Parenting choices are exquisitely personal. Differences in philosophy and application are as touchy as the classic “hush, hush” topics of politics, religion, and sex. In our democratic culture, most of us aspire to hold a “live and let live” attitude when it comes to different parenting choices and philosophies, but most parents I know are deeply invested in their own parenting style and often, whether consciously or unconsciously, judge other parents’ choices to be inferior to their own. Most often we keep our judgments to ourselves and say, “what ever works for each family is fine, as long as it is not abusive.” This détente keeps the peace until someone like Amy Chua comes along, with a book like “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” and a splashy newspaper headline, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,”[1] which has generated death threats, hundreds of e-mails, more than 6,600 comments on the Wall Street Journal’s website, and numerous blog entries. (Kate Zernike, “Retreat of the Tiger Mother,” New York Times, 14 Jan. 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/fashion/16Cultural.html).
There is a remarkable amount of fodder for controversy in Ms. Chua’s article,[2] but the key concept I would like to explore is the role of coercion in parenting. One vignette in Ms. Chua’s book, which she considers to be, “a story in favor of coercion,” describes her method of “motivating” her seven year-old daughter to perfect a challenging piano piece called “The Little White Donkey.” Her daughter struggles with the piece, working on it “nonstop for a week,” until she finally announces that she is “giving up.” Her mother responds by ordering her back to the piano, and when the daughter resists, Ms. Chua threatens to donate her dollhouse to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she doesn’t have the song perfected by the next day. When the daughter continues to resist, she is threatened with, “no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years.” This is followed by ridicule and name-calling/shaming. Ms. Chua continues to work with her daughter “through dinner and into the night,” not allowing her daughter to get up, “not for water, not even to go to the bathroom.” Eventually, her daughter “gets it,” and all is well. Her daughter successfully performs the piece at a recital, receives much praise, and eventually plays Carnegie Hall, which further reinforces Ms. Chua’s perspective that coercive parenting methods lead to filial success. Ms. Chua concludes that, “Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem . . . . Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.” (Chua, “Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior”).
Here are my thoughts on the use of coercion in parenting:
The definition of the word “coerce” is: “1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. 2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly . . . .” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000 at 358). Coercion works in the short-term. I probably use coercion to some extent almost every day in my parenting. However, I am conscious when I use it and selective about the types of situations in which I deploy this “weapon.” For example, I might use coercion when my goal is to try and change my child’s behavior quickly and for the short-term: “Ernesto, if you put your feet on the dinner table again, dinnertime will be over for you.” I realize this is not ideal parenting, but it is effective in the short term. I want quick results and the threat of banishment from the table and a less-than full tummy inspires nearly instant obedience with minimal consequences to my child’s long-term self-esteem. It is what I call “short hand” parenting, and I use it most often when I am tired and not willing to invest the effort in discussing the issue with my child. Once my child changes his or her behavior, and I have a moment to reflect (and if I have the energy), I usually will follow up with an explanation as to why it is important to me that certain behavioral norms are respected in our home. In this way, I at least try to provide some context to the threat, in the hope that understanding will lead to more lasting compliance. However, unlike Ms. Chua, I would never use coercion to “motivate” my child to acquire a new skill, or work to improve or perfect an activity, because I believe that form of motivation is counterproductive to my long-term parenting goal of raising a fully flourishing human.
This begs the questions, what were Ms. Chua’s long term parenting goals and what, exactly, are mine, and how similarly or differently would she and I define “success” as parents and as humans? What is a flourishing life, after all? Is it performing in Carnegie Hall? If so, how much of that child’s “success” is grounded in the need to be viewed as successful in the eyes of others? Is “fame” the end toward which we should all aspire? I do not believe so. In fact, I believe such a view can lead to deep frustration, disappointment, and paradoxically low self-esteem, which are not typically the emotional building blocks of a flourishing life.
