Parental disappointment comes in all shapes and sizes - my father wanted me to get married out of highschool and try to have all my kids by 21 - I am 43, divorced & childless with a PhD. My parents love me of course - but I swear they would be more proud if I had followed the traditional path of a working class child...
13
Yet again, the New York Times and David Brooks convey the belief that everyone in America is upper-middle class and entitled. There are plenty of families in America in which one or both parents are scrambling so frantically to earn a living that they don't have time to monitor their kids relentlessly. Maybe those kids are lucky. One of my grand-children told me recently that his up-scale school was a shark tank. I can't wait to see how he'll react after graduation.
17
-- The Times publication of this article, by Mr. Brooks, is evidence of the paper's unconditional love for him.
22
My, times have certainly changed. In the 1950's I was brought up with "unconditional" criticism, and nothing but. Parents though constantly correcting their children was the way to raise the right.
It wasn't then anymore than merit based approval is wise today.
The truth and honesty with equal emphasis on the positive and the deficient may be the middle road that should be explored to develop well-rounded and happy adults.
It wasn't then anymore than merit based approval is wise today.
The truth and honesty with equal emphasis on the positive and the deficient may be the middle road that should be explored to develop well-rounded and happy adults.
6
Why not abandon fanciful judgment duality of what all conservatives think and do?
Today many self-styled conservatives are utter bone-heads, clueless what conservatism means, but for people like them, the notion that free markets always, infallibly direct resources to the right uses.
More nuanced conservatives know free markets do not allocate everything. Their beliefs involve much more but few thinking ones have a media outlet. The nutters resort to paid messages.
Self-styled liberals share many conservative beliefs. Key differences between thinking conservatives and liberals are few.
Liberals believe progress is inevitable, humanity is inherently good, and curiously scarcity is a deniable myth. Conservatives believe: Change, no matter how slow or fast, is inevitable, but not always progress. People can be noble or evil, but are oftener in between.
Liberals would doubtless agree that election of Republicans is bad change. But the larger truth is most innovations fail. Profit sector failures that die early vastly outnumber successes. We see only innovations that could stand alone (eg iPods) or ones which got subsidies.
Government subsidy enabling post dereg Wall Streeters to gouge shareholders is no force for good. It may shock you to learn, that since the 70s Wall Street leaders have been mostly Dems)
Conservative does not equal Tory, racist or reactionary. Why not refine your conceptual map?
Today many self-styled conservatives are utter bone-heads, clueless what conservatism means, but for people like them, the notion that free markets always, infallibly direct resources to the right uses.
More nuanced conservatives know free markets do not allocate everything. Their beliefs involve much more but few thinking ones have a media outlet. The nutters resort to paid messages.
Self-styled liberals share many conservative beliefs. Key differences between thinking conservatives and liberals are few.
Liberals believe progress is inevitable, humanity is inherently good, and curiously scarcity is a deniable myth. Conservatives believe: Change, no matter how slow or fast, is inevitable, but not always progress. People can be noble or evil, but are oftener in between.
Liberals would doubtless agree that election of Republicans is bad change. But the larger truth is most innovations fail. Profit sector failures that die early vastly outnumber successes. We see only innovations that could stand alone (eg iPods) or ones which got subsidies.
Government subsidy enabling post dereg Wall Streeters to gouge shareholders is no force for good. It may shock you to learn, that since the 70s Wall Street leaders have been mostly Dems)
Conservative does not equal Tory, racist or reactionary. Why not refine your conceptual map?
2
CONDITIONAL LOVE While David Brooks speaks of conditional love as if it were a dichotomy, it is, in fact, a spectrum. Every sort of interaction goes according to certain social rules, expectations and norms. That said, I think that the difference is in the locus of control, extermal versus internal. Children who are raised with the expectation that they will become active self-advocates as young as 3 or 4 years, by starting to learn how to solve problems using thinking strategies (i.e., internalized rules). Albert Ellis's last book, The Myth of Self-Esteem highlights the fact that self-esteem is based upon dependence on other's approval (external control), while self-acceptance has as its goal navigating through life using a set of internalized rules. Accepting oneself worts and all. Perhaps the most powerful message of all is that every mistake is a chance to learn something new, because it is by making mistakes and receiving supportive correction that we all learn. Learning by correcting errors is perhaps one of the only universals we can prove in human nature. Clearly, a child with skillful, attentive and supportive parents has a greater likelihood of success in attaining self-acceptance. Even so, life presents most of us with unexpected stresses, accidents and traumas, which may make self-acceptance more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, but more difficult. Ellis's greatest contribution is the chapter on self acceptance among great persons. Great read!
11
David Brooks is always insightful and thought-provoking, but here he's spot-on and this Opinion should be framed and handed to parents and hung on teachers' walls -- spoken as a former NYC teacher who went to an "elite" high school (Stuyvesant), doctoral candidate, and aspiring tech professional. The cruel irony of pseudo-meritocracy is how measures of merit are misleading and therefore counter-productive. Deep knowledge is not assessed from crammed-for tests and (GP)A's: it requires a personal, emotional, narrative as well as analytic connection to complex subjects -- what you can do concretely with abstract ideas, and why the abstraction (because of its generality and ideality) is important. This knowledge does not come from superficial reward, and the signature of a talented student is often a need to "personalize" subjects for her talents to truly reveal themselves. We have made the tragic assumption that our most intellectually gifted students are drawn like a magnet to math or science or technology, while underestimating the smarts needed to delve into poetry or gender studies. We have conjured an imaginary line between "science" and "humanities", then hand-wring over why more girls and minorities end up on one side. The result is that mere competence in, say, building web apps -- not unworthy in itself -- is confused with deep understanding -- in part explaining why the pace of innovation, the dislodging of paradigms, in areas like the Internet is shockingly slow!
9
Most commenters have gotten it correct: Brooks has escalated from First World Problems to "south of Harlem Problems." He neglected to mention all the difficulties in finding the best coach to get your kids into the best pre-school, lest they not be on track for an elite kindergarten.
9
David,for every family you describe there are at least ten where unconditional love is the reality,often with dire consequences.Our meritocracy requires more,not fewer parents who focus their children in what matters now more than ever(getting the best education possible),invest in those priorities and reward accomplishment.Alas,the majority of parents are still in the "find something you are passionate about,go for it and never give up"camp,where their child is a winner at everything,an offspring as well as friend and wise beyond their yearsThese parents may offer unconditional love but provide little in the way of direction,priorities,focus or boundaries,resulting in the millions of high School and College leavers who do not possess the cognitive,social and behavioral skills today's competitive workplace requires.
5
Surprised at negative reactions towards the article and the author. I see plenty of parents around me who fit David Brooks' description. My own parents also fit into that mode, and I was a very obedient and successful child by conventional standards, before breaking down in my 30s and have to endure years of therapy to deal with that nagging fear and feeling that I'm not worthy and good enough. Sadly I see many of my educated friends, commonly known as Tiger parents, who perpetuate that pattern of conditional love in action.
31
Why is it every David Brooks' column is framed as a binary: love and merit, honing and praise, Unitas and Namath, eulogy and resume....? Hasn't he read anything about the muddled history of the crooked timber of humanity?
36
I think by "meritocracy" Mr. Brooks is subtly targeting intelligent, educated, liberal-leaning, usually two-earner, generally affluent families, and implying that their parenting is inferior to that of more "traditional" families. But in the kind of families he has in mind, while there may be less (or no) emphasis on getting into an Ivy League college, there were (and are) plenty of conditions for parental love. For instance, children are shamed, or even shunned, for many kinds of "sins," such as loving a person of the wrong race, religion or gender; pre-marital sex and masturbation; even disrespect to elders and rudeness. Child rearing will always involve the attempt, consciously and unconsciously, to imbue one's children with one's own beliefs, values and morals. Mr. Brooks just prefers some to others.
29
I teach college and this does NOT describe the students I observe. While I agree that many of my students seem to have been brought up by parents who excessively praised them for pretty much ANYTHING; it also seems that my students were taught that mediocrity is the new meritocracy. To me it seems as if parents put their kids on pedestals, treat them as their center of the universe, eager to be their BFF rather than their parents, hover over them 24/7 and just can't let go.
As a result I deal with a lot of students who know less than prior generations but think they know it all. Students whose parents are called helicopter parents because they just don't know how to give them the space to grow; who complain to professors if their kids make poor grades; who need to be involved in every little decision their student makes.
As a result I deal with a lot of students who know less than prior generations but think they know it all. Students whose parents are called helicopter parents because they just don't know how to give them the space to grow; who complain to professors if their kids make poor grades; who need to be involved in every little decision their student makes.
25
First of all, this is quite an overgeneralization. This may be true in the world of NY private schools, but I know a lot of parents who just love their children.
A few years ago the big theme was to build self-esteem, then it turned into building self-control and be able to pass the marshmallo test. But really, it's about competence. Can your child deal with the world?
The next question is to do what? To take care of him or herself. To have fun and to do something fulfilling. The details should be left up to the child to fill in later.
A few years ago the big theme was to build self-esteem, then it turned into building self-control and be able to pass the marshmallo test. But really, it's about competence. Can your child deal with the world?
The next question is to do what? To take care of him or herself. To have fun and to do something fulfilling. The details should be left up to the child to fill in later.
12
Regarding child rearing, Mr. Brooks writes: "They are given food, shelter and applause."
This "they", (although I do not think that the generalization sufficiently specific, detailed, and factual),
this "they" does not include the 45 million families below the poverty line that are trying to survive, some of which are also trying to rear children and grandchildren.
These parents existing in the conditions of poverty,
because of little fault of their own,
fault in comparison to our society's crime against humanity great fault of letting them and their children exist in poverty-ridden conditions, which are always debilitating,
do not have the food, shelter and "applause" to give to their children and give to themselves.
It is time in America for the 1%, and others of us Americans, to provide the amount of money required to end poverty in America.
The richer people need not worry; they have unnecessary amounts of money; and, after the aforementioned reduction in their money and wealth, they will continue to more money and wealth than is necessary to live the good-life on.
This "they", (although I do not think that the generalization sufficiently specific, detailed, and factual),
this "they" does not include the 45 million families below the poverty line that are trying to survive, some of which are also trying to rear children and grandchildren.
These parents existing in the conditions of poverty,
because of little fault of their own,
fault in comparison to our society's crime against humanity great fault of letting them and their children exist in poverty-ridden conditions, which are always debilitating,
do not have the food, shelter and "applause" to give to their children and give to themselves.
It is time in America for the 1%, and others of us Americans, to provide the amount of money required to end poverty in America.
The richer people need not worry; they have unnecessary amounts of money; and, after the aforementioned reduction in their money and wealth, they will continue to more money and wealth than is necessary to live the good-life on.
17
The main flaw I observe with parenting today, and over the last 15 - 20 years, is too much praise. Yes, parents are honing kids as a result of increased competition and the fact that we continue social engineering experiments that try to hold onto the false belief that the government will make things 'fair.'
But children that grow up being praised, regardless of achievement or performance, grow up in a fake world. Then they come of age and are shocked to find not everyone sees them as fabulous. They complain that it's 'not fair' that someone else has a better car, better degree, more money, bigger house, etc.
That, in essense, was what was really behind the occupy movement. Not the absence of jobs, but absense of jobs they wanted. The expectation that you graduate from HS or college and walk into a job that covers the mortgage for the house of your dreams is a joke. Most of us that did not grow up with this false praise knew that when we graduated into adulthood that we would not buy a house for years, not buy a new car for years. We knew we would live pay check to paycheck - even graduate students, lawyers, etc. all lived pay check to pay check initially. Somehow kids today scoff at that notion, and the NYTimes supports this nonsense.
But children that grow up being praised, regardless of achievement or performance, grow up in a fake world. Then they come of age and are shocked to find not everyone sees them as fabulous. They complain that it's 'not fair' that someone else has a better car, better degree, more money, bigger house, etc.
That, in essense, was what was really behind the occupy movement. Not the absence of jobs, but absense of jobs they wanted. The expectation that you graduate from HS or college and walk into a job that covers the mortgage for the house of your dreams is a joke. Most of us that did not grow up with this false praise knew that when we graduated into adulthood that we would not buy a house for years, not buy a new car for years. We knew we would live pay check to paycheck - even graduate students, lawyers, etc. all lived pay check to pay check initially. Somehow kids today scoff at that notion, and the NYTimes supports this nonsense.
21
I like the metaphor - The Wolf of Conditional Love - but, love and expectations cannot always be separated. Many adults resent that their parents were too liberal and did not put pressure on them just when what they most needed was a little bit of parental guidance or "pressure". In any case, parents, one way or another are always living within a childs persona. So called "unconditional" love is a mirage. Sometimes the condition is not to expect conditions, but that is a condition all the same.
7
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should look at the societal factors that make modern parents push so hard for "success" for their kids. If the job market were not so bad, the social safety net not so thin, college not so expensive for those who cannot obtain a scholarship -- all problems that, I would argue, are caused by the very same conservative policies that Mr. Brooks espouses -- perhaps parents would not put so much pressure on their children to achieve "success" in the meritocracy.
24
Folks have always tried to push an agenda on their children. What's overlooked is that most kids will stand up to the adults on these matters, and develop some talents for sticking to their guns that will aid them as they go through life. A lot of what my parents pushed on me made good sense, but not all of it. I pushed back and am still happy with most of my decisions.
13
I enjoy Mr Brooks well thought out articles.
I also enjoy that they consistently stay at the top of the "Most viewed" chart.
Most of all I enjoy imagining the faces of the teen-like clique of bully commenters who are constantly deprecating Mr Brooks work in a personal and belittling fashion when they have to often see his name at the top of that chart. Apparently there is more to the world than a small, navel gazing, self congratulatory, left wing, echo chamber.
I also enjoy that they consistently stay at the top of the "Most viewed" chart.
Most of all I enjoy imagining the faces of the teen-like clique of bully commenters who are constantly deprecating Mr Brooks work in a personal and belittling fashion when they have to often see his name at the top of that chart. Apparently there is more to the world than a small, navel gazing, self congratulatory, left wing, echo chamber.
5
While mostly true this column misses important points. In our society achieving is necessary for getting job and becoming self supporting. However, the focus should be on instilling in the kids the sense of responsibility and wish for independence, rather than having them to expect the parents to provide the newest iPhone in the popular color. The love should be unconditional, but praise and other reward should be conditioned on the child's behavior and responsibility. Perhaps then we would get fewer slackers and middle age people moving back to elderly parents and living on their expense.
1
Brooks does report on the practices of a slice of the population, and I agree with commenters here that our culture has degenerated to produce the need for such behavior. As a former private school teacher I witnessed plenty of rich, helicopter parents and pressured, lonely kids.
What he misses entirely is a growing trend that is practiced by teachers and parents, of not building self esteem, but rather praising the process--a child's attempts and perseverence to solve academic or social problems. If the child is not trying, then maybe he/she needs help, or perhaps the problem can wait until the child is ready. This model equalizes the results--whether successful or not, and makes the product less important than the process. Unconditional love for one's own child is normal and can flow freely.
What he misses entirely is a growing trend that is practiced by teachers and parents, of not building self esteem, but rather praising the process--a child's attempts and perseverence to solve academic or social problems. If the child is not trying, then maybe he/she needs help, or perhaps the problem can wait until the child is ready. This model equalizes the results--whether successful or not, and makes the product less important than the process. Unconditional love for one's own child is normal and can flow freely.
6
When writing about something as complex as child rearing it is impossible to make generalizations. And, why would one want to?
I appreciate Mr Brooks' work, but this column is overreach.
I think the era of "the columnist" has been over for a while. Brooks, Friedman, Doud, and Blow are pretty stale and generally predictable. This generalized, non-specific, and boring column is a perfect example.
I suggest the Times fire all their columnists and hold some type of contest where a new handful of columnists are hired for a year or two. Then, repeat the process. This would not only improve the quality of columns, but the quality of the reader.
For example: "Parents two generations ago were much more likely to say that they expected their children to be more obedient than parents today."
Really? Come on! This is a ridiculous assertion, but a secure NYT columnist can get away with. If two guest columnists were handed the same topic Mr Brooks attempted to analyze the NYT readers would look at their work with a more careful eye.
See! My assertion is just as unsupported as MrBrooks' but I'm sure no reader swallowed it whole.
I appreciate Mr Brooks' work, but this column is overreach.
I think the era of "the columnist" has been over for a while. Brooks, Friedman, Doud, and Blow are pretty stale and generally predictable. This generalized, non-specific, and boring column is a perfect example.
I suggest the Times fire all their columnists and hold some type of contest where a new handful of columnists are hired for a year or two. Then, repeat the process. This would not only improve the quality of columns, but the quality of the reader.
For example: "Parents two generations ago were much more likely to say that they expected their children to be more obedient than parents today."
Really? Come on! This is a ridiculous assertion, but a secure NYT columnist can get away with. If two guest columnists were handed the same topic Mr Brooks attempted to analyze the NYT readers would look at their work with a more careful eye.
See! My assertion is just as unsupported as MrBrooks' but I'm sure no reader swallowed it whole.
10
If Mr Brooks thinks the current crop of parents invented conditional love, he is mistaken. He probably never experienced the parenting of first-generation adults, who were determined to make something of their offspring, even if their own aspirations went unexplored. He described my parents; I am 65. I loved them, feared their disapproval, and achieved things to make them happy. It took a long time to find my own way for my own reasons. All parents are flawed. It's part of being human. Let's forgive them and move on.
16
The sentiments expressed here were also evident in the commentary offered to explain why cheating is rampant in undergraduate classes at Stanford University, a situation the school recently acknowledged.
Getting into Stanford is a real achievement but the race doesn't end there. For students nurtured in directional love, college in increasingly seen as getting their ticket punched in the quest for good-paying jobs which often require a graduate degree as well.
Getting into Stanford is a real achievement but the race doesn't end there. For students nurtured in directional love, college in increasingly seen as getting their ticket punched in the quest for good-paying jobs which often require a graduate degree as well.
5
Mr. Brooks spends way too much time writing about himself and his NYC/DC/Big City-Top 5% Peer Group and conflates his tribe's BoBoBehavior with everybody else. This is both narcissistic and misguided. You'd think even an amateur sociologist like Brooks would figure this out.
8
Very broad assumptions by Mr. Brooks', none of which are the case in our household.
7
Brooks -- you are fortunate enough to have an outlet, the New York Times, to spin your stories. And as a columnist you do not have to meet the objective criteria expected of reporters. And this piece, like so many of yours, is a narrow look at a narrow slice of life in America. You throw in a few experts into your allotted inches and present this fluff as fact. You are a good writer but a poor sociologist and psychologist and that is why I see your columns as such failures. Stick to what you know.
18
What Mr. Brooks is very clearly describing here is the roots of narcissism, eloquently written about by the German psychoanalyst Alice Miller in her 1981 book "The Drama of the Gifted Child." For a detailed examination of what Mr. Brooks calls "manipulative" love, please read Miller's book. Every parent parenting in the way Mr. Brooks describes should read this book. That would be a real act of genuine love toward their children.
10
I have always believed and shared that God's love is everlasting and unconditional--nothing is required. I also used to say the closest we could come to understanding that is a parent's love for their child. But Mr. Brooks describes what I see in so many parents now. Society offers very little grace. Every child should be able to expect it from their parents and/or other supportive adults. That is what builds self-confidence and allows children to grow up and find everything they need inside themselves to do what THEY want to do--knowing they are unconditionally loved.
5
Sorry Mr. Brooks. This piece is far too broad a generalization to hold any water. You indict the current generation of parents who spend way more time with their children as being selfishly motivated, yet the last generation was indicted for being too indifferent and not creating quality time with their kids. I think the children of today's suburban parents are better off than those of the Mad Men generation.
10
I am not sure that the "conditional love" identified by Brooks as the particular foible of today's parents is really something new in the history of the human race. It seems to me that history is replete with instances of children being disowned for failure to comply with parental expectations, e.g. King Lear. I suspect that the expectation of "unconditional love" is the new factor in what has always been a fraught relation between the generations; that and the incredible extension of the duration adolescence through the post collage years.
8
Excellent article, being a parent of 19 year old I have been a part of the process and vouch for the truth in conditional love, but I have recognized at the right time that there is a point when you need to step back and allow the child to make and stand by their decisions without worrying about offending the parent. However it is still very important to tell children, when young what they need to be doing, whenever you see a parent pushing the child hard, I read comments such as I hope the kid had a normal childhood. If you note that many kids who pushed themselves hard WHEN NEEDED have a normal adult life with a stable job and a good family.
2
Kids know when praise is earned. My daughter started speedskating at the age of four. (It's a Minnesota thing.) Although absent due to illness the day of the big meet, she was nevertheless given a trophy at the banquet (another Minnesota thing). When sharing her award with her pre-school class the next day, we were told she explained, “This is for last place. I know it is for last place, because I wasn’t in the race.”
3
I think that Mr. Brooks has it wrong. Parents today do not love their children any differently than their parents loved them or their grandparents loved their parents. They do not love their children just when they succeed. They want their children to succeed because they love them. What is different today is that the middle class feels threatened. One wrong step-bad school,bad grade, bad test and it is to the back of the line they go-at least in their mind. They have lost faith that opportunity is always available but rather has to be sought out and watched carefully so it does not slip away.
95
David Brooks seems to know a large number of undisciplined parents who have learned little about child rearing before they have some offspring, intentionally or not. - I learned little either before we had kids, but having been raised with a reasonable amount of discipline and limited indulgence, I applied the same min. I believed in the incentive plan: do your share, earn your privilege and don't expect unlimited parental indulgence and handouts. Self discipline should be the first rule for most people before they enter relationships and start a family.
No wonder if a teen is taught he is God like from the time he is born - when he has the urge to go to school and shoot down 20 people to get a thrill and instant celebrity-fame, he has no clue that this might be wrong!
1
Today's column reads like Lady Bountiful writing ostentatiously about education, love, and merit, more to impress than out of a genuine concern for those in need.
5
While we might read and see this piece from varied perspectives, I appreciate the very intelligent analysis of a fragment of the human situation. The personal responses are helpful in reading those varied sides of life. As one who now has very little social contact, I enjoy this Presence.
5
Mr. Brooks, this piece is captures a serious family problem, one that I lived a few generations ago and bumped up against with recent hospitalization caused by an old college injury from an MVA with a poor choice of boyfriend based on an attempt to choose according to parents' values rather than my own.
Conditional love can have brutal consequences in a child's life trajectory. It might be more common with current parents but has been around in some families for a long time.
Thank you for your perceptive articles of late.
Conditional love can have brutal consequences in a child's life trajectory. It might be more common with current parents but has been around in some families for a long time.
Thank you for your perceptive articles of late.
3
While I agree with some points in this editorial, mainly that kids need unconditional love, isn't it conservatives like Mr Brooks who also like to make fun of the "everyone gets a ribbon" culture. I'm not sure based on this piece if we parents are supposed to push our kids to succeed and praise them when they live up to their potential or if we are supposed to give them the "I'm a winner because I tried" medal so that no child feels left out and feels bathed in the glow of unconditional love. Maybe Mr. Brook could clarify this for the rest of us parents who don't seem to have figured it all out yet.
In Brooks' opening, I thought he would share the old barb about Americans travel in two ways--first class and with children. And I suspect in many respects since WWI, we dote far too much on our children, either stifling them with stringent manners or ignoring impolite behaviors. And, yes, there is such a pronounced focus on parents striving for the very best for their little ones and letting them know when they are failing whether his a look or a comment. Unconditional, positive regard, as from Carl Rogers, can be the same approach with love when child-rearing. Alas, his final sentence, suggesting that "unconditional support---a gift that cannot be bought and cannot be earned. . . . sits outside the logic of the meritocracy, the closest humans come to grace." I have come to accept Brooks' need to include something religious in his columns but if only TV Evangelist Pat Robertson could comprehend his own absence of grace when he advises the mother of a gay son not to accept such orientation and another time that one must not attend a gay wedding as it excuses opposing religious beliefs and belittles Christians. I suggest Robertson has identified his own failings here as a man of god who lacks any semblance of grace.
2
I think that the flaw that Brooks is describing comes from a common mistake in the way people tend to anticipate about the future, that it will pretty much resemble the past. The parents are busy trying to prepare their children in the ways that they think they will need to be without really appreciating how much change has occurred and will likely continue to occur throughout the lives of the generations who have lived over the last two or more centuries. Giving children a solid sense that no matter what happens they are loved is one aspect of developing the self worth that cannot be defeated by failures to achieve everything to which the may later aspire. Another is to develop an inner life from time spent playing with other kids in unstructured activities as well as structured ones. Kids also learn self reliance from time spent on creative endeavors and exploration. The focus upon developing skills and accomplishments which can make them competitive in specific contexts is not wasted but it will not the ability to adapt when things change from what one expects.
4
It is amazing how people can turn any conversation into a political one instead of actually hearing what the writer is saying, pathetic.
19
As a coach and a parent, I've learned that balances must be struck:
between sports and academics/other pursuits (time), my expectations and their abilities (skill), later between their motivation and my own (desire). Love them unconditionally, but help them be fully-engaged in living. I have always stressed academics, sports and music/arts.
Talk is cheap, so at the end of their teens if all you told your child was "you can do anything" or "I just want you to be happy" - you blew a parenting opportunity by not getting fully involved.
between sports and academics/other pursuits (time), my expectations and their abilities (skill), later between their motivation and my own (desire). Love them unconditionally, but help them be fully-engaged in living. I have always stressed academics, sports and music/arts.
Talk is cheap, so at the end of their teens if all you told your child was "you can do anything" or "I just want you to be happy" - you blew a parenting opportunity by not getting fully involved.
2
Not to worry whether the love is unconditional or merit based, Mr. Brooks, for two reasons - your assessment only concerns a tiny minority of American children, and that you completely miss the behavioral trump card known as "mirroring." The plutocracy and their ilk have made sure by their own pushy, entitled behaviors effected by their economic rank that their offspring are taking their cues from the treatment that their wealthy parents carry out on a day to day basis, whether be it that towards employees, service sector representatives, or the people upon whom their children depend - teachers, tutors of specific skills, and coaches, mainly.
At the end of the day, it is the economic opportunity to place the child in a good school and the mirroring of the parents that count the most, not the praise, or lack thereof. The meritocracy that Brooks speaks of doesn't exist any more for probably the lower 90% of children in this country as a whole. So why pretend that it does?
At the end of the day, it is the economic opportunity to place the child in a good school and the mirroring of the parents that count the most, not the praise, or lack thereof. The meritocracy that Brooks speaks of doesn't exist any more for probably the lower 90% of children in this country as a whole. So why pretend that it does?
6
It's always great to hear a highly successful person, such as an Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times, a person at the top of his or her profession, lecture the rest of us about not caring about success, fame etc. The unspoken message seems to be "I got here on natural abilities, not hard work. Don't try too hard or be too career focused."
40
Mr. Brooks: I am at a loss to see what qualifies you as America's Child Psychologist; at least Benjamin Spock had an M.D. Also, your incessant complaining about the lack of unconditional love feels a little, what's the word, conditional. You'd do better to write a novel* than to opine what "all parents" are doing out here, and should be doing instead. I think most of us are doing our best -- which would be worlds easier if you Republicans would help adequately fund childcare, education, and health care.
*You could call it "White Like Me."
*You could call it "White Like Me."
8
I read this, largely agree with it, and then consider how I can ensure that I don't follow this path. I want the best for my daughter (I'm 32, she's 1) and want her to succeed, but I don't want her to ever feel as if failure will make think less of her, or that she has to hide it from me, or that she has to be hyper-driven towards specific goals at all times. If she's terrible at soccer, so what. Maybe she'll be great at tae kwon do.
What I care about most is that she cares. That she has sound judgment, uses reason, has a strong sense of morality and humility, and a ton of curiosity. I would be fine if she were, for instance, a philosophy major rather than an economics or marketing major. What's so often lost in the relentless drive to prepare for specific careers and job-worthiness is that we focus so narrowly on one particular thing and the business acumen needed to be good at it. I've seen those types of people succeed, but I've also seen more well-rounded individuals, who have a broader perspective, who are able to think more creatively, succeed. They're likely happier, too.
So that will be my mantra with my daughter: know the world, and care about it. In doing so, you'll go a long way towards finding "your way."
What I care about most is that she cares. That she has sound judgment, uses reason, has a strong sense of morality and humility, and a ton of curiosity. I would be fine if she were, for instance, a philosophy major rather than an economics or marketing major. What's so often lost in the relentless drive to prepare for specific careers and job-worthiness is that we focus so narrowly on one particular thing and the business acumen needed to be good at it. I've seen those types of people succeed, but I've also seen more well-rounded individuals, who have a broader perspective, who are able to think more creatively, succeed. They're likely happier, too.
So that will be my mantra with my daughter: know the world, and care about it. In doing so, you'll go a long way towards finding "your way."
3
In my opinion David’s column is a gross generalization on how he perceives the children/parent relationship of today. If I were to agree with his assessment, which I don't, but if I did my generalization from the points he makes is that parents today are actually afraid. Afraid of the lack of employment and career opportunities for their children (except for the 1%).
Maybe David would like us to go back to the days of “Father Knows Best," "The Donna Reed Show," and "Leave It to Beaver." Ah the good ol' days! That’s when parents beat the hell out of their kids with impunity and basically ignored them especially when Big Daddy came home from work, planted his butt in front of the TV, lit up a Pall Mall, and had his little drinky-poo.
Maybe David would like us to go back to the days of “Father Knows Best," "The Donna Reed Show," and "Leave It to Beaver." Ah the good ol' days! That’s when parents beat the hell out of their kids with impunity and basically ignored them especially when Big Daddy came home from work, planted his butt in front of the TV, lit up a Pall Mall, and had his little drinky-poo.
4
Brooks is illustrating the Gospel here, that God loves unconditionally those who trust in Christ. His unconditional love for his children does not just save us from our sins ("for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That means everyone from the Pope to the porn addict), but empowers us to follow his commands. Having seen how God loves us, the duty of following the law is turned into a delight. And when we sin -- and we will, because sin still lives in our mortal flesh -- we are still loved and forgiven because God looks upon the finished work of Christ, the perfect atoning sacrifice, and not our imperfect, sin-tainted work.
2
Aside from the ridiculous class-blindness that permeates this piece, it's also completely vacant of facts. It's a fine state we're in when even Brooks, whose fandom of "truthy" pop-psychology bromides is unsurpassed, can't be bothered to muster a single piece of evidence to validate his shopworn observations. This is fluff, and the mixed metaphors in paragraphs 5-6-7 (balance beam, wolf, athletic field) are embarrassing.
Really substandard work. I give it a C grade.
Really substandard work. I give it a C grade.
8
I was told by my son (who is grown up now) that it was good to have boundaries. As a parental team, my spouse and I strived to be consistent in our handling of the kids. It was hard to be consistent but it got the message through.
3
Nothing new here, David. I'm a first generation American-born child. If you think for one second that my parents (and probably yours too) didn't want to steer me toward being more successful than they were, you are sorely mistaken. When I behaved, I bathed in the light of their approval. When I misbehaved (or performed in ways that disappointed them), they made it pretty clear or punished me. But I never doubted their love and I always understood their need to ensure that my life would be an improvement over theirs, at least in terms of economic success. My daughter, hopefully, can report the very same experience. Our love is unconditional; our approval is focused upon her behavior. From what I can see, my wife and I have done a terrific job of raising a smart, happy, and successful kid. My gratitude goes to my parents for their parental modelling.
2
Oh brother! Mr. Brooks is now a Child Psychologist? He's explaining the inner mental working of an entire generation, and the future results of their internal dialog? Is there nothing this man doesn't know!?
4
Great piece, but it's missing one key factor driving this disturbing dynamic: we live in an increasingly win-or-lose economy, with an ever-shrinking middle ground. In previous generations there may have be more room for minor missteps on one's career path. Now, the overriding fear is that small mistakes can put a child on a slippery slope to failure, and lifelong struggle to break into the middle class. If parents were more confident that "things will work out" for their kids, regardless of whether they get an "A" or a "B" in Honors Chemistry, perhaps they would be more free to exercise that unconditional love that we all should strive for. This is just another sad outcome of economic inequality--perhaps one of the saddest.
4
A balance needs to be struck between devotion and expectation. Love them unconditionally, but parental engagement and involvement is required if you expect children to achieve much. If you have wisdom, skills and abilities, why not exercise them in your parenting? If you don't ...
I tell my son that anyone can play the piano - it just takes dedication and practice. To his credit he has played steadily for four years. There were only two kids playing piano at a recent school talent show- most danced or sang, then the school opted for an air guitar program.
Anyone can play tennis. To play well you need the footwork, the stroke, the physical and mental toughness to stay out there. These do not happen by themselves - they take insight, instruction and work. In my community the youth tennis programs are full of asian and indian kids - almost no caucasians. It seems to me that certain cultures still want to achieve excellence and are willing to work hard; others are not engaging - for some reason.
Maybe some parents are afraid of losing their unconditional love/expectation balance if they invest time and effort in training their children directly. Maybe they don't want to be accused of "living vicariously" by other parents who are afraid to engage fully in their children's lives. In my community, I am seeing a startling collapse of (white) culture and it is evident in the relationship between (liberal) parents and their children.
I tell my son that anyone can play the piano - it just takes dedication and practice. To his credit he has played steadily for four years. There were only two kids playing piano at a recent school talent show- most danced or sang, then the school opted for an air guitar program.
Anyone can play tennis. To play well you need the footwork, the stroke, the physical and mental toughness to stay out there. These do not happen by themselves - they take insight, instruction and work. In my community the youth tennis programs are full of asian and indian kids - almost no caucasians. It seems to me that certain cultures still want to achieve excellence and are willing to work hard; others are not engaging - for some reason.
Maybe some parents are afraid of losing their unconditional love/expectation balance if they invest time and effort in training their children directly. Maybe they don't want to be accused of "living vicariously" by other parents who are afraid to engage fully in their children's lives. In my community, I am seeing a startling collapse of (white) culture and it is evident in the relationship between (liberal) parents and their children.
