http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000
We
know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases
sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the
cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with
her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson for success
in America. It presents a certain
formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well
as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused,
doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.
First of all - every
culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling.
Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism
is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the
authors are more
interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They
think
academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group"
with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like
some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native
societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their
kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the
immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish,
Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or
worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you
compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of
the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of
them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands
and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going
on there.
Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that
they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be
misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also
motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest
itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and
workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are
more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if
heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist,
fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they
likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if
the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of
a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their
differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather
the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds,
and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social
mobility and economic opportunity?
Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be
correlated
with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if
families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is
worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of
studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not
sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these
behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that
data.
However, the authors don't really talk about the
blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain
quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case,
wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural
background and customs. You give someone with any
race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and
that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say
the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped
into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out
the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of
entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live
up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may
make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a
dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good.
Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great
things for others, while also profiting personally.
A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures
are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are
going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next
generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures
are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education,
discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for
many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and
psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism,
macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African
immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US
than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.
And
they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard
to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed
perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book,
it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not
good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to
be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we
raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success,
yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good
person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that
people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to
others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from
happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think
they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no
excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?
What
it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a
balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for
groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded,
arrogant pricks in the process.
