Reading this piece shook me and made me wonder, because either Ms Chua is bringing her kids up wrong, or we are.
That's a false dichotomy. There are not two ways to treat children (hard vs soft).
I think Bray falls into the same trap as many of the indignant respondents on MetaFilter to Chua's piece (though in a less emotive way). There are no dichotomies when it comes to raising children or "what's best" for them, but people seem quick to adopt their own society's and communities' norms to judging both their own parenting techniques and those of others. Seneca was right to suggest that one should learn philosophy to grow as a human being because without such study these polarized opinions are so easy to cling to.
I think Chua does a reasonable job of acknowledging and describing the gulf between her supposedly traditional "Chinese" opinions and the "Western" gamut of parenting techniques without casting significant aspersions on "Western" parenting, at least in the essay given (I haven't read her book). When it comes to Westerners judging Chua, however, people seem very quick to paint her techniques as wrong, evil, or "cruel" using a moral framework that simply doesn't apply to her case - it's about as meaningful as criticizing how Amazonian tribes live (or, better, judging American politics by European standards).
As in everything, there's a middle way here. Bray's observations indicate, to me, that he sees the gooey middle of the parenting gamut but then fails to acknowledge it.
I grew up with Asian parents^, and so I think I can safely say that the parenting techniques are at the very least cruel. For example, she makes it a point very early on that she doesn't allow her children to properly socialize with their peers. Education and socialization are not mutually exclusive and it is absolutely vital that you don't don't convince your children otherwise. Then after making it a point to mention this little rule, she never backs it up or defend it. Why doesn't she allow her children to participate in drama or visit with friends? We don't know. One is left to simply presume that perhaps it's because she's on a power trip, enacting some sort of revenge on her children for daring to be a burden on her life.
^technically my parents were quite germanic, but their parenting technique was to a tee what Chua described. "You got a A- in geography?! You need to spend more time studying!""why are you listening to rock and roll music? you should play cello like your brother!". It's making a big mistake to think that this sort of bad parenting is limited to Asian parents.
For example, she makes it a point very early on that she doesn't allow her children to properly socialize with their peers.
To call this "cruel" in any objective sense (if you were being subjective, OK - that's undebatable opinion) would require a definition of what "proper" is in regards to socialization. Such a definition relates to the values of particular societies and communities given that they form the basis under which socialization occurs.
Causation is not correlation, of course, and you are right that standards for socialization may differ across cultures, but these statistic and my experience with other Asians do lead me to believe that Asian upbringings are unnecessarily cruel and stunt children's ability to deal with other people and their own feelings to a degree that causes them to take their own lives. Raising children to be happy enough to _not_ take their own lives or getting an eating disorder after being called fat one time too many is a bare minimum.
People determine their own level of satisfaction based on comparisons to other people.
Asian Americans may feel more depressed because they see themselves missing out on socialization and general "fun" that their western counterparts experience.
However, Asians in their home countries (or in ethnically homogeneous American communities) may not feel more depressed because they only have each other as comparison.
If no one is going out to parties on Friday night, then it is a lot harder to say "my parents are being unfair to me", or even feel it without expression.
Now addressing your charge that this culture is "unnecessarily" cruel... if we find that giving people the opportunity to have fun over work leads to higher satisfaction and consequently lower suicide rates, we still can't call any specific balance of work vs. fun "unnecessarily cruel" without justification.
It's a judgement call as to what level of 'fun' is a good thing for children to pursue at the expense of their intellectual, athletic, or social development. Is the level of depression, and suicide found in western cultures acceptable or unacceptable? Should we stop foisting 'work' and competitive rating (in the form of school in particular) on children who don't want it, in order to have a lower suicide rate?
I'm not pointing at statistics here on purpose because this is a philosophical question rather than a quantifiable scientific one.
