Tiger Moms. Lion Dads. A Papa Bear Monologue.

Todd Zywicki, of George Mason's Law School and the Volokh Conspiracy, has an interesting essay in the Washington Times, "Roar of the Lion Father."  It's a review of a new book by Providence College English professor Anthony Esolen: Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child. In the essayZywicki contrasts Esolen's views with the widely commented upon views of Amy Chua.  How do you destroy your child's imagination?  Here are some good tips, says Esolen:  Schedule lots of play dates, Keep your kids indoors, Don't let your kids make up games, Be a cynic about heroism, Deny the mystery of the unknowable transcendent, Pretend there are no meaningful distinctions between the sexes, Make sure your kids drink only from the cup of current dogma, Don't let your kids engage with fairy tales or myths, Send your kids to school constantly, When they aren't in school, schedule something that regiments their lives. 

Now Esolen sounds like Chua's mortal adversary:  Slacker Dad v. Tiger Mom.  But is he?  A lot of people think Chua is all about accomplishment for the sake of success -- Carnegie Hall or bust.  I do not pretend to know Chua's motivations, but I think there is a middle ground that incorporates a lot of each of Chua and Esolen.   Kids should practice a musical instrument -- and I happen to be partial to violin and piano, but others might do (though I'm skeptical of kids and guitars) -- but the reason is not to make Carnegie Hall or elbow Joshua Bell off stage.  It's to develop self-discipline as much as musical awareness, and music involves the mind and the body in a demanding way.  Maybe football does, too, but I won't belabor the point.  But at the same time Esolen is right about the overly regimented and structured lives of contemporary kids.  Added to that is the insidious presence of video games, computers, the ubiquitous internet, and all the other ersatz substitutes for real inner imagination.  I'm with Chua and Esolen:  Demand excellence in everything, but turn off the television, deny your kids video games and "smart" phones, read to them (good stuff, not the politically correct, boring pablum that the educrats promote -- let's have more James Marshall and E.B. White and C.S. Lewis, and less Sandra Cisneros), turn them loose in the woods or the beach, find places where there are other kids that are free to roam (and if your community has none of them, maybe think about finding a new home), gaze at the stars or at least take them to the planetarium, share the wonder of the unknowable whatever one's faith.  But at the same time teach them that not everything is relative -- some things are right, some are wrong; some things are beautiful, some are ugly; some things are precious, some are trash.  And instill the inner desire for excellence, for mastery of what you do, of the inner satisfaction of doing a good job, even if it's as inconsequential as sweeping the back stairs.  And all along the way, share your life with your kids; listen to them, talk to them, have fun with them, make up stories with them.  Teach them to think for themselves and not simply accept uncritically what's told to them.  Most of all, love them in the way that matters -- acting in a way that shows them they are unconditionally loved, even when they fail or screw up.  Demanding excellence is part of love, but love is a whole lot more than demanding excellence.  We raise them to become independent and when they do that, coupled with an imagination and an inner compass, they will do things that amaze you.  

I am reminded of the wisdom of a friend of mine who died of cancer in his 40s when his daughter was 13:  "Never let school interfere with your daughter's education."  

Comments

[Francine Lipman]

Well said.

[Matt]

What is the "politically correct, boring pablum that the educrats promote" for reading material that's bad? It's hard for me to see many things are more pablum-like than C.S. Lewis, but my guess is that here tastes just differ. I don't have kids and don't spend much time thinking about their reading material, so would be curious to know what you have in mind.

(Also, comments on this blog would be more user-friendly if it were possible to use basic tags for italics and the like. Can that be turned on?)

[Joe]

Maybe football does, too, but I won't belabor the point.

Honestly, I think the best thing for most (American) kids is to take up some sort of endurance-based individual sport. Running, cycling, swimming, triathlon, whatever. Unlike music or the more skill-based sports, almost anyone can be reasonably good at it with enough training -- heck, I'm about as unathletic as it gets, and I was honorable mention all-state at a big school in a big state in high school, and it was nice to get the recruiting letters from the podunk Division II schools I'd never consider going to. Plus it's great exercise, for many/most it leads to lifelong participation in recreational sports (I'm about 13 months off of a 2:58 marathon), and it does wonders for clearing your head from all of that school stuff.

It's hard for me to see many things are more pablum-like than C.S. Lewis, but my guess is that here tastes just differ.

Lewis is great for smaller children. The books are short and his prose reads reasonably well, and there's enough action to hold their attention. I probably wouldn't recommend them for non-Christian (or in our case, non-nominally-Christian) kids just because the whole Aslan-Jesus bit might be a little hard to explain to (say) a Jewish kid, but for the majority, it's fun to talk about metaphor and allegory. [My 4.5 year old and I are almost through the Silver Chair as of last night.]

[taobao english site]

You never know what you can do till you try

[lucy]

Wow, everything here seemed reasonable until "pretend there are no meaningful distinctions between the sexes." Does the author not acknowledge or desire to counteract how aggressively kids get bombarded in school and outside with mandates about what girls are/do/like and what boys are/do/like? I'm skeptical (but curious) about the argument that a little bit of gender-as-social-construct makes kids less creative rather than more. I'm sure he's not advocating pink rooms, princess books, and peewee cheerleading as the only way, but I would think that in the early years "pretend[ing] there are no meaningful distinctions between the sexes" actually fosters a lot more creativity and freedom to form identity. The other stuff can come later.

[Calvin Massey]

Joe: I agree with you about some physical activity, but I think the pressure of team sports at an early age is just another form of regimented activity.

Lucy: The sexes are different. They manifest those differences at a very early age, as anyone who has had children of either sex will testify. Pushing one's daughter to be a cheerleader or "beauty" contestant, and one's son to be the star quarterback is just another way to regiment them, but pretending that men and women are all the same, only with slightly different anatomies simply ignores reality. A daughter who is treated the way I advocate will grow up able and eager to seize whatever path in life she desires. Same with a son. But that doesn't come from telling them that sex is just a social construct. Gender, by the way, is a grammatical term, no matter that the current vogue conception of the term is as a placeholder for a socially constructed identity.

Matt: I'll inquire about italics and such.

[Bill Turnier]

It is all about marketing and Chua is a master at it. If anyone doubts the significance of marketing and titles you should learn the title of the 13th most downloaded article on SSRN with close to 28,000 downloads.