Bringing the Kids Up Right: Guidance Through the Ages
Century-Old Attitudes and Advice Still Sway and Swerve
One of the most important responsibilities of parenthood is adopting suitable child-rearing standards. Beginning around the turn of the century, the United States experienced an unparalleled interest in this topic. While child psychologists were scientifically exploring the many complexities of growth and development, childcare experts began to focus on the practical aspects of rearing children. In time, their ideas and viewpoints would find their way into books, magazines, professional journals, newspapers, and an assortment of parenting seminars and workshops.
The guidance offered by the so-called childcare experts focused on every conceivable aspect of child-rearing from discipline and toilet training to temper tantrums. These experts addressed themselves to parenthood’s most persistent challenge: how to guide children so that they can become healthy, well-adjusted adults.
There is no question that this diverse assortment of child-rearing guidance has helped to better educate parents about children and their many needs. The range of differing opinions and philosophies has, however, produced its share of confusion, too. This is as evident today as it was when the child experts first began to present their opinions.
For example, consider the conflicting child-rearing advice that abounds on the issue of how much freedom to give a child. The swing of the pendulum on this issue has historically been extreme. Popular at the turn of the century was a restrictive parenting approach that stressed a strict parent-child relations. Considerable emphasis was placed on the development of self-control, respect, and disciplined character. Parental affection was generally discouraged, since it was believed that excessive amounts would create childhood immaturity and irresponsibility. Not being strict was seen as shirking one’s parental duties.
As an example of the restrictive approach, consider the advice offered by John B. Watson. He wrote a book in 1928 called The Psychological Care of the Infant and Child. He had this to say about parental attitudes and behavior toward children:
Let your behavior always be objective and kindly firm. Never hug and kiss them, never let them sit in your lap. If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say good night. Shake hands with them in the morning. Give them a pat on the head if they have made an extraordinarily good job of a difficult task.
During the 1940s, a permissive approach to child-rearing emerged. This approach emphasized greater levels of freedom with children and was particularly popular among middle class parents. Parents were advised to generate a loving attitude towards children that encompassed understanding, sensitivity, and affection. As far as disciplinary measures were concerned, parents were encouraged to move away from physical punishment and adopt more relaxed but firm measures. They were also urged to develop confidence in their roles as parents. The permissive approach is evident in many books including Benjamin Spock’s The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, first published in 1945. This was an enormously popular book on child-rearing, recent editions still used by many parents today. Consider the kind of guidance provided by Spock:
You know more than you think you do, and if you feel like comforting the child, do it. Be more flexible and affectionate with your children and treat them as individuals. I recommend spontaneity, warmth, and a fair amount of fun for parents and children.
These two contrasting child-rearing approaches are good illustrations of the range of advice available to parents. While education and informative, the differing opinions and philosophies often created parental confusion, frustration, and even anxiety. For instance, parents may ask which approach is better? Will it work for my child? Why isn’t my child following the prescribed schedule or doing what the so-called book says?
It might be added, too, that even in contemporary times a scientifically proven means of child-rearing has yet to emerge. Although ideas and suggestions are bountiful, precise answers remain elusive. Consequently, it seems likely that parents will continue to be swept into a crossfire of opinion, as they seek out the best ways to raise their children.
A Sampling of Child-rearing Theories
Because of the diverse assortment of child-rearing strategies that are available to parents, it is helpful to categorize approaches according to their operating philosophy. In this way, a better understanding of the rationale behind a suggested guideline or opinion can be developed. While all the theories are too numerous to include here, let’s look at a representative handful to examine their conceptual properties.
Gesell’s Developmental-Maturational Theory. This approach was developed by Arnold Gesell in 1940 and is called an age-stage theory of child-rearing. Such an approach acknowledges that while individual variations exist, most children experience developmental milestones at predictable ages. Gesell spent considerable time exploring this principle, leading him to devise numerous norms of infant and child development. Gesell emphasizes that parents should understand childhood’s developmental sequences and structure their expectations and child-rearing techniques accordingly. It is from Gesell’s early research that the expression “developmentally appropriate” was coined.