1
In helping children, teenagers and their families, it's wise to take a broader view rather than to focus on a single issue such as conditional love. I speak after a 40-plus year career in mental health practice with a broad demographic base. Where conditional love exists, it seldom exists alone. It coexists with other family issues, needing exploration, of which it may often be a symptom.
3
Wow, this article is really good. As someone who was raised in a family often lacking in warmth and love, we were often driven to ¨win¨because that was the best way to ensure that we would get attention and love from our parents.
I take full responsibility for my actions in life. That said, I now realize that many of the challenges I have faced in relationships stemmed from my fundamental insecurity about being ¨lovable.¨ Mr. Brooks has done a tremendous service by raising this issue, and as someone who as experienced what he is describing, I would like to say thank you. I hope that this issue can receive more attention.
I take full responsibility for my actions in life. That said, I now realize that many of the challenges I have faced in relationships stemmed from my fundamental insecurity about being ¨lovable.¨ Mr. Brooks has done a tremendous service by raising this issue, and as someone who as experienced what he is describing, I would like to say thank you. I hope that this issue can receive more attention.
9
Well, yes and no. As a public school teacher (now happily retired) we were instructed to praise students if they brought their own pencil to class. It didn't matter if a kid did homework or behaved, it was important TO BOOST THEIR SELF-ESTEEM. I'm old enough to remember spanking. BRING IT BACK!
3
With 4 kids under age 12, I can firsthand say that the problem is a combination of helicopter parenting and child psychologists together with schools that are determined to insure every child's success from day 1.
As parents, we are so overprotective of our kids that they are afraid to step out the door alone, and in some of these private schools, educators are analyzing 4 and 5 year old's to death with the misguided intention of also insuring they keep up with their peers, that also drives the parents crazy.
As parents, we are so overprotective of our kids that they are afraid to step out the door alone, and in some of these private schools, educators are analyzing 4 and 5 year old's to death with the misguided intention of also insuring they keep up with their peers, that also drives the parents crazy.
2
Howzabout a column on "white privilege"?
Oh, that's what David usually writes, without knowing he does?
Sorry.
Oh, that's what David usually writes, without knowing he does?
Sorry.
7
Children, Oscar Wilde said, begin by loving their parents. After a time, they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. He might have added that they never really understand them, and that they don't make the same mistakes their parents made - they make whatever mistakes their grandparents or great-grandparents made, and the wheel goes round.
Scanning the comments, I am a bit heartened to see the number willing to concede there's no such thing as unconditional love. Some years ago, when I first ventured that notion in the NYT comments, I got quite a lambasting, leavened only by the occasional offer of pity, but no one willing even to debate the idea.
Scanning the comments, I am a bit heartened to see the number willing to concede there's no such thing as unconditional love. Some years ago, when I first ventured that notion in the NYT comments, I got quite a lambasting, leavened only by the occasional offer of pity, but no one willing even to debate the idea.
3
An incredibly insightful commentary, and one which every parent should seriously consider. AT what point do our ambitions for our children become more about our own ambitions than about their best interest? I've admitted to friends, that I am secretly pleased my daughters have shown no great athletic talents, as my husband and I are much more at home with the laid-back, twice-w-week rec leagues they participate in than we would be with kids on competitive, nightly travel sports teams. And I'm convinced our kids are happier, too! Sadly, few of our neighbors seem to share this perspective. Competition is king!
5
David makes the claim that 'children are now praised to an unprecedented degree". What is the basis for this claim. Is there research that has conducted on this topic? Is David relying on personal observation without benefit of research? I have not seen any reported studies that confirm his statement. The fact that many people have discussed this issue and have made similar comments doesn't make it so. I have two grown children and two grandchildren. At various settings (school, parks, pools, etc.) I see some parents who are very vocal in praising their children and others who stand back and say little or nothing. I think that this trend of commenting on over praising is our current meme without proper empirical validation.
4
Me. Brooks is way off base. My and my wife's experience of parenting was to give our son plenty of love, make sure his brain was stimulated, get out of his way and let him flourish. We usually told him NOT to work too hard at school. He graduates from Amherst with honors next month.
3
This article really bothers me. Mr. Brooks is a sworn conservative, which means that people must pull themselves up by their bootstraps, individuals must realize their potential, deregulating corporations is a societal good, workers can be paid at rates that guarantee poverty, etc. Then he complains that parents feel the squeeze and consequently, modify the terms of their love for their children. The complaints Mr. Brooks make are the DIRECT RESULT of conservative ideology; yes, children suffer and yes, its because of a society that is overly competitive. I dare you to dream, Mr. Brooks, of a society where shelter, health care and excellent public education are the stalwart pillars, where parents know, from the get-go, that everything will be ok if a child would rather be an artist, musician or writer and take his or her chances, where economic gain is not considered our highest moral value. Your ignorance, Mr. Brooks, is staggering. Your ilk is the root of corrupted parental love.
31
Thank you!!! Took the words right out of my mouth.
You obviously don't read or listen to Mr. Brooks on a regular basis or you would not ascribe many of these beliefs to him. And the idea that it is only conservatives that are pushing their kids into so many of these high stratus of life is laughable. Many conservatives are far more likely to have a "live and let live" view of raising kids..
2
There may be some as yet undiscovered evolutionary advantage to meritocracy in our culture. If so then those who bow to this particular graven image will survive and transmit their merit seeking genes into the future.
Haven't seen it as of yet, however.
It is still true today that most noticeable achievements are obtained by the imaginative and the risk takers. Ritalin may inform a high income lawyer, accountant or banker but these are just the modern day equivalent of ancient Mesopotamian tanners and potters.
These parents will all pass on one day and what have they left to show for their stress filled angst? Pill popping meat robots.
Kids of every mammalian species are born just wanting to have fun. If we wish to retain our humanity we would be well advised to nurture that innate desire.
Haven't seen it as of yet, however.
It is still true today that most noticeable achievements are obtained by the imaginative and the risk takers. Ritalin may inform a high income lawyer, accountant or banker but these are just the modern day equivalent of ancient Mesopotamian tanners and potters.
These parents will all pass on one day and what have they left to show for their stress filled angst? Pill popping meat robots.
Kids of every mammalian species are born just wanting to have fun. If we wish to retain our humanity we would be well advised to nurture that innate desire.
9
Meritocracy? In the U.S? LOL! What Mr. Brooks calls a meritocracy is a system geared to insure that the rich remain rich by leaving Congress dependent on fat cats who contribute to their re-election and in return get billions in federal subsidies that they do not need. These fat cats die and leave their wealth to their children. Merit? Ha! It's a system of bribery and quid pro quo.
Ironically, England is more of a meritocracy than the U.S. We fought to be free of that class-based system - only to surpass it in restrictiveness and oppression.
Of course middle class kids get pressured to succeed. This is precisely because we are not a meritocracy. The parents. who are often holding down two jobs, know that if there is one major illness or student loan default, everyone is sunk. We could be like Europe and provide universal health care and education but the conservatives argue that kills the incentive to survive, i.e., fear. So they waste our taxes on wars - subsidies for the arms industry - and we are put in the ugly position of having to urge kids to achieve so they can survive. If their families are short on unconditional love, look how much worse it is in affluent conservative families where kids are controlled by the threat of being disinherited. Sick. America is sick.
Ironically, England is more of a meritocracy than the U.S. We fought to be free of that class-based system - only to surpass it in restrictiveness and oppression.
Of course middle class kids get pressured to succeed. This is precisely because we are not a meritocracy. The parents. who are often holding down two jobs, know that if there is one major illness or student loan default, everyone is sunk. We could be like Europe and provide universal health care and education but the conservatives argue that kills the incentive to survive, i.e., fear. So they waste our taxes on wars - subsidies for the arms industry - and we are put in the ugly position of having to urge kids to achieve so they can survive. If their families are short on unconditional love, look how much worse it is in affluent conservative families where kids are controlled by the threat of being disinherited. Sick. America is sick.
16
Finally an article by David Brooks that has given my new surprising insight, opened my eyes to see things in a new light.
Yes, I raise my kids this way. I never thought about the flip side of it. Namely, that the love for the kids might be conditional, or at least perceived as conditional by the kids. I can see that that could create some anxiety.
Yes, I raise my kids this way. I never thought about the flip side of it. Namely, that the love for the kids might be conditional, or at least perceived as conditional by the kids. I can see that that could create some anxiety.
4
This is a fine article except using Dorothy Parker (died in 1967) for a quote about today's child rearing practices seems like a strange definition of "today".
7
Hunter-gatherer childhoods are easy and playful, but adolescents are expected to go out and hunt lions. We seem to have things backward in our contemporary world, pushing our very youngest to do things that don’t make neurological or developmental sense while asking relatively little of our older kids. Human beings are endlessly adaptable, so toilet-train the kids , give them a spear and sent them out on the hunt. If we want to stop the current slide toward depressed, unhealthy young people, maybe we shouldn’t ignore 6 million years of evolution.
3
An excellent and important article. I worry about the long-term societal impact of a generation raised in this environment.
4
Mr. Brooks:
Does this mean that Scott Walker had an unconditional amount of
unconditional love growing up?
Does this mean that Scott Walker had an unconditional amount of
unconditional love growing up?
5
Mr. Brooks isn't making this stuff up. There is a book by Alice Miller called "The Drama of the Gifted Child" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201206/the-dram....
Perhaps he did not choose the right words, he should have said "trend." No, it does not pertain to everyone, but I see it a lot in the area where I live. And no, everyone is not rich. It will be years before we fully see the results of this trend in parenting. I think one of the "defining features" that he left out is narcissistic traits in the parents. Our society is being viewed as increasingly narcissistic.
I think this is a great article. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
Perhaps he did not choose the right words, he should have said "trend." No, it does not pertain to everyone, but I see it a lot in the area where I live. And no, everyone is not rich. It will be years before we fully see the results of this trend in parenting. I think one of the "defining features" that he left out is narcissistic traits in the parents. Our society is being viewed as increasingly narcissistic.
I think this is a great article. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
64
"Let her know she is more than just this dress on the ironing board, helpless before the iron."
Tillie Olsen, one of the greatest short story writers in the English language.
Tillie Olsen, one of the greatest short story writers in the English language.
2
So much for American exceptionalism and weird endless pathological praise for it.
3
I'm looking forward to reading your book.
1
You reference "the meritocracy" five times in this article -- that's a strange formulation and implies you genuinely believe it exists in as strong and universal a form to warrant a definitive article...("THE meritocracy--the one we're all clearly subject to and that effortlessly rewards the most talented...")
I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans fall way outside of what you perceive as "the meritocracy" and that if you spent more time beyond the bounds of upper and upper-middle class America, you'd recognize that your conception of "the meritocracy" isn't as robust and universal as you might think.
In my opinion, pure luck of the draw drives success in America--today more than ever--and until we all have the humility to genuinely accept that for ourselves and each other, the never-ending cycle of destructive and empty striving, snobbery, elitism and self-congratulation will continue on and on...
I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans fall way outside of what you perceive as "the meritocracy" and that if you spent more time beyond the bounds of upper and upper-middle class America, you'd recognize that your conception of "the meritocracy" isn't as robust and universal as you might think.
In my opinion, pure luck of the draw drives success in America--today more than ever--and until we all have the humility to genuinely accept that for ourselves and each other, the never-ending cycle of destructive and empty striving, snobbery, elitism and self-congratulation will continue on and on...
6
Nice article, Mr. Brooks. Loving individuals for who they are, regardless of our own personal desires for what we perceive as their well being is essential for every individual. Often our expectations get in the way of our children receiving the fullness of our love. From the helicopter parent to the Tiger Mom, we spout our expectations out of a form of fear…fear of failure OR we discipline in forms of fear…spanking, threats…rather than out of love. I'd like to see us extend this idea to those outside our family. Those who are the have nots. Let's treat them out of love rather than meritocracy.
3
Unconditional love is the greatest gift one give a child. It allows a child to reach within himself to discover and become the person he or she was meant to be. In Christianity, it is passing on the love that God loves you.
The rewards are a healthy environment for both parent and child. I tried . ….and my reward was a note from my children “Thanks Dad for giving me the roots to grow and the wings to fly”
The rewards are a healthy environment for both parent and child. I tried . ….and my reward was a note from my children “Thanks Dad for giving me the roots to grow and the wings to fly”
2
I find the panic that the upper middle class feels to be pretty interesting. Through my marriage, I have observed the country club set/Mercedes driving, etc. The newest parents are clearly anxious about their children's abilities to succeed in the world. Imagine that! This family has it all - yet their children must achieve, achieve, achieve...the guarantees of a country club membership and a Mercedes are not assured for their children - like they used to be.
7
Unless you have exceptional inherited wealth, most people living an upper class lifestyle are really just a paycheck or two away from the breadlines. They pretend they don't know this, but they do know this. It's just under the surface of the materialism.
You could argue that the materialism is a way to distract one's self from this fear.
As a result, they are rather desperate and hysterical to pass their illusions of wealth onto their children -- at any cost. The failure of this would be catastrophic and humiliating -- imagine, having to say your son is a car mechanic or your daughter is a waitress (for real, not just after school).
You could argue that the materialism is a way to distract one's self from this fear.
As a result, they are rather desperate and hysterical to pass their illusions of wealth onto their children -- at any cost. The failure of this would be catastrophic and humiliating -- imagine, having to say your son is a car mechanic or your daughter is a waitress (for real, not just after school).
2
This is a woefully imcomplete picture. I usually like Mr. Brooks' writing, but this is a story for only one segment of society. This is modern day parenting for the well-to-do, educated, stable family in the land of Starbucks, Whole Foods, yoga classes, and Lexus SUV's. While the parents of these children seem omnipresent in their childrens lives, these children are receiving everything and anything they need to succeed in life.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, we have children growing up with little to no parental involvement, either due to apathy or perhaps a lack of the parental or educational skills to provide a solid foundation for life success. Rather than battle over-involved, annoying, entitled parents, teachers are finding these kids without any meaningful parental involvement and woefully unprepared educationally for the future. Life for these children isn't soccer matches and tutors, it is dangerous streets and broken homes.
With all due respect to Mr. Brooks, the greatest parenting threat to future generations isn't the emotional development of the children of the nations educationally elite, but the lack of development and subsequently hope, of millions of children born into poverty.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, we have children growing up with little to no parental involvement, either due to apathy or perhaps a lack of the parental or educational skills to provide a solid foundation for life success. Rather than battle over-involved, annoying, entitled parents, teachers are finding these kids without any meaningful parental involvement and woefully unprepared educationally for the future. Life for these children isn't soccer matches and tutors, it is dangerous streets and broken homes.
With all due respect to Mr. Brooks, the greatest parenting threat to future generations isn't the emotional development of the children of the nations educationally elite, but the lack of development and subsequently hope, of millions of children born into poverty.
6
The column seems very perceptive if applied to a very narrow slice of the American pie. It certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority of young people I teach at a community college.
5
Ahh, do you have any data to demonstrate these sweeping declarations? Or are you just making this all up to suit your preconceptions?
2
Mr. Brooks is not writing about the 1%. As a therapist who sees hundreds of people below the poverty line every year, I notice that nearly all parents unconsciously (or consciously) tie their affections and love with performance. I think wealthy parents do this more than others, but it seems nearly universal to me from my vantage point. If you disagree with Mr. Brooks, ask the children. Of course, there will be some exceptions, but it is in our nature to love conditionally. It takes a radical shift in thinking to love less conditionally.
90
Do you mean nearly all parents whose children require therapy?
I work in schools in low socioeconomic areas, and didn't feel a connection to this article based on the type of parenting and parent-child relationships I see where I work. And then I went in to work today, and realized that I do see merit-based love every day - in the schools. Specifically in charter schools with high-expectations - kids who perform well get love from everyone - teachers, administrators, and parents. And kids who don't, well, don't see much love. Teachers and administrators don't love on them, and their parents are called often, so i can only imagine that the lack of love extends to their home life.
After working intimately with this population, I have come to believe that these kids need love more than anything else to thrive. And the ones who are struggling the hardest to thrive are getting the least of it.
After working intimately with this population, I have come to believe that these kids need love more than anything else to thrive. And the ones who are struggling the hardest to thrive are getting the least of it.
6
I do not feel qualified to voice an opinion about this essay because I have never wanted children, probably because I’m too selfish - I would resent putting their needs above mine on a constant basis, my entire life.
But I must admit that I agree wholeheartedly with many points illustrated based upon my observations of my siblings’ rearing of their children over the years. But I could not help but cringe when I read your sentence of “parents unconsciously regard their children as an arts project and insist their children go to colleges and have jobs that will give the parents status and pleasure — that will validate their effectiveness as dads and moms.” I have only known 3 different sets of parents in which I think this statement is applicable because those parents were insecure and/or were status seekers. They really did seem to care more about themselves than their kids. For the most part, I thought your statement was overly harsh and inaccurate.
The best course of action and advise my parents ever gave me and my siblings was this – do and become whatever makes you happiest because if you’re happy, we’re happy. Nothing complicated, nothing earthshaking – just pure, simple and honest love.
But I must admit that I agree wholeheartedly with many points illustrated based upon my observations of my siblings’ rearing of their children over the years. But I could not help but cringe when I read your sentence of “parents unconsciously regard their children as an arts project and insist their children go to colleges and have jobs that will give the parents status and pleasure — that will validate their effectiveness as dads and moms.” I have only known 3 different sets of parents in which I think this statement is applicable because those parents were insecure and/or were status seekers. They really did seem to care more about themselves than their kids. For the most part, I thought your statement was overly harsh and inaccurate.
The best course of action and advise my parents ever gave me and my siblings was this – do and become whatever makes you happiest because if you’re happy, we’re happy. Nothing complicated, nothing earthshaking – just pure, simple and honest love.
1
I remember this feeling distinctly when I was later into my high school years. As an only child of older, extremely successful parents, it was tough to escape their gaze, and living in an extremely competitive school district, that only stoked the flame. My parents are both chemists, and expect logical results to their work.
I began high school as an academically focused kid, into speech and debate and theater--a personality my parents loved. Invariably, this got to be a lot of pressure, and when I got older, I blew off steam by drinking, and my grades dropped. Though not a desirable situation, it's one a lot kids go through at some point. My father dealt with my B minuses and beer breath by actually giving me the silent treatment for several months. My mother used to cry and ask "where her sweet daughter had gone."
I recall getting my act together out of fear, not by the virtue of realizing my mistakes. And let me tell you, when I got out of the house and to college, the problems only became magnified. I figured out how to right myself pretty quickly, but I feel if I were given a little more leeway when I was younger, and a bit more understanding, all would've been better off--my heavy pressure to be exactly what my parents expected, and the invariable extreme frustration my parents felt when their project acted differently than how they anticipated.
I began high school as an academically focused kid, into speech and debate and theater--a personality my parents loved. Invariably, this got to be a lot of pressure, and when I got older, I blew off steam by drinking, and my grades dropped. Though not a desirable situation, it's one a lot kids go through at some point. My father dealt with my B minuses and beer breath by actually giving me the silent treatment for several months. My mother used to cry and ask "where her sweet daughter had gone."
I recall getting my act together out of fear, not by the virtue of realizing my mistakes. And let me tell you, when I got out of the house and to college, the problems only became magnified. I figured out how to right myself pretty quickly, but I feel if I were given a little more leeway when I was younger, and a bit more understanding, all would've been better off--my heavy pressure to be exactly what my parents expected, and the invariable extreme frustration my parents felt when their project acted differently than how they anticipated.
6
I was a kid once. I loved my parents and they loved me. That, at least, was what I took for granted. We got along, though I hated to get a haircut.
The end.
The end.
2
Now not only are parents overthinking parenting, but David Brooks is overthinking the overthinking.
Hug your kids, keep 'em alive, play around with them as much as you can cuz it won't last that long, teach them to think for themselves, keep screen time to a minimum, and tell them never to get into credit card debt.
Hug your kids, keep 'em alive, play around with them as much as you can cuz it won't last that long, teach them to think for themselves, keep screen time to a minimum, and tell them never to get into credit card debt.
3
Do we really live in a plurality full of difference and diversity and choices? Or do we all uniformly raise our kids the way Brooks insists we all do?
Brooks suggests that love now seems conditional and tied to merit or achievement somehow, but what of stern farm families of old where there was little praise and endless chores? What of my mom growing up in South Buffalo and ironing all the shirts her 4 brothers wore week after week and year after week? Was that the right way to do things?
It isn't applause that children are receiving now, but acknowledgement, attention, concern and a kind of intimacy that often was not present in the past.
But there is also this David Brooks: a very beautiful story by Tillie Olson, I Stand Here Ironing, explained it best perhaps. In the story a mother stands ironing and thinking about her daughter and how she got to the juncture she was then at, and the mother notes that a parent is not the only influence on a kid.
We at home have just a couple or few hours with our children each day and the rest of each day we work and they are at school. The time we have them we are meant in part to help them synthesize the day that's happened and the day to come tomorrow, make sense of the world, accentuate the good, and contextualize the confusion.
And we all do that in varying ways. If it sounds like empty applause to you, you may not be listening well enough to track the nuance of other people's parenting. Don't reduce it to a cartoon.
Brooks suggests that love now seems conditional and tied to merit or achievement somehow, but what of stern farm families of old where there was little praise and endless chores? What of my mom growing up in South Buffalo and ironing all the shirts her 4 brothers wore week after week and year after week? Was that the right way to do things?
It isn't applause that children are receiving now, but acknowledgement, attention, concern and a kind of intimacy that often was not present in the past.
But there is also this David Brooks: a very beautiful story by Tillie Olson, I Stand Here Ironing, explained it best perhaps. In the story a mother stands ironing and thinking about her daughter and how she got to the juncture she was then at, and the mother notes that a parent is not the only influence on a kid.
We at home have just a couple or few hours with our children each day and the rest of each day we work and they are at school. The time we have them we are meant in part to help them synthesize the day that's happened and the day to come tomorrow, make sense of the world, accentuate the good, and contextualize the confusion.
And we all do that in varying ways. If it sounds like empty applause to you, you may not be listening well enough to track the nuance of other people's parenting. Don't reduce it to a cartoon.
3
Your unconditional love most likely arrives from grandparents, as they can bring more of a disinterested love, one not connected to achievement and worry. Parents are still reacting, in part, to their own parents.
1
Child centered article taken completely out of context. Look at the poor parents that have to bring up children in today's world. It used to be that children were born and put to work on the farm; instilling self-worth in them because they were needed. Parents today must either see children as someone to love them or as an extension of themselves. If the world is not welcoming them or making a place for them why else would people want to subject any life to this dog eat dog world. But stuff happens and people have kids and the accompanying stress makes it the toughest job they will ever do.
1
Mr. Brooks:
I can think of no single area where we have failed children more than in our schools. The woeful state of education in this country makes the race to the top a mockery. Educational standards are setting the bar of acheivement at unprecented levels of mediocraty.
The pressure to succeed you discuss here is, indeed, at the cost of unconditional love. How can it be otherwise. It is materialism personified through an erzatz system acheivement. Colleges likewise have created a bogus hierarchy at the literal expense of the parents who confuse quality with the extravagent raises in the cost of tuition.
The real victims are the chidren subjected to a system that ends up providing
a sub-standard education that inflates their self-esteem and ill prepares them to compete for jobs in a shrinking market. Meritocracy is hardly based on merit in this corrupt system. Whatever acheivement there is has become a watered down version of earlier standards that is further diluted by the ability to finance an education.
The result looks a lot like the 50's with a college degree acruing status that
used to be reserved for a Cadillac or a house in the suburbs. The credit belongs to the parents and is the result of their striving and sacrifice. The
children are effectively objectified. They know, sooner or later, that their parents love is not unconditional. This is a market- driven phenomena with too many students and not enough avenues for success.
I can think of no single area where we have failed children more than in our schools. The woeful state of education in this country makes the race to the top a mockery. Educational standards are setting the bar of acheivement at unprecented levels of mediocraty.
The pressure to succeed you discuss here is, indeed, at the cost of unconditional love. How can it be otherwise. It is materialism personified through an erzatz system acheivement. Colleges likewise have created a bogus hierarchy at the literal expense of the parents who confuse quality with the extravagent raises in the cost of tuition.
The real victims are the chidren subjected to a system that ends up providing
a sub-standard education that inflates their self-esteem and ill prepares them to compete for jobs in a shrinking market. Meritocracy is hardly based on merit in this corrupt system. Whatever acheivement there is has become a watered down version of earlier standards that is further diluted by the ability to finance an education.
The result looks a lot like the 50's with a college degree acruing status that
used to be reserved for a Cadillac or a house in the suburbs. The credit belongs to the parents and is the result of their striving and sacrifice. The
children are effectively objectified. They know, sooner or later, that their parents love is not unconditional. This is a market- driven phenomena with too many students and not enough avenues for success.
2
Mr. Brooks periodically writes a column that reflects the viewpoint of someone in his particular demographic group. Today's column about parenting falls into that category. He should be more careful in making broad generalizations about how children are being raised.
I wish parents would teach their kids to love others too, as much as they love them. A reworking of the Golden Rule. Maybe with that kind of mind set we wouldn't have to worry about our kids and grandkids when we left this world because there would be others who would watch out for them.
2
David Brooks! We're looking forward to more of your thoughts on family values in the age of Boehner and McConnell. Move over, Dr. Joyce Brothers. A new voice is on the scene, with limpid prose and name-checked references books.
2
Conditional love is bad. I suffered with it until the day my parents died. I could never please them, and I never stopped trying. They proved themselves to be completely untrustworthy, and did quite a number on my self-esteem. When we were kids my dad used to tell us, "Sit down and shut up. Nobody cares what you think." One day, in my late 40's, I finally told my dad, "I don't like EVERYTHING you do, but I love you anyway." I'll never forget the puzzled look on his face. Didn't change anything.
54
Is it possible to love someone so much that it seems conditional? I just find the notion that a parent wouldn't love their children conditionally, astonishing. Most parents are trying to raise their children to the best of their world views.
Brook's essay founders in generalizations of the priviledged. Rural communities abandoned by employers long relocated elsewhere recognize that a "meritocracy" such as described here has more to do with luck than effort. If you can't afford to move to a meritocracy, you're stuck with buying lottery tickets & hoping.
3
There is another effect! Many adult activities like golf, tennis and skiing are in decline because of the changes in family life style. Parents want to spend time with their children not 4 hours on the golf course.
Having a child in the middle of college this article just doesn't ring true. Yes, we parents are a bit nuts in terms of worry about their children's success. It is however the message parents are sent or at least accept that is the problem. Without the right college degree future employment is going to be very hard to obtain. This pushes kids in pre-k through college and grad school.
We also know that the Right has a problem with Mr. Rogers. Nothing speaks worse about the Right's ideology and morality than that.
We also know that the Right has a problem with Mr. Rogers. Nothing speaks worse about the Right's ideology and morality than that.
1
What a great article David. You're certainly branching out in the breadth and scope of topics you've been covering of late, and it is fun finding out what you've next ventured into.
Unconditional love is so difficult to do, especially when you have more than one child. My wife and I are finding it increasingly important to give both of our boys the love and respect they both deserve, without condition and without strings attached. It's good to be reminded of the importance of these behaviors through your article, and in the research you cite. We're finding that it is important to show each how much we love them for who they are, along with the importance of setting limits on their behavior and being there for them - day in and day out.
Unconditional love is so difficult to do, especially when you have more than one child. My wife and I are finding it increasingly important to give both of our boys the love and respect they both deserve, without condition and without strings attached. It's good to be reminded of the importance of these behaviors through your article, and in the research you cite. We're finding that it is important to show each how much we love them for who they are, along with the importance of setting limits on their behavior and being there for them - day in and day out.
1
As Joe Walsh (James Gang) might have sang it: Love? Lord above, now you're trying to trick me in love. Aren't you the guy who told us on PBS last year that we need a bully (Chris Christie) in Washington (DC)? PS As you say today, "Very frequently it (love) is manipulative"..... As pointed out in a companion Op-Ed piece: Christie's tough love on retirement and social security, is only tough on the poor and lower classes. Talk about merit (de)based!
2
I agree with your comment but a minor correction. Free is the band whose lyrics you quoted. It's from their song "All Right Now."
Hard to resist putting u on my couch but I don't know enuf. That proviso made,read about your marital problems( empty nest often results in this if that's the case)- that your son joined the Israeli arny( perhaps your wife is angry at you that your love if obedience and your own conditional parenting resulted in his choice which is the cause of your marital problems)- or you are the product of this kind of conditional love( my favorite theory today) and see yourself in your driven Yale students- so brilliant, so emotionally needy, and your column is an attempt to save other children from what you are going thru. Midlife crises are not for sissies- to paraphrase BetteDavis. My advice- see a good shrink and leave these columns to someone more objective
3
Mr. Brooks is talking of rich families here (>$200K/year). My parents loved me dearly and still do; but they made me work and learn the value of Life. Thus I probably am a lot less likely to kill myself today than most of these rich kids who get merit-based love; and lots of emotional problems.
1
Brooks should take a sabbatical year and work at WalMart.
7
Wow!
Every parents wants there kids to thrive and succeed, but Mr. Brooks takes this to another level with his surprising view that parents do this to gain satisfaction and status through their children. I can't imagine any more dysfunctional parenting than trying to live out one's unmet dreams by trying to stage direct their children through the hoops of life to fulfill some unmet need the parent lacks. To give a child affection, encouragement, and praise, is always balanced by experiential teaching, improper behavior, and the unbridled human spirit children have in abundance.
I'll admit to more relief than pride when children arrive home after a night out, or find a B or AB where once reigned Cs. But it's the kids that are all right and THEY are the ones making parents out of us! Too often sadness overshadows mirth, and it takes real human emotion and rationale to get things straight, but Mr. Brooks thinks we all calculate our parenting to groom our children for the best schools, jobs, and a trophy husband or wife working on Wall Street.
The early mornings, late nights, and financial sacrifice are all part of the outpouring of love parents present once they bring new lives into the world. I do not think those things have really changed through the millennia, beyond improved health care, diet, and technological opportunity.
Based on my experience as a parent, I think Our Mr. Brooks took a wrong turn just past Dorothy Parker and veered sharply off course in this column.
Every parents wants there kids to thrive and succeed, but Mr. Brooks takes this to another level with his surprising view that parents do this to gain satisfaction and status through their children. I can't imagine any more dysfunctional parenting than trying to live out one's unmet dreams by trying to stage direct their children through the hoops of life to fulfill some unmet need the parent lacks. To give a child affection, encouragement, and praise, is always balanced by experiential teaching, improper behavior, and the unbridled human spirit children have in abundance.
I'll admit to more relief than pride when children arrive home after a night out, or find a B or AB where once reigned Cs. But it's the kids that are all right and THEY are the ones making parents out of us! Too often sadness overshadows mirth, and it takes real human emotion and rationale to get things straight, but Mr. Brooks thinks we all calculate our parenting to groom our children for the best schools, jobs, and a trophy husband or wife working on Wall Street.
The early mornings, late nights, and financial sacrifice are all part of the outpouring of love parents present once they bring new lives into the world. I do not think those things have really changed through the millennia, beyond improved health care, diet, and technological opportunity.
Based on my experience as a parent, I think Our Mr. Brooks took a wrong turn just past Dorothy Parker and veered sharply off course in this column.
1
"The tiny glances of approval and disapproval are built into the fabric of communication so deep that they flow under the level of awareness"? Really?David, I love your intellect and, usually, your writing, but that is indigestible.
2
Very impressive that Mr. Brooks somehow knows all about the relationships millions of parents have with their children - exactly what everyone is thinking and how they're behaving. Except that it reads like a bunch of sociological stereotypes strung together, and I suspect that that's indeed all this article is.
5
The drive for economic success has eclipsed the goal of family happiness. It has carried over to education, business, government and even entertainment in the form of unnecessary and often ruthless competition. It can suck the joy out of life as fast as life is so often sucked out of a womb if the timing is not quite perfect. Unconditional love should not be so hard.
I once told my son I didn't care if he became a bum--as long as he was happy. He's a poet and a folk musician--a bum of a kind, I suppose.
3
One generation ago parents had far more children. Myself, growing up as an adolescent in the 1960's with my other six closely aged siblings, my parents scarcely knew where we were at any given time. Compared to parents today, my parents would probably be arrested and their children taken away by child services. All seven of us turned out great by the way. Fast forward to today, most parents have just two children and carefully spaced two to three years apart. Kids today can't get away from the parents if they wanted to. The problem isn't a love problem (my parents adored their children) it's a smothering problem.
80
The conclusions social scientists reach are necessarily probabilistic in in nature and, therefore, tentative. In the social sciences, the behaviors under study are typically seen as multicausal and do not admit to a simple, single explanation. Social scientists deal mostly in correlations of phenomena and have to constantly remind themselves that correlation merely implies causality; it doesn't prove it.
Anyone who is not aware of these caveats should avoid the use---or, more likely, misuse---of social science data. And that includes David Brooks.
Anyone who is not aware of these caveats should avoid the use---or, more likely, misuse---of social science data. And that includes David Brooks.
1
There is nothing new about this. Parents everywhere and in every period have tried to raise their children to succeed. Whether it was by teaching them how to farm from the time they could walk, or grooming them to take over the candle making business or by apprenticing them at the age of 10. This was even more important when your children were your only means of support in your old age.
His perspective is fairly non-dualistic; villains and victims. First, it only applies to parents who have the means (not just material) to successfully avoid discomfort and adversity in their and their children's lives. And how do we blame parents for that? But I think that suffering is the greatest equalizer and measure of spiritual capacity and character. 2nd I don't think that parents (consciously) confuse love with approval even if that is how children read it. I don't think we purposely withhold. I think it's more that we take it personally when our kids face challenge or disappointment; and not always because we're over identified with our kids but because we think we failed our children and our parental job -- as it is defined by our meritocratic culture. And in a paradoxical way, finger-pointing articles like this contribute to our need to be the "best" parents and raise the "best" children. It's a soul sucking, but seemingly irresistible cycle. And I'll admit that I easily get swept into it; both, the over-parenting and the finger-pointing. The point is, it's a tension that is a minefield and a place that communities can and should offer guidance and safe, non-meritocratic space in which to wrestle. Most of all, it's a place that deserves grace for both, children and parents. I think if parents know that they aren't expected to "win" at parenting, they may be more open to examining their heart's truest aspirations for themselves, their families - and the world.
