Over at Slate, Paul Tullis reports on some new research by Su Yeong Kim, a specialist in human development at the University of Texas-Austin, and others that suggests "Tiger Parenting" - made infamous by Amy Chua - is generally not effective. This is from the abstract of Kim's recent work on the subject:
Path analyses showed that the supportive parenting profile, which was the most common, was associated with the best developmental outcomes, followed by easygoing parenting, tiger parenting, and harsh parenting. Compared with the supportive parenting profile, a tiger parenting profile was associated with lower GPA and educational attainment, as well as less of a sense of family obligation; it was also associated with more academic pressure, more depressive symptoms, and a greater sense of alienation. The current study suggests that, contrary to the common perception, tiger parenting is not the most typical parenting profile in Chinese American families, nor does it lead to optimal adjustment among Chinese American adolescents.
Notice that Kim and her colleagues quite consciously work to quantify the notion of "Tiger" parenting, placing it on a scale between "supportive" and "harsh," though closer to the latter than the former. And, on the whole, it would seem that it produces precisely the opposite results than what the "Tiger" parents desire: lower grades, less filiality, more alienation. Chua might, of course, say that it worked for her and her daughters. But, in light of this analysis, her success (and I do not meant to imply that the paths her children have taken are the only manifestation of "success" in child rearing) might have more to do with other factors, such as the socio-economic and academic context in which her children grew up, as opposed to strict parenting.
All of this further suggests that Mencius may be the better source for parenting advise than Han Feizi. When Chua's "Tiger Mother" argument first emerged, I argued that we should not view it as an example of "Chinese" parenting but, more particularly, of Legalist parenting. The classic text of Legalist thought, Han Feizi, does not focus on parenting, but it gives us these sorts of statements:
In a strict household there are on unruly slaves, but the children of a kindly mother often turn out bad. (125)
Turns out it is just the opposite: the children of overly strict parents turn out badly.
Compare this to these lines from Mencius, who comes closer to the "supportive" style of parenting:
Encourage them and reward them. Help them and perfect them. Support them and give them wings, and reveal them to themselves. Then you will bring Integrity alive in them. (5.4 )
That is Hinton's translation; here is the Chinese, from Ctext:
勞之來之，匡之直之，輔之翼之，使自得之，又從而振德之。
Bloom has it:
Encourage them, lead them, reform them, correct them, assist them, give them wings, let them "get it for themselves." Then follow by inspiring them to Virtue.
Some interesting differences there but the sense if the same: it is not about strict punishment but, rather, igniting something inside children to bring them into their own. And that, the data suggests, makes for better humans.
Funny enough, I just finished The Book of Lord Shang last week. Legalism is on the mind. A few thoughts as to its applicability here:
1. I think its iffy. Razib Khan had an interesting post over at his site a week or so ago titled "The Seriousness of Theology." He makes the basic case that sacred texts do not matter - or in his words, "Theology and texts have far less power over shaping a religion’s lived experience than intellectuals would like to credit.... almost no believers actually make recourse to their own religion’s intellectual toolkit."
To apply the same concepts to this topic, what is and what is not the "Chinese way " of doing anything is unlikely to have anything to do with ancient Confucian OR Legalist texts. While an intellectual like Amy Chua (who wrote a book on the rise and fall of civilizations...) is likely to have read these texts, the odds of her "drawing on them" to inform her parenting is small, and smaller still with all of those parents in the study (more on them in a minute). Parenting styles differ across the Christian world in vast ways (compare parenting in liberal America with that in sub-saharan Africa or Latin America!), despite the devout faith many of these Christians profess in the Bible. Theological and philosophical tradition has a much smaller influence on these things than the difference incognition and family structure between cultures.
2. One aspect of the study makes me weary of drawing universal lessons:
I submit that in this case, class matters.
Since I was a child I have been friends with Asian Americans whose parents qualify for the Tiger label. These children were very successful, and pretty well adjusted to society. Their parents were also well educated. Many were quite rich.
I saw a different world when called to serve as a LDS missionary. I served in America, but was called to an Asian speaking language (Khmer), and spent most o my time in inner city low income areas that Asian minority groups (mostly Khmer, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Lao) called home. Those two years were a rude awakening to what life is like for too many Americans. Relevant to this topic, most of these families were headed by parents who could barely speak English, did not have much money, and often were single parents. The Tiger Parenting style here was extremely, terrifyingly destructive. (This falls under standard missionary job description; helping families heal). I spilt tears over these families. Time and time again I saw a generational disconnect that brought about hatred and violence - I will always remember when one teenage girl we were teaching informed us that she had hid all of the knives in the house because she was afraid they would be used as weapons if they were left in their normal places.
So what was the difference between these kids and those I knew growing up? Education and class.
Well-to-do parents have more resources and more time to discipline and develop their child. Can you imagine Amy Chua sitting next to her daughter's piano for 8 hours if she had been a single mother, responsible for providing for all of her kids, as well as feeding them, cleaning after them, etc? It would never happen. (And it would be hard in a house where both couples work 50+ hour jobs). The extra resources available to the well-to-do parents allows them to structure their discipline in a way their lower income counterparts just can't manage.
More importantly, well educated parent's language skills and education allows them to bridge the cognitive gap between the two generations. By and large the biggest reason the two sides were fighting were the basic cultural and cognitive differences between Westerners and Asians. The parents thought like Asians; the kids like American teenagers. This was the crux of the problem - the parents wanted their children to treat them the same way they had treated their parents -- and that just was not something the young'uns could do. Parents with better English and higher education understood the culture of their children much better, and could point to their own lives (and the thinking that went along with it) as an example of success. The lower income/less educated parents had a much harder time of things. Their "legalist" resulted in heartbreak.
Final thought - I would be interested to see if these same results could be replicated in Hong Kong and South China itself. The cultural dissonance between authoritative Asian parenting styles and Western rebellious teenage counter culture would be much less. I would not be surprised if kids in China succeed better with this type of parenting than their 2nd gen Chinese American counterparts.
Posted by: T. Greer | May 11, 2013 at 02:06 AM
Great piece, Dr Crane!
(One minor thing: the author of the study in question is Kim Su-Yeong; Kim is her surname, not Su. It is confusing, though, because she uses the 'Americanised' name order of given-sur, rather than sur-given.)
But yes, I was very wary of the 'Tiger Parent' thesis when it came out; it struck me as reading 'Asian-ness' in far too essentialist a way, and misreading the intellectual legacy, as you point out, of Confucianism. It isn't just Mencius, either - Confucius himself, even though he advocated study of the Classics of the Zhou Dynasty, could not rightly be considered a fan of rote learning (LY 13:5). I think that jives pretty well with his overall anti-authoritarian (but not anti-authority) bent.
Also, I have been away for far too long; but I also wanted you to know that I enjoyed your piece on what Mencius might have to say about Wolfowitz, and shared it on my own blog. Thanks again!
Best,
M
Posted by: Matthew Franklin Cooper | May 13, 2013 at 03:30 AM