Phil Johncock

菲力甫．都安．姜寇克 | Johncock family blog

WANT TO USE THIS ARTICLE IN YOUR E-ZINE OR WEB SITE? click here

A Rhetorical Analysis of Coldren’s Review of

Tomorrow’s Baby: The Art and Science of Parenting from Conception through Infancy

By Philip Johncock

INTRODUCTION

Traditional childhood development theories agree that experiences from our early childhood years have an affect on our adult lives. Freud and other psychotherapists have long argued that neurotic disturbance in adults can often be traced back to difficult traumatic experiences in childhood. Otto Rank, one of Freud’s closest colleagues for twenty years, even claimed that the prime source of adult neuroses and character disorders was birth anxiety. He wrote The Trauma of Birth in 1923.

However, it has not been until the latter half of the 20^th century that literature has received a number of research claims that impactful events from the very earliest developmental stages (i.e., conception, prenatal and birth) actually have profound and lasting psychological affects (Lyman). Research has appeared from a wide range of interdisciplinary fields: embryology, neurobiology, attachment theory, theories of trauma and origins of psychopathology, body-centered psychotherapy, somatic psychology, and prenatal and perinatal psychology.

Research in this area is highly controversial. It is held with skepticism among established psychologists and traditional child development theorists. Three primary reasons why research lacks credibility are 1) selecting a few from a myriad of experiences a person undergoes lacks validity, 2) claiming a resemblance of later behavior to earlier experience proves nothing, and 3) mainstream child development theory and research does not recognize single-event or single-influence theories, such as birth experience or birth trauma.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the rhetoric of a critique of a recent book in the field: Tomorrow’s Baby: The Art and Science of Parenting from Conception through Infancy. Published in 2002, Tomorrow’s Baby: The Art and Science of Parenting from Conception through Infancy was written by Pamela Wentraub and Dr. Thomas Verney, a leading expert on the effects of the prenatal and early post-natal environment on personality development. Dr. Verney is also one of the founders of the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH). The book review was written by Jeffrey T. Coldren; it appeared in the Infant Mental Health Journal in 2005.

By conducting a rhetorical analysis of his critique, it is possible to uncover stated and unstated assumptions and warrants that prevent more mainstream psychologists, early childhood development experts and other professionals from accepting and pursing this type of research. Understanding the emotional, ethical and logical basis for Coldren’s appeal sheds light on the underpinnings of skepticism. For example, he first instills fear in his readership and then assuages them to follow the path of “noted experts in the field.” He attempts to persuade the attentive reader to side with his views rather than those of Verney and Wentraub. In doing so, several highly contestable warrants that underlie his argument are not backed up. As a result, Coldren’s rhetoric is charged with emotions and laden with guilt (pathos), is somewhat unbalanced and unfair in its ethical (ethos) appeal, and relies heavily on hypothetical scenarios in its logical (logos) appeals.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Ethos

Using Aristotle’s concept of ethos as the first analytical frame, one notes that there are two grounds Coldren uses to undermine the credibility of Tomorrow’s Baby: The Art and Science of Parenting from Conception through Infancy. First, he patronizes the reader (and later Verney and Wentraub) with a doctoral lesson in the proper etiquette of scientific inquiry. Coldren claims that there are significant “scientific limitations” of the authors. He repeatedly gives Verney and Wentraub “failing” grades. For example, regarding the layout of the authors’ arguments, he argues that Verney and Wentraub fail to make a good case due to biased, uncritically-reasoned propositions; speculative reasoning; “shortfalls of evidence”; and illogical conclusions.

Coldren also argues that Verney and Wentraub fail because they “leave out” information, selectively use of scientific literature to enhance their views, and exclude “alternative explanations.” He implores them to include alternative views like those of Spelke and Baillargeon. In his eyes, Verney and Wentraub have incompletely reviewed the literature and neglected to include alternative perspectives and research. He flunks Verney and Wentraub in the subject of “balancing the obligation of scientists.” According to Coldren’s grading standards, Verney and Wentraub failed to adequately share the results of their research without assuming the danger of oversimplifying complex issues to the “person in the street.” His logic, however, is speculative, even pedantic.