In my opinion, the flourishing life is a life full of rich relationships; one of deep communion with one’s self, a Higher Power, and other living things, especially other human beings. The flourishing life is one in which I cultivate my talents, experience the love of others, and give my energy and love in return, and none of this is likely to occur if I live a life driven by the need for external reward or by the fear of disappointing my parents and losing their love and respect.
That said, I am willing to admit that coercion works better with some children than others, and may work better in some cultures than others. The Russian social psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, investigated child development and the role of culture and interpersonal communication on that development. Vygotsky observed how higher mental functions developed historically within particular cultural groups, as well as individually through social interactions with significant people in a child's life, particularly parents, but also other adults. He believed that it is through these social interactions that a child comes to learn and internalize the habits of mind of his or her culture, including speech patterns, written language, and other symbolic knowledge. He called this interplay of culture and development “cultural mediation.” The specific knowledge gained by children through these interactions also represented the shared knowledge of a culture. He noted that although cultural mediation and internalization occur in all cultures, cultures might differ in the goals of development. (Wikipedia, Lev Vygotsky, (visited on Jan. 21, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky.) For example, in America, we value “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We value independence over interdependence. Thus, we are more likely to model independence and, if our goal is for our children to develop in alignment with those values, it may behoove Americans to parent through collaboration with their children rather than coercion of them. Chinese culture, by contrast, values “fate, duty, and the pursuit of interdependence?”[3]
As Confucius wrote, in The Analects: Book III:
In the world, there are two great decrees: one is fate and the other is duty. That a son should love his parents is fate—you cannot erase this from his heart. That a subject should serve his ruler is duty—there is no place he can go and be without his ruler, no place he can escape to between heaven and earth. These are called the great decrees. (Ibid.)
Is it possible that use of coercion by Chinese parents is more effective with their children because it is woven into the fabric of the culture? As members of Western civilization, we assume that the desirability of individual choice and personal freedom are inherent in humankind. However, “just as the idealized values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have shaped the motivation of Americans for centuries, contrasting cultural ideals might have shaped the motivational contexts of other societies quite differently.” (Ibid.)
In their study entitled, “Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation,” Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper concluded that, while Anglo-American children perform better and show greater intrinsic motivation on tasks when given a choice of which task to perform, Asian-American children perform better on tasks selected for them by their mothers. (Ibid. 354). Ms. Chua never mentions this study, but its findings offer support for her parenting style in the context of her Asian-American family. She does, however, identify an aspect of the cultural difference between American and Chinese parents when she states, “Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it’s probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children . . . . [T]he understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.”[4] (Chua, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior”.)
Despite our cultural differences, there is a point on which Ms. Chua and I agree: “One of the worst things you can do for your child’s self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there’s nothing better for building confidence then learning you can do something you thought you couldn’t.” (Ibid.) But, when children face challenges and want to quit, coercion is not the only way to motivate them to persevere. My approach to parenting is different because I do not believe that using coercion to “motivate” my children will be as effective for their long-term development of higher cognitive, social, spiritual/emotional skills as are other methods of inspiring/instilling self-regulation.
One method I use, which I only recently discovered has a technical term, supported by peer-reviewed research, is “invitational learning.” This method presumes that children are “valuable and responsible persons who have untapped potential” and it is the parents’ (or teachers’) role to invite development. [5] This is achieved by leading the child into the “zone of proximal development” or “ZPD.” The ZPD is “the range of tasks that a child can complete independently and those completed with the guidance and assistance of adults or more skilled children.” Or, “the difference between the learner’s actual development and potential level of development with guidance.” (Ibid.) As a child proceeds through the ZPD, the parent, teacher, or older child, assists them in the development of self-regulating behaviors. For example, if the goal is that my child learn how to persevere with a difficult task until it is completed, I might attempt one or more of the following methods of guiding them through the ZPD: In the moment, acknowledge the challenge and my child’s difficult feelings about it; tell a story about when I faced something similar as a child, felt the same way, persevered and completed it, and felt a great sense of accomplishment as a result; ask my child if he or she would like suggestions on how to approach/solve the task; model encouraging “self-talk”; suggest taking a short break with the understanding that the child will return to the task later; if I am getting cues that the child’s energy is waning, ask if the child is hungry, and, if so, encourage them to have a snack to nourish the body and help it be at its best for facing the challenge. If all of that fails, and my child chooses to quit, I can express my disappointment with the decision, but reassure my child that I love them, and reinforce that if, after a break, he or she is willing to attempt the task again, I would be happy to help. According to Vygotsky, and my own belief and experience, learning and internalizing these self-regulating behaviors enables a learner to gradually perform without assistance, and to do so with their self-esteem intact. (Ibid.)
