Love and Merit
Parenting in America is experiencing a silent epidemic of conditional love.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/david-brooks-love-and-merit.html
I don’t always (to say the least!) agree with David Brooks, but this column gave me something to think about.
I think Brooks is confusing unconditional love with unconditional “like” and respect.
Great piece by David Brooks. I agree with him on this.
I saw this also. I find it difficult to take Brooks seriously on his pontifications when I disagree with much of his other writings, but I see his point, which is not original. I’ve observed it.
I think that this happens, but I don’t think it’s as a widespread as everyone else seems to. Most parents I know love their kids but don’t adulate them.
Hmmm. I think that what has changed is parental expectations, not necessarily the conditional nature of love. Children have always gotten more positive feedback from parents when they meet parental expectations. In previous generations, that might have been being obedient, working hard, being honest, etc. Today, those expectations have expanded to get top grades, excel at extracurriculars, etc. But I don’t think that parental love is any more conditional than in past generations. Parents still love their children and, in most cases, this is unconditional. But children will get more outward, positive rewards for meeting parental expectations. I think parents just need to temper their expectations - what is wrong with “be a good person” and “make someone happy”.
<<<
Very frequently it is manipulative. Parents unconsciously shape their smiles and frowns to steer their children toward behavior they think will lead to achievement. Parents glow with extra fervor when their child studies hard, practices hard, wins first place, gets into a prestigious college.
This sort of love is merit based. It is not simply: I love you. It is, I love you when you stay on my balance beam. I shower you with praise and care when you’re on my beam.
<<<
As long as the parameters for “staying on the beam” are reasonable (not crazy-tiger-parenting-only-top-10-schools-will-do or expecting a B student to be Val), there’s nothing wrong with having expectations and rewarding achievement.
I agree with Brooks completely and more importantly, I think that many of our kids would agree as well.
I don’t at all see what is wrong with the first two of these, “studies hard, practices hard” and I think they are very different than “wins first place, gets into a prestigious college”. We have always valued and praised the effort regardless of the outcome. We also celebrate achievement regardless whether it mean first place or not, but prestige isn’t (wasn’t) considered.
Don’t agree with Brooks. Of course parents hope to raise their children to have certain values and most children internalize those values. I think that’s a lot of what parenting should be. But that’s a long way from conditioning love on being “first in show.”
Self-sufficiency is a value most parents encourage; most of what Brooks decries is how a small minority of parents think their children need to reach it.
In large parts, I think he makes fair and valid points. That said, what I think would be more telling is what our kids think of the piece…
<<<
Self-sufficiency is a value most parents encourage; most of what Brooks decries is how a small minority of parents think their children need to reach it.
[/QUOTE]
Yikes.
I often think of my pets. I can spoil them as much as I want because I don’t have to worry about whether they are going to grow up and support themselves. 
Every generation of parents has been accused of “doing it wrong.” Should we revert to the “seen and not heard” model?
I think what has changed is the perceived availability of opportunity. College admissions is a whole new ball game and with all the focus on diversity, international students are valued and pursued. Perhaps that has made “some” parents more vigilant in stressing the importance of grades and EC’s.
Basically I am not raising my children all that much differently than I was raised. School was important and one was expected to attend to responsibilities before leisure. Anything below a B would raise an eyebrow and in an area of strength an A was preferred. We were expected to do at least one sport in High School but some of my siblings substituted another EC for the sport. We pretty much just expect our children to get involved in whatever way appeals to them, although both of mine are varsity athletes. Sitting around in someone’s basement after school and on week-ends is just not a habit we encouraged, and I don’t make any apologies for that.
Personally, I do not think my own children tie these expectations to our love for them. They know they are loved and I perceive they see value in their parents setting some minimum standards. They have had no problems with those standards and I would say have exceeded them.
I have more issues with parents foisting religious beliefs on a child after a certain age than I do with them encouraging a child to explore their personal limits.
“Parents two generations ago were much more likely…”
50 years ago the country was different. Things are global now, and the recession made ascending that much more difficult. The meritocracy frenzy is a reaction to how tough things are. It’s easy to a multi-millionaire columnist with a prestigious job and implicitly tell parents we’re crazy, while he and his family enjoys a safe and stable 1% bubble.
We heard Brooks speak at Parents Weekend a few months back. He mentioned having student(s?) at Yale (this was not at Yale) whose parents didn’t attend their college graduation. Why? Because they were upset with their child(ren?)'s post-graduation plans. There was an audible gasp in the room.
I don’t know what jobs these young people took, but I’m assuming it wasn’t prostitution or killer for hire. Just not what the parents wanted, or expected, of their offspring. Conditional love.
I think Brooks’ article is baloney at best and Asian-bashing at worst. I see no difference between parental approval and disapproval now vs. when I was a kid, except perhaps some changes in what “success” means. Ask kids who were unathletic 30 years ago what they think about this.
Is unconditional love saying that your kid couldn’t possibly have blown up the Boston Marathon–he must have been framed–because he’s a good kid? That’s been going on forever as well.
Also don’t agree with this being as widespread as he thinks it is. Most parents love their kids and accept them for who they are. The kids going to local State U and kids going to Harvard are just as loved by their parents in MOST cases. Of course parents may be disappointed that a kid that is capable of doing well chooses not to. Or expresses displeasure to a kid that falls off the track and ends up making bad choices. A parent will still love that kid, but may not like them very much at that moment or be willing to support those bad choices. Is he saying there should be no expectations for kids to do their best?
I think he is talking about a very narrow slice of parents - those for whom only the best will do. Those that pressure their kid for all As, whether or not the kid is capable or interested in that level of success Those that have an Ivy or failure mentality.
Most of deeply love “the kid on the couch”, even when we recognize that he is not going to gain admission to a super elite college or get an athletic scholarship to a Big Ten school. But that doesn’t mean we allow them to play video games 24/7, not do assignments, skip practice, or otherwise ignore their obligations.
This.
I see a lot of parents who have trouble distinguishing being disappointed with their kid’s behavior, and disappointed ith their kid.
Always love the kid; sometimes the behavior and/or choices make me want to tear my hair out. But hey, they’re teenagers and they’re learning to differentiate from their parents, so I don’t expect all the behaviors or choices to mimic ours-they’re not parrots.
Brooks is talking about his “Bobos in paradise” demographic, and he’s spot-on. “1 percenters”, well-educated, professionals likely residing in self-segregated leafy urban-suburban enclaves of polite but ever present competitiveness. Yes, when the parents are upset that Dartmouth EA didn’t happen, so it’s Kenyon RD or bust, because otherwise it’s Denison RD, or if all fails, Hobart, that’s what you call a “high-class problem”. Wouldn’t you agree? And nobody should be fooled that their kids don’t feel that insidious pressure.