1
Love, like God, is far too complex to analyze. Trying to put it in a box, or limit it to rules and/ or the perception of someone's ideals is ridiculous. There are very complex rules in a society beyond the family's zone. And survival in that society is essential. To gain the skills required to flourish in a specific society all kinds of responses are used - some of them conditional. Some parents would never hit their children, but there are families who have - and in whose tight embrace lots of genuine love has nevertheless flowed. I remember my son and his friend in High School complaining about how "bad" I was to have spanked my son, with whom I have always had a very loving and close relationship. I was compared to the other boy's parents who never hit him; and my son's friend followed that revelation with saying how "bad" he had been. I still feel that my son, who felt that I was "bad" was more loved than his unhit friend who carried guilt and shame for what he wrongly believed he had done - whatever childish thing it was - and felt he had been the cause of his parent's suffering. I remember Rose Kennedy saying that she used a paddle of some kind to keep her children out of the road - safe from an oncoming car - b/c they were not yet old enough to understand what she was saying about danger. Everything we do and say with our kids fits into a context - and it's only when we take the context into account that we can sometime determine the true nature of love.
1
The author should indulge his concern on the parents who are neglecting their children. Or, maybe he knows nothing about that, being brought up by upperclass parents who are always attentative to every little needs he may or may not have.
1
It is a constant dance between unconditional love and allowing mega hours of video gaming and unrestricted snacking. I think the broad strokes for life goals is realistic. And, yes, sprinkled with unconditional love as the main message. And goals that match the dispositions of our children. My boys aren't athletic, but they get their teamwork learning skills honed in music events and debate tourneys. There are now more options for extracurricular activities in high schools for ALL types of kids. It's unabashedly loving to want your children to succeed. It is also very lioving to demonstrate, by example too, the rewards of showing up and working hard-- something the Greatest Generation and yes, even the Baby Boomers of the 60s know well-- hustling the paper routes and the babysitting rosters at age 14. I see unwavering and unconditional ("Sure, honey, live off the grid if thats what you want.") true mother bear love (lots of hugs and "I love yous"), combined with respect and allowing the kids to find ànd follow their True North (with some sweat involved) is healthy and raises fine men (in my case) and women.
Firstly, we live in a meritocracy but there is no substitute for love - none.
...
When parting from my grandsons. We hug. I tell them they are the best grandsons ever. I tell them that I love them. Then I say "now go kick some academic butt." The older one smiles; the younger one chuckles.
...
Arete - be the best of what you are, live the rich life you choose and deserve. be just and compassionate, love deeply.
...
When parting from my grandsons. We hug. I tell them they are the best grandsons ever. I tell them that I love them. Then I say "now go kick some academic butt." The older one smiles; the younger one chuckles.
...
Arete - be the best of what you are, live the rich life you choose and deserve. be just and compassionate, love deeply.
I live in a middle class bedroom community north of Los Angeles. Like hundreds of other middle class communities throughout America we have people of all social strata living here. Yes there are the wealthy. And the upper middle class. And the highly educated. And the strongly self motivated. And there are also tens of thousands of just work-a-day people living our humble lives. For most of us the world of child rearing laid out by David Brooks is an alien world. We do the best we can with what time we have in loving and raising our children.
I believe/suspect that the world of love and merit David Brooks describes tends to be connected with upper and upper middle class values. Country clubs and professionals talking about their kids and what colleges they go to. The point is, that while it may be the world David Brooks (and tens of thousands of intelligent professionals) live in, it is not the world most of us live in. Probably because he lives in that world it seems far more pervasive throughout our culture than it actually is.
Come to places like Ventura. You will find ambitious parents and eager up-and-coming youngsters. You'll also find a lot more in most neighborhoods who don't fit that description. People aspiring to go into the military or become nurses, technicians, police officers, etc. Good people living good honest lives where ambition is not the main gold ring being reached for.
I believe/suspect that the world of love and merit David Brooks describes tends to be connected with upper and upper middle class values. Country clubs and professionals talking about their kids and what colleges they go to. The point is, that while it may be the world David Brooks (and tens of thousands of intelligent professionals) live in, it is not the world most of us live in. Probably because he lives in that world it seems far more pervasive throughout our culture than it actually is.
Come to places like Ventura. You will find ambitious parents and eager up-and-coming youngsters. You'll also find a lot more in most neighborhoods who don't fit that description. People aspiring to go into the military or become nurses, technicians, police officers, etc. Good people living good honest lives where ambition is not the main gold ring being reached for.
3
I have noticed this style of parenting among middle class parent who know the ropes and the peril that exists to miss a hold. The truth is who wouldn't like to have had similarly knowledgeable parents to provide the lessons that otherwise can take years, if ever, to learn? To call it "conditional love" is to make the rest of feel falsely superior for not sharing in yet another advantage of the already advantaged.
3
David - how do you knew ? What makes you an expert and a moral counselor on child rearing? Did you do a sensational job with your kids, never a manipulative bent in your communication with them? Maybe we parents are delivering a lot more unconditional love than you give us credit for. If you see successful children following in the footsteps of their successful parents do you assume the love was conditional
David, it is fear that drives parents to push their children this way. We look out at the world and we see that globalization and a political system that tilts to the one percent has corroded the American dream. So if you want parents to behave as Democrats would like, rather than Republicans in the thrall of Darwinism, all I can say is, go for it and good luck.
1
Neither one of my parents ever said'. "I love you," to any of their children as we were growing up. They worked hard at helping us but most of that work was physically feeding and clothing us, getting us to meetings, sometimes helping us with hard homework etc. I guess we mostly felt that we were cared for.
I had to provide those words to my father when he was 90 years old and ask him to repeat them back to me! My mother by that time had Alzheimer's and was unable to even say them. The truth is: if they haven't heard those words themselves parents cannot say them to their children. It never even occurs to them as necessary. As the children of immigrants they believe that their hard work alone is sufficient to show their love. Sadly, it is not.
And nothing in Mr. Brooks column recognizes this basic truth: most people have a hard time giving others what they have not experienced themselves. It takes extraordinary awareness of how we interact with others and how that affects them to correct for this basic lack. Ironically, of course, many parents say, "I love you," but their behavior towards their kids says otherwise because they've only managed one half do that exchange. Parenting is a lot more complicated than over or under indulging your kids. This column, as many others lately, is way too facile.
I had to provide those words to my father when he was 90 years old and ask him to repeat them back to me! My mother by that time had Alzheimer's and was unable to even say them. The truth is: if they haven't heard those words themselves parents cannot say them to their children. It never even occurs to them as necessary. As the children of immigrants they believe that their hard work alone is sufficient to show their love. Sadly, it is not.
And nothing in Mr. Brooks column recognizes this basic truth: most people have a hard time giving others what they have not experienced themselves. It takes extraordinary awareness of how we interact with others and how that affects them to correct for this basic lack. Ironically, of course, many parents say, "I love you," but their behavior towards their kids says otherwise because they've only managed one half do that exchange. Parenting is a lot more complicated than over or under indulging your kids. This column, as many others lately, is way too facile.
4
This column, with editing, could have been written in any generation. Parents, with few exceptions, have always expressed conditional love, at least from the kids' perspectives. What is truly different now is the degree of fear - paranoia, really - regarding their safety. Playground equipment has lost its attraction due to safety regulations - the kids climb on top of the plastic covered slides because they're too boring! - they are taken by CPS for playing alone in a park (see Maryland), etc., etc. None of us can successfully mature into independent adults without risk - taking risks and learning that you can conquer them is a critical piece of maturation!
Until our lawsuit-happy society remembers that (a) risk is inherent to living, and (b) you cannot legislate or sue your way to guaranteed safety (because the only guarantee is that life at some point leads to death!), this inability to function independently will persist. David says nothing that hasn't been true in every generation - we all hear our mothers' voices in our heads, imagining how they would react to "key decision-points."
Until our lawsuit-happy society remembers that (a) risk is inherent to living, and (b) you cannot legislate or sue your way to guaranteed safety (because the only guarantee is that life at some point leads to death!), this inability to function independently will persist. David says nothing that hasn't been true in every generation - we all hear our mothers' voices in our heads, imagining how they would react to "key decision-points."
1
My brother and I were baby boom children. Our upbringing was influenced by the New England Pilgrim heritage of my father's family: We were loved unconditionally, and we were expected not "to perform" but to take responsibility from an early age, and to work to contribute to the common good of the family, the community, and the world. This style of raising children has given us productive and immensely satisfying lives, and I used it with my own four children, born in the 1970s.
Mr. Brooks, I am delighted by your newest book, and in general by the path your thoughts are taking in recent years.
Mr. Brooks, I am delighted by your newest book, and in general by the path your thoughts are taking in recent years.
When did David Brooksbecome an expert on parenting?
3
I don't think parent is an expert on parenting. I was totally that the doctors were entrusting me with my child when it came time to take her home.
I'm not sure anyone is (an expert on parenting). David Brooks is just a smart, thoughtful person whose job affords him the luxury of reading a lot and formulating opinions. Enough people like reading his thoughts, so he gets to be a paid pundit...
1
Since when are parents who care nottheir children's current progress and future wellbeing become laudable?
The fact is some kids are not going to turn out successful or even decent whether they have been brought up by meritocracy parents or not. For these kind of kids, parents unfortunately serve only as scapegoats for any future failures or unhappiness they may have. Face it, it is not always the parents fault.
Being meritocracy doesn't necessarily mean conditional love.Often, it means the parents have very high expectations for their children and the future of their children. Since when is low expectation or no expectation for their children a sign of unconditional love? It is only naturally for a parent to wish the best for their children and try their best to help them, guide them, tutor them in order for them to turn out the best. In my opinion, this is responsible parenting. Since when neglection becomes good parenting practice?Even though the result may not always satisfactory; sometimes the nurture may not always agree with the nature; as long as parents nurture their children to be future worthy human being, screw the nature.
Among adults, we often say sky is the limit to each other as an encouragement, why should we expect less from our children? Or, are the people who are against meritocracy actually only against the meritocracy of the other parents? Then, the crying wolf against responsible parenting makes sense.
The fact is some kids are not going to turn out successful or even decent whether they have been brought up by meritocracy parents or not. For these kind of kids, parents unfortunately serve only as scapegoats for any future failures or unhappiness they may have. Face it, it is not always the parents fault.
Being meritocracy doesn't necessarily mean conditional love.Often, it means the parents have very high expectations for their children and the future of their children. Since when is low expectation or no expectation for their children a sign of unconditional love? It is only naturally for a parent to wish the best for their children and try their best to help them, guide them, tutor them in order for them to turn out the best. In my opinion, this is responsible parenting. Since when neglection becomes good parenting practice?Even though the result may not always satisfactory; sometimes the nurture may not always agree with the nature; as long as parents nurture their children to be future worthy human being, screw the nature.
Among adults, we often say sky is the limit to each other as an encouragement, why should we expect less from our children? Or, are the people who are against meritocracy actually only against the meritocracy of the other parents? Then, the crying wolf against responsible parenting makes sense.
3
Once upon a time, in fact for most of time, childhood as we know it today did not exist. Circumstances demanded that everyone in the family shoulder as much responsibility as they could handle as soon as they were able to handle it. As but one telling example was the rite-of-passage at puberty where the child BECAME an adult, for ALL purposes.
In our more "civilized" times, instead of offering them -- and demanding -- responsibility, we "nurture" them because, after all, the alternative is filled with the worst of all possible things --- risk and danger. So we're raising generations of emotional cripples, losers and whiners (a fact true, but to a somewhat a lesser extent, of my own generation-- the boomers).
Unfortunately, this potentially self-destructive infantilization of children and adolescents will not end. And all you have to do to understand how deeply ingrained it is in our culture is to look at the extent to which we also infantilize ourselves. And as but one telling example of that fact is how impossible it has become to convince anyone to voluntarily remove their mouth from the government's teat.
Maybe we can build machines and come up with other inventions which will protect us from all possible risks and dangers (including the risk of dying of old age). But even if we can, I wonder if that is actually any way in which to live.
In our more "civilized" times, instead of offering them -- and demanding -- responsibility, we "nurture" them because, after all, the alternative is filled with the worst of all possible things --- risk and danger. So we're raising generations of emotional cripples, losers and whiners (a fact true, but to a somewhat a lesser extent, of my own generation-- the boomers).
Unfortunately, this potentially self-destructive infantilization of children and adolescents will not end. And all you have to do to understand how deeply ingrained it is in our culture is to look at the extent to which we also infantilize ourselves. And as but one telling example of that fact is how impossible it has become to convince anyone to voluntarily remove their mouth from the government's teat.
Maybe we can build machines and come up with other inventions which will protect us from all possible risks and dangers (including the risk of dying of old age). But even if we can, I wonder if that is actually any way in which to live.
2
What Mr. Brooks says may be true, but after 15 years of teaching, I have some additional insights to offer.
This generation of kids is far more enlightened, open and honest than previous generations. The kids have a keen sense of justice and will tolerate no discrimination based on race, creed, color, sexual orientation, body type or handicap. They are ethnically and culturally diverse. They are media savvy and can see right through bogus advertising and disingenuous politicians. They are not as interested in, nor tied down by, gender roles or stereotypes. They do not worship the almighty dollar.
This generation may not have been raised on the same type of parental love as previous generations, but it is poised to offer the world a type of diversity and vitality that previous generations have not. I, for one, am optimistic. As The Who said, "The kids are alright."
This generation of kids is far more enlightened, open and honest than previous generations. The kids have a keen sense of justice and will tolerate no discrimination based on race, creed, color, sexual orientation, body type or handicap. They are ethnically and culturally diverse. They are media savvy and can see right through bogus advertising and disingenuous politicians. They are not as interested in, nor tied down by, gender roles or stereotypes. They do not worship the almighty dollar.
This generation may not have been raised on the same type of parental love as previous generations, but it is poised to offer the world a type of diversity and vitality that previous generations have not. I, for one, am optimistic. As The Who said, "The kids are alright."
12
Thank you for pointing this out! I'm glad you see the strengths in the differences between the new generation and old.
I believe it, and thank you for the longer view.
When it came to school: the teacher was always right. This revolution in education would not be an accepted value. They knew there was homework and they expected some time spent on it. They didn't check it: that was the teacher's job to grade work.
Treating people with respect was a given: that's what you are suppose to do.
As a retired educator, I recall one of my Black students asked me what my parents called his race. I told the truth: "Czadna." Of course, I had to explain that term. In Polish it means, Chocolate or Black.
The class response was silent. Then one student said, "That's what we are." Everyone smiled.
Treating people with respect was a given: that's what you are suppose to do.
As a retired educator, I recall one of my Black students asked me what my parents called his race. I told the truth: "Czadna." Of course, I had to explain that term. In Polish it means, Chocolate or Black.
The class response was silent. Then one student said, "That's what we are." Everyone smiled.
Thank you for this. It just inspired this letter:
Darling, I got you the starbucks card as a tiny token of appreciation for how hard you’re working at school and how very responsible you are. I have such respect and admiration for that.
But just to be clear – I love you no matter what. If you’re working hard or not. If you are responsible or not.
Of course I want what’s best for you, and right now that means doing exactly what you are doing – working hard in your studies. I think you have enormous potential to do great things for this planet and to be of service and help to others. But my love for you is unconditional. You are my daughter, my beloved and precious and child. You are the kindest, most empathic, and loving person I know. I love you no matter what, period, even if you choose to drop out of school and become a starving artist. Whether you become a successful engineer or an unsuccessful software analyst or a ballroom gown designer or a barista who’s great at latte art,
I love you all the same. Forever and always.
Mama
Darling, I got you the starbucks card as a tiny token of appreciation for how hard you’re working at school and how very responsible you are. I have such respect and admiration for that.
But just to be clear – I love you no matter what. If you’re working hard or not. If you are responsible or not.
Of course I want what’s best for you, and right now that means doing exactly what you are doing – working hard in your studies. I think you have enormous potential to do great things for this planet and to be of service and help to others. But my love for you is unconditional. You are my daughter, my beloved and precious and child. You are the kindest, most empathic, and loving person I know. I love you no matter what, period, even if you choose to drop out of school and become a starving artist. Whether you become a successful engineer or an unsuccessful software analyst or a ballroom gown designer or a barista who’s great at latte art,
I love you all the same. Forever and always.
Mama
53
Just when I thought Brooks' columns could not get any more banal, he continues to surprise me. This column packs all the punch of an episode of the Donna Reed Show. "Well, son, I think we all learned something today. .."
6
A lot of my most successful and intelligent peers and friends actually had very lenient (not sure if this is the right word), they just let them explore their interests on their own. All my parents wanted for me was for me to excel in school and to find something that suited me, but that was not something I felt forced to do because I already was a very bookish type. I never felt pressure to be the top violinist in the orchestra or go to medical school, I just did what I thought was interesting at the time. When I was in college, my parents didn't even know what classes I was taking (they knew my major and that I wanted to get a PhD). I did scientific research because that's what I wanted to do. I figured out all of my summer plans by myself, my parents never pressured me to apply to a particular internship what not.
To be successful, one needs to be motivated from within. The students Mr. Brooks described usually burn out early. I witnessed this a lot since I went to one of the high pressure universities he alluded to in his article.
To be successful, one needs to be motivated from within. The students Mr. Brooks described usually burn out early. I witnessed this a lot since I went to one of the high pressure universities he alluded to in his article.
Sometimes it is appropriate to use parental unconditional love as a tool to correct behavior if that behavior is life threatening to a child. A good example is a child addicted to heroine. If the parent has tried everything else and it has failed, perhaps the parents threat of surrender in trying to help may be the thing saving the child's life.
You must have read the article about High School students in Palo Alto who commit suicide on the Caltrans tracks running through the middle of the city. Our society values money, fame, celebrities. As long as the latter are viewed as the great achievements of life, people will not appreciate what is really important and gives them true meaning. Potential parents need to be properly educated in parenting rather than just winging it. When will that be part of the curriculum in elementary, secondary schools?
1
Most parents are concerned about behavior, not merit. Part of good behavior is turning in homework, being respectful to teachers, less time on computers, playing outside, keeping and maintaining friendships, staying healthy. It's not about conditional love, but responsible behavior.
The pitfalls and temptations for kids are great these days. A video game is always a touch away, movies on demand through Netflix, internet full of good and bad information. Parents are aware of the pitfalls of the 1970s-type "unconditional" love being described. Today, you give an inch and the kids take a mile. And that mile is spent watching You Tube all day doing nothing. Today, parents need to be diligent. This is not a conditional love; It's good parenting.
In America most parents are more concerned about combating sloth and addiction. Merit is not the concern, more of a defense against the onslaught of the temptation to do nothing.
The pitfalls and temptations for kids are great these days. A video game is always a touch away, movies on demand through Netflix, internet full of good and bad information. Parents are aware of the pitfalls of the 1970s-type "unconditional" love being described. Today, you give an inch and the kids take a mile. And that mile is spent watching You Tube all day doing nothing. Today, parents need to be diligent. This is not a conditional love; It's good parenting.
In America most parents are more concerned about combating sloth and addiction. Merit is not the concern, more of a defense against the onslaught of the temptation to do nothing.
1
What's with all the David Brooks bashers? It doesn't matter what he says. So what that he writes about a segment. I'm a progressive liberal who beleives that trends in all classes are worth noting.
3
It doesn't jar you, to read: "There are two great defining features of child-rearing today" and there follows an article about features of childrearing _among a very narrow segment of the population_? What's so teeth-gritting about David Brooks is that he seems just incapable of ever thinking outside his privileged world, no matter how often it is pointed out to him. Week by week, he writes columns with opening lines like this one, just oblivious.
And frankly just wrong. If I were his English teacher, I'd be red-inking all over the margin of a paper that announced "great defining features" of something "today" but failed to introduce - or even ever get around to mentioning the basic parameters of his topic. "Child rearing today"? What does that even mean? Can't practically anyone, let alone any educated person, grasp that child rearing differs by race, class, generation, and many other experiential and probably geographical factors? It wouldn't get past a tenth grade English teacher, to make puffy pronouncements about "child rearing today" without mentioning some of those factors. The piece is bothersome on so many levels, not the least of which it's just poor writing.
And frankly just wrong. If I were his English teacher, I'd be red-inking all over the margin of a paper that announced "great defining features" of something "today" but failed to introduce - or even ever get around to mentioning the basic parameters of his topic. "Child rearing today"? What does that even mean? Can't practically anyone, let alone any educated person, grasp that child rearing differs by race, class, generation, and many other experiential and probably geographical factors? It wouldn't get past a tenth grade English teacher, to make puffy pronouncements about "child rearing today" without mentioning some of those factors. The piece is bothersome on so many levels, not the least of which it's just poor writing.
2
There he goes again, Pastor Brooks to the rescue. Middle class parent/readers need guidance from David Brooks at least once a week from the NY Times pulpit,
6
you're confusing LOVE and APPROVAL David. They're not the same.
2
Children do not need praise from their parents for their achievements. Their friends, teachers, coaches, and peers will praise them for these things. The "A" on the test is its own reward. Parents praising kids for achievement turns the children into commodities that can be displayed and showed off. Instead, parents ought praise parents for the thing that their friends, teachers, coaches, and peers tend to undervalue: Virtues. In today's society, few children get praised for obedience, self-control, humility, decisiveness, and magnanimity. and devotion. Parents should be the ones to do this.
3
Oh, yes, while I agree with you to some extent, I can't really picture praising my son in front of others - "He's so obedient!" That makes me profoundly uncomfortable.
I'm sure those soldiers who killed civilians over multiple war crimes were all VERY obedient to the psychos in charge. And those Enron accountants and executives, all quite obedient. Yes, and those boys abused by priests, quite obedient to what the priests told them to do. Obedience is not really the greatest of virtues. Perhaps that's just me.
I'm sure those soldiers who killed civilians over multiple war crimes were all VERY obedient to the psychos in charge. And those Enron accountants and executives, all quite obedient. Yes, and those boys abused by priests, quite obedient to what the priests told them to do. Obedience is not really the greatest of virtues. Perhaps that's just me.
1
i can't help noticing that loving your kids unconditionally for who they ARE does not mean loving unconditionally everything they DO.
and i can't help noticing that the frantic over-competitiveness of our overdeveloped country where there is hardly any room between the 1% and the 99% so all parents get wacko about pushing all their kids to be #1.
better they should refocus on raising self-reliant and adaptable kids who are looking for their very own niche.
and i can't help noticing that the frantic over-competitiveness of our overdeveloped country where there is hardly any room between the 1% and the 99% so all parents get wacko about pushing all their kids to be #1.
better they should refocus on raising self-reliant and adaptable kids who are looking for their very own niche.
2
Maybe this quote of George H. W. Bush applies here: "The greatest gift a parent can give a child is unconditional love. As a child wanders and strays, finding his bearings, he needs a sense of absolute love from a parent. There's nothing wrong with tough love, as long as the love is unconditional."
2
While the situation Brooks describes may not apply to the very poor, it certainly applies broadly to the middle class, and to almost everyone in the immediate vicinity of NYC, the Mecca of competitive free high schools and 20-somethings vying for riches.
Hilarious, then, that the readers who decide to caricature him as the defender of the 1% almost certainly belong to precisely the demographic he is in fact criticizing. Just shocking, really !
Hilarious, then, that the readers who decide to caricature him as the defender of the 1% almost certainly belong to precisely the demographic he is in fact criticizing. Just shocking, really !
1
A niece by marriage, now pushing 30, has been in and out of expensive rehab for anorexia since age 12. She can't live a normal life because of her obsession with food (as in not eating any).
Throughout the years, it is clear to me that it is a manipulative response to keep her "mommy" (that's what she calls her still) close and reassuring her (niece) of her (mommy's) love. Surprised that someone in their family therapy hasn't pointed that out.
She has 3 older half siblings, all extremely successful, and while she herself is intelligent with many lovely qualities, she will never be the material successes her siblings are. There was always a lot of underlying currents in that family--excessive praise and bragging, etc. You reap what you sow.
Throughout the years, it is clear to me that it is a manipulative response to keep her "mommy" (that's what she calls her still) close and reassuring her (niece) of her (mommy's) love. Surprised that someone in their family therapy hasn't pointed that out.
She has 3 older half siblings, all extremely successful, and while she herself is intelligent with many lovely qualities, she will never be the material successes her siblings are. There was always a lot of underlying currents in that family--excessive praise and bragging, etc. You reap what you sow.
1
Many in society have definitely fallen into the trap David Brooks talks about here. The folly of somehow having to earn another’s love is particularly evident amongst parents whose identity is rooted in their own achievement and advancement. Their children’s success, or lack of success, is somehow a reflection on them, so the pressure to do well is always present. You see this in private school worlds and affluent suburbs, particularly. Brooks reminds us, however, that real love is something that is unmerited and undeserved. And sometimes it’s hard to love another person when they are struggling or floundering—whether that be our spouse, our kids, our siblings, etc. But that is where grace comes in. In family life, we are called to a kind of heroic love that transcends the truncated view that the world can often impose on our relationships, even the relationship between a parent and child.
3
We are grandparents now and it is the best. We play boardgames, ride bikes, go camping, and go out to lunch with our grandkids. They live next door to us. We strive to spend time with them helping them learn practical things like to change a tire, bake bread, and paint a wall. We are not concerned that they get into an elite college but that they find a life that gives them the career that will both sustain their material and emotional needs. Their happiness is our only concern.
6
You sound lovely! Thank you for being great grandparents.
Articles like this make me grind my teeth into stumps. What Brooks is talking about is a peculiarly upper-middle-class affliction, and it is an affliction. But he should at least make some gesture indicating that this doesn't apply to all socioeconomic classes.
I was raised in a working-class family where the only goal was to land a job (it didn't much matter what kind) that we could hopefully keep for the rest of our lives. To dream beyond the neighborhood was useless and pretentious. And what about people who are poor and who struggle daily to meet the rent and buy the groceries, and perhaps have little energy - and no resources - to help their children?
Does Mr. Brooks have even an inkling that other socioeconomic classes exist? Probably not. One of the hallmarks of privilege, after all, is obliviousness.
I was raised in a working-class family where the only goal was to land a job (it didn't much matter what kind) that we could hopefully keep for the rest of our lives. To dream beyond the neighborhood was useless and pretentious. And what about people who are poor and who struggle daily to meet the rent and buy the groceries, and perhaps have little energy - and no resources - to help their children?
Does Mr. Brooks have even an inkling that other socioeconomic classes exist? Probably not. One of the hallmarks of privilege, after all, is obliviousness.
7
How is this observation useful? What sorts of trends do we see in the world economy? What can we do from a policy perspective to incentivize parents for loving unconditionally?
1
Mr. Brooks paints a rather bleak picture, maybe unintentionally, where the only real solution is to not bring more children into the world, since we, as adult humans are biased and full of opinion that can harm or help (many times unknowingly). However, as parents, we have to pick a direction for training of some sort. Parenting is not an effortless job. And this has been going on for some time, per Proverbs 22:6 "Train a child up in the way he should go..." There is judgment involved in parenting.
I come from an immigrant Jewish family. Love was never a component in our family. It was assumed. Parents were there to make sure that you succeeded. They made sure we knew that they had sacrificed their generation for ours--and succeed most of us did.
Love has become the currency of families. "Love you", is the closing statement of all conversations with grandkids. "Love you too" is the rejoinder. It's a family's version of "have a nice day". Our job is to make responsible well adjusted adults of our kids. Love is part--but only art of the equation. Respect is another part. Letting go is another part. Many of today's parents hover over their kids obsessed with the right food, school, friends, etc. The kids grow up despite all this attention--as they did in our generation.
Love has become the currency of families. "Love you", is the closing statement of all conversations with grandkids. "Love you too" is the rejoinder. It's a family's version of "have a nice day". Our job is to make responsible well adjusted adults of our kids. Love is part--but only art of the equation. Respect is another part. Letting go is another part. Many of today's parents hover over their kids obsessed with the right food, school, friends, etc. The kids grow up despite all this attention--as they did in our generation.
2
The enigmatic David Brooks, who sees the world through a politically conservative lens, is continuing to stretch his mind and to explore areas of humanity and culture that are decidedly apolitical. However, many of his recent articles, including this one, relating to subjects in the social arena are simplistic and vastly over-generalized. Human interactions are much more complex than he projects.
What he outlines in this well-written article about love and meritocracy is undoubtedly true for some families, in which steely-minded parents' only goal is to see their children advance their own expectations. And certainly this can be seen in the "upper middle class." But when you look at society and most families as a whole, love almost always trumps expectations. And for parents that view their children as "arts project," sure they are out there but surely not in the majority. There are many more functional families than dysfunctional families in this world and in those families love and nurturing is the norm.
Keep exploring Mr. Brooks.
What he outlines in this well-written article about love and meritocracy is undoubtedly true for some families, in which steely-minded parents' only goal is to see their children advance their own expectations. And certainly this can be seen in the "upper middle class." But when you look at society and most families as a whole, love almost always trumps expectations. And for parents that view their children as "arts project," sure they are out there but surely not in the majority. There are many more functional families than dysfunctional families in this world and in those families love and nurturing is the norm.
Keep exploring Mr. Brooks.
1
Meritocracy?!?
That's hilarious.
We ceased being a meritocracy about 35 years ago when Reagan and the rest of the Republicans decided we should not tax the rich, so they and their children could keep much more of their money, and give it to their children. Then Bush and the Republicans decided that they could get away with gigantic tax breaks for the rich.
So, now you have a plutocracy in this country, where David Brooks can get worked up about glances, which the privileged give their privileged children, and make them anxious.
Oh the humanity.
That's hilarious.
We ceased being a meritocracy about 35 years ago when Reagan and the rest of the Republicans decided we should not tax the rich, so they and their children could keep much more of their money, and give it to their children. Then Bush and the Republicans decided that they could get away with gigantic tax breaks for the rich.
So, now you have a plutocracy in this country, where David Brooks can get worked up about glances, which the privileged give their privileged children, and make them anxious.
Oh the humanity.
130
It's just too easy to take the knee-jerk reaction to this topic. Of course the middle and lower classes are in a different place in the meritocracy and it is unfair. But I think he's referring to over-arching drive for achievement in the meritocratic culture to which all classes in America aspire. It's that that I question and we have to recognize that it's a chicken and egg cycle. I live near and work with some 1% families. (I'm not one by a very long shot.) A few of these 1% families have faced devastating adversity that their "privilege" couldn't prevent. And I think that because of, or in spite of that, they and their children demonstrate unconditional love with more grace than most people, rich or poor, could ever even imagine.
David, I'm confused. At the start of your column, you seem to be complaining about children getting too much praise, being told how special they are. Yet, you spend the rest of the column talking about, as you put it in the summary, "But parental love is supposed to be oblivious to achievement. It’s meant to be an unconditional support"
How is arguing for "unconditional support", which I take it you back, different from "incessant praise", which I take it you oppose?
Like everything in life (unless you are a republican; sorry for the partisan jab), things aren't black and white, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You need to provide your children unconditional support. But you also can't just say "whatever you want to do with your life, that's fine".
How is arguing for "unconditional support", which I take it you back, different from "incessant praise", which I take it you oppose?
Like everything in life (unless you are a republican; sorry for the partisan jab), things aren't black and white, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You need to provide your children unconditional support. But you also can't just say "whatever you want to do with your life, that's fine".
6
It sounds as if some parents raise their children the same way they train their puppies.
Call it the Cesar Millan School of Child-rearing.
Call it the Cesar Millan School of Child-rearing.
1
I am curious as to the percentage of children Mr. Brooks would assume this circumstance has befallen. Not sure it constitutes a majority.
As to raising my two children, I followed the advice of Harry Truman. When asked why he had such a close relationship with his very successful daughter, he stated that his job as a parent was simple - "find out what they want and recommend it to them."
As to raising my two children, I followed the advice of Harry Truman. When asked why he had such a close relationship with his very successful daughter, he stated that his job as a parent was simple - "find out what they want and recommend it to them."
81
Love the quote! Similarly, when my son was born, I hoped he not become the performing seal I had been. I hoped to trust his inclinations to fully blossom and to stay out of his way -- and I prayed God would help provide him all the sun and water he needed and would protect him by fashioning me as a fence of marigolds around him.
David Brooks appears to be referring to a specific segment of the population, and is ignoring the wider range of "parenting" that goes on in our society. Too much time spent in Cleveland Park amongst the private school set lends itself to a very narrow viewpoint of child-rearing.
Mr. Brooks, you might want to take the metro down to D.C. General where homeless families are provided "shelter" and see if the parents down there are "praising their children to an unprecedented degree." I think most of those parents are too busy trying to figure out how they are going to survive, find housing and protect their children and do not have a lot of extra time to focus on "praising" their children and keeping them focused on getting in to college.
It's not surprising that you've appointed yourself an expert on developmental psychology and parenting, but the big issue with children in our country is not the parents who are focused on getting their children into ivy-league schools, it's the children who have no housing, very little food, and go to schools where the the teachers and administrators are overwhelmed.
Oh wait, I forgot, your party is not interested in supporting those children and parents, because they spend their food stamps on steaks and seafood and going to movies which is really why they never rise above poverty.
Take a ride on the Metro, Mr. Brooks, see how the other half lives.
Mr. Brooks, you might want to take the metro down to D.C. General where homeless families are provided "shelter" and see if the parents down there are "praising their children to an unprecedented degree." I think most of those parents are too busy trying to figure out how they are going to survive, find housing and protect their children and do not have a lot of extra time to focus on "praising" their children and keeping them focused on getting in to college.
It's not surprising that you've appointed yourself an expert on developmental psychology and parenting, but the big issue with children in our country is not the parents who are focused on getting their children into ivy-league schools, it's the children who have no housing, very little food, and go to schools where the the teachers and administrators are overwhelmed.
Oh wait, I forgot, your party is not interested in supporting those children and parents, because they spend their food stamps on steaks and seafood and going to movies which is really why they never rise above poverty.
Take a ride on the Metro, Mr. Brooks, see how the other half lives.
