The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

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.

Controversy over the Tiger Mother

Maybe you guys have heard about this recent parenting memoir from a Chinese-American law prof at Yale who tried to raise her two daughters in the traditional, strict Chinese way. Here is an excerpt:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html

So of course the descriptions of verbal abuse and hours of forced piano practice rubbed many the wrong way, and Chua felt the need to explain herself on various interview shows: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101201000. She comes across as very open-minded and compassionate, the exact opposite tone of her WSJ piece.

I have not read her book, but the WSJ article suggests that the point of it is to promote the "Chinese way" of raising kids with obscene academic expectations (A- = F, get to Carnegie Hall or Harvard or both) and draconian rules (no TV, no sleepovers, no extra-curriculars except piano or violin, which they will have to practice 3 hrs/day even during vacations). Even the title, "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" says it all. Chua's argument is basically Western parents spoil and coddle too much (maybe true), and if they truly love their kids, it behooves them to push them to excel and give them tools to survive in the cruel world, rather than constantly tolerating or even praising mediocrity and lack of direction. Previous emails have touched on this, and i think she has a point. But clearly the opposite extreme is not healthy either, and since many of us are children of Asian immigrants, we know that excessive micromanaging, criticism, and such may push us to get over the hump and into a good college, but may also end up damaging the parent-child relationship thereafter.

http://www.pacificcitizen.org/site/details/tabid/55/selectmoduleid/373/ArticleID/490/reftab/36/Default.aspx?title=The_Growing_Rate_of_Depression,_Suicide_Among_Asian_American_Students_

There are plenty of anecdotes of Asian-Americans grateful for their strict parents now that they have gone to MIT or become successful surgeons. These stories are counterbalanced by many alienated or strained family relationships, and worse tragedies. The incidence of depression and suicide among Asian-heritage students is higher than other races in America, and it's even worse in nations like India, Korea, and China with a super-competitive college preparatory process. I think Cho who killed all those people at Virginia Tech was raised very strictly and always told by his Asian immigrant parents that he wasn't good enough, and a failure compared to his older sister who went to the Ivy League. There's no point pushing a kid too far. You can't let your kid be a lazy slacker in life (well I guess you can, but there are consequences for that too), but there has to be a middle ground. 

So long story short, the WSJ article created a parenting buzz, the blogosphere lit up, and Chua was blitzed with mostly negative feedback. She then engaged in damage-control PR mode, claiming that WSJ chose that inflammatory title without her knowledge or permission, and her eldest 18-year-old daughter felt the need to write to the WSJ and defend her mother. Chua's explanation is that the book is exaggerating and satirical (half of the mean things she wrote about doing to her kids never actually happened), and that theme comes out if you read it, so the WSJ piece was taken out of context. In fact, after some resistance she finally let her kids volunteer, hang out with friends, and play tennis instead of piano. She says that she has a great, loving relationship with her kids, they've had many fun leisure times together, and they are not traumatized introverts or whatnot. Her book was meant to be a cautionary tale, as her journey climaxed in a big fight with her younger, more resistant daughter who finally told Chua that she had it. Chua realized that piano wasn't as important as losing her child, so she relented and vowed to change. So all the talk about the verbal abuse and forced practicing was a snapshot into the "bad mom" before she saw the light. That is all fair and good, but then why publish the misleading and limited WSJ piece? If I have one page to entice readers and give a glimpse of my relationship with my family, I probably wouldn't focus on the worst times.

Maybe it was just a strategic (and apparently successful) piece of marketing. She usually writes about foreign policy legal issues, so this was her first foray into pop literature. So why not make a big splash, ruffle feathers, and get people talking about a previously unknown?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/01/amy_chua_manipu.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6

But then what is her point? She claims to want to fight stereotypes about Asian parents, yet she writes a semi-fictional book with silly discipline stories that perpetuate some stereotypes? And without a disclaimer or explanatory note, how is the reader to really know what is factual? I didn't read the book so maybe her intentions would be clearer if i did, but humor and sarcasm are subjective and can be misinterpreted in print (I would know). I really took Chua's WSJ comments to be literal at first because I do know of real Asian parents who do things like that (no dinner if the kid gets an A-, hit them with a stick if they miss a note during piano practice, never saying good job or I love you, etc.), so I didn't know if she was mocking or promoting those tactics. I guess she tried some of it herself, so she must have bought into the approach, but later realized that she had to change. Unless she just wants to start a controversy and attract attention to boost sales, I don't know why she wrote the book in that manner. Just stick to the history, don't exaggerate to make a point. It's a memoir, there doesn't have to be an agenda.

Some Asian women have said that the last part of the book (where Chua and her younger daughter Lulu are really falling out) made them cry. So there is a good story arc there with conflict and redemption, but why not stick with that and dispense with the distracting exaggeration, parental politics, and ethnic-baiting at the beginning? She tried to do what she thought was best for her kids, she tried to love them in the best way she knew how, which was the strict example from her Chinese parents. And it worked for her apparently - she is a Yale prof, but so is her husband who grew up in a liberal, relaxed Jewish household, so there are many ways to nurture success and a kid's future is not 100% determined by parenting. She even attempted to train her dogs in the "Chinese way," and it failed miserably: "Don't you want them to realize their potential?" she asked her husband (OK, that is good humor to include). But later she realized that she didn't have it all figured out and had to change when she and Lulu had a breakdown. That is a great message for families of any race struggling with many of the same issues. Who wouldn't want to hear their mom admit that she was wrong? Why not put some of that in the WSJ? It would have made her look more reasonable and human instead of a psycho. But I guess her kids did accuse her of being that from time to time. They're already rich, why do they need to create a shit-storm around the book for sales? No one likes to get racist hate-mail all day saying they're a cold bitch. So basically, I think the controversy is not helpful to advance the discussion on good parenting and multiculturalism.


