1When we are infants, we are completely dependent on our parents. We need them to make every decision for us. But as we grow older, we want to become independent, making more and more decisions for ourselves. This process of seeking autonomy (or self-rule) apparently begins in earnest in what is commonly called “the terrible twos” and often reaches a high point in adolescent rebellion. By the time we go to college, most of us expect to be treated like adults.

2But nowadays even college students tend to maintain close contact with their parents. According to College Parents of America, many parents “virtually walk through the day with their [child] (via cell phone, texting, Twitter, or Facebook)” (“Affirming” 1). These parents are often called “helicopter parents,” using a term made popular by Foster Cline and Jim Fay in their 1990 book Parenting with Love and Logic. They describe helicopter parents as “[hovering] over and [rescuing] their children whenever trouble arises” (23). Hovering is seen by social historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead as a positive characteristic of helicopter parenting: she says that this “high level of oversight and supervision, keeping tabs on the kids but not interfering in every activity or decision” makes helicopter parenting “a positive style of child-rearing” (qtd. in Aucoin). Rescuing, however, is considered a negative characteristic because, as Whitehead explains, it does not allow “kids the freedom to make a decision and live with its consequences.”

3How much influence should parents have in their children’s decision making as kids get older? When does parental influence cross the line and, however well-intentioned, become detrimental? These are questions that parents and children wrestle with constantly, which is perhaps part of the reason their answers can provoke such intense reactions. The perennial debate about parenting styles heated up when the Wall Street Journal ran an excerpt from Yale law professor Amy Chua’s new book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. A number of outraged responses were subsequently published, including one in the Wall Street Journal by Hanna Rosin, a contributing editor for the Atlantic. Chua’s article is provocatively titled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior,” and Rosin’s response is ironically titled “Mother Inferior?” Chua and Rosin take a very different approach to parenting, but their goals may be closer than they think. Both can be categorized as helicopter parents who are trying in their own way to help their children become happy, fulfilled adults.

4Chua’s article outlines her “Chinese parenting” philosophy and practice, contrasting them with typical “Western” views of parenting. Chua is careful to acknowledge that these terms are broad generalizations, even “stereotypes” (par. 4), and that both “Chinese” and “Western” parents actually “come in all varieties” (par. 2). Putting aside what she calls “our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes,” Chua claims that “there are tons of studies . . . showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners” regarding parenting (par. 4). She refers to one study, although she doesn’t give a citation. It is also worth noting that within Chua’s own family, Chinese and Western viewpoints are represented by herself and her husband respectively.

5Chua’s main argument is that children of Chinese immigrants usually are high-achieving because their parents are proud to be helicopter parents intensely involved in every aspect of their children’s lives. More importantly, as Chua’s anecdote about her daughter Lulu’s effort to learn to play a difficult piano piece demonstrates, children raised the Chinese way succeed because their parents force them to drill until they achieve mastery. Chua’s helicoptering, then, certainly involves hovering but does not include rescuing. In fact, it’s aim is the opposite, as Chua explains at the end of her article: “the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is . . . letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence” (par. 35).

6Rosin begins her article by describing her own parenting style as the opposite of Chua’s. Whereas Chua calls herself a “Tiger Mother,” Rosin shows that she herself is a pussycat who happily wastes time “playing useless board games” with her children (par. 1). Although she identifies herself as “the weak-willed, pathetic Western parent that Ms. Chua describes,” Rosin argues assertively for her nurturing approach to parenting (par. 2). Like Chua, Rosin can be categorized as a helicopter parent. Rosin claims not to pay the same “vigilant attention” Chua does, but she admits to some degree of hovering—apparently spent playing with her children and driving them to extracurricular activities (par. 3).

7Also like Chua, Rosin does not appear to rescue her children, possibly because she doesn’t need to. Indeed, Rosin seems to be concerned that her children are, if anything, too obedient: “In my household, it’s a struggle to get my children to steal a cookie from the cookie jar without immediately confessing” (par. 10). Rosin complains that regardless of whether they are raised in the traditional Chinese or contemporary American way, many children today are being raised to be “dutiful proto-adults, always responsible and good, incapable of proper childhood rebellion” (par. 4).