15
You must be talking about the self-absorbed parents - bad parents. Feel sorry for them - and their kids.
Any parent that fell for this love based upon merit has some fundamental flaw. Thsy just don't get ot.
1
Much of this description of conditional love fits me well. The picture of early high achievement - in my case academic - along with an ambivalence toward that achievement limiting my subsequent career, is accurate, and the presence of my parents in my mind, occluding my own sense of what I genuinely wanted to accomplish is also apt. Since I'm 75, however, I must conclude that this kind of parenting is not a recent development, though it may be more widespread than it was in my day. For me, the worst part of my relationship with my parents was the disconnect between their praise of me, and my inner feeling of inadequacy - I felt they didn't really know me.
2
I would like to see the evidence that love is more conditional now than it was a generation ago. As this is not what I have seen in my life, I would need evidence to convince me.
6
This drives me crazy. This very newspaper tells parents daily how to make children smarter and more successful. I talked to my babies incessantly because research shows that talking to babies unlocks their potential intelligence. I work hard and sacrifice much to give my daughter educational opportunities such as music lessons and STEM classes, because, not only has this newspaper told me that schools are failing her by testing kids to death rather than giving a well rounded education. What would you have me do Mr. Brooks? Have you considered that the sacrifices I male to give my daughter these opportunities is born of unconditional love? That I drive her hither and thither not because it gives me a sense of self satisfaction, but because I want my daughter to have the best chance at future happiness? I honestly don't care of she becomes a pianist pr a doctor, I just want her to have a fighting chance at a reasonably healthy and happy life.
6
Thanks so much a great article.
2
I think David Brooks hit on something important. I've been fortunate enough to have raised two children (now adults) that are good, smart, and grounded. People sometimes ask me how I accomplished this. The truth is I don't really know, but I have come up with one thing. Both their mother and I LIKE our children. We enjoy and have always enjoyed who they are. It wasn't conditioned on anything. It had nothing to do with achievement or lack of it. Those things had their place, but were in a separate box. So when people ask me, that's what I tell them. Like your kids. Show them that you like them. Like them when they get an A. Like them when they get a C. Like them when they do well. Like them when they screw up.
5
It was not like this when there was less uncertainty in the upper middle class about our children's prospects for success through education.
Seventy years ago, if parents had the right upbringing, education and jobs and lived at the right address, child rearing involved none of the anguishing psychological fallout Brooks describes.
It was assumed your child would attend a prestigious college, meet the right people, the right future spouse, and step into a career upon graduation.
What's changed? Well, in 1945 there were about 140 million Americans. Today we number about 320 million.
But while there are more than twice of us now, the number of elite colleges, the ones that can and do open the doors to socioeconomic mobility, has remained static.
So what's a parent with upper middle class aspirations to do? Let go of the child's upbringing and hope she doesn't end up working at Wal Mart?
What Brooks fails to do (apart from citing sources to show there's an empirical basis for his musings) is acknowledge the role that that factors far outside the parent-child triad have played in creating the dysfunction Brooks sees.
Free-market fundamentalism, globalization and the relentless attack on government have wrought a sea change in our society since 1945.
If you want to see social disparity at work here, consider why no new elite universities were founded in the 20th century. That alone makes the concept of meritocracy a sham not worth your children's happiness.
Seventy years ago, if parents had the right upbringing, education and jobs and lived at the right address, child rearing involved none of the anguishing psychological fallout Brooks describes.
It was assumed your child would attend a prestigious college, meet the right people, the right future spouse, and step into a career upon graduation.
What's changed? Well, in 1945 there were about 140 million Americans. Today we number about 320 million.
But while there are more than twice of us now, the number of elite colleges, the ones that can and do open the doors to socioeconomic mobility, has remained static.
So what's a parent with upper middle class aspirations to do? Let go of the child's upbringing and hope she doesn't end up working at Wal Mart?
What Brooks fails to do (apart from citing sources to show there's an empirical basis for his musings) is acknowledge the role that that factors far outside the parent-child triad have played in creating the dysfunction Brooks sees.
Free-market fundamentalism, globalization and the relentless attack on government have wrought a sea change in our society since 1945.
If you want to see social disparity at work here, consider why no new elite universities were founded in the 20th century. That alone makes the concept of meritocracy a sham not worth your children's happiness.
4
Given the diverse society we live in, I find it hard to believe that we can draw sweeping conclusions about parenting outside of the middle class suburban bubble that David Brooks is speaking of. In the inner-city public school where I teach, I rarely interact with the type of parent being described. As for the parents that do fit this archetype, how are they different from parents from 2,000 years ago who showed conditional love for the children who married as they were told and followed in a mother's footstep (home maker) or fathers (trade)?
6
It is not so much a meritocracy as it is an increasingly panicked quest to ensure one's children do not fall out of the shrinking pool of haves into the growing pool of have nots. A vibrant middle class economy frees all our children, rich and poor, to be their best selves.
6
Parents have been fumbling their ways through child rearing for thousands of years; there's nothing new under that sun. We have more tools than before, but we use and misuse them as we've always done.
The poor and struggling only want their children to break the cycle of poverty and the consequences of poverty. They don't wake up in the morning wondering if their children will make straight A's. They wake up hoping they have lunch money for the kids and the kids don't skip class.
The children raised by the over-indulgent parent Brooks describes make it out alive, warped or not, but for the children of the poor making it out alive isn't that easy.
The poor and struggling only want their children to break the cycle of poverty and the consequences of poverty. They don't wake up in the morning wondering if their children will make straight A's. They wake up hoping they have lunch money for the kids and the kids don't skip class.
The children raised by the over-indulgent parent Brooks describes make it out alive, warped or not, but for the children of the poor making it out alive isn't that easy.
4
Mr. Brooks makes a good point. However, this meritocracy is not unique to the present generation. It was present in the 50's when I grew up, and I dare say it was present in my children's generation. We parents, my parents, are all human. Our tendency is to forget that we do not own these gifts, that they are not extensions of ourselves to make "right" what we didn't or couldn't. It took years for me to comprehend that our role includes nurturing a unique individual. This daughter or son is not me. They are they. But in spite of my and my parents imperfections, my children knew what I knew: we would give our lives for them if we had to.
1
Unconditional love becomes more challenging when parenting adult children. We don't really ever stop parenting, but the navigation changes significantly as our kids take on the world. Unconditional love means not judging?
1
Then there are those parents (an impressive percentage) who have neither the time nor the money to love "conditionally." Since they work two or three jobs just to clothe and feed their kids. Since they are very often the only parent. This parenting Mr. Brooks describes is strictly among the top 53%
4
Most people want the best for their kids. But many don't know how to parent. Conflicting advice abounds. Children have become products that validate parental skills. Or not.
Providing them with a climate where they feel accepted is the greatest gift a parent can give. However, Parenthood needs to be a benevolent dictatorship with discipline, rules, and guidance. it is the hardest job anyone can do, and I speak as a mom who raised five teens successfully as a single parent.
Providing them with a climate where they feel accepted is the greatest gift a parent can give. However, Parenthood needs to be a benevolent dictatorship with discipline, rules, and guidance. it is the hardest job anyone can do, and I speak as a mom who raised five teens successfully as a single parent.
2
You cite one study about the possible deleterious effects of too much conditional love, but the main assertion of your comment - that there has been a generalized shift towards meritocratic parenting, and this could have unintended bad consequences - seems to have been pulled from thin air. I don't see the trend among my peers who, like me, are parents of grade-school children, and without better evidence of this trend your comment has an air of "when I was a boy" about it.
2
There are two elements that I can think of that taint this lovely theory. One is emotionally toxic parents who damage their children psychically, the other is a toxic society, like the one we have, thanks to the Republicans, which promotes social Darwinism and discards the chaff, that chaff being feeling, suffering children of the poor.
David, come down from your cushy ivory tower and face reality.
David, come down from your cushy ivory tower and face reality.
5
I often wonder whether this conditional love (I love you when you perform) bleeds into the workplace. Children of this generation of parenting crave constant affirmation and live and die by their perceived performance. The perpetual gold stars on the refrigerator translate into a desire to have excessive praise showered on them. God forbid a less than stellar performance evaluation. The next thing the parent is calling HR or the boss and questioning the evaluation.
High standards, yes.
Deserved praise, absolutely.
But not every new hire from this generation is the next CEO
cedricj.wordpress.com
High standards, yes.
Deserved praise, absolutely.
But not every new hire from this generation is the next CEO
cedricj.wordpress.com
2
I teach in an upper income school district and I see some of what David says here. Students are far too concerned with building resumes and doing what they like versus what they will be rewarded for.
Overall, however, this piece strikes me as a pretty self-indulgent, self-satisfied, finger waging.
Where the evidence David??? I realize that this is the Opinion section but it would be nice, some would say required, if you could support these really damning claims with something beyond your arm chair observations.
Overall, however, this piece strikes me as a pretty self-indulgent, self-satisfied, finger waging.
Where the evidence David??? I realize that this is the Opinion section but it would be nice, some would say required, if you could support these really damning claims with something beyond your arm chair observations.
2
Building attachment through positive behavioral reinforcement is an empirically proven method of attaining interpersonal success. Kowtowing or false praise to kids (and adults) is a recipe for diminishing relational outcomes and mutual successes. It is by creating and reinforcing healthy attachment (through deserved socioaffective feedback) and perspectice-taking that healthy children, families, workplaces and communities thrive
1
Speaking as one whose parents practiced conditional love based on my meeting unrealistic expectations and who was, understandably, never able to meet them, I can only hope that my kids know that I love them regardless. With my mother, I know that, no matter how hard I try, or what I achieve, I will never achieve the level of success that would earn her love, respect or admiration. These things will always be just beyond the horizon. And yeah, that hurts deeply. But I think that my kids know that my love of them is not yoked entirely to their successes, given that they're still talking to me, and they're not nearly as screwed up as I am.
57
I suppose data is dull, but I would like some reference to evidence supporting these generalizations. My guess is that there are, at present, different styles of parenting in different homes and that there used to be different styles as well. In short, the change is not an absolute we did it that way, now we do it this way, but a change in statistical distribution. Such shifts can be of major importance but it takes some evidence to prove they are happening. "David Brooks suspects" is not good enough.
1
Sweeping generalizations, "folks these days" stereotyping, cheap psychology.
2
Children are extremely keen observers and compare their parents with their friend's parents. To a child, the parent without high expectations, appears selfish of their time and neglectful. This does not result in a close relationship into adulthood.
1
As a laissez-fare parent of teenagers, I love to here this, but these opinions are just that. This is too important an issue. David Brooks needs to do a reported essay on this subject. I see no evidence whatever of what he's claiming.
2
Children are in fact not "a thousand times" more likely to be praised today, or "incessantly" told "how special they are."
You're pulling wild claims from some old plaint from the '90s and building a whole article to demolish that straw man. You like obedience, I know; you've devoted several columns now to its virtues, both for children and adults. And given your fondness for right-wing politics, I can see where obedience and humility would be welcome to you, as opposed, say, to people protesting or standing up for their dignity in the face of the onslaughts on workers and citizens from the wealth class.
But just what makes you an authority on merit and morality, Mr. Brooks? What orphans have you saved? What obedience have you practiced? No, don't tell me; I think I know whom you serve, and how obediently...
You're pulling wild claims from some old plaint from the '90s and building a whole article to demolish that straw man. You like obedience, I know; you've devoted several columns now to its virtues, both for children and adults. And given your fondness for right-wing politics, I can see where obedience and humility would be welcome to you, as opposed, say, to people protesting or standing up for their dignity in the face of the onslaughts on workers and citizens from the wealth class.
But just what makes you an authority on merit and morality, Mr. Brooks? What orphans have you saved? What obedience have you practiced? No, don't tell me; I think I know whom you serve, and how obediently...
2
You're ok, ok! Loved your comments
1
David, You've missed the mark with this column. There is a world full of other children who weren't included in your article.
This is not a liberal newspaper article. Not even close.
This is not a liberal newspaper article. Not even close.
So what do you think, David? How do you reconcile unconditional love with Repulbican talking points and "family values" social interventionism?
4
This is the narcissistic parenting style naturally created by Boomer-made America. Much more than ever before, children are now simply projections of the egos of their self-regarding parents. They are, indeed, the supreme "creative" works of art of their parents, who are competing in a parental war of all against all to see who can "create" the most perfectly accomplished offspring, measured by meritocratic standards of course. Sounds like the perfect formula for producing insecure, yet terminally vain, children even less capable of real, unconditional love than their hapless parents.
This op-ed is one of the very best I ever read from David Brooks (and in NYT); and I am not being kind given my very frequent disagreements with him on the political front. He expresses in a flawless fashion a very important but overlooked issue. For me it's almost personal; growing up I was a relatively good student at school and later started a successful professional career and a family of my own. My sibling on the other hand failed repetitively in school, dropped out of college, experimented all sorts of things, divorced and is financially dependent. What always amazed me was the even and unconditional love of our mother despite the fact that she was hurt financially and emotionally in multiple occasions. I often ask myself if I would have done the same or I would have just dropped the ball and I can't come up with an honest response. Kudos Mr. Brooks for bringing this up.
Just reinforces the idea that we live a society that really has not the slightest idea what 'love' is all about. It has lost the joy, feeling and happiness that comes through the Cross.
who knew?
Mr. Brooks has awkwardly moved from the pulpit to the couch for today's sermon;
admonishing parents from his own far-too-limiting-enclave about his perceived malpractices that are apparently running rampant in the 21st Century.
which pta gathering are you in front of?
seriously, Mr. Brooks, walk away from this subject as quickly as you able to--
it does not suit you as its foundational syllabus calls for full-time, diligent, self-sacrificing, daily commitments to the needs of other human beings--
and, yes, to all of "them".
have you recently volunteered your time in an inner city public school for, say, a month or more? in the trenches, so to speak? your students at Yale would very likely have an opportunity to benefit from such first-hand experiences as you attempt to assist them in preparing for their privileged careers.
parenting is the single most-important function in any society.
let's attempt to return to the core of your work for this newspaper,
and reshape the conversation a bit here:
by most contemporary measures, our current form of community-based support for this task has been systematically neutered by the policies of your political party...wherein its obsession of singular individualism in all of its practiced narcissism completely fails to recognize the "need" to actually interact with the majority of our fellow-citizens who are daily challenged to survive, paycheck to paycheck.
why not join us ---we always have work for every participant.
1
Ah the good old times when parents used to beat children to a pulp to instill into them the sense of discipline and punish misbehavior and refusal to conform. It wasn't until long ago -- what, 50 years? -- that children were regarded as human versions of animals to be tamed with the only tool considered effective enough to force them into submission: violence. Physical violence and loads and loads of psychological violence: has Brooks ever heard of the "boogie man" and his terrorizing threats of kidnapping?
I have one thing to say in praise of Brooks, though: his columns have the merit of eliciting tons of smart, articulate, sharp, insightful and deeply erudite replies from his readers. I am grateful for the things I learn from them twice a week: they enrich me with the quality of their rhetorical skills and the acuity of their critical analyses.
I have one thing to say in praise of Brooks, though: his columns have the merit of eliciting tons of smart, articulate, sharp, insightful and deeply erudite replies from his readers. I am grateful for the things I learn from them twice a week: they enrich me with the quality of their rhetorical skills and the acuity of their critical analyses.
2
How Brooks can see something new in what he sees is a mystery to me.
2
Parents reflect our corporate culture that has influenced and inculcated what they want for success into our educational system. Success in sales, by selling more of a product and service or yourself and profits by increasing value and worth which are the reasons corporations are in business. It seems far too often companies will do what ever it takes to achieve their objectives.
What we have is families, corporations, government and its agencies that are greedy. It has nothing to do with love of one another, but the love of things.
What we have is families, corporations, government and its agencies that are greedy. It has nothing to do with love of one another, but the love of things.
1
David, everything you say is absolutely correct. Love has become conditional love. But can you blame the parents for wanting their child to have a secure future in an insecure world where getting the perfect score, getting into an Ivy-League school paves the way to a secure job and a better life? Comparing the parents of two generations ago to to-days' parents is completely off kilter. One has to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The parents of yore did not have to deal with the competition out there to-day. Giving a trophy to every participant has been the bane of our current society along with low expectations. That is why we lag behind other countries in Math and Science. So let's not blame the parents who EXPECT the best from their child. It is tough love but love, nevertheless.
When I was raising my kids in the 1990's, word was (and I bet there's a Brooks column on it,) that we were praising our kids just for being, and not for any actual accomplishment.
Now, my children's generation are the parents, and they're being criticized for attaching praise to accomplishment too much.
But really, the heart of the criticism is that they're not, "Do what I say or else" parents. Isn't that real problem, we're not raising kids to fear and follow authority, David?
Now, my children's generation are the parents, and they're being criticized for attaching praise to accomplishment too much.
But really, the heart of the criticism is that they're not, "Do what I say or else" parents. Isn't that real problem, we're not raising kids to fear and follow authority, David?
1
What evidence is there from history that parenting was not ever thus? When kids, as a matter of survival, were worked as agricultural labor, apprenticed in trades, married off in adolescence, or simply sold, love was even more conditional. All of literature informs us that this was the case up and down the social scale. Mr. Brooks et al. are wistful for a brief and magical mid-20th century moment when we took our eyes off of the economic outcomes of childhood. For better or worse, we are now veering back to the norm.
3
This is so true. I grew up with conditional love and never became my own self until both parents were dead. It is a mechanism for control, not any kind of love. If you love someone, you are there for them, right or wrong. What happens when one of these conditionally loved children grows into an openly gay person (rarely a parental first choice), or chooses something utterly outside the parental choice? There are broken relationships and a life-long sense of betrayal on both sides. Only unconditional love can heal such a rift. It is a bleak outlook if we believe God alone can love unconditionally, and that we are not made the divine image.
1
Where is this land of "parents" that David seems to live in, where all are alike? Perhaps for a brief spell he should wander into an inner city public school or read the recent highly acclaimed 'Things I Wish my Teacher Knew' papers submitted by children who do NOT live in this land of "parents".
1
Your pulse on the zeitgeist of this generation is spot on. Furthermore, your ability to cut through clutter of insipid and absurd arguments from your critics is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for all your articles.
This unconditional love is even harder to maintain in divorced households. As a parent who has always strived for a balance in the life of my son - academics, sports, chores and service to community and a healthy, guilt-free social life - I now find that my ex can cater to my son's every whim with the result that he naturally gravitates toward the path of lesser resistance.
Whoa to the estranged, unpopular parent who bucks the pandering and character destruction of this lowest common denominator child-rearing!
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
Whoa to the estranged, unpopular parent who bucks the pandering and character destruction of this lowest common denominator child-rearing!
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
58
Just FYI--should be "woe to the..."--not "whoa." Whoa is what you say to a horse when you want it to slow down or stop.
You conflate love and the tactics of good parenting. Children's brains are not mature, their life experience minimal and their knowledge of the world non-existent. They require guidance on the world, the disciplines needed to succeed, and the ethical standards against which they need to live their lives. If you simply proclaim unconditional love and let them make unfettered choices on friends, their commitment to school, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc, you would find few children who simply make consistently positive choices. Obviously, there is a balance between overbearing parents and no parenting, but I would elect a bit of an overreach over the results that I have seen from under-parenting any day of the week
2
Could this trend of "conditionally love" have anything to do with the (unfortunate) trend in America to win at ant cost. You see this trend in sports, businesses, and every aspect in American life, including children.
1
Children honed to an unprecedented degree? Here is the reality; for the children that have hovering parents, taking them to French lessons at six there are millions with parents working two jobs, or parents without work, children in families living in poverty
Let us see less of columns for the five percent and more for the American family reality
Let us see less of columns for the five percent and more for the American family reality
5
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for an insightful column. I often disagree with your politics but here we are in complete agreement.
When 7, 8, or 9 year old children decide where to go on the family vacation there is something terribly amiss.
When I grew up in the 50's, I was always impressed when an adult took the time to talk to me. Nowadays, it's difficult to make eye contact with children. They spend most of their time staring at an i-Pod or cell phone.
When 7, 8, or 9 year old children decide where to go on the family vacation there is something terribly amiss.
When I grew up in the 50's, I was always impressed when an adult took the time to talk to me. Nowadays, it's difficult to make eye contact with children. They spend most of their time staring at an i-Pod or cell phone.
This essay is full of unsubstantiated claims. There is no evidence presented. I would have liked to have heard some of these children's voices.
Parents have always sought to shape their children. Many employ praise and positive rewards today rather than violence and the rod employed in the "good old days" Brooks seems to pine for.
Parents have always sought to shape their children. Many employ praise and positive rewards today rather than violence and the rod employed in the "good old days" Brooks seems to pine for.
3
Mr Brooks assumes there is unconditional love in the human, practical realm. There just isn't, mostly. Everything is conditional. Skinner's operant conditioning assumes conditionality in shaping behavior. Kid gets a chocolate every time he/she uses the toilet, presto, toilet trained!
Brooks over looks the obvious, here, that the goal of satisfying these achievement oriented endeavors is more towards material rewards than spiritual rewards. Everyone is different from their DNA to where they end up living but what we all have in common is that we are individual beings with preferences, potentials and limitations which determine what will suit allowing us to feel comfortable inside ourselves as we live our lives. To much of this culturing activity by parents can keep children from achieving their true potentials by leaving them too little time to be themselves at play with other children or on their own.
For once, David Brooks writes about a phenomenon that is solidly backed with research. Children who are repeatedly told they're smart or especially talented are more likely to give up and cave if faced with a task or situation that seems hard to them, whereas kids who are praised for working hard on a project or skill are more likely to persevere even if they don't win first place. This is being called "grit" and is a characteristic being lost in American culture.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks supports the party and values of the plutocracy which believes it is superior and wants to rig the playing field to ensure its ascendency. Maybe someday soon he will realize the moral bankruptcy of the plutocracy and switch parties.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks supports the party and values of the plutocracy which believes it is superior and wants to rig the playing field to ensure its ascendency. Maybe someday soon he will realize the moral bankruptcy of the plutocracy and switch parties.
1
There has always been unconditional love; the prodigal son comes to mind.
2
The human race reached a state, when cerebral cortex has become the most important part of their body. All the sensory signals that is pouring on the body is interpreted structured correlated and connected to make the sense of this world. This was always the way children learned - the differences we see today is the synthetic nature of this external exposure and its lack of variety. Parents who will learn this limitations will use their time and money to overcome this. Meritocracy is nothing but a cultural fad - easy to measure success by simple events and possessions - admission, money, prize,.....In life these things have very limited value - we can not use meaningfully more money than what we need for food, cloths, shelter,.We can help our children more by exposing them to nature, to learn from rivers, fields, forests, mountains, but we are dragging them from Kumon, to Katate, to Dance, to Football,.... Parents are living on a dream that was not fulfilled - not loving, guiding and caring their kids.
A great essay. The only problem is that this emotional blackmail has been going on for generations. Only difference is that now we allow children room to make mistakes and still be loved. So, fortunately, we have evolved. A little bit.
2
I don't agree that this is a new phenomenon.
I grew up in the 70s, in a modest suburb of NYC. Our parents also expected their children to be great successes--even though they lacked the guidance or connections to help. They also demanded love and respect from their children, and got it.
My experience "parenting" millenials is that they expect success to be delivered to them by their parents; that telling them how wonderful they are makes them believe they are--in an unrealistic, entitled way--and there is no respect or gratitude.
Recently, Dave Barry wrote a column about how much better our parents' generation had it. I couldn't agree more.
I grew up in the 70s, in a modest suburb of NYC. Our parents also expected their children to be great successes--even though they lacked the guidance or connections to help. They also demanded love and respect from their children, and got it.
My experience "parenting" millenials is that they expect success to be delivered to them by their parents; that telling them how wonderful they are makes them believe they are--in an unrealistic, entitled way--and there is no respect or gratitude.
Recently, Dave Barry wrote a column about how much better our parents' generation had it. I couldn't agree more.
58
Dorothy Parker was famous for her part in the Algonquin (Hotel) Round Table, ending about 1929. She was blacklisted by McCarthy post-War and virtually disappeared.
This article begins with a quote from her, labeled as something "unprecidented" and new. If she commented on it, it isn't new.
I've raised my kids the same way I was raised. That is normal.
There has always been an elite too self-involved to spend the time with their kids, who praise anything but don't know much about them. I've known a few raised like that, who were older than me. Again, not new, Dorothy Parker spotted it in the 1920's.
Perhaps to a conservative, what was said in the 1920's IS new. That is a conservative problem, not reality.
This article begins with a quote from her, labeled as something "unprecidented" and new. If she commented on it, it isn't new.
I've raised my kids the same way I was raised. That is normal.
There has always been an elite too self-involved to spend the time with their kids, who praise anything but don't know much about them. I've known a few raised like that, who were older than me. Again, not new, Dorothy Parker spotted it in the 1920's.
Perhaps to a conservative, what was said in the 1920's IS new. That is a conservative problem, not reality.
3
Dear David,
Thank you for a great article..I believe parents give themselves too much credit on how their children develop.Children don't require parental pressure to succeed,Their motivation is formed by the way they observe their parents relationship to each other & their environment & friends.Parents as you related, do harm to their children in their quest to keep up with the Jones & the children of the Jones.When our children were trying to decide the course they wanted to follow in their life we told them to look within themselves & find the study that you truly love, & we will support you in your endeavors, no matter what you decide upon.They turned out to be outstanding individuals, not necessarily in material things but in things that really matter, their concern for others & their passion to support what they believe in & fight against what they conceive is wrong. They all have their own ideas in varying degrees. When we get together with have one rule, there will not be any discussion about politics, or religion, so we sit & stare at each other, with love & pride.
Thank you for a great article..I believe parents give themselves too much credit on how their children develop.Children don't require parental pressure to succeed,Their motivation is formed by the way they observe their parents relationship to each other & their environment & friends.Parents as you related, do harm to their children in their quest to keep up with the Jones & the children of the Jones.When our children were trying to decide the course they wanted to follow in their life we told them to look within themselves & find the study that you truly love, & we will support you in your endeavors, no matter what you decide upon.They turned out to be outstanding individuals, not necessarily in material things but in things that really matter, their concern for others & their passion to support what they believe in & fight against what they conceive is wrong. They all have their own ideas in varying degrees. When we get together with have one rule, there will not be any discussion about politics, or religion, so we sit & stare at each other, with love & pride.
My very good father had high expectations for me, but when I failed to meet them, as I frequently did, was when his concern for me really came shining through.
I especially remember a time when I came home, reported some school trouble I was in, and before I could even finish telling him what it was all about, he was putting on his coat, getting ready to leave the house, to see what he could do to help me.
He died in 1977. There may have been a few days since that time when I did not remember him in my thoughts and prayers, but not many.
I especially remember a time when I came home, reported some school trouble I was in, and before I could even finish telling him what it was all about, he was putting on his coat, getting ready to leave the house, to see what he could do to help me.
He died in 1977. There may have been a few days since that time when I did not remember him in my thoughts and prayers, but not many.
3
This is the best comment of all.
It appears there is no subject, no aspect of the human condition that is not fair game for David Brooks not merely to essay but to hold forth upon in definitive, authoritative pieties. Inevitably, of course, like little prizes baked into a cake, are the various tenets of the conservative faith, as in this example, "the meritocracy." How do people get ahead in this society? Why, on merit of course. At least in the world construed by David. He then concludes his piece by essentially equating merit and grace, when as everyone except David recognizes, are two entirely different concepts--one can earn merit, grace, whether seen as a divinely bestowed gift or mere luck, is beyond our ability to control.
All human love is conditional--just as all human beings are finite, mortal, fallible, and subject to change. However, the "conditionality" need not be tied to material expectations; it can rather be tied, for example, to ethical values and consequent choices and behaviors. This applies not just or even primarily to the parent-child bond, but also to the other strong bonds of affection that unite spouses, dear friends, and others.
2
few days ago, my 17 year old son came to me and said mom can I talk to you? I been thinking about these college and career choices, and figured that since I probably won't have a way for children anytime soon, I won't have to take a workaholic job like dad. I was mildly taken a back, but thinking it through I can see how all of the pressures both from us and his school and piers would lead him to think that. Conversation ensued, and I told him that wow we are his parents and our party line is that we have very high expectations for him, ultimate lane it will be his life and he needs to think about what kind of a job and personal situation will be suitable for his interest, talent and desire lifestyle. Funny that he should think already that his worth in our eyes or even society'so would be driven by his choice of high-earning career and that could be a necessary component to a feeling of personal success. Real wake up call for me as a parent.
1
From this article, it sounds as if some parents raise their children exactlly the same way they train their puppies.
Call it the Cesar Millan School of Child-rearing.
Call it the Cesar Millan School of Child-rearing.
' it sounds as if some parents raise their children exactlly the same way they train their puppies.'
I wish I could meet those parents. Most of the kids I see in this affluent, upwardly mobile NW Bergen County suburb clearly are doing a better job with the dogs - at least the dogs are housebroken, and can be put on a leash and muzzled. And under the license law there's no exemption from vaccinations.
I wish I could meet those parents. Most of the kids I see in this affluent, upwardly mobile NW Bergen County suburb clearly are doing a better job with the dogs - at least the dogs are housebroken, and can be put on a leash and muzzled. And under the license law there's no exemption from vaccinations.
25
I thought about sending the link to this article to my son . . . to my brother . . . to a long-term close friend of mine. I cannot. Each of them would misinterpret my intent and the content of the article in different ways. It's a good article, but it is not for sharing.
Thanks, Mr. B., for dwelling on a subject (child-rearing) known to everyone.
But there are a couple of facts left unmentioned, which follow.
A household built on meritocracy seems like a rehearsal for any kid in school/college: s/he performs for an A.
Second, in a loveless household (where a parent (s) are "selfish"),then the kid is neglected, or even the result of an unwanted pregnancy. So any achievements (by a kid) go unnoticed or worse.
Both points may inspire another essay, Mr. B., on this subject.
But there are a couple of facts left unmentioned, which follow.
A household built on meritocracy seems like a rehearsal for any kid in school/college: s/he performs for an A.
Second, in a loveless household (where a parent (s) are "selfish"),then the kid is neglected, or even the result of an unwanted pregnancy. So any achievements (by a kid) go unnoticed or worse.
Both points may inspire another essay, Mr. B., on this subject.
I Have read Brooks' columns and heard him on the Brian Lehrer show, where he explained, for an hour, that we all had lost our moral compass. I am not going to waste time here pointing out at length that unconditional love and teaching children that bad behavior will be punished do seem a bit at odds with one another. Yes, I can love you if you become a mass murderer, but nobody else will -- and if I teach you that love can be unconditional, I may be creating the very narcissistic monster that Brooks deplores, when he is preaching God and Kant while blowing the dog whistle of his conservative agenda.
Also, as others are pointing out here, the problem he is alleging is universal does not apply to people who are working 70 hours a week and trying to support their kids on $30,000 a year.The problems that Brooks envisions– the loss of individuality and moral vigor that allegedly results from a qualified love, or not teaching children to choose between Kant, Jesus and Descartes– are not those that preoccupy most Americans, who are merely trying not to go under financially or lose their children, if they are black, to an over-zealous criminal justice system or a poorly trained cop.
David Brooks proclaims humility but, in my view, is a pretentious, self congratulatory and dishonest. I keep waiting for somebody to call him out. Brian was too nice to him; Brooks is not Edmund Burke, but rather a garden variety modern conservative with an anti-progressive agenda,
Also, as others are pointing out here, the problem he is alleging is universal does not apply to people who are working 70 hours a week and trying to support their kids on $30,000 a year.The problems that Brooks envisions– the loss of individuality and moral vigor that allegedly results from a qualified love, or not teaching children to choose between Kant, Jesus and Descartes– are not those that preoccupy most Americans, who are merely trying not to go under financially or lose their children, if they are black, to an over-zealous criminal justice system or a poorly trained cop.
David Brooks proclaims humility but, in my view, is a pretentious, self congratulatory and dishonest. I keep waiting for somebody to call him out. Brian was too nice to him; Brooks is not Edmund Burke, but rather a garden variety modern conservative with an anti-progressive agenda,
1
Man Mr. Brooks-you come this close to reality sometimes and then-well then the upper middle class white bubble you live in gets in your way.
The children you speak of are a small percentage in this country-ones whose parents can afford the sports equipment, the musical instruments, the fees to play, and the gas to drive all over the place. More importantly they can afford TIME. Time to get their children places, time to devote to enriching their children's lives.
I wish so much columnists like yourself would write about the privilege of time that so many working parents just don't have enough of. No vacations, precious little sick time, unreasonable and fluctuating work hours-it is a disgrace.
At my child's school 80% of children qualify for a free or reduced lunch. 47% live at or below the federal poverty line. And these are kids with parents who work David-these aren't the moochers and the takers the Republican Party is so obsessed with. They are the people who do the work you and your friends have the luxury of opting out of to give you that most precious commodity-TIME.
Leave your bubble of privilege and come see how these parents struggle to try and make the first grade poetry reading, struggle to find child care when they are suddenly called into work, struggle to get kids to school on time, to fill out reading logs, make lunches, do laundry...it breaks my heart.
So come spend a day with real people David. And then try and lecture us on love and merit.
The children you speak of are a small percentage in this country-ones whose parents can afford the sports equipment, the musical instruments, the fees to play, and the gas to drive all over the place. More importantly they can afford TIME. Time to get their children places, time to devote to enriching their children's lives.
I wish so much columnists like yourself would write about the privilege of time that so many working parents just don't have enough of. No vacations, precious little sick time, unreasonable and fluctuating work hours-it is a disgrace.
At my child's school 80% of children qualify for a free or reduced lunch. 47% live at or below the federal poverty line. And these are kids with parents who work David-these aren't the moochers and the takers the Republican Party is so obsessed with. They are the people who do the work you and your friends have the luxury of opting out of to give you that most precious commodity-TIME.
Leave your bubble of privilege and come see how these parents struggle to try and make the first grade poetry reading, struggle to find child care when they are suddenly called into work, struggle to get kids to school on time, to fill out reading logs, make lunches, do laundry...it breaks my heart.
So come spend a day with real people David. And then try and lecture us on love and merit.
