External Definitions of Good and Bad Parents - Scholarship Essay Example

The crisis of parenting in the western world has created a wave of discussions in the areas of gender issues, sexuality, social stigma and psychology. For instance, gender based discussions question whether women are all encompassed of motherhood and do they still need men to deliver complete parenting. Social stereotyping of good and bad mother and good and bad father has instigated further research in social psychology looking into the impact of these definitions on the actual experience of parenting. The strict father stereotype and the nurturing, omnipotent mother stereotypes are very common. Also, good and bad have been defined by the respective culture and identity of mother and father rests in the context of their society. However, actual experience moves beyond these stereotypes. Kath Woodward (2002) in her book on Understanding Identity brings up the conflict between self identity and the society created images of the self and the ideal. Though identity is a matter of the individual, it is never free of social stigma and external definitions. She redefines ‘identity’ to encapsulate “the way of thinking about the links between the personal and the social” (2002). This psycho-social definition of identity offers another perspective of the stereotyping of mothers and fathers Vs actual experience of parenting. She discusses on the relative nature of the reality of parenting. The latter might be the identity they create for themselves, but however hard they strive, the identity cannot be free of the social context and definitions. Kath’s sociological definition of identity is not new, but could be traced back to Adam Smith’s Wealth of the Nations. The concept of individualized self is a modern invention, though. Kath, in the modern context, reinvents the older concept. Kath also analyses the identity of motherhood with respect to the bodies and selves. She says that the first thing a woman could relate to in her role as a mother is her body. This could be symbols and evidence of patriarchal control of female body. However, the child evokes tenderness in her as against the anger toward the male body. This conflict is discussed by Rich. Any role is not subjective and is always relative to the others involved. For example, parent is relative to the child and the vice versa; the role of the teacher is relative to the role of the student. So roles are modified and moulded according to their relative positions and the feedback from the related roles. In addition, it is dependent on the expectations of the other roles. Similarly, the role of a mother or a father follows the same model as explicated by Mead’s symbolic interaction focused role taking in the society. A psychoanalysis of the parenting roles and their identities, Vs social definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothers or fathers brings in the perspectives of Freud and Lacan as well. What someone feels from within, is not always the same as what the person is known from outside. Here, in this context, it is the duality between what real parenting is and is from the perspective of the mother or the father and how the society perceives them to be and fixes them as. Examples of pictures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothers could be situated in popular culture, media and religious discourses. For instance, the pictures of Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus, is a typical reference of motherhood. In Madonna and Child, as Marina Warner says, mother is an embodiment of “goodness, motherhood, gentleness and submission…Mary is mother and virgin’ (1985, p. 336). This is motherhood unaffected by the male body. There could hardly be a possibility of conflict between feelings of tenderness and anger. As there are idealistic mothers, there is always an antithesis as well. Warner (1994) alludes to the movie Jurassic Park to speak about the ‘monstrous mothers’. The conflict between male and female pops up, ‘naked confrontation between nature coded female and culture coded male’ (p. 25). To refer back to the myths, Medea in the Greek mythology is an example of a ‘bad’ mother. She is betrayed and killed for her husband and she murders her children. If Virgin Mary is an archetypal ‘good’ mother, Medea could be the archetypal ‘bad’ mother. Of course, there are multiple variations of these archetypes in the modern media and are situated well within the boundaries of the specific culture. The social always has its impact on the formation of the self. When the individual sees the separation between the reality and the social perception, or in psychoanalytical terms, between the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’ (Kath, 2002), then the spirit becomes more troubled. The subject moves toward the process of internalization or assimilation, to be more precise. According to Laplanche and Pontalis (1973), ‘a psychological process whereby the subject assimilates an aspect, property or attribute of the other and is transformed, wholly or partly, after the model the other provides.” The mother and the father figures assimilate the social models and try to follow the archetypal ‘good’ parent, as is defined by their society. One such act of assimilation is increased ‘self-surveillance’ (Lawler, 2000: 20), where modern mothers and fathers are bombarded with huge amounts of information on good and bad parenting. Motherhood encompasses of the ‘physicality of birth’ (Kath, 2002, 132) and the psychological aspect of child rearing. The corporeal, here cannot be entangled from the social and cultural definitions of ‘good’ mother such as that of Virgin Mary. On the other hand, it is the vice versa. When perceived from outside, the society terms certain fathers or mothers as ‘bad’ referring them back to their definitions of ‘bad’ and ‘good’. Surprisingly, the child, who gets the first hand experience of their parenting, may feel otherwise! Similarly, the conscious thoughts of the parent may be judgmental, as Freud says, by not fitting into the social frame. Many discussions on the issue have brought out the huge ambivalence in this. Quite interestingly, social boards and blog forums have opened this question for discussion, which has invited multiple responses to the question. There could be nothing specific as a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ mother or a father. It all lies in the perception of the child or the individual. Social stereotypes still exist which leads to surmounting pressure on parenting responsibility and undue criticism of parenting. One example of a discussion on the parenting Vs social stereotypes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothers or fathers is found in The New York Times in its August 22 issue of 2009. It discusses on parenting and whether it is natural or learned. It acknowledges