Again I am drawing on an article that has infiltrated the mainstream. While not as popular as the Ted Williams saga, this story carries more serious implications/accusations. The article I am referring to appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 8 and is entitled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”: LINK
As a member of a large and successful family, it is fair to say that I am a student of parenting. I believe it is the most challenging and meaningful job in the world. For this matter alone, it would stand to reason that my curiosity on the subject is insatiable.
This particular article can only be described as controversial. The author, Amy Chua, published this article as a testimony that the “Chinese” (or “Eastern” as I will refer to it in this post) method of parenting is superior to the Western style. Despite many people’s beliefs, the purpose of this is not an incendiary tirade (civil discourse anyone?) against the Western style of parenting. Chua genuinely believes in her method of teaching, and although she outright criticizes the Western style throughout the article, she does so with the primary purpose of helping the reader fully comprehend the Eastern style and her reasoning behind it.
For me there are three key points I took away from Chua’s article: the definition of success, the level of autonomy that a child needs, and the definition of parental support.
It is an accepted truth that all parents want success for their kids. However, beyond this the universal truth’s in parenting are few and far between, and the divergence can be seen no better place than with the diverse interpretation of success. For the sake of brevity, let’s focus on the meaning that Chua assigns to success. Simply put- it means being the best. Nothing less and no exceptions. Chua points out that the A-minus on a test would cause the Chinese mother to “gasp in horror and ask what went wrong.” And most importantly, success is determined by the parent.
Another large focus of this article is the level of autonomy a child should have in their life. In the Eastern method, parents have total control of the child’s life and decisions. From what activities to participate in to how they allocate their time, they are the decision makers on all matters. Chua goes into length about the unwavering rule over her children’s lives and as far as she is concerned, parents know what’s best and their children and they must follow their command. Key quote: “Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences.”
The final component Chua underscores in her piece is the definition of parental support. According to Chua, Eastern parental support is not only executed through tough love (which she explains is because they believe the child is confident enough to handle it - an odd sign of respect) but also through hours of dedication toward a shared goal – getting the ‘A’ on the test, mastering the musical piece, or attaining the valedictorian ranking.
Through these three focal points and further animated with personal anecdote at the end of the article, Chua paints a style of parenting that is very different that the style that many American children and parents are unaccustomed to. After reading Chua’s article and reflecting on my personal beliefs for parenting (nearly all being the opposite of Chua’s) I developed an overarching theory that produces these very different approaches to parenting: the importance of the individual versus the importance of the family unit.
For Chua and the Eastern method, it is apparent that everything can be condensed down to the family. The individual doesn’t exist. The parent’s life is so interconnected with the child’s that they are one. The rebellious child who gets in trouble does not bring shame to himself/herself, they bring it to the entire family. When a child succeeds, the family (more specifically the parents) succeeds as well. Now apply this concept to the previously identified focal points in Chua’s piece: success, autonomy, and parental support.
It all adds up. Success is determined by the parents because they know what is best for the family; the lack of control is clarified with the knowledge that the parents’ perspective will guide the family to a successful outcome; and the consistent parental support is not because the child needs it but given because the family depends on it.
I personally view the individual as the most basic unit in life. I believe that true happiness (which also includes success) can only be found within the individual. The individual is in control of their decisions (this point could easily take a turn for a religious theory discussion but I will abstain).
However, I believe that family (or relationships) is the single most important part of the individual. Similar (but not identical) to Chua’s logic, relationships are the greatest determining factor in a person’s life. But they are part of the individual.
Now, here’s my belief structure applied Chua’s three points of success, autonomy, and parental support. Genuine success is bred from personal desire and therefore the individual can only find true success if they are invested in their endeavor. For the individual to find success they must have ownership in their decisions. Life is trial and error. The only way find the true path is through the knowledge that it is that the individual has chosen it. When growing up, children rely on their parents to help them understand the meaning of decisions and consequences. Along this line, parental support is most effective when it teaches the child to succeed on their own. Support is the knowing when to reign the child in, being there when the fail, celebrating with them when they succeed, and teaching them along the way. It is ultimately parenting them to succeed without them.