1
What I sense David is arguing is that kids need to feel safe first and foremost. Unconditional love is that safety net. However, when the majority of Americans see their own economic and social safety nets destroyed by governments unwilling to maintain them as part of the overall infrastructure of our society, no wonder parents are driven to drive their kids toward winning a place among the self-sustaining elite. The safety net becomes a trampoline or a sling-shot.
I am reminded of a short story by D. H. Lawrence called "The Rocking-Horse Winner." It is a story every ambitious parent should read. The pressure kids feel can be disastrous. "I love you no matter what, BUT..." is not and never will be unconditional, and that is a fact.
I am reminded of a short story by D. H. Lawrence called "The Rocking-Horse Winner." It is a story every ambitious parent should read. The pressure kids feel can be disastrous. "I love you no matter what, BUT..." is not and never will be unconditional, and that is a fact.
1
David, you are describing the parental world of the 1-5%, and especially its subset in the Northeast, not that of most Americans. We're not all obsessed with so-called privilege and prestige...mainly only those who are already born into it think and talk about it. (And I assume you realize that less than 1 percent of Americans read the Times?)
2
I think david is dead spot on. With all the hoopla about the tiger parents especially, whose kids do incredibly well on standardized tests, have fantastic GPA's, and so forth from the tremendous pressure the parents put on them to succeed, when you track what these kids end up doing what you find is they will go to the best colleges, do well, many will get on professional tracks, yet in the end they achieve very little that is new. In the book "A Nation of Sheep" the guy who wrote it, who taught at Yale for many years, said that what you see now is kids afraid to go outside the norm, I think he said something like 60% of the kids in the HYP schools are studying one of two tracks, economics or finance. The "I'll love you as long as you do what I want" combined with the meritocracy seems to produce investment bankers and lawyers and such, whose net value to society you can question. There is an old joke that has large grains of truth, that the tiger kids and the like who play the game often end up working for the kids who went to a state school, weren't the top of the heap, end up founding new companies and come up with new ideas, and have the tiger kids working for them. One of the biggest problems with what David is talking about is it engenders the fear to fail, lest mom and dad be disappointed or not love them, and fear to fail generally means fear to achieve, since achieving means taking risks.
1
When you as a parent are so stressed from working and worrying how are you supposed to parent your children? How can you find time for both of you to coexist in a space where you can be a parent and have some time with your child if you are worried about keeping your job, paying the bills, saving for every possible event in life? Our country does not allow for family life because business believes that it owns its employees. Our country, in short, is not human or family friendly. We tell people that if they can't afford children not to have them. We tell people that they should have saved for unemployment, medical illness, retirement, a child's college education. Then we tell them to use credit for everything.
We don't allow people to slow down and parent. We don't allow for the time it takes to learn to parent and help a child grow into a responsible human being. We seem to expect children to grow up on their own. We also deny the fact that money and early childhood circumstances can make a big difference in a child's life. We don't allow children to learn by making their own mistakes.
If we want to raise responsible citizens we need to be responsible citizens in front our children. We need to love them and discipline them. That means doing the chores around the house with them and showing them a good time. It means letting them know that folding the laundry and being kind to siblings is just as important as getting good grades.
We don't allow people to slow down and parent. We don't allow for the time it takes to learn to parent and help a child grow into a responsible human being. We seem to expect children to grow up on their own. We also deny the fact that money and early childhood circumstances can make a big difference in a child's life. We don't allow children to learn by making their own mistakes.
If we want to raise responsible citizens we need to be responsible citizens in front our children. We need to love them and discipline them. That means doing the chores around the house with them and showing them a good time. It means letting them know that folding the laundry and being kind to siblings is just as important as getting good grades.
1
Not exactly. My children are high achievers and we held them to high standards and expectations. But our love was never conditional and my wish for them is only that they find something that they are good at and what they enjoy doing. So far it seems to be working but life is a marathon not a 100 yard dash.
1
I spent two grade school years in Evanston schools because my parents believed them to be the best public schools available to them in the Chicago area.
I see this all the time in my life as a parent of a second grader.
Among the problems is that it is a self-fulfilling system: the response of the person to the need for more love is to try to earn it by working in more extreme ways such as excessive travel, hours, etc. The system responds by sending more "love" to those who make extreme commitments to work through accolades, promotions and pay.
The larger society then becomes bifurcated into the "makers" who are those extremely committed to work and being paid to extremes, and the "takers" who are those unwilling to make those extreme commitments - and these are attached to the concept of love. Democrats are called Socialists and Republican's are in a to-the-death battle to save and restore the Constitution. This creates economic and social gaps which perpetuate themselves.
The article is right on, but the families I know who engage this at home are more likely to laugh at this issue than change. There is too much money on the table.
Among the problems is that it is a self-fulfilling system: the response of the person to the need for more love is to try to earn it by working in more extreme ways such as excessive travel, hours, etc. The system responds by sending more "love" to those who make extreme commitments to work through accolades, promotions and pay.
The larger society then becomes bifurcated into the "makers" who are those extremely committed to work and being paid to extremes, and the "takers" who are those unwilling to make those extreme commitments - and these are attached to the concept of love. Democrats are called Socialists and Republican's are in a to-the-death battle to save and restore the Constitution. This creates economic and social gaps which perpetuate themselves.
The article is right on, but the families I know who engage this at home are more likely to laugh at this issue than change. There is too much money on the table.
1
Mr. Brooks writes of issues that concern the aspiring & status conscious upper-middle class whose values are tethered to external approval from society. As a school counselor, I worked at both extremely wealthy &, conversely, needy schools. The kids lived entirely opposite lives.
Kids of affluent parents live with excessive expectations of success whether academically, sports or in the arts. Parents spend excessively on education, music, dance & art lessons, & sports camps. In academics, social striving, upwardly mobile parents push their children to enter gifted programs, argue with teachers about grades &, in the process, engage in what Mr. Brooks refers to as unconditional love.
The overlapping ego attachment between these parents & their children is huge. Parents were so caught up in the pressure of keeping up with the Jones, that their own children become just another object to showcase similar to their Lexus, mini Mansion, Pilates bodies or designer clothing. Many of these parents suffered from very low esteem which was bolstered up with materialism, substance abuse & driven workaholicism. Their children often became mere "mini-me" of the parents overarching focus on externals & lack of an interior life.
Children in poor schools were the opposite, focusing on relationships more than upward mobility. Most of their parent/s were busy working or on welfare. Many were taking care of younger siblings & stressed about crime & poverty, thus forced to grow up too soon.
Kids of affluent parents live with excessive expectations of success whether academically, sports or in the arts. Parents spend excessively on education, music, dance & art lessons, & sports camps. In academics, social striving, upwardly mobile parents push their children to enter gifted programs, argue with teachers about grades &, in the process, engage in what Mr. Brooks refers to as unconditional love.
The overlapping ego attachment between these parents & their children is huge. Parents were so caught up in the pressure of keeping up with the Jones, that their own children become just another object to showcase similar to their Lexus, mini Mansion, Pilates bodies or designer clothing. Many of these parents suffered from very low esteem which was bolstered up with materialism, substance abuse & driven workaholicism. Their children often became mere "mini-me" of the parents overarching focus on externals & lack of an interior life.
Children in poor schools were the opposite, focusing on relationships more than upward mobility. Most of their parent/s were busy working or on welfare. Many were taking care of younger siblings & stressed about crime & poverty, thus forced to grow up too soon.
2
We raised our five children first and foremost to be compassionate and empathetic. None was pushed in sports nor academics. Two played sports by choice, 2 took art lessons. Our one son wasn't interested in sports but loved music and became a self taught guitarist. One finished college with two degrees and graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.96 GPA the other is still in college and has a 3.90 GPA. She wants to be a lawyer. Our only desire for our children is that they get a job in a field that they would enjoy and make enough money to care for themselves and their family. Nothing more grand than that. All the material possessions in the world can not buy happiness. Our son was mechanically inclined so we suggested he look to a career that would play to his strengths. No forcing him to go to college or trying to make him into something he would never excel at. He's a wonderful songwriter although his punctuation leaves a lot to be desired. Does it really matter? When he was younger he was frustrated that he didn't do as well in school as others. I explained that things like spelling and memorization didn't indicate ones intelligence, they only indicated that one was blessed with a good memory. His mechanical ability required much more, a grasping of the abstract, a logical progression of thought plus a bit of creative ingenuity. He's well adjusted, compassionate, a married father of two. Our children talk to us and love spending time with us and each other. And that is enough.
Among the world's 30 most advanced economies, the United States ranks last in economic mobility. That's not a meritocracy.
The widening gap of inequality damages the psyche of rich white kids, and that in turn makes it hard for them to compete. That's why their parents want the public schools to fail. They also want college to be unaffordable, Social Security to be underfunded, and Obamacare to be repealed.
Rich white people fear what will happen if their children had to compete on a level playing field. They understand that raw talent -- say running 100 meters -- has nothing to do with wealth.
This column is a gloss on Freud's explanation for why anxiety and depression were far more prevalent among the children of the wealthy parents of early twentieth-century Vienna than among the children of Vienna's working class. Freud realized how painful it was for children to spend most of their lives sucking up to Mom and Dad, always worried by those "tiny glances of approval and disapproval [that] are built into the fabric of communication." You describe this as "merit-tangled love," but Thorsten Veblen described this mindset as merely another example of conspicuous consumption in which rich parents use their own children as objects for display.
The widening gap of inequality damages the psyche of rich white kids, and that in turn makes it hard for them to compete. That's why their parents want the public schools to fail. They also want college to be unaffordable, Social Security to be underfunded, and Obamacare to be repealed.
Rich white people fear what will happen if their children had to compete on a level playing field. They understand that raw talent -- say running 100 meters -- has nothing to do with wealth.
This column is a gloss on Freud's explanation for why anxiety and depression were far more prevalent among the children of the wealthy parents of early twentieth-century Vienna than among the children of Vienna's working class. Freud realized how painful it was for children to spend most of their lives sucking up to Mom and Dad, always worried by those "tiny glances of approval and disapproval [that] are built into the fabric of communication." You describe this as "merit-tangled love," but Thorsten Veblen described this mindset as merely another example of conspicuous consumption in which rich parents use their own children as objects for display.
3
Just came from dropping my 5th grader off at school. Seemed like a lot of unconditional love around to me.
1
Khalil Gibran could be pretty new-agey, but I did take a lesson from his "On Children" where he wrote: "Your children are not your children."
The tough lesson every parent has to learn is that we can set an example for our kids and hope it takes, but we can't try to turn them into little versions of ourselves. (A) It won't work, and (b) trying to do so damages both the parent and the child.
The tough lesson every parent has to learn is that we can set an example for our kids and hope it takes, but we can't try to turn them into little versions of ourselves. (A) It won't work, and (b) trying to do so damages both the parent and the child.
1
Indeed, love must be unconditional, as self-worth must be separate from achievement (or lack thereof). Of course we want the best for our children, but the struggles in life may require failing at times, and a child opposing some biases of his/her parents IF he/she was taught to think for himself/herself is a most important feature of maturation and independence. In the U.S., as in other advanced societies (South Korea, Japan), one can feel chronic stress and anxiety to perform well, to exceed parents' expectations, to be ahead of the 'pack' even if it means stepping on many toes in the process. The crazy aim to always want to be the best, number one, is self-defeating, and subtracting from life's pleasure of just being alive and sharing the Earth's beauty and our common humanity that makes it all possible.
You are setting up a false and damaging dichotomy here. Yes, parents should have and show unconditional love for their kids. And guess what, the vast majority of parents do, and this shines through when kids mess up or endure difficult challenges. But should parents show unconditional approval for any and all behaviors or choices their kids make? Of course not. Our job is to help them develop moral character and to show them how to function in this incredibly complex world. Unconditional love and conditional approval are not incompatible, and kids understand this perfectly well.
The message to kids is: I love you no matter what, and I also have certain expectations for your behavior, your level of effort in school, and so on. I will be there for you always, and especially when you fall, but in the meantime I want you to do your best.
I believe we can all hold these two thoughts in our heads at the same time, and so can our children.
The message to kids is: I love you no matter what, and I also have certain expectations for your behavior, your level of effort in school, and so on. I will be there for you always, and especially when you fall, but in the meantime I want you to do your best.
I believe we can all hold these two thoughts in our heads at the same time, and so can our children.
2
I do find it, shall I say ironic, that a well-known conservative columnist writes about the corrosive effect of a meritocracy on personal relationships. Isn't this the same political and economic dog-eat-dog philosophy that requires no one ever make a mistake and that those who somehow slip up (or never had a chance to begin with) be punished for the rest of their lives with grinding poverty and disenfranchisement? Isn't the entire conservative philosophy (and our current economy and social safety net, such as it is) based upon the idea that only those who achieve (or inherit) economic success are worthy of status and government largess, and that the rest of the poor slobs who make up humanity are only worthy of scorn and mocking? (The 47% who will, by the statement of the conservatives' standard-bearer, never amount to anything.) It strikes me that to provide unconditional love and appreciation merely for who a child is tantamount to parental malpractice. This society values no one for who they are, only for what they have. Parents who teach children anything other than that are setting their children up for failure, certainly in conservatives' eyes. Do the people in this society ever do anything that isn't about money? A tiny minority might. Do people in this society understand that happiness comes from within and is not based upon externals? An even smaller minority might. Enjoy the world you and your fellow conservatives have created, Mr. Brooks.
4
Many kids' lives today are being micro-managed by their parents. Many more have parents who have enough problems of their/her/his own to manage anyone else's.
Want an example of what works? Look at our immigrant kids from SE Asia. The parents hold high expectations for their children, and there is great familial loyalty and love.
Many of these parents are far too busy providing wherewithal for their famililes to haul kids to games, check their homework, or celebrate every single achievement, real or imagined.
Come to think of it, that's the way it was for many of the children of Our Greatest Generation back in the 40's and 50's.
Love them, and let them find their merit on their own.
Want an example of what works? Look at our immigrant kids from SE Asia. The parents hold high expectations for their children, and there is great familial loyalty and love.
Many of these parents are far too busy providing wherewithal for their famililes to haul kids to games, check their homework, or celebrate every single achievement, real or imagined.
Come to think of it, that's the way it was for many of the children of Our Greatest Generation back in the 40's and 50's.
Love them, and let them find their merit on their own.
And the evidence for these insights on the condition of child rearing in America and how children feel about the process and how parents feel about the process. David, it might be helpful to begin these leaps of analysis into the working of society and the human mind with the disclaimer that these are your conclusions based on your personal observations of the world you live in ---that's as far as it goes---maybe an asterisk at the bottom of the piece: "there is no empirical basis for the conclusions stated above."
1
Rather than teaching their children to dissipate their energy on acquiring things, parents should inculcate the Socratic virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, and self-discipline. These lead to true success.
1
Now that the very wealthy one percent among us, on whose behalf David Brooks often writes, are in full control and have succeeded in owning and possessing about ninety-five percent of the wealth and resources of the United States, and perhaps of the world, through “meritocracy” which “is based on earned success,” David Brooks wants to disown this very meritocracy in an artful effort to perpetuate the prevailing economic inequality.
He seems to distort the meaning of parental love by classifying it into “conditional” and “unconditional,” and by excoriating parents who inculcate incentive into their children’s education, classifying such parents as loving their children conditionally. Their love becomes unconditional if these parents rest on their laurels.
Yet parental love that inspires children to attain education, that would inculcate appropriate incentives in them to excel and that one day might inspire them to dislodge the one percent and bridge the gap between the very rich and very poor among us is pure and noble love.
This is the parental love which children urgently need, which is neither oblivious nor indifferent to the prevailing economic injustice that threatens the very fabric of American society.
May it continue to nourish our children.
He seems to distort the meaning of parental love by classifying it into “conditional” and “unconditional,” and by excoriating parents who inculcate incentive into their children’s education, classifying such parents as loving their children conditionally. Their love becomes unconditional if these parents rest on their laurels.
Yet parental love that inspires children to attain education, that would inculcate appropriate incentives in them to excel and that one day might inspire them to dislodge the one percent and bridge the gap between the very rich and very poor among us is pure and noble love.
This is the parental love which children urgently need, which is neither oblivious nor indifferent to the prevailing economic injustice that threatens the very fabric of American society.
May it continue to nourish our children.
5
My experience has not been one of seeing parents provide conditional love but unconditional praise. Their child is special and praised for minimal effort and mediocre performance. Hence we have sports events with no score kept and parents critical only of the teachers when their kids underperform in school. Reminds me of "The Simpsons" episode in which Lisa has a wall of trophies for actual achievements and Bart has only one from "Everyone Gets a Trophy Day." Parents give their children way too much power and you see them negotiating with their kids over things my parents would have just said, "Well tough luck, that's the way it's going to be." Mr. Brooks is right that parents should not manipulate their children by withholding love, but that is a far cry from the overindulgence I see far too often in parents these days. They confuse love with praise.
A classic test to measure parental love was to tell them you are gay; you would quickly learn how much they love you.
With the advancement of gay rights this test is losing its efficacy. A new one is needed. Suggestions?
With the advancement of gay rights this test is losing its efficacy. A new one is needed. Suggestions?
What a let-down.
Brooks just can't bring himself to even obliquely question the morally and spiritually hole-riddled meritocracy model - he can only blame parents for not managing it correctly. It is the parents who are damaging their children, not the bleak state of our culture where the only presidential candidates likely to win nominations speak glowingly of the TPP - with a straight face, no less.
Brooks just can't bring himself to even obliquely question the morally and spiritually hole-riddled meritocracy model - he can only blame parents for not managing it correctly. It is the parents who are damaging their children, not the bleak state of our culture where the only presidential candidates likely to win nominations speak glowingly of the TPP - with a straight face, no less.
3
David speaks from the lofty level of people who hold simultaneous mutually-contradictory beliefs, so heads he wins, tails you lose.
A wise column, answered by far too much undeserved calumny.
2
Do you know that "calumny" means "lie(s)?" Has the US Right turned all criticism into lies?
The sad state of our attitudes is shown in this: Whatever David Brooks writes about (be it parenting, ethics, global affairs) the complaint is "you're not a liberal, so we hate everything you say." Get over it, people. Focus!
It has nothing to do with him being liberal or not. It has to do with him not understanding he represents a very small part of society that many of us don't exist in.
I am sure he is a kind and caring and compassionate man. He is just very tone deaf to things outside his own very lucky existence.
I am sure he is a kind and caring and compassionate man. He is just very tone deaf to things outside his own very lucky existence.
I would say almost the same to Mr. Brooks, leave your ivory tower of books, get out into the real world and FOCUS !
Once in awhile, David, your efforts to humanize--the world of journalism as well as our society at large--just works. You bring us to a plain of reflection upon which we ought to spend more time. The last line, about "grace"? Wonderful!
When I read the comments your writing invites I often wonder how rarely we, your readers, just thank you for these efforts--how rarely we acknowledge the contribution to mindfulness you offer up to us.
Thank you...
rjf
When I read the comments your writing invites I often wonder how rarely we, your readers, just thank you for these efforts--how rarely we acknowledge the contribution to mindfulness you offer up to us.
Thank you...
rjf
6
David, you're cracking up. Classic columns of articulate warnings about fiscal responsibility and other Republican values have given way to this year's sentimental musings.
Where is our old David Brooks? What'll it be? Ted Cruz or Chris Christie? That's what we need to know.
Where is our old David Brooks? What'll it be? Ted Cruz or Chris Christie? That's what we need to know.
2
Read Bill Harris in "Second Wind: Navigating the Passage to a Slower, Deeper, and More Connected Life" - influence of Covey and other "spiritual advisers" on achievement, the need to mediate this in significant ways.
David, how can parents give unconditional love when they don't love their own selves unconditionally? We have first to love our own selves fully, then we can talk about self worth.
David, you really do need to step outside the US (not just to Israel), to see parenting styles in other countries. When you talk about American style of parenting, who are Americans, if not a potpourri and mosaic of cultures? Tiger moms are as much American as those who come from white Jewish or white Irish or white German ancestry.
David, you really do need to step outside the US (not just to Israel), to see parenting styles in other countries. When you talk about American style of parenting, who are Americans, if not a potpourri and mosaic of cultures? Tiger moms are as much American as those who come from white Jewish or white Irish or white German ancestry.
2
For parents who concerned they may be perpetrating this meritocracy gone underground, here's a little self-test from a Family Counselor with 40 years of experience. Begin noticing how many of your positive interactions with your children are in response to their accomplishments, and how many are just for their being. Is a hug, a smile, a high five given as a reward? For "positive reinforcement"? Or just because . . . just in the moment . . . just because you feel the love. Keep track of the numbers. Those numbers will tell you what's really going on in your family, and what your children are really internalizing.
2
These characteristics of child rearing – “honing”, “incitement”, are characteristics of the upper-middle class and the wealthy, and of some of the middle classes. They’re not universal. We see an inequality in wealth among American workers, but we also see a decided difference in how we raise our children, don’t we? Not that the difference hasn’t always been there, but today it’s perhaps more pronounced than it’s been in a very long time. Do you suppose there might be a connection?
“Children in such families come to feel that childhood is a performance” -- ?! … ! All of LIFE is a performance, David; and it’s never too young to get the hang of giving a good one.
If the parents’ instincts are true about the types of behavior that should be encouraged, and which discouraged, then it’s likely that their children will adapt to the survival requirements of a pretty tough world far better than children who don’t receive such advantageous tutelage. And I suppose it’s likely that we’ll see even larger chasms develop between the life outcomes of the children of such parents, and the children of other parents.
And wherever in creation did you get this odd notion that parental love is or should be unconditional?
“Children in such families come to feel that childhood is a performance” -- ?! … ! All of LIFE is a performance, David; and it’s never too young to get the hang of giving a good one.
If the parents’ instincts are true about the types of behavior that should be encouraged, and which discouraged, then it’s likely that their children will adapt to the survival requirements of a pretty tough world far better than children who don’t receive such advantageous tutelage. And I suppose it’s likely that we’ll see even larger chasms develop between the life outcomes of the children of such parents, and the children of other parents.
And wherever in creation did you get this odd notion that parental love is or should be unconditional?
2
“The culture of the meritocracy is incredibly powerful.”
It is also manipulative, elementally materialistic, and insidious as well.
By its very nature there is instruction book, no formula for unconditional love.
It is also manipulative, elementally materialistic, and insidious as well.
By its very nature there is instruction book, no formula for unconditional love.
2
I find this article very speculative. Only two scholars and their research are actually mentioned. Otherwise, this article is one generalization after another. The parents and children you are using to characterize an entire generation are the privileged ones, the upper-middle to upper class ones. And even within this group, surely there is much diversity of temperament and intentions. As a social scientist, I have become convinced that searching for and making sense of complexity is the only way to understand the human condition. How about do some fieldwork among actual families--diverse families--and then come back and tell us what this or that generation is like?
1
David, you need to read "Our Kids," by Robert D. Putnam. You will find that for a large percentage of American kids, living in poor, single parent families, meaningful interactions with a parent are too few and, in the case of welfare families, twice as likely to be discouragements rather than encouragements. See Figure 3.2 on page 120. Your column addresses only a fraction of professional families who might indulge in conditional love. We have a huge problem with child rearing in the U.S. that very few people are addressing in a useful manner
2
While reading this piece I was immediately drawn back to my childhood where two parents deeply wounded by their experiences in Nazi Germany found traditional love and connection with their children to be extremely challenging or impossible. For different reasons than those cited by Mr. Brooks they opted to love me for what I did and not for who I was. The straight jacket of conditional love limited my ability to make choices I deemed "mine" to struggle with agency and to constantly filter my life through their fearful, judgmental and yes hopeful lenses all clearly influenced by the horrors of their flight from Germany, painful family histories and the molds their life were poured into during that time. I did in the end meet their expectations and make them proud but as Mr. Brooks has tried to parse in this short piece, there was a very painful and enduring price to pay.
3
David, you need to get out more. Out amongst other people than rich white people. Yes, in the upper classes/middle class (what's left of the middle class) I agree that parenting is fraught with the worry of getting your child into the right kindergarten so that they can get into the right college but that is not what most people in America are dealing with. They are dealing with how to put food on the table to feed their children.
I fear you'll never get it, David. Perhaps you should take a sabbatical for a year and go underground into a different world. You will be amazed at your current lack of understanding what life in America is about for most of us.
I fear you'll never get it, David. Perhaps you should take a sabbatical for a year and go underground into a different world. You will be amazed at your current lack of understanding what life in America is about for most of us.
542
well said Sophie; I made the same point, I hope, in a moment I posted; I would say though that Brooke is writing more for the five percent then even the middle class
He'll never, truly, understand because he'll always have an out. He can escape to his cozy existance at any time of his choosing.
This is not the case for the less fortunate.
This is not the case for the less fortunate.
1
@sophia-
It hits the lower classes, too, it may not be obsessing with getting into an HYP school, but it is still there. Have you ever been around a sports field, and seen the little league parents yelling at their kids, rather than encouraging them? The father whose son isn't a great athlete, trying to make him into one?
Nothing David wrote about is necessarily new, parents saying "I love you, as long as you do what I want" but the world of hyper competition has hit all levels.
It hits the lower classes, too, it may not be obsessing with getting into an HYP school, but it is still there. Have you ever been around a sports field, and seen the little league parents yelling at their kids, rather than encouraging them? The father whose son isn't a great athlete, trying to make him into one?
Nothing David wrote about is necessarily new, parents saying "I love you, as long as you do what I want" but the world of hyper competition has hit all levels.
But, Mr. Brooks, where did the concept of "unconditional love" come from? Ignoring for the moment any religious overtones, the phrase was coined by Erich Fromm and documented in the 1956 book, The Art of Loving, to counter the Freudian concept that Father's love was always condition and mothers were alway unconditional. Then it got applied by Carl Rogers in the phase, "unconditional positive regard" between a therapist and a patient, so the patient would be more forthcoming and more accepting.
However, while the phrase is now repeated endlessly, it doesn't even make logical sense. Or even emotional sense. You would not expect to unconditionally love a spouse or a friend, in fact the variations is love in any relationship are part of what makes us humans, not pets or objects. So, why would you do so with children? You certainly should love them but if it realistic to be unconditional? How this became a postulant of child raising is something for an anthropologist to determine.
But once you agree to children/unconditional love, then ironically, the parent will become more judgmental because their ability to distance themselves, disapprove and just act like you do in any other circumstance, is muted so the child is subject to micro-managing, overcommuncaiton and unreasonable demands. After all if you must unconditionally love someone, that person better be someone who aligns totally with your morals, taste and choices,
However, while the phrase is now repeated endlessly, it doesn't even make logical sense. Or even emotional sense. You would not expect to unconditionally love a spouse or a friend, in fact the variations is love in any relationship are part of what makes us humans, not pets or objects. So, why would you do so with children? You certainly should love them but if it realistic to be unconditional? How this became a postulant of child raising is something for an anthropologist to determine.
But once you agree to children/unconditional love, then ironically, the parent will become more judgmental because their ability to distance themselves, disapprove and just act like you do in any other circumstance, is muted so the child is subject to micro-managing, overcommuncaiton and unreasonable demands. After all if you must unconditionally love someone, that person better be someone who aligns totally with your morals, taste and choices,
Thank goodness the phrase is repeated endlessly along with Namaste as a counterbalance to "just do it," "forget about it" or "Luke, I am your father." The Humanist movement was born out of a need to check the traditional Psychoanalytic and Behavioral schools of thought. Instead of manipulating with reinforcement or delving into the polarity and outdated thinking of Mother vs. Father dyad, Humanism sought to inject love and genuiness into the equation. Unconditional positive regard was a model for therapist/patient is a model for the client to transfer into their own relationships outside of therapy including the ability to see beyond words and accept people for their worth as a human being thus improving the clients relationships. Transpersonal psychology focused on genuine regard as a model for healthy relationships rather than the Behavioral model of manipulation with rewards and punishment. Behavioral Cognitive psychology views a person as mere byproducts of their thoughts although overlooks the Humanistic emphasis on love and the heart. If you truly love someone, oftentimes, the heart is leading the way rather than an overemphasis or scrutiny of the person's morals, consumer tastes or choices. This is when the soul hits the rubber so to speak, and the brain is temporily silenced in a mystical dance of the ages.
2
Fully agree - but it would be a lot easier if parents weren't terrified of their children and grandchildren falling into the (nearly) bottomless pit of the American economy, stuck in a minimum wage job, having to work two jobs just to pay for the rent and groceries and day-care and transportation (the latter of which also consumes literally hours per day). A better social safety net and better opportunities for education could reduce that terror but Republicans don't want to pay the taxes for that.
1
No, Lord Brooks, your whole article is fraught with upper middle-class and upper class privilege, a dramatically small part of the American reality.
For Americans like Latiana Holmes, meritocracy is an empty word.
But worker slavery comes to mind.
She works at Dunkin’ Donuts and works for her aunt at night as a personal care attendant. She takes a late bus to Northeastern University for her overnight shift as a security guard. She heads home in the morning to sleep for a few hours, then back to Dunkin Donuts for a five-hour shift, home to see her 2-year-old son and take a nap, over to her aunt’s house, and then back to Northeastern for another overnight shift.
She works 70 hours a week.
Holmes lost her Dunkin Donuts job after she rushed her son to the emergency room and missed a shift, but was rehired a few weeks later.
She earns less than $30,000 a year.
“Once I get home, I’m sleeping,” she said. Or doing laundry to keep her uniforms clean: aprons and shirts for Dunkin Donuts, scrubs for personal care attendant work, and pants, shirt, and a sweater for her security guard job.
When Holmes realized her son was talking in three-word sentences — a development she had missed somewhere between work and sleep, she said “I felt like a bad mom missing out on the growth of my son.”
“All he sees is me working, working, working” she said. “I don’t want him to think I picked working over him.”
http://goo.gl/NifcKQ
Economic slavery is the great American parenting dilemma.
For Americans like Latiana Holmes, meritocracy is an empty word.
But worker slavery comes to mind.
She works at Dunkin’ Donuts and works for her aunt at night as a personal care attendant. She takes a late bus to Northeastern University for her overnight shift as a security guard. She heads home in the morning to sleep for a few hours, then back to Dunkin Donuts for a five-hour shift, home to see her 2-year-old son and take a nap, over to her aunt’s house, and then back to Northeastern for another overnight shift.
She works 70 hours a week.
Holmes lost her Dunkin Donuts job after she rushed her son to the emergency room and missed a shift, but was rehired a few weeks later.
She earns less than $30,000 a year.
“Once I get home, I’m sleeping,” she said. Or doing laundry to keep her uniforms clean: aprons and shirts for Dunkin Donuts, scrubs for personal care attendant work, and pants, shirt, and a sweater for her security guard job.
When Holmes realized her son was talking in three-word sentences — a development she had missed somewhere between work and sleep, she said “I felt like a bad mom missing out on the growth of my son.”
“All he sees is me working, working, working” she said. “I don’t want him to think I picked working over him.”
http://goo.gl/NifcKQ
Economic slavery is the great American parenting dilemma.
323
thank you...
a single "recommend" is far too insufficient today...
be well.
3
This seems an accurate description of some families, but begs a question: what is the merit of meritocracy? Are drone strikes on innocents, senseless wars of choice, financial shannigans, past and future (read trans-Pacific trade), increasing poverty, or pollution of the world matters of merit. Or is meritocracy simply having enough money to congratulate oneself no matter the truth?
1
Can't believe how close I come to agreeing with David Brooks about something.
The only amendment I might make is to say, on the child rearing continuum, you can indeed have parents who are able to effectively and successfully combine the elements of unconditional love/regard with higher expectations. There are probably fewer parents who can do it, but there are some.
In my experience, the "achievement motive" has also been a factor in creating some of the turmoil in the educational system. But that's another story.
The only amendment I might make is to say, on the child rearing continuum, you can indeed have parents who are able to effectively and successfully combine the elements of unconditional love/regard with higher expectations. There are probably fewer parents who can do it, but there are some.
In my experience, the "achievement motive" has also been a factor in creating some of the turmoil in the educational system. But that's another story.
Poor little rich kids whose parents want them to succeed in a competitive world. Where did this myth of unconditional love come from? My parents were beaten with a belt if they talked back or failed to do their chores. My siblings and I ( in the 50s and 60s) were ridiculed, spanked and most often ignored. I did not beat or ridicule my children, but I did have high standards for their behavior (moral behavior as well as academic).
There is a word for children whose parents shower them with love them no matter what they do: spoiled!
There is a word for children whose parents shower them with love them no matter what they do: spoiled!
2
These broad generalizations apply to how many people? Not many (any?) that I know, or see in the community around me.
1
just a thought but, it makes you wonder what kind of love comes from the parents of so many Asian children who perform so well academically. In such a competitive and overpopulated world, meritocracy has some value as opposed to allowing children to be slack and fall into bad habits.
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for achievements in quantum mechanics and an engaging writer, wrote that he would be happy if his son chose to be a truck driver. It seems he got the point of David Brook's excellent essay.
3
If you have children expecting them to fulfill your own dreams, you will probably be disappointed. The is far more happiness in social engagement than there is in power. Unfortunately, excessive competition undermines social engagement.
5
There's nothing really new in this op-ed. Brooks could have written the same in 1960, or even 1950. Look at the Kennedy clan, driven to overachieve based on storge—and that's a pretty typical American story. One of my criticisms with Brooks's writing is that he tends to romanticize the past and damn the present, which results in artificially created talking points, substituting new terms like honing for age-old concepts like overachieving. But, if Brooks is advocating here less brains and more heart, I'm all for it. I'll look to future Brooks pieces for more talking points about unconditional love.
1
This piece will probably upset your readership more than almost any other!
Two thoughts.
One. There is no such thing as unconditional love. And rightly so. The need for unconditional "love" is infantile.
Two. Once children grow up, they are simply another person in the world. One who shares memories with their parents and yet they are separate human beings. They are not 'mini-me's', projected ideals, or pet projects of their parents. Just another person in the world. Parents should look upon their experience raising another human being as just that. We are all parents in a way.
One. There is no such thing as unconditional love. And rightly so. The need for unconditional "love" is infantile.