Interestingly, one week after Ms. Chua’s article appeared in the Journal, author and mother, Ayelet Waldman, published a response entitled, “In Defense of the Guilty, Ambivalent, Preoccupied Western Mom.” (Ayelet Waldman, Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2011http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703333504576080422577800488.html). In this article, Ms. Waldman offers a counterpoint vignette; she shares the story of her mildly dyslexic daughter, who in second grade (approximately the same age as Ms. Chua’s daughter), was lagging far behind her classmates in reading. Her parents discovered a special intensive reading program, “It sounded awful, but Rosie insisted on doing it . . . . At the end of a grim an brutal month, Rosie learned to read. Not because we forced her to drill and practice and repeat, not because we dragged her kicking and screaming, or denied her food, or kept her from using the bathroom, but because she forced herself . . . . What’s more, she came out of the experience with a sense of herself as a powerful, tenacious person . . . .” (Ibid.)
That is a story in favor of “invitational learning.” Rosie was given an option to challenge herself and improve her skills. She chose to do so, and her parents supported her choice. She succeeded and felt powerful. When we parent by coercion, our children may “succeed,” but where is the locus of power? It seems to me they will learn only how powerful others are. They may acquire the skill, but along with it the ingrained belief that they could not have succeeded without the “support”/power/force of another. No matter the “success” they may be left with a deep, uneasy sense of unworthiness and insecurity, as well as an intense fear of failure. Thus, in response to Ms. Chua’s statement: “Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem . . . . Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.” I say: “Yes, I am very concerned about my children’s self-esteem and, like Chinese parents, I assume strength, but if I parent through coercion, I fear that they will become quite fragile indeed.”
[1] Amy Chua, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,” Wall Street Journal, 8 Jan. 2011.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
[2] Ms. Chua states, in response to harsh criticism from readers that, “much of my book is tongue-in-cheek, making fun of myself.” (Amy Chua, “The Tiger Mother Talks Back,” Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2011).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576080032661117462.html
[3] Sheena S. Iyengar & Mark R. Lepper, “Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation,” Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, (1999) Vol. 76, No. 3, 349-366, at 365.http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Rethinking_the_Value_of_Choice.pdf
[4] Nevertheless, I continue to question the long-term affects of coercive parenting on the self-esteem and self-motivation of Asian-American children born to immigrant parents and raised in the United States. Anecdotal evidence from my Asian-American friends and many of the responses on the Journal’s website indicate that coercive parenting styles employed here often result in lower self-esteem, risk aversion, fear of failure, and for Asian-American women, ages 15-24, the highest suicide rate of women in any race or ethnic group in that age group. In fact, suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Asian-American women in that age range. Asian-American women also have the highest suicide rate among women 65 or older (1.6 times higher than Anglo-American women in that age group). (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calltoaction/fact7.htm); http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6476; “Push to Achieve Tied to Suicide in Asian-American Women,” at http://articles.cnn.com/2007-05-16/health/asian.suicides_1_asian-american-families-asian-women-asian-american-parents?_s=PM:HEALTH.
[5] Stuart T. Haines, PharmD, “The Mentor-Protégé Relationship,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 2003; 67 (3) Article 82, at 5; see also http://www.ajpe.org/aj6703/aj670382/aj670382.pdf.
