Parenting, Individual Self Control, Cultural Factors - Essay Example

Question three

A person might claim that “self-control is a very personal individualistic quality—it’s not the kind of thing that can be affected by government programs or by historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals.” What this assertion tries to put to the fore is that self-control is inherent in a person and never changing. Therefore, regardless of cultural or governmental intervention, the nature of self-control a person depicts will remain unaltered. While the viewpoint is indeed logical, the prevailing body of knowledge proves otherwise. This paper will relay evidence showing that governmental programs and historic cultural factors, even those that appear far removed from persons, can easily and quickly change an individual’s self-control.

Improvement in parenting has the capacity to foster a transition in a person’s self-control. Traditionally, most cultures favored an authoritarian or autocratic approach to parenting. Conforming this idea, Park, Kim, Chiang, and Ju (2010) reveal that in the Asian American community, authoritarian parenting is continually emphasized as a way ensuring that the children lead the right paths. Similarly, as documented by LeCuyer and Swanson (2016), the African American parents, just like their European American counterparts, have a history of using authoritarian parenting approaches. What this shows, therefore, is that authoritarian or autocratic parenting styles are part of historical cultural factors in many communities. Nonetheless, the modern-day generations are now far removed from this parenting styles, given that they have increasingly adopted other approaches, for example, permissive models. Perhaps the most relevant reason for this, as Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006) illustrate, is that the modern generations have realized that authoritarian parenting styles orient their children to diminishing self-control from the start. The improvements in the parenting styles has then signified changes in the level of self-control among the young ones. Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006) reveal that along with improvements in the parenting style are strengthened self-control net effects of low self-control resulting from different waves of adverse parenting models. What this finding tries to show is that when parenting style improves, it follows that all the deficient self-control outcomes elicited by previous negative parenting models (autocratic and authoritarian) are curbed, leaving a person (the child) nothing short of heightened self-control. Therefore, research shows that when the historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals improves, self-control turns from a negative to a positive state.

An improvement in the family income usually lead to improved self-control. Family income is indeed a historic cultural factor. Traditionally, the breadwinner in a family was responsible for the welfare or the well-being of the extended family. As such, the breadwinner had to divide their income among the immediate family members, the parents from each side, and the grandparents among other members of the kinship. The need to spread one’s income among several members of the extended family necessarily implies diminishing financial value. Schreck (1999) illustrates that family income is closely linked with self-control, often manifested through victimization. When a person is of low income levels, he or she will be viewed as more likely to commit crime, which then leads to victimization. The vulnerability to victimization, therefore, leads to diminishing self-control. However, when the degree of income improves, self-control improves substantially, which then reduces the chances of victimization. As such, high levels implies that the chances of being victimized of crimes will lower, hence improved self-control. This evidence, therefore, illustrates that when a person ceases to adhere to the traditional extended family model and concentrates on the nuclear family, his or her income prospects increases. Consequently, as shown by Schreck (1999), the individual will be less prone to victimization by authority agents. Free from such an adversity, the person will signify a high level of self-control relative to when they adhered to the suppressive historical cultural factors. If this is indeed the case, then the assertion that control is a very personal individualistic quality affected by historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals is negated.

Gender, as a historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals especially when one is to consider the case of the LGBTQ community, also confirms the notion that self-control is malleable. Traditionally, a person was viewed either as a male or a female. According to Schreck (1999), females are traditionally attributed with high self-control, relative to their male counterparts who have always portrayed low self-control. In line with this notion, Shively (2010) contends that men, due to their aggressiveness, tend to depict low levels of self-control. On their part, females have traditionally depicted high levels of self-control. True to this assertion, the study by Hosseini-Kamkar and Morton (2014) showed that females are more likely to illustrate a state of inhibition and self-regulation, which then implies a great self-control. However, the dynamics of self-control tends to shift as a person rejects the traditional binary gender organization as seen by the adoption of the LGBTQ values. Crucially, as shown in the study by Ardi, Yendi, and Ifdil (2017), while the members of the LGBTQ community initially experience low self-control, they eventually change their states. They end up manifesting progressive individual life goals, improved self-competence, and enhanced moral values related to self-control and self-reliance. However, this only suffices where the members of the LGBTQ community receive supportive services, most specifically, counselling. Irrespective, this context illustrates that an improvement in the cultural values, in response to historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals, promote improved self-control, which means that this aspect changes as opposed to stagnating.

Government interventions have often improved people’s self-control among adolescents, which proves the assertion (as shown by the introduction paragraph) wrong. At the heart of the governmental programs, as evidenced by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010), is early education and effective child care. The administration of the program promotes the notion that intervention during the onset or early years is the most critical. Therefore, the program often seek to resolve dysfunctional families while seeking to remedy the lack of supervision. To some extent, the evidence by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) relates to the empirical ideas about improvements of parenting as related by Park, Kim, Chiang, and Ju (2010). Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) evidenced that the participants who went through the program manifested malleability in their self-control standards. The study showed that when adolescents are properly supervised and that their families become more functional, it is highly likely that they will depict a high level of self-control. This is indeed true, if one is to consider studies that have attempted to investigate the link between familial setting and joining of gangs. These studies, as illustrated by PPP, have illustrated that inferior familiar functioning provide a child with the desire to join gangs in pursuance of a sense of protection, which their families do not guarantee. However, according to Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010), when the children from unstable families are oriented to the governmental program, their self-control increases. The researchers show that these children are less likely to depict a trend towards such things as attachment to gangs, which then improves their self-control. Therefore, it is without any doubt that governmental program causes a transformation in the level of people’s self-control, taking the case of vulnerable adolescents into consideration.