Two. Once children grow up, they are simply another person in the world. One who shares memories with their parents and yet they are separate human beings. They are not 'mini-me's', projected ideals, or pet projects of their parents. Just another person in the world. Parents should look upon their experience raising another human being as just that. We are all parents in a way.
2
One way of judging the quality of an essay such as these is by the quality of the responses it inspires. By that "metric", this was an outstanding submission.
I've never troubled myself to delve into Mr. Brooks' personal and family background even though I was often intriqued by how he apparently bears the (mixed) blessing of a sheltered and relatively secure stable middle class suburban upraising.
All views are limited and particularist. But Mr. Brooks seems to be growing as a writer able to use the specifics and peculiarities of his finite experience to provoke the kind of discussion and reflection worthy for any hope of a workable democracy as we muddle our way into more uncertainty.
I've never troubled myself to delve into Mr. Brooks' personal and family background even though I was often intriqued by how he apparently bears the (mixed) blessing of a sheltered and relatively secure stable middle class suburban upraising.
All views are limited and particularist. But Mr. Brooks seems to be growing as a writer able to use the specifics and peculiarities of his finite experience to provoke the kind of discussion and reflection worthy for any hope of a workable democracy as we muddle our way into more uncertainty.
2
David Brooks should get out more--or take a course in writing. Throughout most of this article, by "children" he means children of people like himself. "Honing" in the inner cities?
6
Most parents do the best they can with what they've got. Each of us then has the opportunity to grow from where we started. Granted some of us appear to have it easier than others, and some of us thrive regardless of circumstances. I don't see an easy fix, but the sooner we get over the " he who dies with the most toys" attitude the better. Happiness isn't derived from the outside in, but even the best ways to parent and to live and grow are fraught with "difficulty". I had a Buddhist teacher who used to say, " don't worry, you have whole life time", and then with a twinkle in his eye he would say, " maybe more".
Every new parent generation, believes they will do a better job raising kids than their parents did.
2
Is there any such thing as unconditional love? If there is no such thing as unconditional love should an adult be a slave to love or learn as best as possible to live without love?
First, I do not really believe there is any such thing as unconditional love. At least not generally historically evident. Society is formed and parents expect things of children. We look sadly, for example, on the mother who loves her son the murderer. In other words, society devises conditions for love and society is correct to do so. That said, society is not perfect and both criminals and reformers of society should not live in expectation of love. We punish both the scoundrel and Socrates--we do not unconditionally love and the both seem to transgress our conditions and therefore do not deserve love.
I personally have found it best to live without love. This allows me to say, for example, the considerable failings of all Middle Eastern peoples have allowed them to be easily scapegoated--even declared largely terrorists--when in actuality the Israelis have stolen land and the U.S. has manipulated them for oil. I will be loved by very few for saying that; but living without love has helped me toward truth. One must break through the top of society's conditions of love--Socrates is still the best example. We have many criminals but few people who are so great we want to punish them as criminals. Unconditional love is an ideal and only a God can rightly parcel love and rightly love himself.
First, I do not really believe there is any such thing as unconditional love. At least not generally historically evident. Society is formed and parents expect things of children. We look sadly, for example, on the mother who loves her son the murderer. In other words, society devises conditions for love and society is correct to do so. That said, society is not perfect and both criminals and reformers of society should not live in expectation of love. We punish both the scoundrel and Socrates--we do not unconditionally love and the both seem to transgress our conditions and therefore do not deserve love.
I personally have found it best to live without love. This allows me to say, for example, the considerable failings of all Middle Eastern peoples have allowed them to be easily scapegoated--even declared largely terrorists--when in actuality the Israelis have stolen land and the U.S. has manipulated them for oil. I will be loved by very few for saying that; but living without love has helped me toward truth. One must break through the top of society's conditions of love--Socrates is still the best example. We have many criminals but few people who are so great we want to punish them as criminals. Unconditional love is an ideal and only a God can rightly parcel love and rightly love himself.
my dog has unconditional love for me - that's about it.
speaking for myself I never expected my daughter to go to Harvard. She wished that I did, but now is aiming real high for wht she wants and am i proud of her. There were rough periods. I would write her letters telling her how disappointed I was for this or that. I became real tough (in a specific way), but always coming back to the fact I love her. And showing it by acknowledging her dreams and helping her achieve them the best I could. My daughter is not spoiled one bit, And she's got lots of friends from all different economic, political, cultural and ethnic and religious backgrounds (many, but not all) who've turned out ok too. The one's with diffficulties had parents who wanted what they wanted for their kids and did not grasp what the kid wanted or needed or said yes to everything. so thanks for this great article, I just thing a bit too general. and yes, life for us all is a struggle. Nice to have friends though.
I have a single Mom friend who I might have considered marrying were she not doing exactly what David Brooks describes. It was unchangeable, she could not be corrected, in fact, she became very antagonistic with the slightest difference of opinion about how she was raising her children. Now she has 2 spoiled brats in their early 20s who avoid her except when they need something.
It's called controlling. And when they were no longer physically present it was done by a constant flood of phone calls, mails, and facebook messages. Almost everyone with middle class pretentions does that today.
It's called controlling. And when they were no longer physically present it was done by a constant flood of phone calls, mails, and facebook messages. Almost everyone with middle class pretentions does that today.
3
To the extent that this analysis is true, "the American way" of our current capitalist society of winners and losers now occupies all facets of American life, and it is a destructive thing.
4
Why is it not possible to encourage your children to be their very best and, at the same time, love them madly for who they are? Regardless of school or career accomplishments we love our children. But we also encourage academic success. Both love and academic/career success can coexist.
77
@treabeton-
It is possible to do both, but the problem is what defines the child very best? The problem is that that 'very best' is often tied to things the parents think means very best, and that can be a negative. For example, which is the child's very best, if he/she takes an easy class load so they have a 4.0 GPA and refuses to take classes they feel are difficult, or the child who takes classes known to be difficult, works hard, and isn't the best grade in the class? I have seen this in the world of music, where a kid enters a concerto competition,plays beautifully, and the parent says "what is the purpose, you didn't win", the problem being that parents ideas of success or 'doing their best' is based on competition and 'winning'. These days the stereotype is about Asian parents, but this applies across the board. One poster above says this represents "only the upper class", but that is simply not true. How about the sports parents, who if the kid wants to play sports, the parent tells them "you aren't good enough" (to what? Make it to the NBA/NFL/MLB? ). How about the parents when a kid wants to play an instrument, and they say "I am not going to waste money, you will never be good". The mentality plays out in different ways, but the end result is the same, it is one thing to want your kid to do the best, it is another to define who they are and what that is by your own expectations.
It is possible to do both, but the problem is what defines the child very best? The problem is that that 'very best' is often tied to things the parents think means very best, and that can be a negative. For example, which is the child's very best, if he/she takes an easy class load so they have a 4.0 GPA and refuses to take classes they feel are difficult, or the child who takes classes known to be difficult, works hard, and isn't the best grade in the class? I have seen this in the world of music, where a kid enters a concerto competition,plays beautifully, and the parent says "what is the purpose, you didn't win", the problem being that parents ideas of success or 'doing their best' is based on competition and 'winning'. These days the stereotype is about Asian parents, but this applies across the board. One poster above says this represents "only the upper class", but that is simply not true. How about the sports parents, who if the kid wants to play sports, the parent tells them "you aren't good enough" (to what? Make it to the NBA/NFL/MLB? ). How about the parents when a kid wants to play an instrument, and they say "I am not going to waste money, you will never be good". The mentality plays out in different ways, but the end result is the same, it is one thing to want your kid to do the best, it is another to define who they are and what that is by your own expectations.
Indeed love and academic/career success can exist. The difference between unconditional and conditional love, in a theoretical context, is how the parent chooses to praise their child, which, as Mr. Brooks pointed out, can be as simple as body language or a frown vs. a smile based on a child's actions. If the child brings home an A graded paper, does the parent say, "great job!" or does the parent ask the child, "how do you feel about getting an A on your paper?" There are a range of other options for the parent like, "it's about time," "finally, what took you so long?" or "it's not the grade that matters but rather the experience of how you felt when you were writing your paper or preparing for the test."
In other words, parents can focus on the product (i.e. grades, winning, what school their child attends, etc.) or they can focus on the process (how happy is my child, does he/she laugh alot, is she cooperative and a team player, does he have any anxiety issues like enuresis, hypochondria, cheating on tests, nail biting, self cutting or bulling issues. Many byproducts of the "hurried child" exhibit themselves and are a clear indication of too much pressure on the developing child.
In other words, parents can focus on the product (i.e. grades, winning, what school their child attends, etc.) or they can focus on the process (how happy is my child, does he/she laugh alot, is she cooperative and a team player, does he have any anxiety issues like enuresis, hypochondria, cheating on tests, nail biting, self cutting or bulling issues. Many byproducts of the "hurried child" exhibit themselves and are a clear indication of too much pressure on the developing child.
2
Well written and on target. Helicopter parents can drive their children to distraction, as my own mother would say if she were living. She made me take piano lessons when I was nine. I lasted four months and gave my first (and last) recital; then I asked mother, "Can I quit now?" because although I love music and appreciate being able to read sheet music, I did not relish practicing the piano when my friends were outside tossing a ball around. She said, "Ok, I just wanted you to try it to see if you like it." My sisters and I were gifted experiences, but if they didn't take, we were under no pressure to continue. My older sister did enjoy playing the piano and was a church pianist for several years.
1
Perhaps David Brooks and a good proportion of the American population should leave the United States and work on a farm for a year in some "developing" part of the world, say Myanmar. Maybe then, perhaps, they might gain some sense of what life is like for most people on the globe, and has historically been for the vast majority of mankind.
Anyone who has observed an "unconditionally" loving parent will note how silly and awkward most of their praise really is, and will also note how much it is resented by the children -- or worse, how much it is believed by the little dupe. Who would want to be "loved" by such parents? Isn't love something else? Anyone who knows anything about "competitive" schools also knows that their curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's fake from top to bottom, exempt that some of the "grade grubbers" manage to excel at this particular game. No wonder our troops, after several weeks or months of intense bullying and physical brutality, need a global team of hi-tech backup just to survive in a fight with a goatherd with a Kalishnakov and a life of unending toil and simple society that instills in him with the conviction that he can sacrifice his life to defend his land against strangers (i.e., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).
How can we discuss love and work and discipline if we really don't know what these words mean on a physical, human level?
Maybe there's a situation comedy somewhere here. Call it the American Tragedy.
Anyone who has observed an "unconditionally" loving parent will note how silly and awkward most of their praise really is, and will also note how much it is resented by the children -- or worse, how much it is believed by the little dupe. Who would want to be "loved" by such parents? Isn't love something else? Anyone who knows anything about "competitive" schools also knows that their curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's fake from top to bottom, exempt that some of the "grade grubbers" manage to excel at this particular game. No wonder our troops, after several weeks or months of intense bullying and physical brutality, need a global team of hi-tech backup just to survive in a fight with a goatherd with a Kalishnakov and a life of unending toil and simple society that instills in him with the conviction that he can sacrifice his life to defend his land against strangers (i.e., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).
How can we discuss love and work and discipline if we really don't know what these words mean on a physical, human level?
Maybe there's a situation comedy somewhere here. Call it the American Tragedy.
This is very insightftul - rather uncomfortably so. It has me looking back and reassessing at the way we raised our two kids.
2
Excellent article Mr. Brooks, thank you for stating so clearly what I have felt for years as I observe these parents with their misguided efforts raise children, mst of whom will be frustrated and unfulfilled adults.
1
Oh, no. I always thought I would be messing my children up in a million unintentional ways. Now its seems I'm messing them up intentionally too!
The word "Gift" is used. I ain't even going look in my Merriam-Webster; gift is something given unconditionally. When, in the course of time, has that ever happened. Parents, children, politicians, C.E.O.'s, the trash collectors, those snooty baristas at every Coffee-Haunt, etc., etc., etc. (With apologies to Mr. George Chakiris)
Cut me a break; it ain't ever goin' happen. How do I know? While shaving, I have to look in the mirror every morning.
Cut me a break; it ain't ever goin' happen. How do I know? While shaving, I have to look in the mirror every morning.
I'm not a parent, so I can't speak to the question of how useful this column can be for parents, but I know how much it can free we adults who were shaped by conditional love. I read Miller's "Drama of a Gifted Child" over 30 years ago and it was liberating. I still suffer some when I secretly dread displeasing someone, but I can smile at the feeling and move on.
3
The professional men and women with whom I work as a psychoanalyst is in a setting that addresses failures in 'professionalism'. Our clients have childhoods that would appall most. How they have survived is explained in part by their astonishing intellectual gifts and their will to live amidst horrors that would profoundly maim most.
I have come to deeply respect their resiliency but also to reconsider the role of parenting in its optimal form. Contingent reinforcement as a behavioral tool to shape desired behavior is the nature of parenting.
Parenting modalities arise in multigenerational family systems that can entangle parenting objectives and styles. Thus, thoughtful self awareness may help.There is a simple question to be asked, "Is my daughter discovering what she wants and what she might become in pursuing her interests and talents?"
Parents often shape their children in ways that fit the family narrative in which they were raised but is that what the parent wants to continue? Put simply, the question then becomes, "Why am I seeking to create the child I wish?" or "What will my child accomplish if she pursues what I so strongly desire?"
The purpose in raising these questions is to disentangle the objectives of the parent arising in their lives from the possibilities that her/his child can discover on her own with parental support and affirmation.
I am NOT seeking to proscribe parental ambition and dreams. Rather, I am encouraging thoughtful self awareness.
I have come to deeply respect their resiliency but also to reconsider the role of parenting in its optimal form. Contingent reinforcement as a behavioral tool to shape desired behavior is the nature of parenting.
Parenting modalities arise in multigenerational family systems that can entangle parenting objectives and styles. Thus, thoughtful self awareness may help.There is a simple question to be asked, "Is my daughter discovering what she wants and what she might become in pursuing her interests and talents?"
Parents often shape their children in ways that fit the family narrative in which they were raised but is that what the parent wants to continue? Put simply, the question then becomes, "Why am I seeking to create the child I wish?" or "What will my child accomplish if she pursues what I so strongly desire?"
The purpose in raising these questions is to disentangle the objectives of the parent arising in their lives from the possibilities that her/his child can discover on her own with parental support and affirmation.
I am NOT seeking to proscribe parental ambition and dreams. Rather, I am encouraging thoughtful self awareness.
3
Yeah, I am afraid your field has created a great deal of unhappiness for those who were raised in privilege and standards. Being asked to do well is not a "I don't know how they survived" childhood. It is not. And the very fact that these people don't realize this, is a far larger part of their problem. Looking around them and seeing what they really do have.
I would also say that in the normal course of things is not unreasonable for parents who themselves are educated, and financially comfortable and experienced in a high career, to expect their children to produce a high level of work. Assuming there are no disabilities, and the children have the same level of intelligence (which they normally do), this is not a very high expectation.
The children have no reason why they shouldn't do well in school. It is much less in fact than a working class parent pushing their kid to go to college, any college. That's a bigger leap but we would not say those children were set "high" expectations.
Good parents teach their children to fully participate in life. If you don't learn to do that you will never be happy or successful. If you have the gifts and native nurturing to do really well in school and you don't, then you are not fully participating. Which should be disapproved of.
Stop enabling these people to think life was hard for them. It wasn't. Happiness will come the moment they understand that.
I would also say that in the normal course of things is not unreasonable for parents who themselves are educated, and financially comfortable and experienced in a high career, to expect their children to produce a high level of work. Assuming there are no disabilities, and the children have the same level of intelligence (which they normally do), this is not a very high expectation.
The children have no reason why they shouldn't do well in school. It is much less in fact than a working class parent pushing their kid to go to college, any college. That's a bigger leap but we would not say those children were set "high" expectations.
Good parents teach their children to fully participate in life. If you don't learn to do that you will never be happy or successful. If you have the gifts and native nurturing to do really well in school and you don't, then you are not fully participating. Which should be disapproved of.
Stop enabling these people to think life was hard for them. It wasn't. Happiness will come the moment they understand that.
This one hits home for me, Mr. Brooks. I grew up in a household like you describe. My childhood and early adulthood were very achievement based, and I came to resent my parents greatly (and still do).
It boiled over shortly after my first child was born (which I doubt is a coincidence), and I cut off all communication with my parents for over a year. I work hard to be a better parent to my children than my parents were to me. I think I am quite a bit better overall, but there are also moments when I "become my dad" and it horrifies me.
I had a "career" in my 20's. I worked a lot and sacrificed my social life. It didn't make me happy. I now have a "job". I generally enjoy it, make pretty good money, and still have time for my family, friends and hobbies. These are the values that I am trying to instill in my children.
It boiled over shortly after my first child was born (which I doubt is a coincidence), and I cut off all communication with my parents for over a year. I work hard to be a better parent to my children than my parents were to me. I think I am quite a bit better overall, but there are also moments when I "become my dad" and it horrifies me.
I had a "career" in my 20's. I worked a lot and sacrificed my social life. It didn't make me happy. I now have a "job". I generally enjoy it, make pretty good money, and still have time for my family, friends and hobbies. These are the values that I am trying to instill in my children.
2
I agree with you (which for me is unusual) that conditional love doled out to create meritorious children is a problem - but only for the top perhaps 20% of the families in the US. The below median wage families have no such problems - drive the kids to rehearsas and practices? In what car? To what practices?. The conditions you identify really only apply to a very small number of upper middle class White families - a group that is shrinking and not growing. The tone of this article reminds me of the problems that the wealthy embrace when they say, "It's too hard to find good help anymore.". It's probably a problem for them, but for the vast majority of American families, not so much.
Help me love the child unconditionally, even as I hate some of their footprints. Mr. Brooks captures sensitively the precise tension I feel as a parent of 18 and 21 year olds. My job includes acculturation, which may be perceived to be observing their behavior patterns as a performance. Lord knows I feel compelled to react when their footprints bend toward some of the junk they are exposed to. I am truly sickened by the dishonesty as they hide some of their actions from me and become distant. I am not trying to exercise control when my love genuinely and confusedly reacts to their mistakes or youthful ignorance. I have exorcised most of my urge to control them. I have not yet figured out how to simultaneously convey disappointment as a means to acculturate AND to unconditionally love. It is easy and true to say "You finished 11th and that matters not to how infinitely I love you." Sadly, it seems awkwardly untruthful to say "You are choosing to do drugs or hook up or awkwardly rebel, and I am here infinitely loving you while being disgusted by some of your steps."
1
Conditional love isn't new. The new entitlement is, though. We're talking two different child-rearing "techniques" here.
2
Oh, David, David, David. I get what you're getting at, but I wish you hadn't used the phrase 'unconditional love'.
*All love is 'conditional'.* Any coherent definition of 'love' has to be relative and specific, i.e., if 'A' is loved, there must be 'not-loved' B, C, D, XYZ, square root of Pi etc. If you love everyone, you love no one - just a sort of gassy inoffensive undirected benevolence.
If nothing else, the love of a parent for a child is conditional on this being his or her specific child. (Witness the confusion of switched-at-birth families.) Otherwise you would love all children equally, and there would be no special valuation placed on your own child as opposed to a total stranger. But 'love' makes no sense, again, if it's based on purely existing and/or fulfilling a set of conditions over which the beloved had no control. We don't choose our parents - or kids. (One of the most painful things I ever saw on TV was an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's father. Poor wretched man. I can't think of a better argument against unconditional love.)
Unconditional support and tolerance for your kids? Well, maybe. But 'love', to be meaningful, must be based on having some loveable quality or qualities - it must be earned, or it's 'every kid gets a trophy' and Mister Rogers' noisome 'special just because you're you'.
'The closest humans come to grace'? Even God's love is conditional - otherwise, to what purpose is Hell?
*All love is 'conditional'.* Any coherent definition of 'love' has to be relative and specific, i.e., if 'A' is loved, there must be 'not-loved' B, C, D, XYZ, square root of Pi etc. If you love everyone, you love no one - just a sort of gassy inoffensive undirected benevolence.
If nothing else, the love of a parent for a child is conditional on this being his or her specific child. (Witness the confusion of switched-at-birth families.) Otherwise you would love all children equally, and there would be no special valuation placed on your own child as opposed to a total stranger. But 'love' makes no sense, again, if it's based on purely existing and/or fulfilling a set of conditions over which the beloved had no control. We don't choose our parents - or kids. (One of the most painful things I ever saw on TV was an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's father. Poor wretched man. I can't think of a better argument against unconditional love.)
Unconditional support and tolerance for your kids? Well, maybe. But 'love', to be meaningful, must be based on having some loveable quality or qualities - it must be earned, or it's 'every kid gets a trophy' and Mister Rogers' noisome 'special just because you're you'.
'The closest humans come to grace'? Even God's love is conditional - otherwise, to what purpose is Hell?
I largely agree with you, but I part ways with the negative association of "every kid gets a trophy" (and they don't, not after 8) and "special just because you're you".
Firstly, love exactly says what Mr. Rogers says because otherwise we could not choose between two partners who exhibited the same qualities.
It is also a misunderstood phrase. To say that one is special and valuable as you are, does not mean that you get special privileges, or that your role in the world requires a spotlight.
As for every kid gets a trophy, it is not necessarily a full on trophy, bobble-heads and medals is what my kids got in soccer. It was for participation. And at the age they got it, it was important. Small children, need concrete reinforcement that their participation has definable results. They are not, can not be, abstract thinkers. It is why teachers (and parents) use stickers. Yes, the importance faded. It should have. The point of it wasn't to look back on with pride for all time. The point was to make a certain connection for children that they won't even remember is there anymore.
Firstly, love exactly says what Mr. Rogers says because otherwise we could not choose between two partners who exhibited the same qualities.
It is also a misunderstood phrase. To say that one is special and valuable as you are, does not mean that you get special privileges, or that your role in the world requires a spotlight.
As for every kid gets a trophy, it is not necessarily a full on trophy, bobble-heads and medals is what my kids got in soccer. It was for participation. And at the age they got it, it was important. Small children, need concrete reinforcement that their participation has definable results. They are not, can not be, abstract thinkers. It is why teachers (and parents) use stickers. Yes, the importance faded. It should have. The point of it wasn't to look back on with pride for all time. The point was to make a certain connection for children that they won't even remember is there anymore.
This also helps explain the "entitlement" phonomenon we are seeing played out. children who do not believe the fake praise and do not believe they could ever possibly achieve enough love and affection though merit will just give up and settle for the attention and cajoling that comes with disappointed parents. In return for settling for this substitute affection, they expect and demand creature comforts. It's as if they say to themselves, "if you won't love me for me, then you must provide the necessities of life even while being disappointed in me."
2
As W.B Yates said, "only God can love you for yourself alone and not your yellow hair", as worldly men, we are driven by motives and love is conditional.
If we want to do good for our children and want them to be successful, love has got to be so; a child in today's world would not even survive, forget excelling, if we stay focused on loving them the way they are.
If we want to do good for our children and want them to be successful, love has got to be so; a child in today's world would not even survive, forget excelling, if we stay focused on loving them the way they are.
Not even God. All revealed monotheisms are based on you providing God with endless reinforcement of his narcissism and insecurity through constant praise and worship, and, at least in the early stages of a religion's development, of converting or killing everyone who doesn't accept your god. If the Father in heaven were a father on Earth, we'd probably call Child Services and have the kids put in foster care.
'As W.B Yates said, "only God can love you for yourself alone and not your yellow hair", as worldly men, we are driven by motives and love is conditional. '
It's Yeats, but how nice of you to remember. Yeats was, of course, talking about the sad inability of most men to see beyond a woman's beauty. But the line has its other uses too.
It's Yeats, but how nice of you to remember. Yeats was, of course, talking about the sad inability of most men to see beyond a woman's beauty. But the line has its other uses too.
Like many, I frequently take pleasure in my morning Brooks-bash. But this time, I think the bashers have it wrong.
While it may be accurately characterized as a high class problem, the phenomenon Brooks describes is real. The incidence of eating disorders, depression and suicide is rising among the high achieving children to whom he refers. It's not only, or even primarily, the parents who create this. For example, the silly chase for elite colleges, as documented by Frank Bruni, is created by the colleges, by US News and World Report, and by secondary schools that play into the nonsense with AP courses, stressful homework loads and a competitive school culture.
The fact that such students are privileged doesn't invite dismissal of the sadness of their lives. Many of us are complicit in creating this situation and it is not a partisan issue. The schools in both the richest and poorest neighborhoods are doing a disservice to the children in their charge. This is a significant theme in a book I've recently completed which makes the case with real evidence.
I'm a raging progressive, so I defend Brooks with reluctance, but he's not wrong on this one.
While it may be accurately characterized as a high class problem, the phenomenon Brooks describes is real. The incidence of eating disorders, depression and suicide is rising among the high achieving children to whom he refers. It's not only, or even primarily, the parents who create this. For example, the silly chase for elite colleges, as documented by Frank Bruni, is created by the colleges, by US News and World Report, and by secondary schools that play into the nonsense with AP courses, stressful homework loads and a competitive school culture.
The fact that such students are privileged doesn't invite dismissal of the sadness of their lives. Many of us are complicit in creating this situation and it is not a partisan issue. The schools in both the richest and poorest neighborhoods are doing a disservice to the children in their charge. This is a significant theme in a book I've recently completed which makes the case with real evidence.
I'm a raging progressive, so I defend Brooks with reluctance, but he's not wrong on this one.
13
Has there ever been a time when parents loved their children unconditionally?
Religious traditions and values are passed on, not simply by bathing our children in them, but by the unconscious and conscious manipulation of smiles and frowns. "Stacy on my balance beam" has been the method of transferring culture since time immemorial. New prayer? (frown). New style of setting the table? (frown). He's getting married in my church? (smile). She's singing the songs I knew as a child? (smile).
It's not conditional love that is the problem, but inflexible standards. We don't like to see religious parents disown children who change denominations and we don't like to see children humiliated over their academic performance. We should be troubled when someone sticks to a religious or an academic path only to please his or her parents.
But, finding the right balance between guidance and smothering is as old as parenting itself. I struggle with it every day.
Religious traditions and values are passed on, not simply by bathing our children in them, but by the unconscious and conscious manipulation of smiles and frowns. "Stacy on my balance beam" has been the method of transferring culture since time immemorial. New prayer? (frown). New style of setting the table? (frown). He's getting married in my church? (smile). She's singing the songs I knew as a child? (smile).
It's not conditional love that is the problem, but inflexible standards. We don't like to see religious parents disown children who change denominations and we don't like to see children humiliated over their academic performance. We should be troubled when someone sticks to a religious or an academic path only to please his or her parents.
But, finding the right balance between guidance and smothering is as old as parenting itself. I struggle with it every day.
4
"On the one hand . . ." You didn't say what is on the other hand.
Well Mr. Brooks has an interesting thesis and I feel like there may be truth in his observations, but where is the support? It has become characteristic of his columns for Mr. Brooks to turn his personal observations into sweeping statements about American society. HIs thoughts are provocative but his gross generalizations undermine his credibility. As others have noted, even if true, his statements apply only to that small percentage of American families actually living in a meritocracy. Further, even for those who do live in such a society, I would argue that one of the reasons for the described parental behavior is fear for the future of their children in a country characterized by rapidly declining opportunity. I attribute the increasing inability of the 99% to realistically hope that children will achieve higher standards of living than their parents substantially to the policies, intellectual dishonesty, and, yes, lack of unconditional love (for fellow citizens), of Mr. Brooks's party. I would like to see a column in which Mr. Brooks explores the connection between the post-Reagan American trend toward social Darwinism and the rise of the conditional love phenomenon Mr. Brooks thinks he sees.
367
Very interesting comment and underscores Mr. Brooks fascination with the character and healthy parenting behaviors of the Meritocracy although hides his journalistic support for the Plutocracy. The Koch Brothers inherited Koch Industries from their father, Fred C. Koch. I wonder if Mr. Brooks would ever dare to bite the hand that feeds him and explore whether their upbringing was full of unconditional love (or love of Corporate America?) Social Darwinism and political processes would seem to go hand in hand, including the grafting of Corporations into the American political process which began with Ronald Reagan. How else could a minor Hollywood B actor climb to the highest political office without the immense financial backing of Corporations funding his campaigns and helping build his reputation as a heroic statesman even while suffering the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease? Even Bill Clinton, touted as a new Democrat, was more right wing than even Richard Nixon or Eisenhower. The age of Corporate government is upon us, and I believe, as you so aptly pointed out, that this materialism trickles down to the family level of disproportionate emphasis on "getting ahead." Now the real question for Mr. Brooks is how character, unconditional love and religion will fix the corruption at the highest levels of government and why he continues to be a Hearst like mouthpiece for their rotten agenda?
2
CD wrote: "It has become characteristic of his columns for Mr. Brooks to turn his personal observations into sweeping statements about American society."
I've come to believe that there are two expressions of "truth" in discourse and the arts--debatable, defensible, testable truth such as found in argument and science, and a truth that is felt, discovered, and expressed as a "whole thing," as in a novel or a painting or even a sermon. (This is not a distinction based on "faith vs. science.") I also think that while the the two are built differently, those who practice the former can begin to see their constructions as unassailable as the later. I think Mr. Brooks is transitioning from the first to the second. I think it is a factor of age and the acquisition (or self-perception of acquisition) of wisdom. His difficulty can't be understated and should be recognized, whatever one's political point of view.
I've come to believe that there are two expressions of "truth" in discourse and the arts--debatable, defensible, testable truth such as found in argument and science, and a truth that is felt, discovered, and expressed as a "whole thing," as in a novel or a painting or even a sermon. (This is not a distinction based on "faith vs. science.") I also think that while the the two are built differently, those who practice the former can begin to see their constructions as unassailable as the later. I think Mr. Brooks is transitioning from the first to the second. I think it is a factor of age and the acquisition (or self-perception of acquisition) of wisdom. His difficulty can't be understated and should be recognized, whatever one's political point of view.
I have this feeling, that has been gathering for several months of reading the NYT, that if you put someone else's name on David Brooks' columns, you'd get a totally different response from many people. I think there are people who go out of their way to somehow make every single thing he says some evil conservative Republican conspiracy (for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat), even if they have to twist themselves or his words into a knot.
1
David,
As a senior citizen who was discover to have intellectual skills at an early age but who also had undiagnosed learning and functional disabilities. I most heartily endorse today's column.
Having endured the shame and humiliation of a system that praised and rewarded the skills I did not possess I was made to feel unworthy of the unconditional love and affection I received from my parents. I am still angry at a system that made them feel guilty for my inability to live up to expectations.
It was only in my late thirties that I was able to shed much of my self loathing and feelings of inadequacy from growing up in a society that wanted me to have so many of the skills that weren't mine to offer. I was almost 40 when I discovered how much starvation there was for the nourishment I did bring to the table and thirty years later am able to bring give and receive much love wherever I go.
There are not many Brooks essays that don't make me angry and raise my blood pressure, so I must say thank you for this one.
As a senior citizen who was discover to have intellectual skills at an early age but who also had undiagnosed learning and functional disabilities. I most heartily endorse today's column.
Having endured the shame and humiliation of a system that praised and rewarded the skills I did not possess I was made to feel unworthy of the unconditional love and affection I received from my parents. I am still angry at a system that made them feel guilty for my inability to live up to expectations.
It was only in my late thirties that I was able to shed much of my self loathing and feelings of inadequacy from growing up in a society that wanted me to have so many of the skills that weren't mine to offer. I was almost 40 when I discovered how much starvation there was for the nourishment I did bring to the table and thirty years later am able to bring give and receive much love wherever I go.
There are not many Brooks essays that don't make me angry and raise my blood pressure, so I must say thank you for this one.
2
The present age posture on eduction supports meritocracy in that parents themselves are encouraged or mandated to deposit their children into formal education mills at very early ages. David Elkind, author of "The Hurried Child," has warned of this insanity for decades!
During a recent flight on a very small regional jet, the four-year-old in the seat in front of mine decided to scream a tantrum (operatic lungs!) for about 20 excruciating minutes. The parents did nothing, perhaps wanting to show they "love" their daughter... no matter what. Nice for the kid. NOT so much for the rest of us.
This is a fine column. I can relate in how I see today's kids raised by the stereotypical "helicopter" parent. And I also see, in reports of substance abuse, teen suicide, and other adolescent threats, how the love and merit pressures have led to serious emotional issues.
There is something wrong in a society that values achievement over personal values. A kid with average grades that might grow up to be a valuable member of society because of intrinsic qualities like empathy, compassion, and outreach might be nipped in the bud if his or her parents went to ivy league schools and almost expect a "return on their investment" in their families.
Such attitudes commoditize kids. David puts it beautifully when he writes,
"These parents unconsciously regard their children as an arts project and insist their children go to colleges and have jobs that will give the parents status and pleasure — that will validate their effectiveness as dads and moms."
I grew up in the 50s and I have to say, my only pressure for good grades was within me. My parents came to accept good grades but never demanded them or paid me for them. I knew I was loved, and while there were emotional tensions in the family (as in many), they weren't linked to parental expectations.
My boyfriend never finished college but his daughter is getting her PhD in English. She is totally self-motivated: it's been her dream since high school. She has the self-assurance of a kid allowed to make her own choices.
There is something wrong in a society that values achievement over personal values. A kid with average grades that might grow up to be a valuable member of society because of intrinsic qualities like empathy, compassion, and outreach might be nipped in the bud if his or her parents went to ivy league schools and almost expect a "return on their investment" in their families.
Such attitudes commoditize kids. David puts it beautifully when he writes,
"These parents unconsciously regard their children as an arts project and insist their children go to colleges and have jobs that will give the parents status and pleasure — that will validate their effectiveness as dads and moms."
I grew up in the 50s and I have to say, my only pressure for good grades was within me. My parents came to accept good grades but never demanded them or paid me for them. I knew I was loved, and while there were emotional tensions in the family (as in many), they weren't linked to parental expectations.
My boyfriend never finished college but his daughter is getting her PhD in English. She is totally self-motivated: it's been her dream since high school. She has the self-assurance of a kid allowed to make her own choices.