Consider Coldren’s second strategy to call into question the credibility of Very and Weintraub by focusing on the perceived increase in “power that neuroscience offers” scholars and laypeople. Here, Coldren’s comments are less about the book itself than about the contribution that neuroscience can make to the age-old “nature-nurture” debate, one of the “most difficult debates facing scholars” today. On the one hand, he admits the power that neuroscience has. On the other hand, he argues that Verney and Wentraub have misused their power as scientists in how they report their “neuroscience” findings in a biased way. This is a weak attempt to criticize Verney and Wentraub while bolstering his own credibility as a scholar in the field. Coldren’s unstated assumption is that only trained and licensed professions in his field of study should be allowed to unleash and wield the “power of neuroscience.”

Pathos

Consider Coldren’s emotional tone in this review: its parental nature, like that of an overly controlling parent wanting to protect his vulnerable, perhaps overly naïve children. Coldren evokes fear by claiming that people on the street and under-prepared parents should both beware that intentionally revealing incomplete or missing information is a manipulation ploy. Then, he harnesses this fear for his own purposes of persuading the reader of the dangers of neuroscience information used inappropriately and dissuading the reader from making the connection between human behavior and prenatal experiences.

Coldren assumes parental responsibility under the guise of claiming to protect the undereducated reader as well as ill-prepared parents from misinterpreting the book’s recommendations and from leaving with wrong impression or incomplete information. He vilifies Verney and Wentraub as opponents through negative emotional appeals. For example, he cautions and even stresses that “some of the authors’ ideas are dangerous and irresponsible.” Later, he mobilizes the reader to side with him, the expert.

Likewise, by claiming that some suggestions in the book are “guilt evoking and self-defeating,” Coldren warns that the book might be anything but practical and helpful. In a manner that by and in itself is designed to evoke guilt among potential readers of Tomorrow’s Baby: The Art and Science of Parenting from Conception through Infancy, Coldren prophesizes that the authors’ recommendations will cause parents to assume personal responsibility for the affect that early experiences have on their children’s brain development. Thus, Coldren hypothesizes that mothers might well blame themselves for the affect of their depression during pregnancy. Plus, parents of children with autism or disabilities might overwhelm themselves with guilt over their contribution to neurobiology of their children. Beyond instilling guilt, his argument hinges on speculation and hypothetical scenarios.

Logos

Logos refers to the logical appeal of a piece of rhetoric. In Coldren’s review, there are three primary rational components. First, Coldren explains that scientists like Verney and Wentraub who want to reach a mass market, do so through “catchy headlines, sound bites, or a book that is digested easily by the public.” He argues that Verney and Wentraub fail at their obligation as trained scientists to 1) share results of their studies with the “public at large” and at the same time 2) preserve the integrity of the science. He sites Horowitz (2000) and her argument as saying that the “challenge is to help educate the person in the street to ask less-simple questions while communicating the limitations and complexities of our knowledge.” However, the role of educating people in higher order thinking while being an admirable goal is unrealistic and beyond the scope of the book.

Second, the focus of the book, Coldren claims, is too narrow for the depth and complexity of the field of child developmental psychology. Here, his logical appeal is to the book’s oversimplification and inaccuracies. He summarizes the thesis of the book as “environmental experiences have a profound and largely permanent biological impact on the neurological development of the brain.”

Coldren claims that the role of the environment is over-stressed. This premise is unsubstantiated with data. To his credit, Coldren’s argument that the book’s theory does not take into consideration “resilience or plasticity in neurology” that takes place throughout and after childhood does indeed match concerns raised by other childhood development theorists. His claims that the book also does not take into consideration the issue that lots of children develop problems even under the most ideal conscious parenting points to additional factors that affect early development.

Coldren harshly criticizes the book as “just another version of extreme psychoanalytically inspired biological determinism redressed with environmentally induced causality.” This unduly assumes that the reading audience is well aware of this scientific debate. Coldren’s overly erudite word choice impresses the reader with intellectual dexterity and bolsters his credibility.

The third logical appeal used by Coldren was brought up in the earlier ethos discussion. Coldren argues for balance between making information from studies available to the public and preserving scientific credibility and integrity. He reminds the reader logically that best-selling books on similar topics sell more books to a less discriminating audience but at a price of oversimplifying issues and providing an “incomplete state of the literature.” By association, Coldren implies that Verney and Wentraub use oversimplification and omission tactics to manipulate and sell books. As a result, they do less-than-scientific work.

