Requiem for a Tiger Mom

by liberal japonicus

Like a military history buff who spends an inordinate amount of time looking at some skirmish down the road from Waterloo or Gettysburg, I'm pretty fascinated by not so much the main event, but the little wins and losses on the periphery. At for this post, Amy Chua. Background below the fold.

Amy Chua is references as the author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, and she started off, as folks do nowadays, with the book excerpt, her's going in the Wall Street Journal. (I'm now curious how excerpts get chosen in general and how her's was chosen in particular. If she chose it, it says a lot more than if someone at WSJ did)

The section that interested me was this (I've put the parts that interested me in the writing of this in bold)

Here's a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called "The Little White Donkey" by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it's also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.

Lulu couldn't do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.

"Get back to the piano now," I ordered.

"You can't make me."

"Oh yes, I can."

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn't even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn't think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn't do the technique—perhaps she didn't have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?

"You just don't believe in her," I accused.

"That's ridiculous," Jed said scornfully. "Of course I do."

"Sophia could play the piece when she was this age."

"But Lulu and Sophia are different people," Jed pointed out.

"Oh no, not this," I said, rolling my eyes. "Everyone is special in their special own way," I mimicked sarcastically. "Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger. I'm willing to put in as long as it takes, and I'm happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games."

I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.

Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.

Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.

"Mommy, look—it's easy!" After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn't leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed "The Little White Donkey" at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, "What a perfect piece for Lulu—it's so spunky and so her."

Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.

So, to analyze this, Chua understands that she is coercing her daughter. What amazes me is that her coercion gets her daughter to the point that the daughter is ripping up her music, and 'punching, thrashing and kicking' (though I don't know if that is actual physical movements, or metaphorical). Perhaps I'm just being the weak-willed Westerner, but if my daughters pushed back that hard, I would have thought that it told me something. The next thing that catches my attention is that Chua makes threats that she has no intention of keeping. When her daughter calls her out, she adds more threats. It's not surprise that it reaches a point where Chua believes that she is deliberately playing the piece wrong as payback.

The final thing is to show how unmoored Chua is from what are the actual things she is doing. "I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic." followed by "He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn't even doing," I'm not sure how well Yale law profs should know how they use the language, but this seems to be pretty oblivious.

I didn't get the book, though I did read reviews of the book (The wikipedia page gives a good summary of the various view points and you can follow the links) and went thru the google books excerpt. In many of the reviews, the birthday card incident is key. This is when Chua received a handmade birthday card from the daughter with the piano issues, Lulu, and she refused it and said “I deserve better than this. So I reject this.” which because rather infamous. However, in the book, it is a much longer story, where Chua explains that she keeps all the cards and that this card is not good enough to go with them and says (emph Chua's)

"I get magicians and giant slides that cost me hundreds of dollars. I get you huge cakes shaped like penguins, and I spend half my salary on stupid sticker and eraser party favors that everyone just throws away. I work so hard to give you good birthdays! I deserve better than this. So I reject this."

Some have said that in that context, the thought is better, but my feeling is that it reveals a lot more about Chua. The framing is in terms of money. (I didn't glom on to the fact that Chua is a tenured faculty at Yale, so the claim of spending half her salary on stickers and erasers is interesting hyperbole) But more deeply, it is 'here's what I've done for you, you _owe_ me more'. And maybe she does in some way, but at 4 years of age, that seems a bit heavy.

Chua's oldest daughter, Sophie, addressed the reaction to the book and specifically the card incident:

Everybody’s talking about the birthday cards we once made for you, which you rejected because they weren’t good enough. Funny how some people are convinced that Lulu and I are scarred for life. Maybe if I had poured my heart into it, I would have been upset. But let’s face it: The card was feeble, and I was busted. It took me 30 seconds; I didn’t even sharpen the pencil. That’s why, when you rejected it, I didn’t feel you were rejecting me. If I actually tried my best at something, you’d never throw it back in my face.

This is something that I only noted in going back over this. The person whose card was rejected is not Sophie, but Louisa.

Now, I recognize the pressures and contradictory demands of different cultures and Chua's book was filed away. However, she has come up again, apparently advising her female students how to 'dress for success'.

However, her students aren't having any of this.

I really hope that Chua hasn't treated any of her students the way she treated her kids, cause she is going to have hell to pay.

Also, in going back to find links, I see that Chua and her husband also co-authored a book entitled The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America. Now, I think that cultural traits do influence how groups deal with society, but reviewing (and again, I have not read the book, just gone thru the reviews) that, I think the premise is pretty flawed. However, belief is destiny and it would be no surprise to me if Chua advised female students in a way that not only reinforces sexism, but also fails to acknowledge that structural sexism is an organizing principle in the US.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this little skirmish, or talk more about the big battle down the road, go for it.