2
May we agree that parents want their kids to be happy?
Next, do parents bully kids into behavior that cheapens their childhoods? Now that fewer parents initiate innocent kids into the dystopic utopia that is religious fantasy, I would suggest that the answer is "no."
When I was trying to convince my then-ninth-grade son to give up high school football in favor of golf (they share a season) because football is dangerous and tends to attract jerks, he played offensive and defensive tackle for his four high school years and became one of the captains of the team. He didn't do what I wanted him to do, but I went to the games anyway and cheered because he made me proud. He will graduate from college next week, and though he was on the college football team his first two years, he decided at the beginning of junior year to drop the sport in favor of his biology major.
You see, David, we modern parents are no more annoying or effective than were our parents, who pressured us toward good grades and religion. I don't think that I could ever be as dismayed by my children as my parents were with me when they found out that I deplored the institution to which they pledged their Sunday mornings and that I had become a liberal Democrat.
Parents want what they consider quality lives for their children. Parents are rookies. We are inexperienced and often not talented, but we do our best.
If only columnists who peddle pop sociology could and would do the same.
Next, do parents bully kids into behavior that cheapens their childhoods? Now that fewer parents initiate innocent kids into the dystopic utopia that is religious fantasy, I would suggest that the answer is "no."
When I was trying to convince my then-ninth-grade son to give up high school football in favor of golf (they share a season) because football is dangerous and tends to attract jerks, he played offensive and defensive tackle for his four high school years and became one of the captains of the team. He didn't do what I wanted him to do, but I went to the games anyway and cheered because he made me proud. He will graduate from college next week, and though he was on the college football team his first two years, he decided at the beginning of junior year to drop the sport in favor of his biology major.
You see, David, we modern parents are no more annoying or effective than were our parents, who pressured us toward good grades and religion. I don't think that I could ever be as dismayed by my children as my parents were with me when they found out that I deplored the institution to which they pledged their Sunday mornings and that I had become a liberal Democrat.
Parents want what they consider quality lives for their children. Parents are rookies. We are inexperienced and often not talented, but we do our best.
If only columnists who peddle pop sociology could and would do the same.
3
You don't happen to have any data backing up these claims, right?
Unconditional love is transcendental, as you say, a gift that cannot be bought or earned. For this reason, a progressive society, while ostensibly championing such unconditionality (eg acceptance, peace, equality), cannot actually embrace it. Progress requires incentives and power structures that can respond to what can be bought and earned, to what Ought to be. Hence the growing malaise of modernity: the harder we try to progress using the materialism of meritocracy, science and technology, the more disconnected and distant we feel from our true, untouchable "goal": What Is.
I love my kids, try to balance our expectations. Two things: parents of "the meritocracy" are simply terrified for their childrens' futures.
Perfect unconditional love is why we have a dog.
Perfect unconditional love is why we have a dog.
2
The baby boomers have raised the most narcissistic batch of children in history. Because of boomers incessant desire to never grow up they have live vicariously through little Cole and Kiley's life. They have tried to protect their children from the same stupidity that they so rampantly displayed in college by outlawing anything that is deemed bad. We will see these boomer-ettes fail on most things in life; let's just hope the boomer parents are there to pick them up and support them forever.
Sorry, at this point it's the children of baby boomers who are doing absurd things with their kids.
Baby boomers were engendered and raised by WWII veterans -- bankers, surgeons, sons of senators and of American presidents, handymen, Hollywood actors, factory workers, farmers -- who fought and came home, tried to resume their civilian lives, worked hard at their jobs, and reared their sons and daughters to work hard -- some of whom went on to "conventional" lives, others who didn't.
Today's parents, helicopter or deadbeat or otherwise, are not baby boomers.
Baby boomers were engendered and raised by WWII veterans -- bankers, surgeons, sons of senators and of American presidents, handymen, Hollywood actors, factory workers, farmers -- who fought and came home, tried to resume their civilian lives, worked hard at their jobs, and reared their sons and daughters to work hard -- some of whom went on to "conventional" lives, others who didn't.
Today's parents, helicopter or deadbeat or otherwise, are not baby boomers.
A great appraisal of what it looks like among the upper middle classes and the rich, but what about the rest of us? David Brooks is giving us a presentation only of how it looks among the people he knows. Which is the problem with everyone on the right. They don't know anyone except others who look like them.
1
Thought-provoking and instructive...worth reading at least twice...and discussing with a spouse! Interestingly, grandparents tend to be loving without the need for the meritocracy!
Freud wrote about these two kinds of love, that mother love was more or less unconditional and that father love was indeed rather conditional, in that it came with expectations. These two kinds of love combined to create a child who felt loved but also was aware that more was expected than his or her mere existence. Perhaps today, with both parents having to run on the achievement treadmill, anxiety about our children's ability to support themselves and a family in the future makes us focus more on the latter kind of love. Also, It is real that even very talented, bright, hard-working young people are having difficulties finding jobs, no matter which college they went to. Some of this "pay-for-performance" love may merely be a reflection of parental anxiety. We must also remember that we should love our children, but to be fully functioning adult members of society they will need moral, ethical social and work skills that do require an awareness of when their actions bring disapproval, and rightfully so.
1
"There are two great defining features of child-rearing today. “
Well. That settles it.
Well. That settles it.
1
Sometimes humans manifest unconditional love, but ours is not a static system and it does not always persist. The admonition to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is in the end unhelpful: we often do not love ourselves unconditionally, regardless of, and not because of, how we have been treated by others.
Unconditional love comes from your pets. Or your personal Savior. Neither is touched by original sin, as some believe, and so there you have it.
Unconditional love comes from your pets. Or your personal Savior. Neither is touched by original sin, as some believe, and so there you have it.
Your pets love you if you feed and are kind to them. Jesus loves you if you worship him.
Conditions.
Conditions.
You insist upon reducing our society to the terms & definitions of an "economy" and then complain about the loss of human values that the reduction entails. If you could take off your ideological glasses for 5 seconds you would see how absurd it is to call our society or our economy a "meritocracy." Love is not conditional, and merit is not based on economics. Subordinating all values & goals to the demands of the corporate economy is an inhuman conformity, not an individual aspiration. The distribution of fabulous wealth and abject poverty that distorts or lives is not a pursuit of morality or justice or quality of life; it is, for those with power, an end in itself.
2
"These two great trends — greater praise and greater honing ..." what crap! A parents role is to raise their children such that they can function in society as it exists when the parents are dead and gone. To hone one's children is to fail them, they need to be self realized and self sufficient.
3
There is a grain of truth here, but Brooks' typical focus on individual character misses more important contexts: first and foremost among them is class. While ignoring the vast majority of children of parents who are not among the upper and upper middle classes, Brooks is also blind to the meritocratic assumptions that guide his own (and his paper's) focus on appealing to readers of a certain class.
I'm so glad you chose the word "grace" to end this column, Mr. Brooks. I was reared in the United Methodist Church but haven't been religious since I was a teen, and yet I very much miss the concept of "grace" in our lives these decades later.
Please write a column about what you mean by "grace," and how the religious sense of grace can be transferred to the secular realm. Grace is so much more capacious than "tolerance" or "civility", which often seem to denote a polite surface on a barely-checked resentment, antipathy, or downright hostility. Grace is a generosity of spirit and the deep acceptance that the Christians I grew up around called God's forgiveness, which ought to be emulated by us all. The loudest Christians today have a short supply of that. This "forgiveness" doesn't follow blame. It's the acceptance that the world isn't going to conform to your desires or perhaps misguided ideals. I sense that this forgiveness is somewhere on the path to grace, and I know that grace can't be feigned or merely performed.
I wish I could relocate an essay I read (maybe at Aeon?) that said we need to stop trying to save the ecosphere as we know it on the basis of rationality and utilitarianism, that it's OK to say we want to save the polar bears just because we love them. I felt such a relief, such a burden lifted by the reassurance that it's OK to act on love instead of dollar signs and numbers. That gets us much closer to grace.
Please write a column about what you mean by "grace," and how the religious sense of grace can be transferred to the secular realm. Grace is so much more capacious than "tolerance" or "civility", which often seem to denote a polite surface on a barely-checked resentment, antipathy, or downright hostility. Grace is a generosity of spirit and the deep acceptance that the Christians I grew up around called God's forgiveness, which ought to be emulated by us all. The loudest Christians today have a short supply of that. This "forgiveness" doesn't follow blame. It's the acceptance that the world isn't going to conform to your desires or perhaps misguided ideals. I sense that this forgiveness is somewhere on the path to grace, and I know that grace can't be feigned or merely performed.
I wish I could relocate an essay I read (maybe at Aeon?) that said we need to stop trying to save the ecosphere as we know it on the basis of rationality and utilitarianism, that it's OK to say we want to save the polar bears just because we love them. I felt such a relief, such a burden lifted by the reassurance that it's OK to act on love instead of dollar signs and numbers. That gets us much closer to grace.
2
All love is conditional.
8
Not true. Love is the glue that holds the Universe together. Each time we are born, we are conditioned to forget the unconditional love that surrounded us, and that is waiting for us when we return to it.
1
Parents reflect the society in which they live and we live in a meritocratic society on steroids. Parents don't set the requirements for getting into college, create excessive standardized testing, create AP courses in high school, or set up a society in which entry level job means 5 years experience.
There are plenty of examples of over-parenting providing easy fodder for criticizing an entire generation of parents. Just as there were legions of examples of parents, especially Dads, who never spoke to their kids in the "good ole days." My father was told by his father he was crazy for going to college in the '30's, and pursuing a Masters when he could have a great job working in the Post Office.
It is also tiring reading all the criticism of children who get an award for merely showing up. What ever happened to just rewarding those who finish in the top 3? OOPS. That sounds a bit like meritocracy and conditional praise, doesn't it?
Every participant at the Boston Marathon (and most 5K fun runs) receives some kind of medal and I don't know a one of them that ever turns it back in because they did not win the race.
As parents we are doing the best we can under the circumstances we were born into while there are people who criticize that most of what we do is just plain wrong. And it has always been and will always be that way for every generation.
There are plenty of examples of over-parenting providing easy fodder for criticizing an entire generation of parents. Just as there were legions of examples of parents, especially Dads, who never spoke to their kids in the "good ole days." My father was told by his father he was crazy for going to college in the '30's, and pursuing a Masters when he could have a great job working in the Post Office.
It is also tiring reading all the criticism of children who get an award for merely showing up. What ever happened to just rewarding those who finish in the top 3? OOPS. That sounds a bit like meritocracy and conditional praise, doesn't it?
Every participant at the Boston Marathon (and most 5K fun runs) receives some kind of medal and I don't know a one of them that ever turns it back in because they did not win the race.
As parents we are doing the best we can under the circumstances we were born into while there are people who criticize that most of what we do is just plain wrong. And it has always been and will always be that way for every generation.
12
It's hard to argue that someone running a marathon doesn't deserve praise, because that is a huge accomplishment, whether you ran it in under 2 hours or not. But a friend of mine is a college english professor and says her students want to be given credit for doing the reading in class. Just having read is enough for them, not thinking about what htey read or analyzing it. This is an instance where they don't deserve accolades.
The truth is life has one purpose above all others: survival. But it takes more than a bow and arrow and a mule and plow to make it in this country.
3
You're supposed to love your children for who they are. But when they're little kids, it's not so easy to know who they are. When my son was little, there were lots of things he didn't want to do that he liked and lots of things he wanted to do that he didn't. He had friends he didn't like and kids he said he hated who he later befriended. My son is now 28. We go to football games because we love them. He and his mother go to Comic-cons, because they love them. He plays quidditch and we go to all his games because everyone has fun. And after six years of dead end jobs, he got a great one, and I know enough to ask whether he really wants to take the job because it involves skills he's not very interested in. This loving your kid thing for who he is gets a lot easier once he starts being who he is.
9
I don't see anything new in this. I am a child of the 70s - 80s...while I don't doubt that my parents loved me, they definitely loved me more when I did meritorious things. Believe me, I'm right on board with many of the criticisms lobbied at "today's parents" (I have an 11 year-old and am one of the older parents and am right in the midst of the mommy-wars, entitlement culture). But, I don't think this particular criticism is a recent phenomenon.
Michjas~"This loving your kid thing for who he is gets a lot easier once he starts being who he is."
What a wonderful sentiment.
What a wonderful sentiment.
To the extent this is true - and in an anecdotal experience way, it seems somewhat true - it may be caused by diverging economic outcomes. WWII generation existed in an economy where there were multiple paths to a well-paying job. To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, one reason communism never took off here was average worker had his or her own home, a trailered boat in the driveway, and could afford a trip bck to the old country.
Current parents that are doing well tend to feel uneasy - insecure they can remain where they are, and fearful they couldn't do it again. So it may be the drive for, e.g., making five year olds start worrying about their resumes, just reflects parents' belief that it's become more of a winner take all game than perhaps it once was. Hence they want their children to be able to compete in that game.
Which is what the parents' job has always been: doing their best to make sure that as adults their offspring can take care of themselves.
Current parents that are doing well tend to feel uneasy - insecure they can remain where they are, and fearful they couldn't do it again. So it may be the drive for, e.g., making five year olds start worrying about their resumes, just reflects parents' belief that it's become more of a winner take all game than perhaps it once was. Hence they want their children to be able to compete in that game.
Which is what the parents' job has always been: doing their best to make sure that as adults their offspring can take care of themselves.
2
Instead of 'meritocracy' substitute 'religiosity' and you've described what has been going in families for millenia. Pure unconditional love is very rare anywhere in our species.
12
It is an invention of Carl Rodgers, the psychologist. There is no such thing. Anything "unconditional" is pathetically amoral. Even God's love is conditioned upon repentance from sin, but "God is angry with the wicked every day." Grace, however, is the trait that supersedes the crude human love by love that is extended to those that do not merit it. God is both loving and gracious.
When folks ask for and promote unconditional love, they are seeking permission, even approval, for their sins - and they hate the notion of being responsible for their sins.
When folks ask for and promote unconditional love, they are seeking permission, even approval, for their sins - and they hate the notion of being responsible for their sins.
it's really pretty simple, the role of parenting. we don't own them, they are not an extension of us. we guide the best we can and never stop loving them.
9
I was on a plane the other day and a mother behind me was talking to her son all the way, always to impart information. As we got ready to get off the plane, she asked him what he thought was underneath the passenger compartment. I looked at him and told him there were 3 skateboarders there with an extra skateboard for him. He didn't know what to make of it. And I should have minded my own business. But after his two hour briefing, I thought a little whimsy was called for. There isn't enough whimsy in parenting these days.
137
"There isn't enough whimsy in parenting these days."
Again, how true and a wonderful sentiment. Many parents no longer "play" with their children but arrange an overwhelming schedule of play dates, sports, the arts, etc. The kids are on overload.
My mother tells a story from when I was younger of how some little boys came knocking at the door and asked if Mr. O'Brien, my dad, could come out to play since they needed a first baseman, umpire for their sandlot game down the street. He put on his shoes and went down the street to play with these little boys. We went iceskating every Tuesday at the local rink. My father never missed a day. We always had a gang of kids at our house playing board games by the hour or playing pool basketball with my mom. At night she would play dodge ball with us on our dead end street. We had an idyllic childhood filled with love and no pressure. We were allowed to become the adults that we wanted to become. My brother and I excelled in school, not out of fear of punishment or for reward, but just for the pride of doing well. We weren't wealthy but comfortable, never vacationed but had a joy filled life which I'll never forget.
My husband and I went iceskating with our children every Sunday night and we went to his pickup hockey games. Our daughters even rode the Zamboni. Some went on motorcycle camping trips with Daddy. We danced to music, or listened in the dark. We went on picnics, to the beach in January. Our adult children cherish every memory.
Again, how true and a wonderful sentiment. Many parents no longer "play" with their children but arrange an overwhelming schedule of play dates, sports, the arts, etc. The kids are on overload.
My mother tells a story from when I was younger of how some little boys came knocking at the door and asked if Mr. O'Brien, my dad, could come out to play since they needed a first baseman, umpire for their sandlot game down the street. He put on his shoes and went down the street to play with these little boys. We went iceskating every Tuesday at the local rink. My father never missed a day. We always had a gang of kids at our house playing board games by the hour or playing pool basketball with my mom. At night she would play dodge ball with us on our dead end street. We had an idyllic childhood filled with love and no pressure. We were allowed to become the adults that we wanted to become. My brother and I excelled in school, not out of fear of punishment or for reward, but just for the pride of doing well. We weren't wealthy but comfortable, never vacationed but had a joy filled life which I'll never forget.
My husband and I went iceskating with our children every Sunday night and we went to his pickup hockey games. Our daughters even rode the Zamboni. Some went on motorcycle camping trips with Daddy. We danced to music, or listened in the dark. We went on picnics, to the beach in January. Our adult children cherish every memory.
116
Brava. Some day that kid may finally be able to take a deep breath - thanks to you.
1
The culture of meritocracy in child-rearing is limited to the affluent and the wealthy. Thanks to the gospel of now widely-discredited "trickle-down" economics most American families (when there are two parents present to share the load) work much longer hours for much less pay, consequently spending less time getting to know their children. Subtract two parents by half and imagine how single-parent households soldier on. There are no after-school soccer practices or or ballet or piano lessons. A single parent is at work and the last thing on his or her mind is your complacent concept of meritocracy and how it might find acceptance in the narrow, exclusive fissures of your approval where the privileged reside. Poor parents, in a flash, intuit the platitudes in your column, but for them, it's real life writ very large, not a mere literary exercise put down on paper at leisure.
21
So true. I teach at a university whose students are mainly working/lower middle class, and many from housing projects in the neighboring inner cities. At the beginning of my career, I have discussed, in my sociology courses, the pressure on kids today to perfect a "passion" by age 10, to spend every spare moment prepping for SAT s, and to fill summers with college application builders,my students looked at me like I have 10 heads. That is not their reality, though it is the reality of countless suburban kids, a phenomenon much different than kids experienced two generations ago in upper middle class communities. But these pressures can't begin to compare to those of kids growing up without them.
Why the hostility? Brooks is CRITICIZING the meritocratic dogma that has helped "the affluent and the wealthy" justify running away from everyone else.
Absolutely. Look at the public schools...etc. Brooks is staring into an upper class mirror.
THE PRAISE AND LOVING OF CHILDREN . . .
Yes, Mr. Brooks I agree with your assessment. Unconditional praise (e.g., when all members of a sports endeavor are given trophies regardless of performance). But, when the rewards are given as reward for the performance of a child because it brings the parent(s) satisfaction and portends a future for the child that becomes a status symbol for the family...
Then all that can be destructive to the child. Kids know when awards are given to all, then no one is being given a reward. And, children who are really being manipulated to perform in a manner so as to bring status to their parents ... yes, they can eventually become cognizant of this as well.
Much of this behavior reminds me of the "stage mother" who becomes fulfilled by the accomplishments of their child ... because they feel they have or can not themselves.
Then there is the dichotomy of the many other variables: the wealthy give their kids more than is good for them; the underclass parent(s) or guardian(s) cannot provide the rudimentary and much needed environment due to their monetary and cultural poverty.
The success that a genuine meritocracy provides is appropriate. But, let's face the fact that even though we say that "all people are equal" it is not true.
As a random toss of the dice, the most important variables are a function of what no one -- parent or child -- is responsible for ... a function of genetics, the micro and macro environments, and...
Grace!
Yes, Mr. Brooks I agree with your assessment. Unconditional praise (e.g., when all members of a sports endeavor are given trophies regardless of performance). But, when the rewards are given as reward for the performance of a child because it brings the parent(s) satisfaction and portends a future for the child that becomes a status symbol for the family...
Then all that can be destructive to the child. Kids know when awards are given to all, then no one is being given a reward. And, children who are really being manipulated to perform in a manner so as to bring status to their parents ... yes, they can eventually become cognizant of this as well.
Much of this behavior reminds me of the "stage mother" who becomes fulfilled by the accomplishments of their child ... because they feel they have or can not themselves.
Then there is the dichotomy of the many other variables: the wealthy give their kids more than is good for them; the underclass parent(s) or guardian(s) cannot provide the rudimentary and much needed environment due to their monetary and cultural poverty.
The success that a genuine meritocracy provides is appropriate. But, let's face the fact that even though we say that "all people are equal" it is not true.
As a random toss of the dice, the most important variables are a function of what no one -- parent or child -- is responsible for ... a function of genetics, the micro and macro environments, and...
Grace!
3
Equal rights are feasible. Equal people is a pipe dream.
1
"Steve Bolger," Of course!
For once I agree with David. The every kid gets a trophy mentality has raised a generation of entitled spoiled brats. Sorry but for most of you, your kid is not now or ever will be special, they will be mediocre at best.
10
Yes, people are mocking Mr. Brooks as an elitist, out of touch, with average families, but colleges are filled with kids who received trophies for participating and whose parents showed them with attention.
1
AACNY,
This sounds like The School of Westminster where parents start to drool over the trophy their young Nigel won for best in show with a bright red ribbon, while young Orwell gets a kick in the pants for being an original thinker, and leaves the joys of the elite Institute feeling like a capital failure.
This sounds like The School of Westminster where parents start to drool over the trophy their young Nigel won for best in show with a bright red ribbon, while young Orwell gets a kick in the pants for being an original thinker, and leaves the joys of the elite Institute feeling like a capital failure.
Who are you writing about David? I think you have cocooned yourself in a very finite place where all of those around you reflect the same upper middle class values and mores, and have like family histories. There is no abuse or abandonment; no generational alcoholism; no poverty. Just winning people doing winning things with their winning families. I suppose they are NYT readers, and thus give you encouragement and comfort.
I taught in the public school for many years, and those kids and families that you consider do exist, but only in small pockets. They are not who America is, and they are not the "culture" I knew. I saw poverty and anxiety, and lonely and lost, a whole lot more than I saw groomed and spoiled. I think you need to get out more.
I taught in the public school for many years, and those kids and families that you consider do exist, but only in small pockets. They are not who America is, and they are not the "culture" I knew. I saw poverty and anxiety, and lonely and lost, a whole lot more than I saw groomed and spoiled. I think you need to get out more.
788
Patrick, I wish the Times had a "Super Recommend" button. I'd give your comment five stars if I could, 10 out of 10. Very VERY well said.
1
"I think you need to get out more." Agreed! I think this almost every time I read a David Brooks piece.
1
You are right. Mr. Brooks' definition fits a select group while the others frequently grow up with one parent who doesn't often have the time or education to praise, lead and direct. Those children are the lost generation who have little future or a plan for one. It is that group which needs great attention and direction or this country will never be among the top five in terms of reaching its potential. How did we get that far away from thinking and caring and doing for others? Have we become navel gazers of the ultimate kind?
2
David bases his view of "parents" on the NYTimes demographic, which is hardly exemplary. There are a subset of parents who provide their children with conditional love, but there is a larger set of parents who are unable to engage with the lives of their children because they are working two jobs, working unpredictable shifts, or absent altogether (see the Times article earlier this week on the 1.5 million "missing" African American males). There are many children in this country who have a voracious hunger for their parents's presence… and they far exceed the number who are seeking conditional love.
38
What?
I raised two sons on little $. We couldn't afford a car. We had no TV. I read to them, read and read. They listened to Dickens, lying on the floor with their crayons and drawing pads. They developed huge vocabularies, effortlessly.
I took my younger son out of a high pressure kindergarten when he came home saying they were trying to teach him to read. "I want to play" he said. "Stop that" I said to the kindergarten mafia. "But he's more likely to get into Harvard if he reads early!" they warned earnestly. "Who says he'll want to go to Harvard?" I replied.
Fast forward. My kids grew up without Volvos. They easily mastered taking public transportation to the private schools where they had big scholarships.
The other parents were astonished: "Isn't that dangerous?" they asked. "No" I said.
My kids knew the Greek myths backwards and forwards without ever considering them difficult or weird, they argued over their favorite heroes in the Iliad and Odyssey. One liked Ajax, the other Achilles. The one who liked Ajax said that Achilles was a bad sport.
My older son was a natural scholar. Yup, he went to Harvard. They younger was more political and mavericky. "I don't want to take 4 years of math" he said. "Well then don't" I said. "Will I be able to get into Harvard?" he asked. "No" I said. "Will you mind?" he asked. "No" I answered "You'll get into a perfectly good college somewhere else." And he did.
They are both thriving.
I raised two sons on little $. We couldn't afford a car. We had no TV. I read to them, read and read. They listened to Dickens, lying on the floor with their crayons and drawing pads. They developed huge vocabularies, effortlessly.
I took my younger son out of a high pressure kindergarten when he came home saying they were trying to teach him to read. "I want to play" he said. "Stop that" I said to the kindergarten mafia. "But he's more likely to get into Harvard if he reads early!" they warned earnestly. "Who says he'll want to go to Harvard?" I replied.
Fast forward. My kids grew up without Volvos. They easily mastered taking public transportation to the private schools where they had big scholarships.
The other parents were astonished: "Isn't that dangerous?" they asked. "No" I said.
My kids knew the Greek myths backwards and forwards without ever considering them difficult or weird, they argued over their favorite heroes in the Iliad and Odyssey. One liked Ajax, the other Achilles. The one who liked Ajax said that Achilles was a bad sport.
My older son was a natural scholar. Yup, he went to Harvard. They younger was more political and mavericky. "I don't want to take 4 years of math" he said. "Well then don't" I said. "Will I be able to get into Harvard?" he asked. "No" I said. "Will you mind?" he asked. "No" I answered "You'll get into a perfectly good college somewhere else." And he did.
They are both thriving.
85
I'd love to read more about this. Thank you for sharing it.
Thank you. Children who early on are read the Greek myths and epics, with all their complexity -- and humanity -- develop differently and, might I add, in a better way than those fed Ninja stories.
Books written for kids today are dreck.
So judge I.
Books written for kids today are dreck.
So judge I.
@Mary: You mention how appalled people were that your kids took the city bus to school. I took the city bus to kindergarten by myself all the time in Columbus, Ohio. Or walked by myself. (I am 63). Never a problem.
I do know that my mother thought it strange how much time I spent with my one child, a daughter. My mother never, ever read a book to me. I didn't even know children's books existed. I was always a reader but I started reading adult books in the third, fourth grades. So when I had my child I read and read and read to her all these wonderful books (Babar! Winnie the Poo!).
I do believe going ga-ga over every thing a child does sets that child up for fear of eventual failure - because we all fail. If I had to do it over again, I would have been more restrained about my child's talent. She is genuinely a very creative person but she never believed me when I complimented her on her stories or art. "You're my mom. You have to say that". I would have curbed my enthusiasm with that and also trying to 'spare' her feelings of unhappiness. I was a very unhappy child and I went overboard the other way when I was a parent. It's tricky being a mom.
I do know that my mother thought it strange how much time I spent with my one child, a daughter. My mother never, ever read a book to me. I didn't even know children's books existed. I was always a reader but I started reading adult books in the third, fourth grades. So when I had my child I read and read and read to her all these wonderful books (Babar! Winnie the Poo!).
I do believe going ga-ga over every thing a child does sets that child up for fear of eventual failure - because we all fail. If I had to do it over again, I would have been more restrained about my child's talent. She is genuinely a very creative person but she never believed me when I complimented her on her stories or art. "You're my mom. You have to say that". I would have curbed my enthusiasm with that and also trying to 'spare' her feelings of unhappiness. I was a very unhappy child and I went overboard the other way when I was a parent. It's tricky being a mom.
Last week, I shared this on cyberspace:
Wednesday, I heard from Arizona (her real name). She is a former student from years back who is now a high school teacher. Among the things she said was, "Doc, you've written a lot lately about faith, hope, and love in the classroom….Of course, that's been your theme in everything you've put up, as you always say, into cyberspace. And, what's more important, that's what your class was for each of us in there with you, a love story. But, now I have an assignment for you. Could you do me a favor? I want you to boil all those reflections into one or two sentences that will be a tighter guide for following through on taking your 'Teacher's Oath.'…."
This what I came up with: "Our attitudes drive our actions and our actions affect our attitudes. Focusing on and making real unyielding, unconditional, non-judgmental, committed, persistent, inclusive faith, hope, and love "de-herds" the classroom; they transform "the class" from an "is" into an "are," from a collective, generalizing, stereotyping, depersonalizing, dehumanizing, faceless, nameless singular blur into a "gathering of separate, noble, sacred, unique 'ones'" unclouded plural. When we do that, we have no choice but to find ways to make each day a moral occasion when the process of unconditionally helping each and every student to help her or him learn how to make a good living and to live the good life come inseparably together."
Wednesday, I heard from Arizona (her real name). She is a former student from years back who is now a high school teacher. Among the things she said was, "Doc, you've written a lot lately about faith, hope, and love in the classroom….Of course, that's been your theme in everything you've put up, as you always say, into cyberspace. And, what's more important, that's what your class was for each of us in there with you, a love story. But, now I have an assignment for you. Could you do me a favor? I want you to boil all those reflections into one or two sentences that will be a tighter guide for following through on taking your 'Teacher's Oath.'…."
This what I came up with: "Our attitudes drive our actions and our actions affect our attitudes. Focusing on and making real unyielding, unconditional, non-judgmental, committed, persistent, inclusive faith, hope, and love "de-herds" the classroom; they transform "the class" from an "is" into an "are," from a collective, generalizing, stereotyping, depersonalizing, dehumanizing, faceless, nameless singular blur into a "gathering of separate, noble, sacred, unique 'ones'" unclouded plural. When we do that, we have no choice but to find ways to make each day a moral occasion when the process of unconditionally helping each and every student to help her or him learn how to make a good living and to live the good life come inseparably together."
1
Unconditional love is one of the greatest and most important gifts that parents can give their children. Kids should never feel that it is something that they have to earn; they should never question that they are inherently worthy of it. This is especially true if they don't succeed, if they struggle with personal issues that their parents may never understand, or for any other reason short of destructive acts that harm other people. Even in the last case, the extreme examples, the unconditional love should still be there (even if the child is not worthy of it). Unconditional love never has signal approval of a child's actions, particularly hideous ones, but it should never go away, either.
Unconditional love is an extraordinarily difficult thing to give to someone who is not your child or adopted child (yet, miraculously, not impossible given the right circumstances). In fact, if they do not observe it from the parents' acts and behaviors toward them, children may never even know that it exists. And that would be a considerable tragedy, in part because they might have their own children and unwittingly deprive them of that great gift, just because they never learned any differently. How would their children know to pass it on to theirs? And so on... If parents truly want happiness for their children and substantial personal and professional success, the best thing they can offer them, aside from good food, shelter and clothing, is unconditional love.
Unconditional love is an extraordinarily difficult thing to give to someone who is not your child or adopted child (yet, miraculously, not impossible given the right circumstances). In fact, if they do not observe it from the parents' acts and behaviors toward them, children may never even know that it exists. And that would be a considerable tragedy, in part because they might have their own children and unwittingly deprive them of that great gift, just because they never learned any differently. How would their children know to pass it on to theirs? And so on... If parents truly want happiness for their children and substantial personal and professional success, the best thing they can offer them, aside from good food, shelter and clothing, is unconditional love.
88
My maternal grandfather would greet me with, "she's a keeper." His loving comments were as reliable as the sun rising. At his funeral all of his grandchildren insisted they were his favorite. An honorable legacy for a man who didn't finish high school and grew up on a farm in rural Arkansas. To give unconditional love requires knowing we are allright just as we are. The real test for parents is letting little Johnny dream of being a garbage man and not trying to edit it. As my grandfather used to say, "if your job is sweeping floors be the best sweeper you can be."
1
'short of destructive acts that harm other people'.
Uh, that smells like a condition; and who is to define the degree of 'harmfulness' in an action that crosses the line into unforgivability? 'I love you unconditionally, unless you're a serial killer, or a derivatives trader, or a Republican.' Yet it could be argued that George W. Bush did more deliberate harm to millions of people, whereas even the most prolific serial killer takes out only a few dozen; and the Wall Street Wizards who crashed the market, while not directly killing anyone we know of, destroyed the hopes and dreams of millions through arrogance, carelessness, and greed.
Mr Guest promulgates the love the sinner, hate the sin' fallacy, the notion that there is a 'self' somehow separable from a person's actions. I'm more partial to Toni Morrison's line, 'when someone shows you who he is, believe him the first time.' And though it's true people can change, they also begin to show their true natures very early. The child who tortures the family pet. lies, steals, etc. will not be fixed by 'unconditional love'.
All love is conditional. And it should be. And we still 'need to talk about Kevin' ... but that's a topic for another post.
Uh, that smells like a condition; and who is to define the degree of 'harmfulness' in an action that crosses the line into unforgivability? 'I love you unconditionally, unless you're a serial killer, or a derivatives trader, or a Republican.' Yet it could be argued that George W. Bush did more deliberate harm to millions of people, whereas even the most prolific serial killer takes out only a few dozen; and the Wall Street Wizards who crashed the market, while not directly killing anyone we know of, destroyed the hopes and dreams of millions through arrogance, carelessness, and greed.
Mr Guest promulgates the love the sinner, hate the sin' fallacy, the notion that there is a 'self' somehow separable from a person's actions. I'm more partial to Toni Morrison's line, 'when someone shows you who he is, believe him the first time.' And though it's true people can change, they also begin to show their true natures very early. The child who tortures the family pet. lies, steals, etc. will not be fixed by 'unconditional love'.
All love is conditional. And it should be. And we still 'need to talk about Kevin' ... but that's a topic for another post.
Yes to 95% of this comment. The one point that is wildly off-base is "Unconditional love is an extraordinarily difficult thing to give to someone who is not your child or adopted child (yet, miraculously, not impossible given the right circumstances)." Perhaps Matt Guest has never had the pleasure of really engaging with kids that aren't blood-relatives. People are people (even smaller ones) so it's not very likely that everyone is going to be an object of unconditional love. But I can tell you that if you really enjoy and truly like children, youth, and young adults, feeling parent-like affection and unconditional love can happen in a heartbeat, and lasts as long as both parties maintain a relationship. I know. My son is adopted and a few of the kids I've mentored, now in their 30s-40s will forever be loved.
1
Very good, Mr. Brooks. Parents want their children to succeed and have shaped their parenting to fit their goals.