AUDIENCE

There are three main audiences addressed in this review: developmental scientists, parents, and the general public. The first two paragraphs set the stage by addressing the developmental scientists and their dilemma to make results of their studies accessible to the public while preserving “scientific credibility and integrity.” The final paragraph (and a few other sections) address parents to whom the book is recommended cautiously; however, his recommendation is reserved only for select parents “who understand complexities in development and individual differences.” In between the first and last paragraphs, a third external audience emerges: the “person in the street” who, according to the reviewer, “asks simple questions and wants simple answers, who is puzzled by complex responses, and who is impatient with the nuances and qualifications of contemporary child development.” The informed reader is beseeched to act on behalf of these common folk who might fall prey to manipulative ploys employed by Verney and Wentraub.

CLAIM AND REASONS

Colder’s primary claim can be summarized in his cautious recommendation that the book should only be ready by “parents who understand complexities in development and individual differences.”

Predictably, Coldren finds few reasons to recommend the book. He tries to be fair and balanced by speaking well of the book’s portrayal of “wonderful abilities of babies and the importance and you with which parents should bring to the experience.” He complements the book as being “engaging” and “highly readable.” He refers to the section on the “joy of being a parent,” where he says that the “writing is inspiring and poetic.” Regarding the parenting points listed at the end of every chapter, he says they are “commonsensensical and practical.” But, his praise ends here.

The reasons for his caution are what he calls “serious scientific limitations” and lack of conclusive evidence to support the authors’ arguments. As mentioned in the ethos section, the reviewer repeatedly claims that the authors fail on many fronts and for various reasons. The primary reasons for this, according to Coldren, are poor construction of authors’ arguments; biased, uncritically reasoned propositions; speculative reasoning; “shortfalls of evidence;” and illogical conclusions. In fact, Coldren claims that “in some places, the conclusions of the authors are incredible, unsupported, or just flat out wrong.”

The secondary reasons for failing are that Verney and Wentraub leave out important information, use selectively scientific literature to strengthen their hypothesis (writers are trained to do this), and exclude “alternative explanations.” The final reasons he claims that the authors fail are because they were unsuccessful in balancing the obligation of the scientists to share the results of their studies with the danger of oversimplifying complex issues to the “person in the street.”

STRENGTHS

One of the strengths of the review is making the connection between this book and a larger dilemma facing developmental scientists: how to make their discoveries accessible to the public while maintaining scientific credibility and integrity. The inclusion of Horowitz’s (2000) claims about the “person in the street” adds credibility to his argument. This association allows the reviewer to expand his audience beyond parents and developmental scientists, as well as hammer home the guarded role of scientists in sharing the “results of their studies with the public at large.”

Another strength lies in the Coldren’s claim that the book presents an “extremely unbalanced view of the role of the environment” and the wide “range of experiences” that impact the neurological development of the child. The former puts the book squarely on the “nurture” side of the nature-nurture debate. The latter adds face validity to his argument. For example, he effectively uses quotes from the book that stretch the range of experiences beyond believability: “every biological process leaves a psychological imprint, and every psychological event changes the architecture of the brain” and “every early experience, from conception on, materially affects the architecture of the brain. From the journey down the birth canal to afternoons at the park, a child will register every experience in the circuitry of his or her brain.” One would not have to have read the book to speculate about the use (or overuse) of the word “every”.

WEAKNESSES

A weakness of the review lies in its length and number of themes presented. While Coldren is effective in fitting his arguments in the length of the journal space for reviews, he spends an inordinate amount of time on the “person on the street” issue (two paragraphs) before he ever addresses the book. While this advances his rhetorical aim to warn the casual reader of the inherent dangers of the book, it leads to an unbalanced argument. The “nature-nurture debate” is barely touched upon. The “implications for revising long-standing theories of developmental psychology” are barely mentioned and are not developed further. The later is actually one of the significant contributions of the book; however, the implications are left out of the review.

