(Afternote:  I just had the Sanlian article translated by a friend.  Interestingly, this entire post and my Flinching post were summed up by saying that Tiger Moms and Helicopter Parents and Stepmothers are viewed negatively in the US but Professor Darling states confidently that strict parenting is good for children.  I am completely confident that is NOT what I wrote!)

Questions:

1.      Given the current situation of American culture and society, why, in your opinion, has the publishing of Chua's piece of parenting memoir in WSJ caused such a big sensation in the U.S.?

Chua's book - and more particularly, the Wall Street Journal article that introduced the book - fed into four hot button topics in the US - all of which are both controversial and emotional. 

First, Chua's Wall Street Journal piece, Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, plays into the US's anxiety about losing its competitive business edge. 

Second, there has never been strong social consensus about how parents - mothers in particular - SHOULD act.  On the one hand, parents should be involved and supportive - encouraging their kids to excel.  If children fail, parents and families are blamed.  On the other hand, when parents become too involved or set high too high standards to children, they are disparaged as 'stage moms' or 'helicopter parents'.  Chua unabashedly comes out with a completely confident statement that the 'right' and 'best' way to parent - the one that truly shows a mother's love - is to be unabashedly involved and push as hard as you can.  That's the only thing that matters is the outcome - excellence.  If other people don't like it - or your children don't like it - too bad.

US parents are really divided among two schools of parenting that are ideologically opposed to one another, with the majority of parents falling somewhere in between, not sure which of them is right.  The first school believes that good parents nurture their children, allow them lots of free time to find out who they are and to enjoy themselves, and that through good schools, lots of play, and a supportive family, they will naturally grow up to be happy, intrinsically motivated, and reasonably well accomplished,.  These parents tend to be very permissive, with their parenting focus on providing children with the resources they need to develop naturally.

The second school believes that what is important is high achievement and sees childhood - not as a foundation for become a happy, confident person, but as a time ingrain good work ethic, gain skills, and position the child to be in contexts in which they will excel as adults.  It is the long-term goals that matter.  These parents also tend to believe that discipline and hard work is what's important.  These parents tend to see bending the child towards those goals as the key to long-term happiness. 

Third, and I have never seen this discussed anywhere - Chua's description of her own parenting violates standards of parents in the US, Europe, and most parts of Asia because of the kinds of things she tries to control.  'Legitimacy of parental authority' describes those areas where people (kids and parents) believe it is okay to set parental rules.  For example, safety issues (don't play with matches), moral codes (don't steal), conventional issues (table manners) are all seen as reasonable areas in which parents can - and should - exert authority.  Other issues - who your friends are, what kind of books you like, what you do with your free time, etc. - are seen as personal, only affecting the child, and are seen as outside the legitimate domain of parental authority. 

Doing homework, or how well kids do in school, are usually seen as conventional areas, and something parents can and should set rules about. 

Leisure and peer activities - what kids do AFTER their homework is done or what types of leisure activities they engage in (within reasonable limits and after other obligations are met) are really seen as personal.  Forcing children to do things that are defined as 'leisure' or 'fun' or keeping them from engaging in activities seen as enjoyable without a good reason, is seen as intrusive and an illegitimate exercise of parental power.  Our research and that of Smetana and Yau has shown parents in many parts of the world - the US, Chile, the Philippines, China - have high agreement about which areas are inside and outside parents' legitimate authority.

The parenting Chua describes is not just requiring excellent grades (no controversy) but music practice (a leisure activity). 

She also completely denies normal fun activities with friends (sleepovers) and school activities normally considered to be great experiences for kids (school plays).  In other words, she is not just strict, but strict in areas that are considered illegitimate areas for parents to exercise control.  In addition, her original WSJ piece does not include any reason for it other than that it isn't an area where the children can win prizes (see my second quote from Chua in Why Threats Don't Work.)

In my opinion, if she had just talked about being strict about academics, her book would not have received the attention it did.  She is regulating child personal issues (friends and leisure choices) in the service of prudential/conventional ones (school and music).

Finally, Chua describes herself threatening and screaming insults at her children (calling them garbage) - something virtually all US parents would say is emotionally hurtful.  In fact, she says it doesn't hurt Chinese kids because they're tough and they know their parents love them or the parents wouldn't push them so hard.  In other words, Chua says US parents protect our children because we don't have faith in our children's strengths.  Ad campaigns in the US have pointed out for decades that words can hurt kids as much as physical beatings.  The examples Chua chose were selected specifically to say that this advice shows US parents are just too weak to parent well. 

2. Chinese moms, or say, Asian moms, are like coaches training children to excel, while the western parents usually adopt the parenting model of fostering growth. Can you explain the psychology aspects behind these two parenting models and how does the psychology aspect apply to Chinese Americans?