unable to adequately care for their needs and “fights” against everything and everyone in the name of its own needs.

Depending on the extent to which a person is inclined to be rebellious, we can observe different behaviors.

What are the consequences of Rebelliousness as a trait of human nature for people’s lives, depending on where on the scale of “Rebelliousness vs Attachment” they are:

Low Scorers:

Pros: Others perceive them as autonomous – either from others or from authority. In group settings, they are the rebels who challenge questionable norms and make it clear that unfair treatment and unjust actions won’t be tolerated.

Cons: Others describe them as people who intentionally do the opposite of what they are told, just as a principal. Often develop negative attitudes, hostility, fear, and/or unwillingness to commit (either to a long-term relationship, job position, or business partnership). Others describe them as avoiding all situations of dependence. In the long term, they fail to become part of the political processes in organizations, which automatically “throws them out of the game”. Often described as people who cannot cooperate well in relations of dependence. Basically unable to function optimally in a relationship with a more dominant partner.

High Scorers:

Pros: Well-socialized individuals. Often described as people who have a positive attitude towards authority. Able to live very well in obedience and dependence, which makes them very good at functioning in organizational and group hierarchies. They know how to follow rules, imposed by authorities, and they are not feeling bad because of it. Easily make the difficult decisions that the authorities want of them. Have the ability to be a meaningful/strategic part of the political coalitions in the organization.

Cons: Often develop dependencies on other people. Unable to (or late to) stand up to injustices. Often are described as people, who are willing to jump beyond the moral norms in the name of subordination (think “the Milgram’s experiment”). Often described as lacking their own opinion because of their tendency to agree. (although this may not be the case at all).

Desired scores (for optimal functioning in the nowadays social world) – between the 25th and 50th percentile. If the person shows different results (after psychological profiling) there is potential for a developmental process.

Please note, that the mentioned optimal results (25%-50%) are in cases of normal everyday functioning with good overall levels of in-group satisfaction.

If this is not the case (meaning the person is in non-satisfactional group setting or in a group with a dysfunctional leadership), that person will be better suited with levels of rebelliousness between 50% and 75%. Again – that is a potential for a developmental process.

OK, Now what?

Share this article with someone, who who could find it useful –>