Attachment theory reduces complex relationships to simplistic categories

Attachment theory has become the astrology of modern psychology. Four neat categories—secure, anxious, avoidant, disorganized—supposedly capture the entirety of human relational experience. This reductionism isn’t accidental; it’s profitable.

The industrialization of intimacy

What began as clinical observation has evolved into a consumer psychology framework. Attachment styles offer the same appeal as personality tests: they promise self-knowledge through categorization.

The theory transforms relationship dynamics—which are contextual, fluid, and irreducibly complex—into static personality traits. This makes them measurable, comparable, and most importantly, treatable through standardized interventions.

This is value creation through artificial scarcity. By pathologizing normal relationship difficulties as “insecure attachment,” the psychology industry creates a need for their product: security.

Categories as control mechanisms

The four-category system doesn’t describe reality; it creates it. Once people identify with an attachment style, they begin performing it.

“I’m anxious-attached, so I can’t help being clingy.” The category becomes an excuse, a limitation, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. What was meant to explain behavior ends up determining it.

More insidiously, the categories establish a hierarchy. “Secure” attachment is presented as the goal, the healthy norm. Everyone else needs fixing. This pathologizes perfectly functional relationship patterns that don’t conform to middle-class Western ideals of independence and emotional regulation.

The myth of infant determinism

Attachment theory’s foundational claim—that early caregiver relationships determine adult relational capacity—is both unfalsifiable and convenient.

It places responsibility for adult relationship problems safely in the past, with unavailable parents. This absolves current partners, social systems, and economic conditions from scrutiny. Your relationship fails not because of impossible work schedules, financial stress, or incompatible life goals, but because your mother was “inconsistent” when you were two.

This backwards causation serves therapeutic capitalism perfectly. You can’t change your childhood, but you can pay to “heal” from it indefinitely.

Contextual complexity erased

Real relationships exist in specific contexts: economic pressures, cultural expectations, power imbalances, life circumstances. Attachment theory ignores all of this.

A person might appear “avoidant” in a relationship where emotional expression is punished, “anxious” when their partner is genuinely unreliable, or “disorganized” when navigating competing cultural expectations about intimacy.

These aren’t personality disorders; they’re rational responses to difficult situations. But attachment theory individualizes systemic problems, making personal therapy the solution to social dysfunction.

The secure attachment fantasy

“Secure attachment” describes someone who had consistent, responsive caregiving and now maintains stable, trusting relationships. This isn’t a psychological achievement; it’s a privilege.

It requires economic stability (caregivers who aren’t overwhelmed by survival needs), cultural consistency (clear social norms about relationships), and historical luck (no major disruptions like war, displacement, or economic collapse).

Presenting this as the psychological norm pathologizes the majority of human experience. Most people throughout history have had “insecure” attachment by these standards—not because they’re damaged, but because life is difficult.

Manufacturing relationship anxiety

The popularization of attachment theory has created new forms of relationship anxiety. People analyze every interaction through attachment lens, turning normal relationship fluctuations into evidence of deep psychological problems.

“He didn’t text back quickly—my anxious attachment is triggered.” “She wants space—she must be avoidant.” This hyper-psychologization of ordinary relationship dynamics creates problems where none existed.

The theory trains people to interpret their partner’s behavior as symptoms of childhood wounds rather than responses to current circumstances. This makes relationships more anxious, not less.

The therapy industrial complex

Attachment theory feeds a massive therapeutic apparatus. Attachment-focused therapy, couples counseling, self-help books, online courses, coaching certifications—an entire industry built on the premise that most people are relationally damaged.

The theory’s appeal to therapists is obvious: it provides a systematic framework for understanding all relationship problems. Every client can be categorized and treated according to established protocols. It’s psychology’s answer to medical diagnosis.

But unlike medical conditions, attachment styles aren’t discrete, stable, or independently verifiable. They’re interpretive frameworks imposed on messy human experience.

Cultural imperialism disguised as science

Attachment theory universalizes specific cultural values—independence, emotional regulation, consistent behavior—as psychological health. This marginalizes other ways of organizing relationships.

Cultures that value extended family interdependence, emotional expressiveness, or flexible relationship boundaries get pathologized as promoting “insecure attachment.” The theory becomes a tool for cultural homogenization, disguised as scientific objectivity.

Beyond categorical thinking

Human relationships resist categorization. They’re dynamic, contextual, and constantly evolving. The same person might be “secure” with one partner and “anxious” with another, depending on countless variables.

Rather than asking “What’s your attachment style?” we might ask: “What does this relationship dynamic accomplish for the people involved? What constraints are they operating under? How do power, resources, and cultural expectations shape their interactions?”

These questions don’t produce neat categories or marketable solutions. They reveal the irreducible complexity that attachment theory was designed to obscure.

The value of uncertainty

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of attachment theory is its promise of certainty. It suggests that if we can just identify our “style” and “heal” our wounds, relationships will become predictable and secure.

This is a fantasy. Relationships involve other people, who have their own histories, needs, and agency. They exist in changing circumstances, subject to external pressures beyond anyone’s control.

The value of a relationship might not be its security or predictability, but its capacity to help people navigate uncertainty together. Attachment theory, by promising to eliminate uncertainty through categorization, misses this entirely.

The infinite complexity of human connection cannot be reduced to four boxes, no matter how much money there is in pretending otherwise.