Another weakness is the lack of evidence that Coldren uses to support his claim that authors “lapse into pure speculation by positing ‘intuitive communication’.” He concludes the paragraph with this claim but fails to provide adequate support and context for what the authors mean by ‘intuitive communication’.

STRUCTURE

In one comparative structure, Coldren likens the potential negative influences on parents (i.e., “guilt or worry”) to the historical backlash against attachment theory that happened during the “early bonding debate.” At the time, supposedly parents assumed overwhelming guilt for not having the opportunity to bond with their children. Coldren claims that it wasn’t until Mary Ainsworth and others (not referenced) wrote about attachment being a “process” rather than a “product” that the guilt and worry went away. Mentioning the debate from the past enhances Coldren’s credibility through the use of long-term knowledge. By association, it strengthens his argument of the possible negative affect (backlash) of the book. However, this is highly speculative; it is difficult to measure the affect of hypothetical or actually assuming responsibility for actions and experiences on children and their brain development.

WARRANTS

A strong clue of the reviewer’s explicit statement of belief, value and principle (warrant) appears in the following statement: “The idea that memories may be traced to the womb fails to meet basic standards of science such as empirical support, reliability, or validity.” His warrants are that 1) any research not conforming to basic standards of science is false, and 2) research that adheres to basic standards of science is true. “Scientific credibility and integrity” is the backbone of mainstream psychologists, early childhood development experts and other professionals. In his call for standards, the majority of Coldren’s claims concern validity. Little attention is given to empirical support and reliability.

Another warrant can be found in Coldren’s unsupported assumptions. First, best-selling books by developmental scientists will almost inevitably dumb down content, oversimplify, and provide an incomplete picture of the literature in the field. Moreover, they will likely be inaccurate and lack scientific credibility and integrity. While this assumption may have some validity, this hypothesis would need to be tested. Otherwise, it may appear that Coldren is biased.

A second unsupported assumption is that the general public “asks simple questions, … wants simple answers, … is puzzled by complex responses, and … is impatient with the nuances and qualifications of contemporary child development.” Likewise, this assertion would have to be tested to be valid. While including the writing of Horowitz (2000) adds credibility, it contains opinions and untested (from what I can see) hypotheses.

CONCLUSION

As far as a short review of a book goes, Coldren’s arguments are coherent and largely supported with evidence. He stresses the importance of “scientific credibility and integrity,” especially when sharing findings with the public at large. He admits the power of new findings in neuroscience is radically changing the field. The emotional tone is parental and only recommends the book with many warning labels. His audiences are developmental scientists, parents and the general public. One of his primary criticisms of the book is that its focus is too narrow for the complex field of child development psychology. Criticisms often take the form of failures by Verney and Wentraub to make an unbiased “scientific” case for their main thesis, which that “environmental experiences have a profound and largely permanent biological impact on the neurological development of the brain.” One of Coldren’s explicit statements of belief is that the basic standards of science (i.e., reliability and validity) and traditional child development theories hold as false the premise that memories may be traced to experiences in the womb. Two more warrants appear around the pitfalls of developmental scientists trying to reach a wider audience, as well as the simple-ness of the general public.

REFERENCES

Baillargeon, R. (1994). How do infants learn about the physical world? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 133-140.

Coldren, J.T. (2005). Book Review. [Review of the book Tomorrow’s baby: the art and science of parenting from conception through infancy]. Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 26(3), 287-289.

Horowitz, F.D. (2000). Child development and the PITS: simple questions, complex answers, and developmental theory. Child Development, 71 (1), 1-10.

Lyman, B. J. Prenatal and perinatal psychotherapy with adults: An integrative model for empirical testing. Retrieved April 27, 2007 from http://www.sbgi.edu/news/linkedfiles/lyman.ppn.pdf

Spelke, E.S. (1998). Nativism, empiricism, and the origins of knowledge. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 181-200.

WANT TO USE THIS ARTICLE IN YOUR E-ZINE OR WEB SITE?

You can, as long as you include this complete statement with it: Philip Johncock, World's Completion Coach, is award-winning author of books, online courses, TeleCourses that empower and change people's lives from the inside out. If you're ready to discover your genius, leave your legacies, and have more fun and joy in all you do, get your FREE genius tips from Philip now at www.FunUnlimitedInc.com.

BIO BLOG