Attachment is commonly defined as the emotional bond an individual forms with a caregiver; at its core, however, it functions as a regulatory system. This system enables the seeking of proximity in times of threat, the restoration of calm through closeness, and the exploration of the world from a secure base. In this sense, it is an organized pathway of survival. Human nature is not designed to cope with the world in isolation. From early in life, individuals learn to regulate their basic needs, emotions, and behavioral patterns through the presence of another. In this respect, attachment is not a preference, but a necessity. However, not every nervous system is regulated in the same way, because not every relational context is the same. While some caregivers are consistent and predictable, others may be distant, inconsistent, or ambiguous. When the child cannot change the caregiver, adaptation occurs internally. The child learns how to respond to proximity, when to withdraw, what to suppress, and what to amplify. For this reason, attachment does not emerge in a single form; different attachment patterns represent distinct yet meaningful adaptations to specific relational environments. Attachment is a system that is continuously updated through experience. Early relationships lay its foundation, yet every subsequent relationship contributes to its reorganization. Friendships in adolescence, romantic relationships in adulthood, and each experience of connection and rupture reshape expectations and responses to closeness. The nervous system learns, adapts, becomes more flexible or more rigid. Thus, attachment is cumulative in nature. Each relationship carries traces of previous ones, while simultaneously holding the potential to transform them.
One Step Forward, One Step Back: Disorganized Attachment
Disorganized attachment is defined as an attachment pattern in which behaviors toward the attachment figure lack coherence, and tendencies toward approach and avoidance emerge simultaneously (Mary Main & Judith Solomon, 1990). For some individuals, proximity is both soothing and threatening; rather than serving as a secure base, it becomes an unpredictable relational space. The individual both seeks and avoids it. This is because, in prior experience, closeness has signified not only protection but also the potential for harm. In such a context, the mind cannot resolve the conflict, because both realities hold true: proximity is necessary, yet it is also dangerous. Disorganized attachment thus reflects a lived contradiction that is difficult to sustain. Like other attachment patterns, disorganized attachment is not a fixed identity. It does not manifest uniformly across contexts or relationships. Rather, it is a context-dependent pattern of experience that becomes activated under specific relational conditions. It may become pronounced in some relationships and nearly absent in others; it may intensify during certain periods and recede in others. This is because it reflects not who the person is, but what they have experienced and what they are encountering. It is not a label, but a response of the nervous system under particular conditions. And like all responses, it remains open to change, softening, and transformation through new relational experiences. Still, certain factors contribute to its activation:
-
Intolerance of Uncertainty: Situations in which the direction of the relationship, the intentions of the other, or emotional availability remain unclear can heighten the perception of threat within the nervous system. This is conceptualized in the literature as intolerance of uncertainty, referring to the tendency to appraise ambiguous situations as threatening and to respond with heightened cognitive and emotional reactivity (Michel Dugas et al., 1998).
-
Fear of Self-Loss in Intimacy: For some individuals, proximity entails not only connection but also the risk of losing oneself. As relational closeness deepens, the concern may shift from bonding to dissolving within the relationship. This is described in the literature as fear of self-loss and is associated, particularly within attachment frameworks, with the perception that increasing intimacy threatens autonomy (Mario Mikulincer & Phillip Shaver, 2007).
-
Triangulation in Family Systems: Within family systems theory, triangulation refers to the pattern in which a child is drawn into unresolved tension between caregivers (Salvador Minuchin, 1974). The child becomes a third element expected to regulate the emotional climate, at times required to take sides or mediate. This dynamic disrupts the development of a stable and coherent caregiver representation; instead, the child must navigate shifting roles and emotional demands, resulting in a relational experience where proximity carries both security and strain.
-
Frightening Caregiver Behavior: A key mechanism underlying disorganized attachment involves the caregiver functioning simultaneously as a source of safety and fear (Main & Hesse, 1990). This may manifest through sudden anger, emotional unavailability, or unpredictable behavior. For the child, the attachment figure becomes both a source to approach and a source to avoid. Consequently, the attachment system is activated in conflicting directions—toward proximity and away from it—resulting in an unresolved internal contradiction.
Paradoxical Thinking: Meaning Through Contradiction
Paradoxical thinking refers to the capacity to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas as simultaneously valid or meaningful. Whereas classical logic operates on an “either/or” framework, paradoxical thinking allows for “both/and.” This perspective becomes particularly relevant in understanding human experience, emotions, and relationships: one can love and withdraw, seek closeness and avoid it at the same time. This line of thought is most prominently associated with Søren Kierkegaard, who critiqued binary oppositions such as “either/or” and argued that human existence is not structured by linear logic, but by tension and contradiction. According to this view, individuals do not resolve contradictions but carry them as part of their being (Kierkegaard, Either/Or, 1843).
Readiness For Attachment: Do I Need To Heal First?
Individuals often assume that their internal experiences can be fully understood in isolation; yet there remains an enduring inclination to seek a witness to one’s own inner journey. The psychological organization of the individual is largely shaped within relationships and continues to transform through them. The notion of “healing independently before entering a new relationship” imposes an overly linear structure on the inherently relational nature of attachment. In practice, healing often unfolds within the context of another relationship—one in which the individual may be reconstituted, re-injured, and repaired again. It is not a solitary process, but one that emerges through contact. Some walls are not dismantled through reflection alone, but gradually dissolve in the presence of another.
References
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3
Kierkegaard, S. (1843/2004). Either/Or (A. Hannay, Trans.). Penguin Books.
Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161–182). University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). University of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.