Skinner’s Behavior-Modification Theory. One of the leading proponents of this theory was B. F. Skinner. Those stressing the behavior modification approach place an emphasis on the child’s surroundings and exercising some control of them. Should this be accomplished, then parents can shape a child’s behavior. Practitioners advocate the use of positive reinforcement, or the rewarding of a desired behavior (a child is given a toy for good behavior) or negative reinforcement, giving children the opportunity to behave in a way that reduces or eliminates an aversive stimulus (children are sent to their rooms because of a temper tantrum but can return as soon as they calm down). Proponents claim that when consistently adhered to these principles enable parents to nurture desired behavioral patterns in their children. For example, consider Skinner’s thoughts on teaching reading:
We shouldn’t teach great books; we should teach a love of reading. Knowing the contents of a few works of literature is a trivial achievement. Being inclined to go on reading is a great achievement.
Ginott’s Humanistic Theory. The humanistic approach was developed by Haim Ginott and stresses the development of parental empathy, sensitivity, and insight into the needs of children. Parents are encouraged to improve their communication abilities so that they can better appreciate their children’s feelings and motivations. Among other suggestions Ginott suggests the practice of preceding statements of advice with statements of understanding, the resolution of conflicts without attacks on personalities, and the abolishment of all threats and sarcasm. Ginott’s most popular parent education book is Between Parent and Child, first published in 1961, followed by a revised edition in 2003. The following is a snippet of his philosophy of child-rearing:
Children learn what they experience. They are like wet cement. Any word that falls on them makes an impact. It’s therefore important that parents learn to talk to children in a way that is not enraging, doesn’t inflict hurt, doesn’t diminish their children’s self-confidence, or cause them to lose faith in their competence and self-worth.
Baumrind’s Three Parenting Styles. Diana Baumrind created a typology of three parenting styles to describe differences in parenting behaviors: the authoritarian, authoritative and permissive parenting styles. Baumrind describes parenting style to mean normal variations in parenting. It does not mean deviant parenting, such as abusive or neglectful homes. She also adds that parenting style revolves around issues of control. The following is a summary of the three styles:
Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. This style of parenting is rigid and controlling. Parents expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation.
Permissive parents are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation. Child-rearing is thus a relaxed, casual, and carefree parenting style.
Authoritative parents monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s behavior. They are assertive, but not restrictive or intrusive. The authoritative parent is firm but not rigid, and open and willing to make an exception when the situation warrants. The parent is responsive to the child’s needs but not indulgent.
It should be recognized that a fourth parenting style, the uninvolved parent, has been added to this conceptual model. Parents in this category are neither demanding nor responsive. The children are given no rules, structure, or affection and are left largely to fend for themselves. Basically, parents mentally abandon their youngsters and essentially are indifferent to their needs.
Of these parenting styles, authoritative is regarded as the best approach to child-rearing. It offers a balance between structure and independence and permits a youngster to flourish within reasonable boundaries. As Baumrind puts it:
Parents are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible and self-regulated as well as cooperative. Authoritative parents raise happier and healthier children who are equipped to face real-world challenges.
Putting Child-rearing Theories into Perspective
These theories provide us with a great deal of insight into the nature of child-rearing however, we must stress that these theoretical positions do not have to be examined or weighed in an either-or manner. They are not mutually exclusive or independent of one another. Indeed, several of them could be operating at different times or under different conditions. For example, the fact that a child may be at a specific norm of Gesell’s developmental-maturational theory does not mean that principles of reinforcement are not operating or that the youngster’s interaction with the family unit becomes nonexistent. Thus, while each theory is an effort to explain child-rearing techniques, it is not uncommon for two or more of them to be operating simultaneously.
This is the primary reason why many parents today choose to be eclectic when viewing child-rearing theories. They pick and choose the bits and pieces of theories that they can accept, and then develop their own strategies. Moreover, theories need to be adapted and modified to take each individual child into account. Generalized child-rearing theories without individual modification downplay the uniqueness of both child and parent.
Finally, while each of these theories has broadened our understanding and offers us new areas of exploration, we have not yet been able to answer all our questions about child-rearing. As indicated earlier, no theory has yet to explain the best way to rear youngsters. This underscores the need to further investigate this field of study as well as the need for reassessing the theories and viewpoints generated thus far.