Government interventions also help to reverse the adverse self-control unlike the common belief, given the idea that these initiatives addresses the problem of delinquency among youths. In their research study, Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) demonstrated that delinquency is one of the most significant signs of inadequate self-control. Echoing this finding, Huijsmans, Nivette, Eisner, and Ribeaud (2019) illustrate that delinquency goes hand-in-hand with self-control. As such, a person that exhibits delinquency has a low level of self-control. However, the prevailing studies such as that by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) has demonstrated that when vulnerable children are enrolled in governmental programs that targets the reduction or alleviation of delinquency, they are more likely to signify positive self-control. Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) contend that after orientation to the governmental programs, the former delinquents will necessarily engage in successful exemplar behaviors that warrant extension and replication. This outcome, therefore, is a vivid indication that when people exhibiting low self-control pass through effective governmental programs, they will more likely show a change in their self-will tendencies, which then proves the assertion made in the introductory part of the paper false.

Regardless of an intervention, the mind of the teenager transforms, making these people to experience a shift from a state of low self-control to one of high self-control. Gopnik (2012) reveals that when authorities reject the traditional belief that the adolescent brains develops naturally and instead hold out for the need to shape the progress of the teenager, it is likely that the latter’s self-control will be bettered. The researcher reveals that the adolescence stage is one of trouble, given that the person cannot make proper decisions. The researcher contends that during adolescence, the individual cannot make a decision of whether to drink or not. If this is indeed the case, then Gopnik (2012) is of the idea that during the adolescence stage, it is more likely that an individual will have a complex state of self-control. The major possibility is that, when confronted by diminishing outcomes during the adolescence stage, a teenager will inevitably experience deficient self-control consequences. However, if the teenager is oriented to some intervention, he or she will show improved self-control. Gopnik (2012) shows that this is indeed the case by purporting that eventually, the adolescents have to leave the childhood attachment and, instead, depend on adults. Thus, if the adults to whom one is oriented still signify a state of deficient self-control, the child’s behavior will remain the same. However, if those interacting with the teenager signify a state of self-control, the young one will also signify the same ideal. This, therefore, shows that the mind of the teenager is malleable, meaning that the state of self-control is not stagnant but flexible.

Conclusively, self-control tends to shift. As such, it moves from a state of low to high self-control. While this is the case, as the present paper has illustrated, the shift in the self-control is facilitated by changes in cultural factors as well as planned interventions, for example, government-perpetuated therapeutic programs. The findings of the prevailing body of knowledge have shown that the perfection in the historic cultural factors that one has persisted in promotes progressive self-control, helping a person to move from a state of low to high self-control. In addition to this, this paper has illustrated that as long as the design of a governmental program is adequate, then it is highly likely that a person, especially an adolescent, will more likely manifest a shift from a spirt of delinquency to one of adherence, which then proves the movement from low to high self-control. Therefore, the perspective that “self-control is a very personal individualistic quality—it’s not the kind of thing that can be affected by government programs or by historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals” is highly deficient.

Read More

As such, the breadwinner had to divide their income among the immediate family members, the parents from each side, and the grandparents among other members of the kinship. The need to spread one’s income among several members of the extended family necessarily implies diminishing financial value. Schreck (1999) illustrates that family income is closely linked with self-control, often manifested through victimization. When a person is of low income levels, he or she will be viewed as more likely to commit crime, which then leads to victimization. The vulnerability to victimization, therefore, leads to diminishing self-control. However, when the degree of income improves, self-control improves substantially, which then reduces the chances of victimization. As such, high levels implies that the chances of being victimized of crimes will lower, hence improved self-control. This evidence, therefore, illustrates that when a person ceases to adhere to the traditional extended family model and concentrates on the nuclear family, his or her income prospects increases. Consequently, as shown by Schreck (1999), the individual will be less prone to victimization by authority agents. Free from such an adversity, the person will signify a high level of self-control relative to when they adhered to the suppressive historical cultural factors. If this is indeed the case, then the assertion that control is a very personal individualistic quality affected by historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals is negated.

Gender, as a historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals especially when one is to consider the case of the LGBTQ community, also confirms the notion that self-control is malleable. Traditionally, a person was viewed either as a male or a female. According to Schreck (1999), females are traditionally attributed with high self-control, relative to their male counterparts who have always portrayed low self-control. In line with this notion, Shively (2010) contends that men, due to their aggressiveness, tend to depict low levels of self-control. On their part, females have traditionally depicted high levels of self-control. True to this assertion, the study by Hosseini-Kamkar and Morton (2014) showed that females are more likely to illustrate a state of inhibition and self-regulation, which then implies a great self-control. However, the dynamics of self-control tends to shift as a person rejects the traditional binary gender organization as seen by the adoption of the LGBTQ values. Crucially, as shown in the study by Ardi, Yendi, and Ifdil (2017), while the members of the LGBTQ community initially experience low self-control, they eventually change their states. They end up manifesting progressive individual life goals, improved self-competence, and enhanced moral values related to self-control and self-reliance. However, this only suffices where the members of the LGBTQ community receive supportive services, most specifically, counselling. Irrespective, this context illustrates that an improvement in the cultural values, in response to historic cultural factors that seem far removed from individuals, promote improved self-control, which means that this aspect changes as opposed to stagnating.

Government interventions have often improved people’s self-control among adolescents, which proves the assertion (as shown by the introduction paragraph) wrong. At the heart of the governmental programs, as evidenced by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010), is early education and effective child care. The administration of the program promotes the notion that intervention during the onset or early years is the most critical. Therefore, the program often seek to resolve dysfunctional families while seeking to remedy the lack of supervision. To some extent, the evidence by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2010) relates to the empirical ideas about improvements of parenting as related by Park, Kim, Chiang, and Ju (2010). Read More