Raising children that while presumably spend their young adult and possibly adult lives in America while restricting their ability to socialize with their peers stunts their emotional and social growth. No child should have to grow up despising the majority of his peers because they spend their time "goofing off" instead of being "serious" about their studies. In some societies and communities it might be acceptable, but out of the context of a society that supports and encourages that sort of development at large, it verges on downright dangerous.
I've seen numerous people mention suicide rates in discussions about this topic now, and that particular danger rings true with me...
I don't get this. So if I think torturing my children is good for them, it is OK? Maybe to punish them I hack off a finger (or to remind them that they have to be loyal to me), and it would be OK?
There used to be this concept called "human rights". I always thought it was quite laughable, as nobody would be able to enforce it anyway, but at least it could serve as a starting point for what is deemed acceptable treatment of human beings (kids are humans, too).
The Quora responses reveal an important point regarding Dr. Chua's book: the book was written in response to the failings of the super-strict parenting style.
The WSJ excerpt makes no mention of this, which is a bit misleading.
On another note, my mother attempted to raise me in such a manner, but she was always too busy working to do a complete job of it (she didn't bother with my older brother as much, as he was way more self-motivated than me). I'm actually a bit curious as to how Dr. Chua managed to find time to hound her daughters like this while being a professor.
Interestingly, Finnish children spend way less time with school and homework than children in Asia or Europe in general. And still Finland gets top scores on education...
I was born in Finland in 1980. My childhood was seemingly the polar opposite of this so-called "Chinese mom" model.
I never had a guided hobby or one that would have been forced upon me, except for one time when I was six years old. (My parents enrolled me in a children's ballet class. Presumably they thought that it would be good for my body consciousness, or something. After six months I asked them if I had to do it. They said "no", so I quit, and that was that.)
Instead I was encouraged to come up with my own activities. I always felt that my parents had great expectations of me, but at the same time they were careful to never actively formulate those expectations into action points. That gave me a sense of responsibility: I knew I was just a child, but at the same time I had been entrusted the serious responsibility of deciding what I should do with my life. Should it include modern art or maybe egyptology? The best way to figure that out was to read books about it. If my parents didn't have a suitable book, I could always walk a few blocks to the library. My friends' lives had a similar degree of liberty. I don't remember us ever minding homework; it was something you could take care of in 15 minutes -- or the next morning at school, if you were feeling lucky.
Probably the general atmosphere in Finland in the 1980s played a role in making my childhood such a happy one. In retrospect, those were the "halcyon days" when the Finnish social democracy was complemented by an upstart liberalization drive that pulled the country out of the Brezhnevian gloom and stagnation of the '70s. The fun didn't last long: in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and pulled Finland into a recession, as the Finnish economy had become too reliant on ridiculously profitable exports to the bankrupt Soviet empire. The social(ist) ambience never really recovered.
The 10,000 hour rule is agnostic when it comes to spending those hours voluntarily or forced. In either case you will probably be good or even excellent at something but when forced you'll hate your skill with a passion probably just as strong as those that will love their skill that achieved it voluntarily.
In "Bounce" Sofia is quoted as saying "We spent long hours on the chessboard, but it didn't seem like a chore because we loved it".
Seems there is an alternative to the chinese method.
Note that Laszlo's children didn't have a chess prodigy gene. He set out to prove that geniuses can be made, found a wife willing to do the experiment, and decided on trying chess beforehand (without sampling the children's talents).
I also like about the story that all three children lead happy lives with their chess talent.
If you have a class of twenty children, and all twenty have mothers who are pushing them, not just to do well, but to be number one in the class, then nineteen of them have been set up for failure.
There are many stories of Asian kids snapping under their first generation parent's pressure (for a famous infamous case, see Asia Carrera, who had a German father and a Chinese mom, and started out as a very bright kid in Lehigh).
I had a close friend at college who lived through this experience, he said in junior high school year he totally flipped out, got all Cs, generally nosedived. Luckily he was able to make it back, but I wonder how many of these hyper-pressured kids never do.