While there are endless approaches to parenting, there are elements of value in almost all. End of the day, the most important thing is to develop a parenting style that is based on love. This I know all parents can agree on.
from tom:
ReplyDeleteparenting in this case seems to relate to what should be provided to children for ideal results in the 21st century. historical note=
childhood only came to exist as a separate stage of life in the latter part of the 18th century. before that kids started doing what their parents did to increase survival chances in the family ie working in the fields, factories, mills or mines.
only after 1918 was there federal mandatory educationd; child labor laws were not passed by US congress until 1938. children working for families had remained important for survival.
concepts of children being offered options were not common until the wide spread affluence after ww2 . the kids born between 1935-1950 were heavily influenced by their parents deprivation in the depression and war
being raised after '60 was more of a change in what children expected from their parents and that parents felt they had to give.
often immigrant parents pushed their kids to interpret for them, negotiate with other adults, work in sweat shops etc so that either the 1st or 2nd generation in america could reach a level of financial and social success never known by the parents in their own land or in america. parents expected equal work for bringing the kids to a new land [bypass the effect of slavery on the family]
part of the difficulty of this story is the author is 1st generation, born in america of chinese parents who parented as they learned in china . she acknowledges the influence of confucianism in her life with its strong family focus.
she seems fairly assimilated married to a jewish american man. we dont know that her kids at 15 and 18 are damaged more than other kids. she says she feels that is more valid than a 5 or 10yo who couldnt put choices into perspective. if she seems rigid it may be in contrast to a different way of dealing with preteen kids in america.
it comes out at the same time as a study showing that asian children have no more intellectual potential than other americansl . their superior academic achievement in US schools is due to working harder and taking the outcomes more seriously.
its difficult to compare ms chua's viewpoint and your vision of yr folks assimilated family in a white, affluent, suburb. you can use her experience to find the values her view of child rearing have to offer. the media made her look like a monster and blogs etc were remarkable----sort of like the homeless man. horrible sells. it's as if we have nothing to learn from those who weren't raised like us or think like or look like us. the important part is to point out how we are correct; they are wrong. her family had come here to fight for success as the newest people in a long line of immigrants. they want to be here but they also can see problems in our society incl child rearing that are problematical.
maybe sometimes they are correct
families have their sctick...it can be practicing the piano for 4 hours or playing soccer for ?hours per day. parents make the pick. i have wondered how a brother of yours would feel who had no athletic ability.
it's good you seek the areas you want to clarify about you......many people you will learn from are neither heros or monsters....just different backgrounds and values. sometimes you can learn you do value their ideas or use them to modify yrs.
I agree with you Joel, that the role of a larger unit like the family with an over-riding cultural imperative tends to detract from the individual and hence his/her freedom. The most powerful combination is where the goals are all aligned from the individual, family and community perspectives (go as far as you like w/ the word "community").
ReplyDeleteThis 3 way alignment may be somewhat of a new concept as Tom points out by citing the history of this in his response. That alignment is seldom achieved because there are pragmatic, cultural (Chau's article), situational and contextual realities that diminish if not intentionally defeat that Utopian ideal of a three-way alignment.
Here is the irony. Humans idealize and pine away that perfect goal alignment of the 3 relevant social environments that exist:
1. Ourselves
2. Our Family
3. Our Community
Perhaps because of education and enlightenment, we have come to a point where we can possibly be somewhat free to actually realize that alignment of goals in the 3 systems. I think the systems compete and we tend to simplify. As a species we muddle through it. And whichever of the 3 contexts has the "hot hand" at this dot on our time line will be critical of the other two. Examples:
1. America - love it or leave it
2. Chau's Family is Central Concept
3. "What's in it for me?" or "Greed is Good"
It has been my experience that people are very passionate about their choice in parenting. I think that is because no matter how poorly we may approach the task because of our lack of preparation/materials/modeling we all recognize the importance of the job. Generally parents love their children despite their own flaws and inabilities as well as because of their nuturance and success - make sense? I think our spiritual journey is directly involved with our ability to give of ourselves. Some people do this on a grand scale like MLK and some bit by bit getting up with the baby, playing at the park etc. The Eastern philosophy is just different than what we know and espouse so it is easy to make it sound absurd but their goal is ultimately for the success of the next generation and do so with many hours of sacrifice of their own needs. I guess what I always try to remember is that your children don't ask to come here...you bring them so you have the responsibility to them to give your best. However when your best is diluted by having to work 2 jobs to put food on the table - it is a sad thing...ditto loss due to illness/death/divorce....what about people who are just unable to raise their children for whatever reason? Your comments make me think. So much potential is LOST each and everyday. I guess to Tom's point, children used to have to have a dispensible element prior to modern medicine as so many died. Now more survive to conditions which do not nuture them to reach potential, that do not show how to even have dreams for better-they emotionally suffer crippling and death. Mama may have and Papa may have but God bless the child that's got his own, that's got his own. It is a fortunate thing to be able to plan for your children, participate in their growth and development and set them free - but it assumes a level of affluence-control-ability-intelligence and just maybe luck as well. Love is agreed upon but remember it has many different meanings to different individuals....ahhhh so complicated!
ReplyDelete