In this response to Michaela Chamberlain's article, I engage with some of the key aspects of her thinking in her exploration of the concept of the secure base and how the theory of its "provision" is tested by her lived experience of working with patients whose attachment-related trauma has compromised their capacity to experience her as a secure base. In particular, I explore the idea of the secure base as a two-person relational construct. I use an attachment lens to consider the complexities and challenges in facilitating attachment security when working with disorganised attachment. I explore the question of the need for an earlier "holding" phase as a precursor to the capacity to relate to a secure base and consider the expansion of the concept of the term secure base to incorporate this earlier "holding" dimension. I also question the possibility and desirability of "complete holding" in working towards attachment security, engaging with Winnicott's theories to explore the ideas of the transitional space of illusion and disillusion, of "good-enough", and of internalisation in the therapeutic process of building attachment security. Finally, I consider the parallel process of the therapist's development of their internal secure base.
Predictors of mother–child interaction quality and child attachment security in at-risk families
