Strange Ways: A Biocultural Understanding of Cross-Cultural Patterns of Childrearing

Anthropologists know and realize that there are no universal childrearing practices and that the “art” of raising children does vary by culture.  While many claim to be experts on raising children and others admit that they do not have the first idea of what to do it is clear that there are a variety of different and very effective ways to raise children.  Today’s blog post will discuss the biocultural understanding of cross-cultural patterns of childrearing by examining three different examples (two modern and one historic) and breaking down how culture and biology are intertwined and ultimately benefit or detriment the child.  Biocultural practices are cultural practices that affect the biology of individuals practicing them.  These practices may seem strange to some readers, particularly American ones, but I encourage you to keep an open mind and be culturally relativistic as you might be surprised about the biological benefits and consequences of “strange” and “normal” childrearing practices.

Example 1: Finnish Babies Sleep in Boxes 

Figure 1: Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes Provided by the Government (Source: BBC News)

To many the idea of having one’s baby sleeping in a box conjures up notions of a family living in poverty and unable to purchase a proper crib or bed for the child, but in Finland families willingly place their babies in cardboard boxes that include a baby sized mattress (Figure 1).  Now you may be thinking a great many things, including but not limited to “How can this be?  Are they willfully abusing and neglecting their children?” 

Not at all. 

The tradition of using cardboard boxes as beds for Finish children is a fairly modern practice that dates back to 1938.  This practice began as an initiative through the Finish government to reduce infant mortality rates in the country.  Prior to the start of the initiative 65 out of 1000 Finish babies died annually, which was one of the highest infant mortality rates in Europe.  The reason for this high infant mortality rate was due in part to the Finish population being poor and unable to afford the basic necessities for babies and expectant mothers and fathers being unaware of specific prenatal treatments that would assist the newborn baby in surviving and growing up healthy.  The Finish government began to send “Maternity Boxes” to socioeconomically poor families.  These boxes contained several items, such as diapers, clothing & outwear, and a mattress, as well as information guiding families to seek medical attention for both the mothers and their infants.  The “maternity box” contents were meant to assist low income families in caring for their newborn children, and an unintended effect of this government assistance was that the “maternity box”, which was the cardboard box that housed the contents meant for baby, served as many of these babies’ first bed, primarily because these families could not afford a “proper” bed. 

Through this initiative the infant mortality rate steadily began to decline in Finland.  The maternity box was a catalyst for reducing the likelihood of death for infants in Finland because the contents provided support in ensuring the health of the developing infant in several ways.  The diapers reduced biological waste that could harm the child because cleanliness does reduce the risk of infection and disease transmission.  Also, the clothing and outwear kept children from being exposed to the elements, and while the old wives tale about the cold causing illness is false it is known that extreme weather, such as cold or heat, can negatively affect the body as it causes drastic changes in the body’s internal temperature, which can and does lead to negative health outcomes.  And the bed, well, it did not do too much to ensure the baby’s health other than reduce the stress of the parents who did not have to worry about not having the money to pay for a bed and instead could allocate their monies toward food for their infant.  The Finish infant mortality rate continued to fall as other cultural changes occurred in future decades, including the institution of a free health care to all Finish citizens. 

Example 2: Cosleeping Practices

Figure 2: Cosleeping (Nenet Culture) (Source: Marie-Stenzel, National Geographic Collection in Haviland et al. 2011)

In the United States it is common practice for a baby to sleep not only in a crib (or separate bed) but also in a separate room.  This practice is not, however, common cross culturally.  In fact, it has been demonstrated that it is more common, cross-culturally, for mothers and infants to sleep together in the same bed, a practice known as cosleeping (Figure 2).  The practice of cosleeping is slowly being adopted by some Americans but remains heavily criticized, with opponents claiming that there is a strong possibility of mother’s accidentally smothering babies by rolling over onto them as well as increasing the likelihood of producing clingy children who cannot and do not gain independence from their mothers.

