Gemini's psychology is still characterized by pathological tradition, especially as regards separation
Around 1940s, researchers begin to be interested in the twinning and twin psychology. Until then, since 1922, people have been primarily interested in twins in relation to research in inheritance / environmental issues. Dortothy Burligham publishes the first 3 articles on twin psychology and describes here a number of difficulties that she believes to be triggered by the twilight relationship. Burlingham, on this basis, describes the twin cabinet as a maladaptive and pathological relationship that can hamper the development of the individual child and, in the worst case, lead to psychological maladministration, unless you get into the twin room.
The first study of the twin cabinet has major consequences
Burlingham's conclusions have great consequences, because they are largely a guiding principle for the further research into the psychological significance of the twin cabinet, right up to our present day. Year 2000 is the publication year for the latest article, which I have found, as uncritical and without regard to the generalisability of her study, cites her conclusion.
Unfortunately, Burlingham's study says little about the psychology of ordinary twins. Let me explain why. Then I'll come back to how it still affects the attitude of twins.
§ Firstly, 3 twin pairs (6 children) are a very small basis to generalize from.
§ Second, Burlingham's twins had been institutionalized at The Hampstead War Nursery, a orphanage in post-war England, where the predominant pedagogy was from calm, regularity and cleanliness throughout the investigation period. In other words, they did not have a normal upbringing environment at the time of study and therefore represent a so-called "clinical population". One should not generalize from a clinical population to a normal population.
§ Third, one pair of twin pairs was a reduced thrill pair, the two twin children had lost their vibration. Then we're down on two sets of twins!
§ Fourthly, one child is described in the second twin pair, which is likely to have a mental disorder. Then we get back with one twin couple!
The conclusion that the twin cabinet can lead to erasure development / inhibit the development of the individual child, thus grows from a study of a twin parent who is orphaned and lives in orphanages in post-war England.
Unfortunately, this is not only for this single twin couple. Researchers are now looking for further evidence that the twin cabinet is a problematic relationship (see, for example, Demarest & Wineston 1955; Lassers & Nordan 1978; Johnston & Johnston 1982; Ainslie 1997; Kelleher et al., 2000), all of which refer to Burlingham .
Burlingham's study thus becomes the focal point of a research tradition focusing on disadvantages, misdeeds and psychopathy associated with growing up in the close relationship of the twin-childhood.
This problematic and pathologizing (ie, illuminating) research is largely based on single case studies of a primary clinical population, which can not be generalized to ordinary twins. Single-case studies are good at describing a phenomenon qualitatively, but such studies must not be generalized as normative for an entire population, such as applicable to "all twins". Exactly the same problem that Burlingham's study suffered from.
And now I come to know how the pathological attitude still influences the understanding of twin psychology:
The twin cabinet has been seen as a vulnerability that could lead to evasion
Over the years, on the basis of a search for vulnerabilities associated with growing up as a twin (a pathologizing discourse), "documented" how the twinning inhibits the development of the individual childhood, for example. Individuality and Independence (Athanassiou 1986: Lassers. & Nordan 1978; Castellet y Ballara & Bollea 1994); Sociality (Lander 2008); Language (Zazzo 1976); and How the Twinship Is Perceived To Afford / Dependency (Feilgelson 1983; Lander 2008; Shave & Ciriello 1983) and identityconfusion(Castellet y Ballara et al. 1994; Feigelson 1983; Lander 2008; Leonard 1961). Do not you can recognize many of these issues, for the available handbook literature about twins? The problems are still (and often uncritical) repeatedly reproduced. The myth that twins become more independent of separation still lives - without taking a critical view of when this will be the case, in what situations and extent and under what circumstances .... Ie We still carry some of the pathological discourse with us. What if the discourse instead had focused on a resource perspective would you have carried on a myth that twins become more independent of being very much together?
Perhaps it will be a little wording now. But I hope you understand my point. How do we know what we know about twin psychology?
It is worth paying attention to what scientific basis the problem of the twin cabinet has been built over the years and it is worth noting when we socially have taken a myth so much to us that it has become a truth we no longer takes a critical position on ....
For a very many years, the twin cabinet has almost been perceived as a possible source of problematic development in the individual child. I have had many counseling with twin parents where the school or institution has experienced some problem about a twin couple and the first thing that is taken care of is to separate the twins. As if any problem a twin child may have, resolve best by resetting the twin room.
Separation has been and is still in many respects the dominant approach to dealing with any problem in relation to the development of the twin! Even in situations where separation may even aggravate the current problem, for example. If the children are very dependent on each other, it becomes very easy what one (uncritically?) is getting into.
A resource perspective appears
Only around 2000, the focus begins to change research, so that more and more scientific evidence is now available to consider the twin room as a resource in the development of the individual child. A documentation based on larger quantitative studies of a normal population.
There is thus far for a long time focus on the twin cabinet as a resource in the development of the individual child - as many twin parents have always known.
For example, you have identified the identity of evolving twins, you have considered the importance of twins being followed during school start and you have studied the importance of sharing friends in relation to the number of friendships and much more.
In line with this, we happily also see a shift in the way professionals recommend handling the twin cabinet. If the twin-childhood is primarily considered as a resource in the development of the individual child, one would much less recommend separation than has been done so far, even when there may be. problems with social skills, language development, dominance or addiction arise - as it may make for all children, whether they are twin or not.
The resource perspective in contrast to the pathological discourse means that there is no longer a "real" and a "wrong" way of dealing with twins and separation - but we need to focus on what we seek to achieve and if we The existing knowledge of twin psychology can really expect this to be achieved.