I don’t observe that the populations of senior management or famous scientists or leading-edge computer programmers or successful politicians or rock stars are being dominated by people who are results of “Chinese Mother” parenting practices. On the other hand, they do seem to be loading up the top ranks of violinists and pianists.
It's not fair to assume that Chinese American professionals or musicians are products of a "Chinese Mother" upbringing. Chua herself disclaimed that notion when she defined a Chinese Mother as something other than a mother who is Chinese.
Also, consider that there are plenty of impediments to an Asian American becoming a successful politician or entering senior management that have nothing to do with his parents' philosophies.
(Christine Lu says) "UPDATE: I emailed author Amy Chua this evening (1/9). Expressed my disappointment about the WSJ piece and pointed to this Quora thread. To my surprise I received a prompt reply from her that said:
Dear Christine: Thank you for taking the time to write me, and I'm so sorry about your sister. I did not choose the title of the WSJ excerpt, and I don't believe that there is only one good way of raising children. The actual book is more nuanced, and much of it is about my decision to retreat from the "strict Chinese immigrant" model.
Best of luck to you,
Amy Chua"
So it looks like someone at WSJ added a link bait title. And it worked.
That said, this "parenting style" does seem to border on cruelty. Yishsan Wong (Director of Engineering at FaceBook)'s post (on the same Quora thread) on his experience in being the subject of such a parental style is a must read. This bit seemed particularly relevant to HN
"What I see among other Chinese children who I was raised alongside or who I see now in workplaces today is that this method of Chinese parenting is great at producing skilled and compliant knowledge workers, but it utterly fails to produce children who can achieve greatness, remake industries, or come up with disruptive innovation.
All the Chinese-American people I know who now perform at the highest levels - both creatively and technically - either achieved this without being driven to it by their parents (ask Niniane Wang about her upbringing) or in rebellion against the paths their parents set out for them (see Tony Hsieh http://www.businessinsider.com/t...).
The others - the skilled and compliant mediocre - make superb employees for the truly great, and if that is what their parents consider "successful," then that's exactly what they'll get.What I see among other Chinese children who I was raised alongside or who I see now in workplaces today is that this method of Chinese parenting is great at producing skilled and compliant knowledge workers, but it utterly fails to produce children who can achieve greatness, remake industries, or come up with disruptive innovation. All the Chinese-American people I know who now perform at the highest levels - both creatively and technically - either achieved this without being driven to it by their parents (ask Niniane Wang about her upbringing) or in rebellion against the paths their parents set out for them (see Tony Hsieh http://www.businessinsider.com/t...). The others - the skilled and compliant mediocre - make superb employees for the truly great, and if that is what their parents consider "successful," then that's exactly what they'll get."
fwiw (I don't have any children and nor do I intend to have any so this is all empty theorizing) I believe that the best way for parents to teach a particular set of virtues or skills (discipline, piano playing, whatever) is to embody those virtues and skills in their lives and leave it to the kids as to whether they should be emulated.
That's a false dichotomy. There are not two ways to treat children (hard vs soft).
I think Bray falls into the same trap as many of the indignant respondents on MetaFilter to Chua's piece (though in a less emotive way). There are no dichotomies when it comes to raising children or "what's best" for them, but people seem quick to adopt their own society's and communities' norms to judging both their own parenting techniques and those of others. Seneca was right to suggest that one should learn philosophy to grow as a human being because without such study these polarized opinions are so easy to cling to.
I think Chua does a reasonable job of acknowledging and describing the gulf between her supposedly traditional "Chinese" opinions and the "Western" gamut of parenting techniques without casting significant aspersions on "Western" parenting, at least in the essay given (I haven't read her book). When it comes to Westerners judging Chua, however, people seem very quick to paint her techniques as wrong, evil, or "cruel" using a moral framework that simply doesn't apply to her case - it's about as meaningful as criticizing how Amazonian tribes live (or, better, judging American politics by European standards).
As in everything, there's a middle way here. Bray's observations indicate, to me, that he sees the gooey middle of the parenting gamut but then fails to acknowledge it.