But scholarly studies produce different conclusions in regards to the effects of cosleeping vs separating mother and infant so early on.  First, cosleeping practices reduce the length of infant’s crying bouts.  A perpetually crying infant can and often does stress out individuals, particularly parents who are sleep deprived and therefore already stressed, and sometimes this stress can and does manifest into physical abuse against the children.  Also, studies have demonstrated a reduction in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) among cosleeping infants who purportedly receive breathing cues from their mother and continue to breathe normally throughout the night.  In regards to the aforementioned criticisms studies have not found a significant number of infant deaths due to accidental smothering or overly dependent children.  In fact, based on an informal survey of some of my friends who practice cosleeping it seems the mothers are more distressed by no longer sharing their beds with their children than the children themselves!

Example 3: Giving Up Breastfeeding

Figure 3: Infant Formula (Source: Google Images)

It is very common these days to see advertisements for infant formula, a manufactured food meant to feed and nutritionally sustain infants (Figure 3), but the notion of abstaining from breast feeding children actually goes back to prehistoric times.  Ancient Greeks used to feed infants wine and honey, ancient Romans provided infants a mixture of goat’s milk and honey, and ancient Indian’s (as in populations from India) were known to serve their infants a mixture of diluted wine, soup, and eggs in place of breast milk.  The notion of not breast feeding is not a new one, and it was actually considered beneficial throughout various cultures and periods to not breastfeed infants. 

This notion of not breastfeeding infants for their benefit, however, is one that is incredibly detrimental to the development of infants and children.  Breast milk provides infants with essential vitamins and minerals as well as disease fighting substances, which provide early immunity to infants who are born without much of an immune system (that typically develops as our bodies are exposed to and successfully fight off various pathogens that make us ill).  A consistent trend of increased infant mortality can be seen throughout history as well as cross-culturally when breastfeeding is discouraged and/or discontinued. 

As well, not all baby formulas are created equal and some are actually incredibly nutritionally deleterious for a developing baby, causing a decrease in the overall health outcome of the child.  Case in point, ancient baby formula recipes actually left children nutritionally poor, increasing the likelihood of death.  This does not, however, mean that all baby formulas are bad for baby.  Modern baby formulas are more nutritionally beneficial to babies than past formulas, but modern baby formulas are not nearly as nutritious as breast milk.  Also, modern baby formulas can be incredibly harmful to babies in certain cases.  Modern baby formulas most often come in powdered form and require the addition of water before they can be consumed by infants.  This makes baby formula a great substitute for infants in situations when and where breast milk is not available (e.g. mothers are not developing breast milk, mothers produce breast milk that contains life threatening diseases that can be passed onto their infant, etc.).  But in areas of the world where clean water is not readily accessible powdered baby formulas can be incredibly dangerous to infants because of the exposure to unclean drinking water, which may contain dangerous pathogens that will harm the child.  Ultimately, studies have demonstrated that whenever possible it is best to breastfeed a child despite cultural prohibitions against breastfeeding.        

The cultural practices of letting children sleep in a cardboard box and cosleeping may seem strange to some, but these cultural practices serve a larger biological need, ensuring that babies are born healthy and grow up in fit environments.  In these ways culture and biology are working together to benefit individuals.  In the case of baby formulas while it may seem like cultural interventions are best for baby they are actually quite harmful and should be avoided.  So next time you see a cultural practice that is counter to what you grew up with do not immediately leap to the negative conclusion but look for the positive aspects of it.  Learning from other cultures can lead to not only a better understanding of cultural diversity but also improved health of all humans globally. 

Bibliography

Dailey, K.  2014.  “Breastfeeding: Was Their Ever A Golden Age?”  BBC News.

Haviland, W.A., H.E.L. Prins, D. Walrath, and B. McBride.  2011.  Anthropology: The Human Challenge.  Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Lee, H.  2013.  “Why Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes.”  BBC News.