Oh, just another attachment theory disquisition, I thought. (I was wrong. It’s not just another, it’s one of the best.) Published in 2010, the book states early on that adults show attachment patterns in romance similar to the way children bond with their parents.

There are three main configurations: secure, anxious and avoidant. (For a deeper discussion on attachment theory, read the piece in the Articles section entitled Past Relationships: The Gift that Keeps on Giving, or do a search for Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby, the scientists who discovered and catalogued these styles in children; Mary Main, Phillip Shaver and Cindy Hazan, who expanded the theory to adult relationships, and Brooke Feeney and Roxanne Thrush, of Carnegie Mellon, who identified three specific behaviors that underlie secure relationships.)

Within a few pages I realized it’s not “just another” attachment theory book. If you already know that your love style is avoidant or anxious, or even worse, a combination of both, Levine and Heller explain that no, you’re not irreparably fucked up, and moreover, from an evolutionary point of view there is nothing (NOTHING!) wrong or abnormal about those states.

According to this theory, we’ve been programmed by evolution to single out and depend on a significant other, and this state of affairs lasts for our entire life. The authors theorize that evolution favored those who had someone to deeply care for them because those were the individuals who survived to pass on their genes. In prehistoric times, being close to a partner was a matter of life and death.

The avoidant and anxious styles are also a consequence of prehistory and genetics, they say. In a very dangerous environment it pays to be avoidant, to not get too deeply attached, because the chances are high your partner will be killed, and it is emotionally necessary to be able to move on. Another viable option for a very dangerous environment is anxious attachment behavior, wherein hypervigilance, or staying very close to your partner, may save both your lives.

In an apparent case of split personality, the book delivers good news, then bad news.

Dr. Jekyll, aka the news that made me smile: The authors state that we can alternate between attachment styles during our lifetime, because they are determined not only by how our parents cared for us, but also our experiences as we wend our way through life. If people can switch unconsciously, imagine what we can do if we consciously focus on becoming securely attached.

Mr. Hyde, aka the news that made me cringe: People have different capacities for intimacy, and in some avoidants this is immutable, and those people will remain avoidant throughout their lives and are bound to bring unhappiness to you, dear reader, who is almost certainly the anxious type, or single, or in a troubled relationship, because otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

The book’s other salient points:

Protest behavior.

In infants, a good example of protest behavior is the sequence of events when an infant is separated from the parent. A secure baby will express distress but when reunited with the mother will soon go back to play; an anxiously attached infant will act ambivalently, pushing mommy away, bursting into tears, and take longer to calm down;  an avoidant baby will act as though nothing has happened and may ignore the returning mother —  but this baby’s heart rate is just as elevated as the others’ and their cortisol stress hormone is skyrocketing.

In adult relationships, protest behavior includes

• Excessive attempts to re-establish contact: Frequent texting, calling, e-mailing.
• Withdrawing: “Engrossed” in the paper or TV, the silent treatment.
• Keeping score: “If he/she doesn’t call, then I won’t call either.” Waiting for your partner to make the first make-up move after a fight.
• Acting hostile: Rolling your eyes, walking away when your partner is mid-sentence.
• Threatening to leave, all the while hoping your partner will stop you from leaving.
• Manipulations: Pretending to be busy when you’re not.

These are hallmarks of the insecurely attached, while the securely attached, on the other hand, communicate their own expectations and at the same time are sensitive to their partner’s needs without having to resort to protest behavior.

The dependency paradox.

This theory holds that when our true emotional needs are met by our loved ones, we can then turn our attention outward. Stated more radically, the more effectively dependent people are on one another, the more independent and daring they become. While this is less obvious in adults, in children it is clear. Consider the earlier example of a securely attached child exploring toys in a new environment in the presence of the mother. If the mother leaves the room, the child will become visibly anxious, even tearful, and will abandon the toys until the mother comes back. Once the two have hugged and reassured each other, the child will resume the exploratory drive.

Like many thinkers who subscribe to the attachment theory framework, Levine and Heller blame our culture that scorns basic needs for intimacy, closeness and especially dependency, while exalting independence. This is to our detriment.

The codependency myth.

Conventional “wisdom” holds that if your partner acts in a way that undermines your sense of security, you should be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally, “keep the focus on yourself,” and stay on an even keel. If you can’t do that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too enmeshed with the other person, or “codependent,” and you must learn to set better “boundaries.”

Garbage, say Levine and Heller, and from a biological point of view, impossible. Once we are in a partnership, they explain, we are no longer separate entities. Our partner regulates our blood pressure, our heart rate, our breathing, and the levels of hormones in our blood, to the point that our happiness depends on our partner’s happiness.

Communication. The authors come out strongly against romantic ploys such as feigning disinterest in commitment to avoid scaring off a potential partner. They say secure people voice their true needs early on and that they automatically weed out those who don’t respond affirmatively. The advice by popular sites to appear independent is balderdash, because it is a betrayal of the self. They urge us to express our needs honestly and soon; if we are turned down, better to be disappointed early on, because game playing will only delay the disappointment. Moreover, if we are disappointed, it is NOT our fault, and it has nothing to do with us.

They note that not only do avoidants and anxious types have trouble expressing their needs and emotions, sometimes they can’t even identify them. (Italics mine.)

Three behaviors to create a secure base.

• Being attached means that we’ve rewired our brain to ensure the partner’s physical and psychological proximity. So, be available. Answer calls and texts, and provide a shoulder to lean on when your partner feels distress.
• Don’t interfere. Leave your partner with the feeling of power. Let them do their own thing.
• Boost their self-esteem, accept their personal growth goals.

Three common misconceptions.

1. Everyone has the same capacity for intimacy. Not true, say the authors. We may all fall in love as passionately, but our capacity for intimacy is very different. “And when one person’s need for closeness is met with another person’s need for… distance, a lot of unhappiness ensues.”
2. Marriage is the end-all-be-all and proof that the power of love will transform. Also not true, according to these researchers. Mismatched attachment styles can lead to a great deal of unhappiness in marriage, even for people who love each other greatly.
3. We alone are responsible for our emotional needs; they are not our partner’s responsibility. Absolutely, unequivocally untrue, they say, and the moment we are in a relationship we are dependent on that other person, and this is dictated by biology. The authors recognize this last one flies in the face of the co-dependency myth that has splattered today’s cultural mindset with an indiscriminate brush far beyond the substance abuse crowd for which it was originally intended.

The authors recognize how difficult it is to let go of these misconceptions, because they are part of our cultural lore, from Hollywood rom-coms to trashy romance novels. “But jettisoning these ideas is a necessary step,” they say. “[Conventional and inaccurate tropes] encourage us to compromise our self-esteem and happiness by ignoring our most basic needs and trying to be someone we’re not. We believe that every person deserves to experience the benefits of a secure bond. When our partner acts as our secure base and emotional anchor, we derive strength and encouragement to go out into the world and make the most of ourselves. He or she is there to help us become the best person we can be, as we are for them….

“We need to recognize that someone who blatantly disregards our emotions is not going to be a good partner. In a true partnership, both partners view it as their responsibility to ensure the other’s emotional well-being.” (Italics theirs!!!)

My recommendation: Read this book. Better yet, buy it here, so I can get a few pennies from affiliate marketing.