the fact that parents are not born but are made. It says that parenting is a skill and has to be cultivated or is moulded by circumstances. So, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ parents are not also born, as could be inferred from the article. In a survey, men thought that parenting came more naturally to them than women. The article attributes the reason to the feeling of being judged by the society as it attributes women with more responsibility for any parenting mistakes. Women are prone to be criticised more than men for being a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ mother. The actual experience of parenting is passed on from the parents to their children, in most of the cases as a Lisa finds out. She says, “So much of how you parent is shaped by how you were parented. There are things you do in the same way, because you see them as correct, or wise, or because they’re the only way you know”(2009). Another study conducted by the College of New Jersey on the stereotypes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothers or fathers and its impact on the actual standards of parenting, found out that evaluations based on the stereotyping were mostly subjective than being objective (2002). These studies reveal how social stereotypes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mother and father images have subjective connotations to individuals. It also shows that children adopt the parenting models that they personally feel as good and do not depend on the external definitions. However, the society influences personal identity of a parent and defines the parenting style based on certain rubrics designed from the archetypes in that culture. So, however personal the style or belief is, the actual experience of parenting is overseen and criticised by the societal norms and standards. To bring out the ambivalence in the duality of definitions and identity, “Mothering and Ambivalence” discusses on the multidimensional aspect of the gender and psychological issues surrounding parenting, motherhood and fatherhood. It also analyses the identity crisis and dependency issues. Reality may be frustrating when compared with the ideal. Social stereotypes at a cultural level might lead to anxiety and depression in mothers when they experience parenting in reality. The book also considers the recent onslaught on nuclear family and the dependency of women on men as parents. This leads to a feministic perspective of the issue. Chodorow and Contratto (1989) discuss on the idealization of motherhood and its impact on the actual mothering. They say: Feminists take issue with the notion that a mother can be perfe3ct in the here and now, given male dominance, lack of equality in marriage, and inadequate resources and support, but the fantasy of the perfect mother remains: If current limitations on mothers were eliminated mothers would know naturally how to be good. Feminist perspective of mothering has its say on the ideal mother or a good mother. Naturalism criticised this approach terming it to be degrading motherhood. Elshtain says: Mothers were demeaned under the guise of “liberating” them. In many early feminist accounts, mothering was portrayed as a condition of terminal, psychological and social decay, total self-abnegation, physical deterioration and absence of self-respect. Women, already victims of an image that denigrated their social identity under the terms of the male American success ethos, now found themselves assaulted by the very group that would liberate them. (Elshtain, 1981) Female subjectivity was put into question by this varied view points. Stereotyping of mothers and the reality of motherhood were juxtaposed for scrutiny. A psychoanalytic reading of this issue brings up questions about the image a mother presents to her child, especially a girl child. The mother stands as an ‘”mnipotent mother” (Chasseguet & Smirgel, 1976). She is “more powerful than reality” (Dinnerstein, 1976). Rosika Parker, in “Mothering and Ambivalence” looks into these images of mother and says how the social definitions of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ mothers can suppress the maternal creativity and lead to guilt feelings due to the inability to achieve the ideal. The cultural figures of mothers can only make the mothers in reality develop fears of their parenting. A closer study of the researches in this area of stereotypes Vs real parents brings out a great deal about how mothers and fathers could feel the pressure of societal definitions and image creation. It also opens discussion on the extent to which these images are objective. Children play the major role in defining the characteristics and nature of their parent. The discussion forums also show that the question of whether one can define good or bad parent remains unresolved. But, the impact of the definition on parenting is enormous, especially when it comes to emotional and psychological aspect, with social stigma proving more destructive for single mothers and teen parents. Parenting is more about relationship and very less about image creation. Building and nurturing relationships is very essential for a child in its early stages of growth. When its parent is more obsessed with social image of herself or himself as a parent, it will reflect back not on the individual but on the child’s development. A wholesome and healthy relationship depends on the emotional well being of the parent and confidence in the parenting skills. Stereotypes can be referred to but they should not be judgemental as the individual circumstances would vary to a great extent. References Chasseguet-Smirge;, J. 1976. ‘Freud and Femanle Sezuality’, International Journal of Pshychoanalysis, 57: 275-86. Chodorow, N. 1978 The Reproduction of Mothering, London: Univeristy of California Press. Dinah, C. 2009.Good Parent Bad Parent.Retrieved 22 August from http://psychiatrist-blog.blogspot.com/2008/04/good-parent-bad-parent.html Dinnerstein, D. 1976. The Rocking of the Cradle and the Ruling of the World, London: souvenir Press. Graham, J . Parenting: Growing with Your Child. Retrieved 22, Aug 2009, from http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/4170.htm Elshtain, j. Bethke. 1981. Publich Man, Private woman, Oxford: Martin Robertson. Laplanche, j. and Pontalis, P. 1973. The language of psycho-analysis, London:ogarth Press. Lawler, S. 2000. Mothering the self, mothers, daughters, subjects, London: Routledge. Mitchell, J. 1975. Psychoanalysis and feminism, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rich, 1977. Of woman born, London: Virago. Warner, M. 1985. Alone of all her sex: the myth and cult of the Virgin Mary, London: Vintage. Warner, M. 1994. Managing monsters: six myths of our time. The Reith lectures, London: Vintage. Woodward, K. 1997. Concepts of identity and difference, London: sage. Read More