Reading this piece shook me and made me wonder, because either Ms Chua is bringing her kids up wrong, or we are.
That's a false dichotomy. There are not two ways to treat children (hard vs soft).
I think Bray falls into the same trap as many of the indignant respondents on MetaFilter to Chua's piece (though in a less emotive way). There are no dichotomies when it comes to raising children or "what's best" for them, but people seem quick to adopt their own society's and communities' norms to judging both their own parenting techniques and those of others. Seneca was right to suggest that one should learn philosophy to grow as a human being because without such study these polarized opinions are so easy to cling to.
I think Chua does a reasonable job of acknowledging and describing the gulf between her supposedly traditional "Chinese" opinions and the "Western" gamut of parenting techniques without casting significant aspersions on "Western" parenting, at least in the essay given (I haven't read her book). When it comes to Westerners judging Chua, however, people seem very quick to paint her techniques as wrong, evil, or "cruel" using a moral framework that simply doesn't apply to her case - it's about as meaningful as criticizing how Amazonian tribes live (or, better, judging American politics by European standards).
As in everything, there's a middle way here. Bray's observations indicate, to me, that he sees the gooey middle of the parenting gamut but then fails to acknowledge it.
I grew up with Asian parents^, and so I think I can safely say that the parenting techniques are at the very least cruel. For example, she makes it a point very early on that she doesn't allow her children to properly socialize with their peers. Education and socialization are not mutually exclusive and it is absolutely vital that you don't don't convince your children otherwise. Then after making it a point to mention this little rule, she never backs it up or defend it. Why doesn't she allow her children to participate in drama or visit with friends? We don't know. One is left to simply presume that perhaps it's because she's on a power trip, enacting some sort of revenge on her children for daring to be a burden on her life.
^technically my parents were quite germanic, but their parenting technique was to a tee what Chua described. "You got a A- in geography?! You need to spend more time studying!""why are you listening to rock and roll music? you should play cello like your brother!". It's making a big mistake to think that this sort of bad parenting is limited to Asian parents.
For example, she makes it a point very early on that she doesn't allow her children to properly socialize with their peers.
To call this "cruel" in any objective sense (if you were being subjective, OK - that's undebatable opinion) would require a definition of what "proper" is in regards to socialization. Such a definition relates to the values of particular societies and communities given that they form the basis under which socialization occurs.
Causation is not correlation, of course, and you are right that standards for socialization may differ across cultures, but these statistic and my experience with other Asians do lead me to believe that Asian upbringings are unnecessarily cruel and stunt children's ability to deal with other people and their own feelings to a degree that causes them to take their own lives. Raising children to be happy enough to _not_ take their own lives or getting an eating disorder after being called fat one time too many is a bare minimum.
People determine their own level of satisfaction based on comparisons to other people.
Asian Americans may feel more depressed because they see themselves missing out on socialization and general "fun" that their western counterparts experience.
However, Asians in their home countries (or in ethnically homogeneous American communities) may not feel more depressed because they only have each other as comparison.
If no one is going out to parties on Friday night, then it is a lot harder to say "my parents are being unfair to me", or even feel it without expression.
Now addressing your charge that this culture is "unnecessarily" cruel... if we find that giving people the opportunity to have fun over work leads to higher satisfaction and consequently lower suicide rates, we still can't call any specific balance of work vs. fun "unnecessarily cruel" without justification.
It's a judgement call as to what level of 'fun' is a good thing for children to pursue at the expense of their intellectual, athletic, or social development. Is the level of depression, and suicide found in western cultures acceptable or unacceptable? Should we stop foisting 'work' and competitive rating (in the form of school in particular) on children who don't want it, in order to have a lower suicide rate?
I'm not pointing at statistics here on purpose because this is a philosophical question rather than a quantifiable scientific one.
Raising children that while presumably spend their young adult and possibly adult lives in America while restricting their ability to socialize with their peers stunts their emotional and social growth. No child should have to grow up despising the majority of his peers because they spend their time "goofing off" instead of being "serious" about their studies. In some societies and communities it might be acceptable, but out of the context of a society that supports and encourages that sort of development at large, it verges on downright dangerous.
I've seen numerous people mention suicide rates in discussions about this topic now, and that particular danger rings true with me...
I don't get this. So if I think torturing my children is good for them, it is OK? Maybe to punish them I hack off a finger (or to remind them that they have to be loyal to me), and it would be OK?
There used to be this concept called "human rights". I always thought it was quite laughable, as nobody would be able to enforce it anyway, but at least it could serve as a starting point for what is deemed acceptable treatment of human beings (kids are humans, too).
That's a false dichotomy. There are not two ways to treat children (hard vs soft).
I think Bray falls into the same trap as many of the indignant respondents on MetaFilter to Chua's piece (though in a less emotive way). There are no dichotomies when it comes to raising children or "what's best" for them, but people seem quick to adopt their own society's and communities' norms to judging both their own parenting techniques and those of others. Seneca was right to suggest that one should learn philosophy to grow as a human being because without such study these polarized opinions are so easy to cling to.
I think Chua does a reasonable job of acknowledging and describing the gulf between her supposedly traditional "Chinese" opinions and the "Western" gamut of parenting techniques without casting significant aspersions on "Western" parenting, at least in the essay given (I haven't read her book). When it comes to Westerners judging Chua, however, people seem very quick to paint her techniques as wrong, evil, or "cruel" using a moral framework that simply doesn't apply to her case - it's about as meaningful as criticizing how Amazonian tribes live (or, better, judging American politics by European standards).
As in everything, there's a middle way here. Bray's observations indicate, to me, that he sees the gooey middle of the parenting gamut but then fails to acknowledge it.