Comments

[CharlesWT]

This book may have some explanatory insight into tiger moms, helicopter parenting, free-range parenting and other approaches to parenting.

"In Rule Makers, Rule Breakers celebrated cultural psychologist Michele Gelfand takes us on an epic journey through human cultures, offering a startling new view of the world and ourselves. With a mix of brilliantly conceived studies and surprising on-the-ground discoveries, she shows that much of the diversity in the way we think and act derives from a key difference—how tightly or loosely we adhere to social norms

"Why are clocks in Germany so accurate while those in Brazil are frequently wrong? Why do New Zealand’s women have the highest number of sexual partners? Why are “Red” and “Blue” States really so divided? Why was the Daimler-Chrysler merger ill-fated from the start? Why is the driver of a Jaguar more likely to run a red light than the driver of a plumber’s van? Why does one spouse prize running a “tight ship” while the other refuses to “sweat the small stuff?”"
Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World

[JanieM]

I don't even know where to start.

Let's just say we may soon be seeing "requiem for a power couple," not just for a tiger mom. And for that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being more than one power couple, the way things are going. HTF can people be so smart and still be so dumb.

[wj]

I'm all for encouraging children to excel . . at whatever they have a particular talent for or interest in. But what the book describes isn't encouraging excellence, it's child abuse. And far worse, IMHO, than someone who give a child a swat on the butt to emphasize a piece of discipline.

Also I'm underwhelmed by the testimonial from the sister. But then, I'm aware of Stockholm Syndrome.

[CharlesWT]

A counter to tiger moms.

"We've needlessly turned parenting into an unpleasant chore. Parents invest more time and money in their kids than ever, but the shocking lesson of twin and adoption research is that upbringing is much less important than genetics in the long run. These revelations have surprising implications for how we parent and how we spend time with our kids. The big lesson: Mold your kids less and enjoy your life more. Your kids will still turn out fine."
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think

[Nigel]

The excessive elevation of particular positive moral attributes (preseverance and success for example) above all others is simply not healthy.

The blindness towards individual autonomy is curiously similar to that discussed in the previous thread.

[Hartmut]

Imo a perfect recipe to rise monsters, both if 'successful' and if not. I see a high likelihood that the kids will treat their own the same horrible way or that something snaps one day and the worm turns. Not to forget the numerous cases of Wunderkinder turning on themselves. For an (in)famous historical case take Moritz Schreber and the fate of his sons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Schreber (the English wiki entry leaves out most of the horrid details though). And the guy was actually well-meaning and not just out to prove how successful a father he was.

[CharlesWT]

(I'm now curious how excerpts get chosen in general and how her's was chosen in particular. If she chose it, it says a lot more than if someone at WSJ did)

"Of course, then after all the backlash, Chua went on record to say that the book is much more nuanced, that she hadn't seen the excerpt before it ran, that she had no say in the title of the article, "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior." Really? She's a law professor — I hardly think she just let all that happen without her permission."
Tiger Mothers and Selfish Fathers: Does Parenting Matter?

"Bryan Caplan: I'm wondering why genes play so little part in your story. You mention them a few times, but there isn't much about how your kids are the children of law professors and best-selling authors, and this might have something to do with their success.

Amy Chua: My book isn't about success or biology. It's just a memoir. I was raised by really strict Chinese immigrant parents and I tried to do the same with my two daughters. It worked in some ways, and not in others."
Is strict parenting better for children?

[liberal japonicus]

I realize that article titling is generally up to the editor, my question is how the _excerpts_ of books are selected. Is that done by the editor or by the author and is there any consultation?

[russell]

HTF can people be so smart and still be so dumb.

Game, set, and match.

[russell]

What I take away from all we've learned about Ms Chua is that she is a toxic, status-hungry liar. Who inflicts her own weird issues on her kids.

The piano story is, as far as I can see, straight up abuse. She calls it "good parenting". Something is wrong with that woman.

[JanieM]

Game, set, and match.

LOL.

In case my comment was too obscure, part of what I meant was: how can someone be such a complete jerk, and also so oblivious that she decided to write a book bragging about it...? No doubt she made a lot of money from the book(s), though, so that probably makes it all okay.

[hairshirthedonist]

I don't know what to think about how excerpts are chosen. I do know Amy Chua is not someone whose advice I would seek, with the same general feeling that I wouldn't want to have dinner with Dracula.

