cross cultural research shows freud (and a lot of current theorising too - to be fair) to be very culturally biased.

for example, sometimes fathers are the primary attachment figure. it might be that the mother works and the father is the primary caregiver. it might be that the mother died during childbirth and the father is a solo parent. it might be that rather than having a SINGLE attachment figure children are able to spread their attachment relationships amongst different members of the tribe (including grandparents and siblings and uncles and aunties - take that freud, maybe an infant doesn't need to attach to one PARTICULAR person at all).

just like how a lot of stuff that Schore goes on about (the importance of looking with respect to attachment) simply can't apply to BLIND infants now, can it.

sigh.

cross cultural research is important because it shows us different ways of being. often things we take to be part of human nature (e.g., that an infant needs to bond to ONE person and that person needs to be the infants BIOLOGICAL MOTHER has exceptions in many cultures - including our own). methinks the fact that the needs are met (including emotional) is far more important than WHO it is that meets those needs in particular.

personally... i don't know if i was ever properly attached to my mother. my earliest memory is of trying to get the hell away from her and trying to get closer to my dad. maybe i was attached to her initially but then pulled away... or maybe not. i don't know. verbal memories before age 2 or 3 are unreliable because they simply can't be encoded in verbal form (we haven't developed that capacity yet) and as for my body memories... i'm not sure they were encoded in a 'happened before age two' form either because i'm not sure you have the cognitive ability to time-mark memories before you are two...