It refers to very different concepts in different areas.
Probably to most people, the most familiar meaning of attachment is the additional file we get in our e-mails. In law, it refers to a means of collecting a legal judgment by levying on property in the possession of a third party. In biology, attachment is the binding of virus to its target cell.
In Buddhism, Upādāna, translated as attachment, is the critical cause of suffering.
In psychology, it refers to the emotional connections or bonds between two individuals.
As a person studying psychology, I'm more interested in its meaning in describing human bonding. I can write a psychology essay about attachment and how it manifests and functions throughout one's lifetime. But don't worry, I'm not going to be too scientifically about it this time. Here I would be more leisure and focus more on my thoughts and reflections on it recently and quest the link between the psychological attachment and the Buddhist attachment.
(OMG, how pathetic can I be... I'm using an essay format writing my blog article!)
Attachment, as I put it, is the emotional bond between two individuals. A baby forms the very first attachment with its primary care giver (in most societies this is the mother, so in the following text I will use "mother" to save some time and space) at around 6 month old. Mother- infant attachment is the blue print of interpersonal relationships.The relationship between the baby and mother is crucial for the baby's survival, human infant is probably the most vulnerable species of all animals and it depends heavily on its care giver for survival. If the care giver is consistently and sensitively respond to the baby's needs , the baby would develop a "secure" type of attachment. Secure attachment means the baby develops a good sense of self ( I can ask for what I want and people care about me) and can establish interpersonal trust easily. "Avoidant" attachment usually happens when the care giver is not responsive to the babies' crying or discourages the baby's distress. Avoidant attachment is characterised by the lack of emotional communication between the mother and the baby. A third type of attachment is "ambivalent/resistant" attachment, characterised by the ambivalence of affect expression of the child- the baby is preoccupied by the availability of mother, seeking contacts with mother but resists angrily when it's achieved. Usually inconsistent care-giving between appropriate and neglectful responses from mother contribute to this attachment type formation. Also, the fourth type is "disorganised", which means the baby doesn't have a consistent attachment style. Anyway, we can say that secure attachment is "secure" and the "avoidant" and "ambivalent" are both insecure. In most research literature, around 65% babies are in secure category and the remaining 35% are in insecure and disorganised. (OMG, this is really pathetic, this paragraph is exactly like an essay...)
I think mother-infant attachment is important not because I'm studying psychology but because it's the first interpersonal bond the infant forms with the outside world. Human are social animals, we live in a context of core family, extended family, friends, acquaintances and strangers. We can not live in complete isolation, therefore our interpersonal relation is a crucial part in our daily dealing. Usually, attachment is applied to most intimate interpersonal relationships only- that of parent-child, romantic relationships, or couples. However, I argue that it's not only limited to intimate relationships but every interpersonal relations, just that it's more obvious in more intimate relationships. The core issue in attachment, is trust, which is the foundation of any interpersonal dealings. A secure person can trust other people easily, therefore it's easier for the person to really connect to others. An insecure individual cannot trust others easily. An avoidant person avoid emotional expression so that they won't be vulnerable and won't get hurt when rejected; an ambivalent person seeks high-level intimacy and needs constant reassurance whilst the person him/herself might not reaffirms the reassurance consistently. Forming relationship with avoidant and ambivalent individuals can be pretty challenging-how can you develop intimate relationship with a person who doesn't trust you(and vise versa)? . For instance, the challenging part for relating to avoidant people is the difficulty to really know what's his/her emotion because he/she doesn't show it. The challenges for relating to ambivalent individual are the constant reassurances he/she seeks and the inconsistencies- wouldn't it be very tiring if your partner ask you whether you love him/her every day but doesn't necessarily give you positive response if asked? Insecure individuals do not trust people and that also make other people difficult to trust them. After all, relationship is reciprocal. (OK, I think I'm getting much better here!)
Although I'm saying the mother-infant attachment is important because it's the blue-print or prototype of a person's intimate relationships, I am not saying that it is invariable. It is possible to change: attachment patterns can be changed and modified through our experiences or through tremendous conscious cognitive effort (e.g. going through psychotherapy). For instance, a person can stat with perfectly secure attachment with his/her parents as a baby but become avoidant after the parents' divorce (e.g. due to the parents' daily arguments and neglect to the child's needs), or a person can start with ambivalent attachment with the parents but develop secure attachment after being in consistent romantic relationship with a stable partner. But I would say, it's more difficult to change and adjust as one gets older, and also, the development of attachment is usually unconscious which is also difficult to change even through conscious effort. And also, the deeper the relationships develop, the more difficult to resolve (or to detach in a certain level) for the relationship breakdown. Many people can get so deeply hurt that they refuse to open their heart to let another person in ever again, and as you can foresee, these people become avoidant.
Developing interpersonal trust takes energy and effort. Each individual comes from a totally different background, goes through different life experiences and with a different spirit. It is not easy for two individuals to mutually understand each other, especially if they do not share some common background, experiences or culture. Committing into a relationship is deciding to take a risk. A risk that we might not even be able to estimate the outcome. But the will to trust, to open oneself to another, and to devote unconditionally for the growth of another's spiritual growth, is love. Love is not easy, is not effortless, and certainly not risk-free. Nowadays, romantic love is usually portrayed by popular media as "instinctual (e.g. I know he/she is the one, I just know.)", "effortless(One can "fall" in love)", " risk-free" and certainly the bright side more magnified. However, the side which requires more effort and risk is usually neglected, which, in my opinion, partially contributes to the higher divorce rate in contemporary society. Once the "falling in love" feeling(passion) disappears, couple do not look for ways to work together to improve the relationship instead just ask for a divorce because they don't think love actually takes effort. Love definitely comes with passion (for romantic love) and intimacy, but to develop it require time, attention, effort, discipline and commitment.
It is perfectly natural and healthy to have interpersonal attachment. Human are social being and we naturally seek intimacy and interaction with others. I think the link between Buddhist attachment and interpersonal attachment is obsession and excessive possessiveness. The attachment becomes a cause of suffering when one becomes too dependent on the relationship to the point that he/she is even obsessive about the other, which also has something to do with the insecure attachment. I don't think it is very healthy, nor is it easy for both people involved. The crucial point here is balance: the balance between self and the other (independence-dependency), balance between trust and reasonable doubt (trusting-naive), balance between being emotional and being apathetic (emotional expression). The balance is not a static thing, it's dynamic and fluctuating, and it is hard to strike and need to be learnt through experiences and efforts.