[Countme-a-Demon]

Joan Crawford and Pete Rose's Dad come to mind.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse

However, I loved having a kid myself, and he loved being ours, and still does.

[Nigel]

Is that Brian "Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money" Caplan ?

[CharlesWT]

Yes.

The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money

[CharlesWT]

This Be The Verse: By Philip Larkin

[Girl from the North Country]

When I originally saw this post's heading, I wondered if Amy Chua had died (I know she is in hospital with some unspecified serious illness). In fact, I have quite a lot to say about the Tiger Mom-ish tendencies of Chinese mothers, since some of my best friends etc etc. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do so now. If this thread is still alive towards the end of this week, I'll try to do it then, or perhaps come back to it later.

[Kaleberg]

Chua is kind of sick. That triple package has been repeatedly debunked. It's garbage. Granted, she has a great media shtick. It confirms certain nasty people's nasty prejudices. It sells books and media. A lot of those people read the WSJ, so she's a star there.

It's a kind of sadistic pornography, and not the harmless kind with whips, chains and consensual partners. Supposedly Nelson Rockefeller grew up with parents who asked for a Christmas gift list so that they could tell their child what he wasn't going to get. Some people get off on doing nasty things to children.

[liberal japonicus]

I don't usually comment on older threads, but Lithwick and Matthews report about Jed Rubenfield is interesting for this thread in relation to what it reports about his wife Chua.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/jed-rubenfeld-amy-chua-yale-law-school.html

[JanieM]

I read the article at lj's link last night. I think it's also fascinating in what it reveals about the vast number of ways in which predators (for lack of a better word) can be creepy, and the difficulty of addressing some of the less direct, less physical-assault-like versions.

You just wonder what the heck possesses a guy like Rubenfield to do that stuff he was doing. He's at the top of the world: good-looking, in a powerful role at a powerful institution, with a gorgeous wife with whom he has published hot-selling books. And he has to prey on his students in subtle, creepy ways...why?

I'm sure I don't even need to make explicit any psychoanalytical BS about how insecure and messed up even the most on-top-of-the-world-seeming people can be.

[wj]

You just wonder what the heck possesses a guy like Rubenfield to do that stuff he was doing.

I think the broader question is Why do bullies bully others? Because that's essentially what this behavior is.

[Girl from the North Country]

Fascinating piece lj, which I hadn't seen. (Parenthetically, I note that the article also uses "refute" in what I consider to be the incorrect way!) I think the reason why guys like that do this kind of thing, despite the success and the gorgeous wife, is because it titillates them to sexually embarass a young girl, and gives them a sense of power - which also fits with what wj says. Whether they would follow through if a girl went along with it is open to question (probably, in my opinion, although if a girl owned it and did more than go along with it, if she acted like a predator in return they might well turn tail and head for the hills because of the role reversal. An appealing thought, but unlikely in the case of a young undergraduate). An attractive cousin of mine, when an undergraduate in the 50s, was sitting knitting in a lecture once when the professor, pointing her out and hoping to embarass her, said "Of course, knitting is known to be a substitute for masturbation." He picked the wrong girl; she had survived horrific things in the war, and said calmly "Professor, when I masturbate I masturbate, and when I knit I knit". But very few young women, even now probably, would have the courage and confidence to say that to a professor.

[Countme-a-Demon]

"Professor, when I masturbate I masturbate, and when I knit I knit".

That's priceless!. John Jay worthy.

She could have added that men, generally speaking, are ALWAYS masturbating, instead of sticking to the knitting at hand, as a description of the phenomenon of workplace sexual harassment.

If only Dickens had put those words into Madame Defarge's mouth.

[liberal japonicus]

I'll plop this in here, the reason I have fixated on the phrase 'psychoanalytic bs' is because any kind of discussion of why people do the things they do, which is probably going to be the main topic of conversation, (especially in a communication situation where we might never meet face to face) can be dismissed easily as 'psychoanalytic bs' and using it is simply a way to delegitimise any point that is made without actually addressing it.

About bullying, I have a lot to saw, as it surfaces a lot here.

https://thisjapaneselife.org/2013/06/12/japan-ijime-bullies/

https://savvytokyo.com/bullying-japanese-schools/

Because of the Western emphasis on individuality, standing up when you are bullied or standing up for someone else when they are being bullied becomes a test of worth in a way that doesn't easily obtain here. But I feel that the social context of bullying is often missed. That's why it is important to understand any and all power differentials which can mask the ability of the person bullied (and the people witnessing the bullying) to take action.

[Girl from the North Country]

Dear Count, nothing equals John Jay. It is a magnificent formulation, and something of a comfort to be reminded of in dark times!