Parenting, science and feminism

USNews.com: Has a century of child-raising advice taught us anything? Expert opinions through the years



Dr. Ray Guarendi is right! Not that I needed U.S. News World Report to tell me that. However, I find this article very interesting. Dr. Ray claims that parenting experts have ruined parenting by making parents paranoid that they might permanently damage their children, maybe even causing them to appear on Jerry Springer to reveal tot he world why they are so messed up. According to Dr. Ray, parents need only to have love for their children, a good moral compass and a firm, consistent hand in discipline. Author Rachel Hartigan Shea agrees.

But by the 1920s, one mother was so overwhelmed with child-care instruction that she confessed, "I try to do just what you say, but I am a nervous wreck just trying to be calm." Indeed, the "century introduced a vision of children and of child rearing that entailed a new kind of vigilance," says Ann Hulbert, author of the new book Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children. It also introduced the idea that a good parent is, by definition, an anxious one.

American parents hadn't used to rely heavily on experts, but much in the 20th century was so new that old standbys--grandmothers and religion--seemed to have lost relevance. With more than half of Americans living in cities in 1920 (up from a third in 1890), adults led very different lives from their own parents'. And they were enamored of the idea that science could improve child rearing as it had improved everything else. "It is childhood's teachableness that has enabled man to overcome heredity with history," declared one turn-of-the-century expert.

Isn't it interesting that foresaking faith and family led to feelings of guilt and anxiety? Embracing the enlightenment ideals of scientific progress led to paranoia and feelings of inadequacy. The rub is that most of the so-called scientific advice was based on flimsy science. The desire to be scientific outstripped the ability. Today, over 100 years later, not much has changed. There are some scientific gems - I am especially fond of Erik Erikson's psychosocial stages of development and the theories on bonding - but by and large parenting advice is more political than scientific.

While this article makes some good points, it makes some questionable assumptions.

Women's status was changing, too. The move away from farms freed women from a lot of household labor--and from having to give birth to enough farmhands to keep the crops going. Women were even heading off to college, but since motherhood was still regarded as the only true feminine vocation, experts worried about how to make it palatable to these educated women. The answer, supplied by pioneers in the new fields of pediatrics and psychology, was to professionalize motherhood. Under the guidance of Holt and Hall, and later John Watson and Arnold Gesell, mothers were to put aside instinct and become scientific examiners of their children's behavior. (Fathers, it should be noted, were barely mentioned.) Holt required women to learn the latest research on nutritional matters and adhere to strict feeding schedules, while Hall deputized mothers as his research assistants by issuing lengthy questionnaires on everything from "doll passion" to religious experiences. Gesell issued color-coded charts for tracking urination, playtime, feeding, and weight; anthropologist Margaret Mead's mother (a devout Holtian) filled 13 volumes on little Margaret's development.

These claims are not completely ficticious. Yes, women's roles did change with the shift from rural to urban populations. It is also true that psychologists encouraged women to become scientific observers of their children. However, I question the assumption that the professional advice to scientifically study their children was an attempt to professionalize motherhood because motherhood was teh only palatable vocation for women. In fact, Dr. Malcolm W. Watson of Brandeis University teaches that the focus on scientific parenting came from evolving theories of childhood, not from an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes. Isn't it interesting that the same author that points out the myth of parenting experts so uncritically embraces a feminist myth of female persecution?