probably been hearing about a new book that takes aim at “parenting,” pointing out that we don’t “spouse” our spouses, we just love them and live with them. But once parents start TO parent, they often feel they are actually able to control the person their child becomes.
(I’m pausing while you ruefully snort.)
So here’s a review of that book, The Gardner and the Carpenter, by Alison Gopnik. Reviewing it is Linda Flanagan, a writer, editor, high school cross-country coach, and erstwhile competitive runner. She is a regular contributor to the NPR education blog MindShift, as well as to The Huffington Post,Â Â The Wall St. Journal, The Atlantic online, The New York Times, Newsweek, Runnersâ€™ World, and The Responsibility Project. Read more of her work Â here (about bullies), here (about “All Joy and No Fun“) and here (about helicopter parenting). Her Twitter feed is @LindaFlanagan2.Â
WHY WE CAN’T TURN OUR KIDS INTO THE EXACT PEOPLE WE WANT THEM TO BE by Linda Flanagan
In one of Louis C.K.â€™s routines on the absurdities of rearing children, the comedian recounts his delight in watching his young daughterâ€™s tap dance recital. Sheâ€™s a miracle up there in her noisy little shoes, and he couldnâ€™t be prouder. What bothers him is all the other kids hogging the stage. He has to sit through all their dances too, for these kids that nobody cares about?
University of California, Berkeley professor Alison Gopnik, who just published a book on parent-child relationships, helps us make sense of the peculiar feelings and experiences we have while tending to our children. In The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children, we learn, for example, that not especially caring about other peopleâ€™s kids is one of the costs of our devotion to our own, particular child. Louis C.K. is going to have to sit through these interminable performances because other parents feel the same way about their darlings as he does about his own.
At the heart of Gopnikâ€™s book is a distaste for modern child-rearing methods, captured in the ungainly and ubiquitous term â€œparenting.â€ As she asserts in one of many spot-on takedowns of â€œparenting,â€ with all the prodding, controlling, and shaping of offspring the term implies, we donâ€™t â€œwifeâ€ our husbands or â€œfriendâ€ our companions, nor do we evaluate our â€œsuccessâ€ as friends or spouses by the latterâ€™s achievements.Â The value of these relationships comes from the depth of our connection and the quality of our love. The same should hold true for mothers and fathers with their children: our role is not to turn them into somethingâ€”a perfectly accomplished violinist, say, or Ivy League coedâ€”but to nurture them in a way that allows them to thrive.
â€œParentingâ€ is a by-product of widespread economic changes that compelled families to scatter and head for the cities, without other members of the clan to help raise the kids. Absent the accumulated wisdom of grandparents and aunts, clueless mothers and fathers have turned to â€œexpertsâ€ who seem to have answers for fretful new parentsâ€™ multiple concerns. Modern, middle-class parents also borrow from their experiences as students and employees, applying lessons from these goal-oriented pursuits to family life.
This is wrong-headed in many ways. Or, as Gopnik puts it, â€œParenting is a terrible invention.â€ Young children grow best in a loving and stable home, where they have abundant opportunities for social learning. Children figure out how to behave by watching and listening to the caregivers around them; this non-conscious learning dwarfs anything that is taught to them directly. Parents would serve their kids best by engaging in plentiful conversations, exposing them to multiple ways of doing things, and inviting them to play.
As you would expect, Gopnik slams the relentless standardized testing that children endure, often aided and abetted by parents. â€œA standardized test score is the apotheosis of the goal-directed, child-shaping, carpentry picture of schoolingâ€”the idea that schools should be designed to turn all children into creatures with particular characteristics,â€ Gopnik writes. Just as children do best in secure homes where they are encouraged to explore and indulge their diverse interests, so too do they flourish in learning environments that celebrate variability and discovery.
Gopnik devotes a chapter to technology, that wellspring of anxiety for us grown-ups. Her message here: relax. Every generation absorbs and transforms the lessons from the previous one, altering the environment and the culture along the way. Â With one sentence, she demolishes the rationale for fussing over tiny â€œparentingâ€ decisions: â€œItâ€™s very difficult to find any reliable, empirical relation between the small variations in what parents doâ€”the variations that are the focus of parentingâ€”and the resulting adult traits of their children.â€
My own children are out of the nest, and reading this today makes me wish Iâ€™d trusted my instincts about their scheduling and activities even more than I did. The pressure to â€œparentâ€ is so insidious and ingrained in many American homes that it feels like apostasy, or even negligence, to allow children to goof off for an afternoon. When I recall the missed family gatherings, the splintered weekendsâ€”you take him to lacrosse, and Iâ€™ll run over to soccerâ€”the countless times my husband and I divided and conquered, as we put it, to ensure the â€œbestâ€ for our kidsâ€”I wish Iâ€™d had the fortitude to say to hell with all that. Â New mothers and fathers: skip the T-ball practice and Kumon class. Instead, head over to the park with a Frisbee and a couple of cheese sandwiches, and spend your free weekends playing in the leaves with your kids.