|
- UID
- 3006
- 帖子
- 918
- 精华
- 2
- 性别
- 男
- 注册时间
- 2005-2-13
访问个人博客
|
楼主
发表于 2011-1-23 07:27
| 只看该作者
[原创] Who’s Afraid of the “Tiger Mom”?
本帖最后由 David 于 2011-1-23 07:44 编辑
华尔街日报登出“中国妈妈为何胜人一筹”一文后，在美国引起争议不断。 本人也写了下面一篇回应，投到华尔街日报石沉大海，不妨拿出来跟燕友分享。自忖大部分燕友都能读英语，
(This is a comment on an article titled “Why Chinese Mothers AreSuperior,” published in the Wall Street Journal on January 8, 2011)
David Yun Dai
In the past two weeks, a powerful Chinese mother (alsoself-claimed “Tiger Mom”), like a tornado, has swept our feet off the ground. This strong-willed, heavy-handed, no-nonsense mom cut out everything for kids except school work and art, and demanded a No. 1place in every school subject except for gym and drama. This image makes me feel guilty as a parent, as I took my daughter to see her favorite Harry Potter, and I allowed my son to perform mimicry of Lady Gaga and Annoying Orange in the School Folly that he enjoyed so much. In every comparison, I am an incurably indulgent parent. I also experienced an identity crisis: am I "Chinese" enough or am I too“Westernized?”
The facetious part aside, I believe the image of tough Chinese moms raising excellent kids is oversold. Although the subtleties of the heavy-handed but well-intentioned parental control were pointed out along time ago by Ruth Chao, a child psychologist, I strongly doubt that she would concur with Chua’s exaggerated portrayal of Chinese parenting. Chua pits the Chinese parenting style against the Western parenting style and gives three related admonitions to “western parents.” Her first argument is that while Western parents are overly concerned about their children’s fragile self-esteem and trying to make life easier for their kids, it is actually more detrimental than helpful to building up self-confidence and self-esteem on a solid ground of skills and competencies. I agree that mental toughness and resilience are a virtue that can be developed through overcoming adversity and persistence in the face of setbacks. I also agree that parents need to push their kids out of their comfort zone in order for them to grow. However, this does not mean we should have no concern over how well our children can endure frustrations, and what impact excessively high demands and extremely strict rules can have on their psyche. Chua’s daughter seemed to have come out unscathed by this type of parenting. But there is much evidence indicating that parenting with high demandingness but low responsiveness to children’s needs and feelings can lead to children’s resentments, passive resistance, rebellion, fear of failure, self-doubts, and self-blame, even neurotic and depressive disorders, and suicide attempts. To make this vivid,think of the movie Dead Poets Society. Joan Freeman’s recent researchshows that some of the psychological damage the heavy-handed and roughparenting caused on children may not show until much later in life.
Chua’s second argument is Western parents would be better off if they feel that kids owe them everything because of what they have done (and sacrificed) for kids. We might interpret this as a parenting strategyto regulate children’s behavior through guilt: this way kids will feel emotionally obligated to meet their parents’ expectations. It apparently works better than coercion (behaviors regulated byexternally sanctioned negative consequences) and may work to some extent in early childhood, but it also can create problems later on. What regulates their behavior when they leave their parents? Where dothey derive a sense of purpose and aspirations other than parental expectations? In my many visits to China in recent years, I found too many college students there either feeling lost in direction or indulging themselves in video games because up to high school graduation, they had constantly “owed” their parents and teachers goodgrades and tickets to prestigious universities; now they have the question of what do they want for themselves? Sources of motivation should come from children themselves, particularly as they get older. Chua’s husband is right: our children don’t owe us anything; they owe themselves a good life. Gratitude or even filial piety is well deserved by parents, but it should not be a lure for conformity to every parental demand, lest children grow up like puppets with parents pulling the string every step of the way, or worse, living a vicarious, self-gratifying life through their children! Tough parenting also tends to produce dependency and passivity, which do not bode well when children grow up and have to rely on themselves in making life decisions and choices. Ultimately, discipline better comes from within than from without.
Thirdly, Chua also touts the virtue of parents’ priorities overriding children’s own preferences and interests. Lurking behind is an implicit theory of child development and education here that parents know better about what is good for their children and what kind of life they should live than children themselves. In practice, this theory results in parents imposing their values on their children, such as prohibiting participation in a school play or freedom to choose extracurricular activities. To me, this is the most restrictive part of the parenting Chua advocates. Without the exposure to a variety of activities, how can children develop their self-knowledge in terms of interests they have and values they cherish in the midst of numerous life choices and options? It is presumptuous to claim that parents know everything about their children to the point of micro-managing and controlling everything they do or should not do, particularly when priorities in Chua’s list are highly restricted to academics and music. The assumption that if parents like or want something their children will eventually like or want it (and be good at it) is a shaky one. Many qualities, self-direction, leadership, socialinterests, concerns over human conditions, a strong passion for scientific investigation of a topic, and creativity would be underdeveloped, to say the least, if their parents acted like the Chinese Mom depicted by Chua. We would not have Steve Jobs or Steve Chu as we know them if they had a Tiger Mom!
Like it or not, we live a in a democracy that values openness,respect, reason, communication, fair play, the freedom to choose, andpersonal responsibility, rather than dominance, power, coercion, control, and unconditional conformity, and emotional manipulation. Heavy-handed parenting will not work in US mainly because the values underpinning such parenting are incompatible with the mainstream culture. It won’t even work in today’s China, as many parents I know have come to realize the need to communicate with their children in a more democratic fashion: in order for them to listen to you, you have to listen to their concerns as well.
The Chua article was written in the context of a rising China,and interpreted in the context of the superior academic performance of Chinese students in several international comparison studies in which American students don’t compare favorably (e.g., PISA, TIMMS). The fear that America will lose its competitive edge and leading role in the global arena is understandable. High parental expectations, beliefs intheir children’s “perfectibility” through diligence and reflection, and parents’ unwavering commitment to their children’s education are indeed things we can learn from Chinese parents. What we need to avoid is that we are looking for a quick fix or simple solution, which is always appealing in a situation of urgency; alas it will not work!
To conclude my comments, I should point out that parenting is not merely about getting kids to make good grades, behave obediently,accrue social accolades; it is more about how to help them better understand the world and themselves, and negotiate a developmental path to a healthy, productive, and happy life, a life that not just makes their parents proud but (more importantly) is fulfilling in its own right.
|
|