--------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html

http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/p-s-you-suck/ 

As I am considering starting a family, my biggest fear is to get caught up in this competitive BS. My top goal would be to raise a kid who has good values and who respects him/herself and others. Someone who makes a positive difference and be a better person than I was. The last thing the world needs is another selfish, competitive jerk. I don't know how Chua's kids are in terms of manners, personality, morals. But for the successful peers I know who were raised by super strict Asian parents (who think A- = F), I find them to be shallow, narrow-minded, uninteresting, uncaring people when they were kids and as adults. All they know how to do is obey and study. It's almost like a hollow person. I don't want that for my kid.

So what if they don't win awards or go to Harvard? That is not the measure of a person's worth. Of course you want to equip kids to be able to survive in this cruel world (for all the advantages I had growing up, I am struggling now just to make ends meet and keep a job). You want to help your kids survive, but not at the cost of their soul and their honor. I'd rather my kid be happy going to San Jose State than pushing and fighting and being someone they're not just to get into Yale. All the religions talk about humility, living a balanced life, and putting others before you. It is totally opposite to be a crazy parent like Chua pushing their kids to be the best.

What is the point of being an expert in a musical instrument these days anyway? Either the kid is a prodigy or not, you can't "create" a Mozart. If a kid needs 3 hrs/day to be good at piano, maybe it's not what they were destined to do? I know practice makes perfect, but even very good musicians can't make a living doing that. Maybe it will help them get into an elite college, but think of all those hours Chua's kids have spent practicing those old symphonies. I'd rather teach my kids economics, computer programming, and more practical stuff. Even better, I'd rather they spend time VOLUNTEERING to help others (you can also put than on resume), or just reading and learning about the world. The more kids know, the better decisions they will make in life.

I think the kid who killed all those people at Virginia Tech was raised very strictly and always told by his Korean immigrant parents that he wasn't good enough, and a failure compared to his older sister who went to the Ivy League. There's no point pushing a kid too far. You can't let your kid be a lazy slacker in life, but there has to be a middle ground.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "helicopter parent". This psychological study thinks that the emergence of helicopter parents in the US, but not in Canada, is due to the vast inequality in our colleges. In Canada, there are good and not-so-good schools too, but the difference is meager. Parenting is a lot more relaxed up there, and the kids turn out fine. In the US, your career prospects are so much different if you have a Harvard vs. a Chico State degree. And this fuels the ridiculous industry of trying to give kids every possible tutoring and extra-curricular and advantage or they will be "left behind". It's an interesting topic though. I am not a parent so I can't claim to know anything about what works and what doesn't, but I know that many parents go too far and miss the big picture. Do they push their kids out of love, or is it for their own egos and insecurities?

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/23/helicopter-moms-sacrifice-self-for-kids/12322.html

Here's another longer article on the subject: http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/

--------

Interview with Amy Chua: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101201000

I found her interview very interesting, and I feel bad that I jumped to so many negative conclusions about Chua - but she didn't help herself with the bad press and lack of clarification on her part.

She is basically deflecting all the controversy about her book by saying that the book was taken out of context: definitely not a how-to guide for parenting, nor a promotion that the Chinese style of parenting is best. She admits that there is a lot of variation in parenting among Chinese, as well as other cultures who adopt the "Chinese style".

She is saying that half of the mean things she claimed to do to her kids never happened, and a lot of her writing is meant to be exaggerating and satirical. But you'd think that if Chua really just wanted to write a semi-fictional satirical memoir, there would be some sort of explanatory note in the book so it wouldn't be misinterpreted, as she is saying it is.

Chua said that the Chinese style wasn't working with her youngest, more resistant daughter, and it got to the point where she decided to change, because she feared losing her daughter after they had a big fight. Eventually Chua let her quit the violin and do tennis instead to be happier, because discipline without love is a recipe for disaster. So this book was meant to be a journey explaining some mistakes she made and the parenting lessons she learned. Her claims that A- is failure was an exaggeration, although all of us know parents who feel like that. Her message is that Western parents may have too low expectations, and are too quick to accept mediocre performance from their kids (maybe except for sports, where Western parents go crazy about football and Asians don't care). I guess Chua just wanted to make sure that her kids gave max effort and realized their potential. That is reasonable, but what do you do when the kids are not living up to your expectations - how do you motivate improvement without anger, threats, etc.?

I really took Chua's comments to be literal at first because I do know of real Asian parents who do things like that (no dinner if the kid gets an A-, hit them with a stick if they miss a note during piano practice, never saying good job or I love you, etc.), so I didn't know if she was mocking or promoting those tactics. I guess she tried them herself, so she must have bought into the approach, but later realized that she had to change. But unless she just wants to start a controversy and attract attention to boost sales, I don't know why she wrote the book in that manner. Just stick to the history, don't exaggerate to make a point. I didn't read the book so maybe her intentions would be clearer if i did, but the excerpt in the Wall St. Journal was taken out of context and it made it look like she was promoting harsh Chinese parenting. She says that WSJ did this without her knowledge, and even her eldest daughter wrote an op-ed defending her mom in the same paper.

Like in the interview, if she also communicated to the audience that she felt that her family was still a loving household, she currently has a good relationship with her kids, and that she hit bottom, doubted herself, and eventually relented, it would have made her look more reasonable and human instead of a psycho. But I guess her kids did accuse her of being that from time to time.