8The idea that “childhood rebellion” is “proper” and ought to be encouraged, not discouraged, surely separates Rosin from Chua. Chua speculates that the Chinese tradition of “Confucian filial piety” explains, at least in part, “the understanding” that Chinese children owe their parents absolute obedience (par. 14). This notion of “proper” rebellion is the crux of Rosin’s disagreement with Chua:

Ms. Chua has the diagnosis of American childhood exactly backward. What privileged American children need is not more skills and rules and math drills. They need to lighten up and roam free, to express themselves in ways not dictated by their uptight, over-invested parents. (par. 4)

Rosin sounds a lot like Huck Finn in her traditional American idea that “childhood should be full of spontaneity, freedom, discovery and experience” (par. 15).

9Both authors believe, as Chua says, that like all “decent parents” they “want to do what’s best for their children,” but they appear to have very different ideas about what is “best” (par. 34). While Chua’s goal is to raise children who are “successful” (par. 1), Rosin believes “happiness” is more important than success (par. 12). In fact, Rosin claims that “success will not make you happy” (par. 12). Chua, on the other hand, states that the measure of children’s success is “academic achievement” (par. 4). In this opinion, Chua is aligning herself with Chinese American immigrant mothers who responded to a survey. Like them, Chua thinks that children’s academic success is also the primary measure of a parent’s effectiveness: “if children did not excel at school then . . . parents ‘were not doing their job’” (par. 4). According to Chua, the same survey reports that while “almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that ‘stressing academic success is not good for children’ or that ‘parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun,’” “roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way” (par. 4). Rosin doesn’t directly address the question of academic achievement, but she does assert that “it is better to have a happy, moderately successful child than a miserable high-achiever” (par. 12).

10Although Rosin sets up an opposition between happiness and success, she concedes that “Ms. Chua’s most compelling argument is that happiness comes from mastery” (par. 9). This is a crucial point of agreement between Rosin and Chua for two reasons. First of all, Chua concedes the value of happiness as a worthwhile goal. Second, Rosin concedes Chua’s argument that “nothing is fun until you’re good at it” (Rosin, par. 9). Chua’s justification for overriding her children’s preferences is based on the observation that children inevitably want to avoid hard work and the corollary assumption that practice and perseverance are necessary to excel at anything (par. 5). The fact that Rosin seems to accept Chua’s justification provides a basis for potential compromise between their opposing viewpoints.

11Another basis for possible compromise is Rosin’s agreement with Chua’s analysis that Western parents have “conflicted feelings about achievement” (Rosin, par. 13). Rosin goes so far as to admit that she does “not have the guts or the tools” to do what Chua does to help her children fulfill their potential. Furthermore, Rosin speculates that “a large part of the fascination with Ms. Chua’s book” is that other Western parents, like herself, find Chua’s book “more seductive”—and perhaps also more complex—than the “distilled media version” (including the excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal) makes it appear (par. 5). Rosin implies that Chua is intentionally exaggerating her approach and ultimately may be somewhat “more pussycat” than tiger mother.

12Finally, it may be worth pointing out that Chua and Rosin both assume that their behavior, whether tasking their children with math puzzles and piano practice or playing games that foster imagination, plays an essential formative role in their children’s development. However, some research in developmental psychology—such as that reported in Judith Rich Harris’s controversial book The Nurture Assumption—suggests that heredity and peer group interactions may play a role equal to, or perhaps even greater than, that of parenting practices.

Works Cited

Aucoin, Don. “For Some, Helicopter Parenting Delivers Benefits.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe, 3 Mar. 2009. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.

Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones, 8 Jan. 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.

Cline, Foster, and Jim Fay. Parenting with Love and Logic. Colorado Springs: Piñon Press, 1990. Print.

College Parents of America. “Affirming ‘Helicopter Parents’: Redefining the Title.” College Parents of America. College Parents of America, n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.

Harris, Judith Rich. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print.

Rosin, Hanna. “Mother Inferior?” Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones, 15 Jan. 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.