Parenting

And so we finally begin the discussion, after a couple of weeks off and Chinese New Year. I have been negligent here.

Anyway...

Simply put, to me, there are two sides to the arguments. The first camp gives Amy Chua the thumbs down for her perfectionist, aggressive approach to parenting (and other fingers too, besides...) while the other camp cheers and applauds her determination in realising her children's potential.

That is where the question comes in, and it's here that we have to define what it is exactly that Amy Chua is doing. Is she projecting her own personal desires and goals onto her children? Does she see them as a reflection of her own achievements and social standing? Or does she simply run them quickly off a cliff, knowing they can fly? Because between the warring 'children-should-be-heard-too' and 'parents-know-best-absolutely' lies simply the differences between the priorities and approaches of parenting.



Amy Chua works her children like we work characters on MMORPGs; relentlessly, unforgivably and with a great deal of shouting when the levelling-up doesn't occur. And for that people deride her, because of course her young, tender-aged children should not have had to endure such psychological and emotional stress from their own mother. Parents are the safety nets of children, letting them land from failures with as little pain as possible. So goes the 'Western way'. Protect the children. Guard their feelings. Self-esteem is everything.

(Be aware I'm using terms like Western and Chinese very loosely. Of course, not everybody in either group adheres to the supposed 'ways' I'm talking about, and neither are these styles so utterly distinct and black-and-white, but for the purposes of the arguments making their way round everywhere, I'll just stick with it)

 The 'Chinese way' is different. The force driving this method is competition. In a world where everyone works their asses off, parents can't afford to raise a self-confident kid who fails to get into university. The kids may hate them for it, and many times they don't, but the parents know it's worth it if their child gets a good stable job and a better life in the future. This means long hours daily, it means studying longer than adults work daily in most countries, and it means no letting up. Life is a long, long marathon, and everybody sprints all the way.

Which way is right? Understanding the different cultural backgrounds of both parenting styles is important. Consider China; students study all their lives just to get into the local universities, if their parents don't have the cash to send their kids off to other places where they can take it a bit easier. With over a billion people fighting for the best positions in life, you can see how the need for real hard work becomes a necessity. Sometimes it's the parent that has to start the push.

In the US, the story is a little different. A's aren't all that matter, and a perfect SAT score won't always get you into the Ivies. What you do in your spare time is as much as factor as the examinations are; everything from your interest in sports, your ability to speak publicly and your interests beyond academic boundaries will and can help you. Here we can see; the differences between the education systems of the two sides are what give rise to different priorities and hence different approaches.

This alone almost ends the fight. There's no right or wrong, only different! But it's not enough. The two cultures have clashed and overlapped, and now there are mad-studying Chinese students plugging up spots in Western universities, just as there are Western kids studying in China (though probably a lot less). And in many respects, the Chinese kids are doing a lot better - their stereotype as math pros doesn't exist for nothing. And it is presumably on this basis that Amy Chua declares the superiority of the method she subscribes to.

What do I think? None of them are right. There's no absolute right or wrong, for one thing, only how right or how wrong...I subscribe to neither but maybe half of both.

Referencing the article I linked to at the end of my last post: "Amy Chua is a Wimp". The author of the article presents an interesting argument; that by doing what she does, i.e. limit her children's social life and involvement outside of studies and the household, she is really harming them and also sparing them hardships, in contrast to her stated stand of putting them through the tough stuff. And I think it may be true. What happens when your kid doesn't work with others? By not spending time with other children, they may not learn how to argue, how to compromise, how to be friendly...and the list goes on. The lessons that we gain from social interactions are not things found on blackboards or stacks of books or in violins and pianos. These are invaluable skills, and here I quote from the article:

"Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale."

The article is a very well-written and interesting one, and I recommend you read it. Rather than regurgitate and repeat what it's said, it's best if people read it themselves.

I will say, however, that I believe the best way is the moderate way. Push your children, don't give them a reason to slack off when you know they're capable of much. Let them know you think that way. Think of their feelings and opinions, but don't coddle them. Excessive drilling and sheer 'brute force' tactics with regards to studies will only get you so far. Support them and listen to what they're interested in doing, but do not let them off the leash and do things on a whim. Children are not Pokemon meant to be pitted endlessly against wild types, and if they faint it's not nearly as inconsequential.

I said the Middle Way was the best way (of course it's not strictly speaking the same Middle Way of Buddhism - what I mean is moderation). And though quoting religion isn't really my thing, I find it appropriate in this case - besides, I always considered Buddhist teachings to be more philosophical than the grand pronouncements of a holy man.