Parenting Styles and the Chinese Tiger Mother. Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior - Essay Example

Parenting Styles and the Chinese ‘Tiger Mother.’ Parenting styles are to infinite variations based onthe personalities of the parents, and that of the children they raise. In general, parenting styles are identified as authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. The authoritarian style is characterized by parents who may be depicted as being absolutely in control mode in dealing with their children. Orders are to be carried out unquestioningly, and no explanations are given. The child has no freedom to make any choices.

The parents set the bar for performance exceptionally high, and insist that the child meets those standards. Any failure in rising to these expectations is met with harsh criticism. In the case of authoritative, or democratic, parents, control is tempered with affection. The emphasis is on firm guidance and not on punishment. The child is encouraged to share the responsibility for the decisions taken, and is given reasons and explanations for any behavioral expectations. On the other hand, permissive parents grant the child unlimited freedom of choice.

This involves a very hands-off approach, in which the parents set no rules, have no expectations, and make no effort to discipline the child. This style is based on unconditional acceptance. Amy Chua’s parenting style, as evidenced by her article Why Chinese Mothers are Superior, is obviously based on authoritarianism. Chua is in absolute control of her daughters lives. The children are summarily ordered to “get straight A’s” (Chua). Playing the piano or the violin is mandatory: they do not have the option of choosing their own extracurricular activities.

Chua sets the bar very high for them: “be the No. 1 student in every subject.” The children are subjected to the harshest criticism for any failure. Chua calls her daughter “garbage” for being disrespectful. The use of derogatory adjectives, such as ‘lazy,’ ‘cowardly,’ and ‘fat,’ is acceptable to Chua. She asserts that it is okay “to excoriate, punish and shame the child,” and “to override all of their children's own desires and preferences.” All this is typical of the authoritarian style of parenting.

However, there is a touch of the authoritative style in Chua’s acknowledged use of lavish parental praise for success. Chua admits that she and Lulu “snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up,” after the success of "The Little White Donkey” recital. Growing up with five sisters and a brother in the United Arab Emirates is certainly a different world altogether from that of Amy Chua’s two daughters! I would unhesitatingly state that we have been raised by authoritative parents. We have been given a clear definition of parental expectations: a university degree is necessary and is the foundation for a successful life.

At the same time, we have had a say in choosing our own educational paths. Unlike Ms. Chua’s daughters, there has been no compulsion to study music or always be a class topper. Our parents have been strict disciplinarians, but criticism has always been leavened with love. The harsh adjectives Chua employs have not been heard by us. I consider my parents to be my friends, although there are clear boundaries to our relationship and I am very respectful of them. I am not very sympathetic to Ms.

Chua’s depiction of the authoritarian ‘Tiger Mother.’ However, I must admit that raising the bar for a child’s performance can be a good motivational factor for success. The inculcation of a never-say-die attitude, disciplined work habits, tenacity of purpose – all these are virtues not to be sneezed at! I must conclude that, as a parent, I will definitely borrow some tips from Amy Chua’s hands-on approach to parenting: of course, tempered with large doses of my own democratic style!

It is evident that an individual style, incorporating the best of the three styles of parenting, and tailored to suit each parent and child, is the best one to adopt. Works Cited. Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. n.p. 8 January, 2011. Web. 3 March, 2011. < http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html>