The "self-esteem" movement seems driven by parents who believe higher self-esteem -- children feeling "good" about themselves -- will help their children achieve more, not by parents who want their kids to actually feel good about themselves no matter who they are or what they do.
Where this all goes wrong is when it comes to their children's learning self-respect. Parents who try to force it on their kids don't realize it has to be earned.
The "self-esteem" movement seems driven by parents who believe higher self-esteem -- children feeling "good" about themselves -- will help their children achieve more, not by parents who want their kids to actually feel good about themselves no matter who they are or what they do.
Where this all goes wrong is when it comes to their children's learning self-respect. Parents who try to force it on their kids don't realize it has to be earned.
4
Have the parents themselves been successful? Did their parents give them unconditional love? Those grandparents may not have helicoptered their children and been so involved in their lives, but that doesn't mean that their loving was less conditional. It is unclear to me that the crucial variable in what is being analyzed across generations in the nature of the parental love. What about an increase in fear and anxiety across the board? Wouldn't that create both what we see in the parent behavior and what we see in the children? That fear and anxiety could have to do with globalization, with watching previous sectors of "good jobs" disappear, with the increase of college costs and housing costs, and so on. Why some families are more susceptible to such fear and anxiety would then be the avenue of inquiry. So I guess I am asking whether theses studies separated out the factor of fear and anxiety from the parenting equation.
11
These observations have merit. Having grown up in, the circumstances the forties and fifties, the circumstances of parenting were quite different. Children then were permitted more physical and roaming freedom then. I did grocery errands beginning about six and would have freedoms of movement that today might put a parent in jail . There was clearly less fear about social and environmental dangers. Curiously,despite greater freedoms of movement then, I would argue that many parents of that day put stricter limits on treats and entertainment and not only because family budgets weren't able to absorb these costs. Displays of parental affection weren't so common then perhaps, or expected. Public college and university educations were attainable with summer and part-time jobs.
No one should conclude that parenting was better in previous times. Or that there is at any time a useful metric for measuring the depth and extent of parental love. There is something to be said for the argument that parents today put more pressure on their children to succeed if only, in some circumstances, the kids don't become a permanent burden on themselves, having less then to do perhaps with " conditional love".
No one should conclude that parenting was better in previous times. Or that there is at any time a useful metric for measuring the depth and extent of parental love. There is something to be said for the argument that parents today put more pressure on their children to succeed if only, in some circumstances, the kids don't become a permanent burden on themselves, having less then to do perhaps with " conditional love".
David, imagine a world in which parents wouldn't be so fearful for their children's economic future, and thus wouldn't feel so pressured to carefully steer them in the right direction, lest they never be able to move out of the house or end up in our for-profit prison system?
Imagine a world in which more parents could encourage their children to party hearty and sow their wild oats while young, knowing that daddy's and grandfather's political and business connections would naturally make everything work out in the end?
Imagine a world in which parents could sensibly let their children find their own way, in their own time, knowing that our economy was designed to ultimately lift all boats - instead of consume young and old in an orgy of relentless creative destruction and pitiless wealth extraction?
Imagine a world in which more parents could encourage their children to party hearty and sow their wild oats while young, knowing that daddy's and grandfather's political and business connections would naturally make everything work out in the end?
Imagine a world in which parents could sensibly let their children find their own way, in their own time, knowing that our economy was designed to ultimately lift all boats - instead of consume young and old in an orgy of relentless creative destruction and pitiless wealth extraction?
220
It's sad if you dedicate yourself to the things that gain you praise instead of the things you love to do. Even more, if you don't realize what things you love to do.
4
Generally, they are linked: You do more of the things you love to do. You get better at them. Your skills garner praise. You like praise. So you do more of those things.
There are exceptions, of course, particularly when one's ambitions exceed one's talents. If only Hitler could have been happy as a weekend painter turning out his little watercolours! Nor do all little girls and boys grow up to live their dreams: as Megan's mother in Mad Men noted, 'the world could not support so many ballerinas'.
Ultimately praise - particularly unearned praise - rings hollow. There's only one critic you must please: 'My soul,' said Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac, 'be satisfied with fruit, with flowers, with weeds, even; but grow them in the one garden you may call your own'.
There are exceptions, of course, particularly when one's ambitions exceed one's talents. If only Hitler could have been happy as a weekend painter turning out his little watercolours! Nor do all little girls and boys grow up to live their dreams: as Megan's mother in Mad Men noted, 'the world could not support so many ballerinas'.
Ultimately praise - particularly unearned praise - rings hollow. There's only one critic you must please: 'My soul,' said Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac, 'be satisfied with fruit, with flowers, with weeds, even; but grow them in the one garden you may call your own'.
It is the parents who are using their children's academic success to feed their own needs. Our present generation of young children are rarely given an opportunity to follow their own interests, unless they are in agreement with their parents' plan; The kids may never hear their parents express any direct wish for the youngster to do well for the purpose of pleasing them, but it is often hard for the youngster to work for high grades so that his parents may feel fulfilled.
Mr. Brooks makes many good points while trying to not cast a negative view of the goal- driven parents. I have always found such behavior to be poor parenting, caused by immature people who hunger for their own ego needs to be filled through the work of their children.
Mr. Brooks makes many good points while trying to not cast a negative view of the goal- driven parents. I have always found such behavior to be poor parenting, caused by immature people who hunger for their own ego needs to be filled through the work of their children.
11
Believe me there are millions of children in this world who will take a conditional love without hesitation, otherwise they have none. Some how this column address a very narrow section of people, for the other majority this writing is just a trivia.
60
Can we have a single piece of data to support any of the premises in this 500-word hyperventilation?
121
Anecdotally, in metro-NY, you can see this multiple times per day, every day of the week.
2
Can't send you any research data, but can provide you with the names of most parents I've known (know)............pretty much everything he says is plus or minus a little, accurate.
2
David doesn't do data.
My biggest problem isn't exposing my kid to sports, etc. as long as it's within reason. She really doesn't have to play on three different soccer teams in one season. The odds of her even playing in college are slim. But if the child shows an amazing talent and has the temperament to pursue something that young, I say go for it. And while I don't condone telling a child they did everything right when they didn't, I also don't condone pushing these kids furiously to fit some need of the parent.
We recently had a scandal of sorts where a bunch of parents were competing to get on one of the boards for spring soccer. They all did so to make sure their kid (regardless of merit) got on the A team. Even the ten year olds were commenting on how "so and so" wasn't good enough to be on the A team and was only there because of her mother.
It's sort of pathetic to see the two kinds of parents around town. The ones who had a bad high school experience and the ones whose life as at its peak in high school. Both living vicariously through their kids and both equally pathetic.
I'd consider myself a failure of doing my job as a parent, which is to make them strong adults, if my daughter "peaked" in high school.
Here's a hard fact, some kids won't be starters and some will be C students. My husband was a C student, owns two businesses and is vastly more successful than most of our friends. And his parents are 100% unconditional with their love.
We recently had a scandal of sorts where a bunch of parents were competing to get on one of the boards for spring soccer. They all did so to make sure their kid (regardless of merit) got on the A team. Even the ten year olds were commenting on how "so and so" wasn't good enough to be on the A team and was only there because of her mother.
It's sort of pathetic to see the two kinds of parents around town. The ones who had a bad high school experience and the ones whose life as at its peak in high school. Both living vicariously through their kids and both equally pathetic.
I'd consider myself a failure of doing my job as a parent, which is to make them strong adults, if my daughter "peaked" in high school.
Here's a hard fact, some kids won't be starters and some will be C students. My husband was a C student, owns two businesses and is vastly more successful than most of our friends. And his parents are 100% unconditional with their love.
7
I have to day this gave me pause, because it is so true. As a parent of a young child, I always have in the back of my head the image of her graduating college, mortarboard hat in hand, beaming proudly at my wife and me. It is a worthy goal, I think, but I must guard against the expectation that the road there will be straight and narrow. As she grows up, my child will certainly stray from the path now and then, or choose her own road. My vision is my north star as a parent, but it may not be what she chooses to become.
Whatever comes to pass, even if I do not approve, my love for her must never waver. I promise to let her know. Often. Thank you Mr. Brooks for the gentle reminder.
Whatever comes to pass, even if I do not approve, my love for her must never waver. I promise to let her know. Often. Thank you Mr. Brooks for the gentle reminder.
14
As the parent of a child with a learning disability that slowly presented itself and was masked by high intelligence, be prepared to lay every stone in that path yourself. Sometimes the path followed by every other kid just isn't the right one for your child.
The good news is that you're so busy finding the next stone, you don't have time to worry about conditional versus unconditional love. The very act of finding the right stone and laying it for your child to step on next is your act of love.
The good news is that you're so busy finding the next stone, you don't have time to worry about conditional versus unconditional love. The very act of finding the right stone and laying it for your child to step on next is your act of love.
9
I believe that what Mr. Brooks is saying is that if we give children unconditional love, then what they have to offer from within themselves is nurtured. I don't think he means that parents should not provide guidance. But children do need to feel that they are loved through and through, and that they are loved no matter what they do, whether they fail or succeed at this trial or that one. I know that there are only a few comments so far, but it is really shocking to me how critical this initial sample is of this article. I hope to see at least some supportive comments appear, whether mine or others, as the day goes forward.
174
I agree with you…but David Brooks starts out with two strikes. First, he's the "conservative" columnist, so a percentage of NY Times readers don't agree with anything he writes before they begin reading. Secondly, can we assume that folks who read the NY Times opinion columnists skew higher on the economic scale? They are the parents with the children he's writing about. They will never recognize themselves, or if they do, won't admit it.
I think the 1% aspect in many negative comments is justified, but I also agree with you. I would argue that unconditional love should also apply to nations. A nation should not only reward and venerate its most successful (and that unfortunately means wealthy these days) members but every citizen trying to get by and make a living within their capabilities. Mr. Brooks' fellow conservatives have utterly no love for those who are not measuring up and even question whether they belong in the family, i.e. are "true" Americans. Maybe the disdain that conservatives have for the poor is related to the conditional love they experienced in their childhood. At least that would explain the inexplicable actions of someone like Bobby Jindal.
The reason for this is the type of culture/economy that has been carefully promulgated by winner-take-all Republican view of the US. Because they promote extreme meritocracy in which one person (maybe the Kochs, maybe ...) will end up controlling everything, parents want their kids to be "it". Credentialism that starts in youth is seen as the only way to succeed in a winner-take-all society.
28
Mister Ed
Perhaps Mr. Brooks, perhaps some of us may wish to learn from an elderly and kindly Mr. Propter of the topic of Love and Merit. Singular, but the author Aldous Huxley makes his main character Joe Stoyte, ruler of the American Empire in 1939, an unattractive and pitiful middle-aged bully who takes care of children in bringing them presents, while in search of longevity and lost, so lost that it makes one feel sorry for these tycoons who were neglected by their parents, and where there is seldom to be found the love of a mother.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks, perhaps some of us may wish to learn from an elderly and kindly Mr. Propter of the topic of Love and Merit. Singular, but the author Aldous Huxley makes his main character Joe Stoyte, ruler of the American Empire in 1939, an unattractive and pitiful middle-aged bully who takes care of children in bringing them presents, while in search of longevity and lost, so lost that it makes one feel sorry for these tycoons who were neglected by their parents, and where there is seldom to be found the love of a mother.
A classic example of one size fits all psychobabble. I think their are plenty of parents who balance unconditional love and acceptance with clear cut expectations for achievement.
32
When my children were playing sports, I was amazed by the parents that considered being a spectator at these events to be all important. They would skip a school board meeting that they served on because little Suzy or Sam had a game. I thought sports were for the benefit of the students that were playing but I was wrong. I went to a boarding school and there were no parents at sporting events. I wonder why we played?
7
In speaking to my late friend, D. Friedlander, of his son, the apple of his eye whose mother is from Africa, he taught me a lot about love and merit when it comes our children. In telling him how fortunate I was as a pup, he came to the point and told me that there had been no stability in my parental background which was true.
My flamboyant parents divorced when I was six and visiting my father now living in Ireland, he wrote in his journal that in spite of everything, I was doing quite well at 12. The wildest, happiest man I have ever met who loved people above all, and tried to teach me to not be judgmental.
Watching my French mother struggle without child support, I started to make some decisions during adolescence 'The Rebellious Years'. I became somewhat invisible and was adopted by many of my parents' rich friends.
The most powerful influence in my life was my brilliant mother and before she went into another reality, she told me 'you have nothing' late in life. I was her golden 'mosquito' she would tease, when we traveled like gypsies overseas, and later when she had forgotten me, we finally came together in terms of endearment between a Mother and Daughter. "Autumn Sonata" by Bergman is about us, we agreed.
Before you think I am a sad mop, my life is given to children in the international community. Each parent were alike in that they tried to teach compassion and understanding. I am learning. It is not easy to be a parent, or a child. Be kind.
My flamboyant parents divorced when I was six and visiting my father now living in Ireland, he wrote in his journal that in spite of everything, I was doing quite well at 12. The wildest, happiest man I have ever met who loved people above all, and tried to teach me to not be judgmental.
Watching my French mother struggle without child support, I started to make some decisions during adolescence 'The Rebellious Years'. I became somewhat invisible and was adopted by many of my parents' rich friends.
The most powerful influence in my life was my brilliant mother and before she went into another reality, she told me 'you have nothing' late in life. I was her golden 'mosquito' she would tease, when we traveled like gypsies overseas, and later when she had forgotten me, we finally came together in terms of endearment between a Mother and Daughter. "Autumn Sonata" by Bergman is about us, we agreed.
Before you think I am a sad mop, my life is given to children in the international community. Each parent were alike in that they tried to teach compassion and understanding. I am learning. It is not easy to be a parent, or a child. Be kind.
4
Horse feathers! What you describe is a variation of the theme of parenting which has always existed. "Unconditional" love is an ideal rarely attained by parents, siblings, lovers or anyone else. Love and expectations have always been intertwined. I grew up in the halcyon days of the 1950s (halcyon if you were a middle class or above white kid). Plenty of us were good little girls or good little boys working hard to achieve (scout honors, grades, 4-H ribbons, you name it) so that Mom and Dad would be proud and hug us and tell us that they loved us.
Yes, the culture changes. How parenting plays out varies from generation-to-generation, nation-to-nation, and across socio-economic groups. The push for kids to succeed in life, to be the best, and make the folks proud is always an underlying theme. So is the fact that few parents will offer unconditional, accepting love no matter who there offspring is or what he/she does.
Yes, the culture changes. How parenting plays out varies from generation-to-generation, nation-to-nation, and across socio-economic groups. The push for kids to succeed in life, to be the best, and make the folks proud is always an underlying theme. So is the fact that few parents will offer unconditional, accepting love no matter who there offspring is or what he/she does.
65
Anne-Marie,
Because I could never fit into the culture I was born into I spent much of my life in alien cultures where the expectation were very different. There are communities where the understanding that the kind of success my culture demanded would mean you would abandon your community a live elsewhere. The unconditional love accepted a desire to succeed academically and financially but there was always a sense that kind of achievement was somehow alien and dropping out of school and remaining one of us was a preferred path.
Because I could never fit into the culture I was born into I spent much of my life in alien cultures where the expectation were very different. There are communities where the understanding that the kind of success my culture demanded would mean you would abandon your community a live elsewhere. The unconditional love accepted a desire to succeed academically and financially but there was always a sense that kind of achievement was somehow alien and dropping out of school and remaining one of us was a preferred path.
Oh, if life were so simple!
"Parents" are not a monolith, and neither are "children." Some parents are young and poor, with few resources. Others are young and wealthy, with luxuries all around. Some are older . . . Some are living within a world of athletic competition, some financial competition, some FOX News, some extended family get-togethers. Most are over-stressed, working long hours, and on their own in this big world. Some children are . . .
We can go on - but the point is-- there is a great variety right now of basic parent-child relationships, and the changes over time are enormous (just think of child labor in our past and in others' present).
What Brooks and his sources are really reflecting on is our political world of unbridled competition and survivor take all.
If only our politicians and pundits were more respectful of the world of real folk trying to find happiness as they lived their complex lives, maybe everyone could calm down and look up from their "smart" phones telling them where to be five minutes ago.
"Parents" are not a monolith, and neither are "children." Some parents are young and poor, with few resources. Others are young and wealthy, with luxuries all around. Some are older . . . Some are living within a world of athletic competition, some financial competition, some FOX News, some extended family get-togethers. Most are over-stressed, working long hours, and on their own in this big world. Some children are . . .
We can go on - but the point is-- there is a great variety right now of basic parent-child relationships, and the changes over time are enormous (just think of child labor in our past and in others' present).
What Brooks and his sources are really reflecting on is our political world of unbridled competition and survivor take all.
If only our politicians and pundits were more respectful of the world of real folk trying to find happiness as they lived their complex lives, maybe everyone could calm down and look up from their "smart" phones telling them where to be five minutes ago.
23
I love David's editorials. But I have to say, it's based on merit; it's not unconditional. But I find two problems with the argument he's presenting: First, the underestimation of a child's perception of love vs. "conditional love". Children are much more attuned to the love, or lack thereof, from their parents than this article assumes.
The second is the general criticism that David's line of thinking engenders: are we parents being given yet another reason to become neurotic? How can parents who do not communicate unconditional love, do so by somehow controlling their desire for their child's success and naturally demonstrate unconditional love? Whew, parenting is tough enough without this additional layer of guilt.
To be fair, the article may only be suggesting that the right balance must be struck rather than choosing one way for parents to behave rather than another. But should we now assume that our children's successes are due to a lack of true parental love? No, I'm not going to grieve over this possibility. My children must have read the unconditional love between the lines - they turned-out to be sane. But, is there even a realistic alternative? Ignore their accomplishments? What "-ocracy" should be employed?
David, if you're really serious about the abuse of natural love, you'll have to revisit your allegiance to the Republican Party - "social Darwinism" is the anti-thesis of unconditional love.
The second is the general criticism that David's line of thinking engenders: are we parents being given yet another reason to become neurotic? How can parents who do not communicate unconditional love, do so by somehow controlling their desire for their child's success and naturally demonstrate unconditional love? Whew, parenting is tough enough without this additional layer of guilt.
To be fair, the article may only be suggesting that the right balance must be struck rather than choosing one way for parents to behave rather than another. But should we now assume that our children's successes are due to a lack of true parental love? No, I'm not going to grieve over this possibility. My children must have read the unconditional love between the lines - they turned-out to be sane. But, is there even a realistic alternative? Ignore their accomplishments? What "-ocracy" should be employed?
David, if you're really serious about the abuse of natural love, you'll have to revisit your allegiance to the Republican Party - "social Darwinism" is the anti-thesis of unconditional love.
14
Us folks out West are plenty into success for our kids but many of us consider the culture of success in the northeast to be way out of proportion. What most distinguishes us from you is access to superior outdoor activities. The camping trip is the quintessential family outing out here. Forbes rated the top 20 cities for outdoor activities. 18 were in the West or the South. When you have mountains, beaches, and national parks on your doorstep and the weather to enjoy them, you bring up your kids different. I think that's a whole lot of the explanation. It's not so much values as environment.
11
Is Brooks a propagandist? While 32.2% of children live in poverty, 25% of children are persistently hungry, 66% of children cannot read proficiently in the fourth grade, and 25% of American children grow up unable to read, David Brooks creates a narrative about the 1%, represents it as if it were all children. Then he spins a narrative about meritocracy? Is there any connection between the Brooks the seeker of truth and value and this fellow who deliberately neglects the visceral needs of families and asks us to focus on "the best schools" class? Does he recognize that he speaks about a minority, a small minority whose struggles are confined to their wants while basic human needs are deprived to the weakest Americans? Is cruelty sacrosanct?
487
your are totally correct in you're demographic analysis. what also needs to be said is how steep the drop is between the people brooks is writing about and the children you mention. it is this inequality that is hurting all children those of the wealthy and the less well off for all children start out innocent. its the desperation to maintain ones status or the frustration of the lack of social mobility that twists the psychology of both rich and poor.
2
Now Mr. Brooks is lecturing us on raising children?
77
An avid reader of all things Brooks, I'm driven quite mad by his conservative take on politics, but find his emotions show clearly when he writes of children. I suspect he is a wonderful, thoughtful, teaching Father. One who likely strives to provide the right balance and without a doubt unconditional love. As readers, I think we can give him this squishy side. I wish he were a neighbor, friend where we could banter on a long walk! Kids and politics - makes him a real person.
1
Be fair: he has to lecture us on something.
Well, I see some of this coming from my daughter towards my grandson, and I wonder if she will love him as fervently if he falls short or abruptly takes a different direction. But, to her credit, she has not chosen his paths --- only works to help him realize his dreams.
I would probably be guilty of the complete opposite, which is worse, a lackadaisical approach. I'm one of these ones that thinks things fall into place out of the sky --- at least, if they are meant to be. I guess, I grew up on too much, "que sera sera." It's either this or I grew tired of stumbling blocks --- it gets to the point where one waits for them.
I would probably be guilty of the complete opposite, which is worse, a lackadaisical approach. I'm one of these ones that thinks things fall into place out of the sky --- at least, if they are meant to be. I guess, I grew up on too much, "que sera sera." It's either this or I grew tired of stumbling blocks --- it gets to the point where one waits for them.
5
Gee, David Brooks is just discovering this method of parenting that my Jewish parents (and most of my Jewish friends' parents) practiced fifty years ago.
Most of us turned out just fine........after a little bit of therapy, of course.
Most of us turned out just fine........after a little bit of therapy, of course.
113
It is important to distinguish between love and approval. Most experienced parents would attest that it's possible, simultaneously, to disapprove and to love. The converse, that it's possible to offer approval without love, is also true. For example, one can approve of their ex's parenting tactics without loving them. So, perhaps the problem is when the recipient of love and approval begin to equate the two? This might happen when love is not freely given to a child. If it is only evident in responses to a child's actions, then the child might begin to think of love as a response. However, if love is always there for the child, shown in many ways unrelated to the child's actions such as non- contingent hugs, kisses, laughs, giggles, bedtime readings, days at the zoo and other shared experiences. Good parenting isn't pet training. It's perfectly ok for a parent to show approval or disapproval, but it's a problem if the child does not see love in the foreground.
14
I agree, Ed.
I remember a conversation my father opened with my brother and me. My brother was being punished (grounded) for something he had done, and he cried "You don't love me!". My dad responded "I love you. What you did was wrong and you are being punished for it. But while I don't like what you did, I love you. I will always love you no matter what you do. If you commit a crime I won't protect you from being arrested. I will pay your bail and pay for your lawyer, but you will have to live with whatever punishment the courts impose. And through all this I will continue to love you even when I don't like what you do." I have always remembered that, and as a result I love my children unconditionally even when I make my disapproval of an action very clear.
As for parental expectations, I remember a conversation with my oldest son, a very, very bright young man then in his first year at Drexel University. I don't remember what led up to it, but he cried 'Mom, you have so many expectations and I can't live up to them. I try, but I can't, and I feel you think I'm a failure!" Sadly, he was correct. I heard him and re-evaluated my expectations. I have tried very hard to keep my expectations to a very few: (1) Do your best at whatever you try to do. (2) Try really, really hard to stay out of trouble. (3) Become a self-supporting adult. (4) And I hope you are able to form important, caring relationships. And that's what important.
I remember a conversation my father opened with my brother and me. My brother was being punished (grounded) for something he had done, and he cried "You don't love me!". My dad responded "I love you. What you did was wrong and you are being punished for it. But while I don't like what you did, I love you. I will always love you no matter what you do. If you commit a crime I won't protect you from being arrested. I will pay your bail and pay for your lawyer, but you will have to live with whatever punishment the courts impose. And through all this I will continue to love you even when I don't like what you do." I have always remembered that, and as a result I love my children unconditionally even when I make my disapproval of an action very clear.
As for parental expectations, I remember a conversation with my oldest son, a very, very bright young man then in his first year at Drexel University. I don't remember what led up to it, but he cried 'Mom, you have so many expectations and I can't live up to them. I try, but I can't, and I feel you think I'm a failure!" Sadly, he was correct. I heard him and re-evaluated my expectations. I have tried very hard to keep my expectations to a very few: (1) Do your best at whatever you try to do. (2) Try really, really hard to stay out of trouble. (3) Become a self-supporting adult. (4) And I hope you are able to form important, caring relationships. And that's what important.
183
My parents never really hugged me, kissed me, or let me know that they loved me. I come from a middle class home. My parents did make sure to beat me, slap me, pull my hair, tell me that they were going to take me to my new parents, confide their problems in me, and always tell me that I was stupid, worthless, and needed more beatings. My mother told me that she'd stop loving me because I aggravated her so often. I was 11 at the time. I decided that I didn't need or want love. I didn't want love from anyone if it meant being hit, having my hair pulled, or being told that I was stupid.
I did well in school. I graduated in the top 10 of my high school class. I received no encouragement from anyone to go to a great college. I felt especially stupid, rotten, and worried that someone would kill me. After all my parents threatened to. I didn't know that people weren't supposed to slap me, pull my hair, or beat me until I started working. I thought that everyone beat everyone else and that I was destined to be hit my entire life.
I was lucky in one way. I have a brother I love. He and I stuck together. I tell him I love him so that neither one of us in doubt about it. He's the one person I allow to touch me. He knows I love him no matter what. However, I do expect him to be a decent human being to others and to me.
I did well in school. I graduated in the top 10 of my high school class. I received no encouragement from anyone to go to a great college. I felt especially stupid, rotten, and worried that someone would kill me. After all my parents threatened to. I didn't know that people weren't supposed to slap me, pull my hair, or beat me until I started working. I thought that everyone beat everyone else and that I was destined to be hit my entire life.
I was lucky in one way. I have a brother I love. He and I stuck together. I tell him I love him so that neither one of us in doubt about it. He's the one person I allow to touch me. He knows I love him no matter what. However, I do expect him to be a decent human being to others and to me.
6
I need to clarify. I agreed that my son was correct in saying that I had too many expectations. I did NOT think, at any time, that he was a failure.
1
There is merit to what David is saying. Whether we want to admit it or not quite often our egos are wrapped up in our wishes and dreams for our children. It's hard to find unconditional love anywhere in this world. I feel it's a goal to strive for but we don't need to beat ourselves up if we don't completely get there. In the meantime we can let our kids (and grandchildren) know we love them even if they can't always meet our unrealistically high (at times) expectations of them. And in turn, we hope they will love us, warts and all.
150
I like the new directions you are taking in your articles and your new book. About things we do not think about enough but should.
. I grew up feeling that love while unconditional in most ways was also tied up in strings of expectations. You were a good girl IF. There was an underlying unspoken IF. Tried not to do that with with my own kids. There is an unspoken message that is not good --especially when learning to deal with things that don,t work, failures which are in some ways more important than success for growth.
. I grew up feeling that love while unconditional in most ways was also tied up in strings of expectations. You were a good girl IF. There was an underlying unspoken IF. Tried not to do that with with my own kids. There is an unspoken message that is not good --especially when learning to deal with things that don,t work, failures which are in some ways more important than success for growth.
96
I love that you extended Mr. Brook's thinking towards women's issues! If only the criminal justice system would treat survivors of sexual assault with unconditional love rather than blames the victim mentality. The statement, "you are a good girl, IF....(then what?) can logical explain why a patriarchal system still blames the rape victim for drinking too much, wearing the wrong clothes, walking down the wrong street, talking to the wrong people, going to a boy's dorm room by herself, going out by herself at night etc. If there was unconditional love for the victim of (usually) male sexual aggressiveness towards women's bodies and a sense of male entitlement which is often reinforced by a sexist culture, the blame would be placed on the perpetrator rather than the innocent victim. Thanks for making this connection in your comment.
2
To my mind, the "New David" columns are living proof that self-absorbed rumination and excessive interest in one's every inspiration are not confined to the Milennials and their parents. Even the emerging Medicare generation can get lost when they over-estimate their own roles and abilities.
1
The mingling of two generations is always going to be this type of dance. My generation was raised to work to succeed. My generation brought in the 50-70 hour work week. My generation does not call off sick even if they are actually sick. This certainly has brought me neither wealth, happiness or health.
To say this generation will feel less worthy as adults I think is a stretch yet to be seen. I suspect they are going to be the most self-confident of us all. My son might be the parent of the kids David is talking about. However, I see a very rich interplay between him and his daughter and not in the bad way suggested in the article. I taught my son that money does not make you rich; go live richly. I think he is doing that and showing his daughter how to live richly as well. May we all go live richly.
To say this generation will feel less worthy as adults I think is a stretch yet to be seen. I suspect they are going to be the most self-confident of us all. My son might be the parent of the kids David is talking about. However, I see a very rich interplay between him and his daughter and not in the bad way suggested in the article. I taught my son that money does not make you rich; go live richly. I think he is doing that and showing his daughter how to live richly as well. May we all go live richly.
187
Your (my?) generation did not bring in the 50-70 hour work week.
People used to work long hours in mines, factories, and mills before the advent of unions and the 8 hour day, 40 hour week.
The fact that your (my?) generation turned our backs on the achievements of prior generations is a testament to our shortsightedness and is also reflective in some in our child-rearing techniques.
The meritocracy that David so often extols is a double-edged sword with a very sharp blade.
People used to work long hours in mines, factories, and mills before the advent of unions and the 8 hour day, 40 hour week.
The fact that your (my?) generation turned our backs on the achievements of prior generations is a testament to our shortsightedness and is also reflective in some in our child-rearing techniques.
The meritocracy that David so often extols is a double-edged sword with a very sharp blade.
6
One expects children who are made much of to be confident.
Confident, yes. But capable? Capable of both hard, focused work and actual accomplishment?
Praise for nothing can be almost as damaging as neglect. It comes from parents who are essentially lazy in their child-rearing practices.
It's easy to praise a child; not so easy to teach him.
Confident, yes. But capable? Capable of both hard, focused work and actual accomplishment?
Praise for nothing can be almost as damaging as neglect. It comes from parents who are essentially lazy in their child-rearing practices.
It's easy to praise a child; not so easy to teach him.
Hi Greg. I think I understand and agree with what you're saying. No one in their right mind can argue against the need/virtue of working hard and honestly and teaching the same to one's offspring. what I couldn't get a clear sense of is what is your idea or notion of living richly. It could very well mean very different things to different people. Please elaborate.
1
Based on how US kids fare on internatinoal tests of academic achievement, all this parental attention is having little positive effect on results in that area. And I haven't noticed our soccer teams being particularly outstanding, either. Among my friends the phenomenon Brooks describes seems to happen most often between mothers and daughters. The only beneficiaries, as far as I can tell, are the psychiatrists whose hours are fully booked by mothers who cann't let go even when the girl beeomes a young woman--and likewise by the young woman trying to break loose from the omnipresent mother.
4
Facile nonsense. Where's the evidence? Where's the logic—parents praising kids too much while driving them too hard? Uncritical praise and "merit-based love"? Citing three "studies" doesn't do it. C'mon, David—if you can't write a rigorous article praising the GOP's zombie policies and voodoo economics, at least break a sweat on any big idea.
135
Brooks says children think or feel things like "At key decision-points, they unconsciously imagine how their parents will react. They guide their lives by these imagined reactions... They lose a sense of agency.They feel less worthy as adults." I have to ask, Mr. Brooks: How do you know this?
30
Until the 1980s one could made a quick run to the grocery store as his 12-year old daughter just played around in the neighborhood. It used to be that a 5 year old son could walk to his mom's neighbor's house and be there when she went to the bank to draw some cash.
Since then we have begun to monetize every aspect of our life. The same dad would now have to pay a sitter to take care of his 5-year old son. And heaven forbid that the mom let her daughter wander around in the neighborhood. Chances are that the local police will charge her with child abuse.
As part of the monetizing culture we now know how much every human act costs. As simple search on the internet will tell you that it costs about 250K to raise a child until the age of eighteen. And then there are four more years of college. This could set one back yet another 50K - 200K depending on various factors.
Given this, it is hardly surprising that middle and upper-middle class parents (this would not apply as much to those in top 1% or at the bottom of the economic pyramid) have developed a "directional love" for their kids.
Michael Sandel has written a book titled "What Money Can't Buy." He has a much deeper analysis of this trend that has resulted in a coarseness that permeates human interactions. He traces the roots to this all the way to the Reagan revolution. I urge those interested to read his book. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Money-Cant-Buy-Markets/dp/0374533652
Since then we have begun to monetize every aspect of our life. The same dad would now have to pay a sitter to take care of his 5-year old son. And heaven forbid that the mom let her daughter wander around in the neighborhood. Chances are that the local police will charge her with child abuse.
As part of the monetizing culture we now know how much every human act costs. As simple search on the internet will tell you that it costs about 250K to raise a child until the age of eighteen. And then there are four more years of college. This could set one back yet another 50K - 200K depending on various factors.
Given this, it is hardly surprising that middle and upper-middle class parents (this would not apply as much to those in top 1% or at the bottom of the economic pyramid) have developed a "directional love" for their kids.
Michael Sandel has written a book titled "What Money Can't Buy." He has a much deeper analysis of this trend that has resulted in a coarseness that permeates human interactions. He traces the roots to this all the way to the Reagan revolution. I urge those interested to read his book. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Money-Cant-Buy-Markets/dp/0374533652
19
Where did this extra 50-200k for college come from? My parents gave me a total of 200.00 (definitely not "k") during my college career. I went on to earn four degrees, including a doctorate in education while paying every penny not covered by the scholarships I also earned. Yet, I knew I was loved unconditionally. Not so much the multitude of classmates whose parents paid for everything and dropped out "to discover themselves."
There is almost nothing given here to support the column's claims about how children feel in this "meritocracy." Hard to take it seriously.
21
Mr. Brooks, once again, I implore you to go back to University and study Cultural Anthropology. Nothing has change (even though you want it to be true) but your need to soften the hard and rough edges of conservative politics.
Humans are mostly similar especially regarding offsprings and "by nature", competitive skill and merit based knowhow is as old as humans. Sense 100,000 years, parents and children have been having both successful and unsucceful relationships due to parenting. However, on balance, more successful overall. Else-wise, the species would have perished and become extinct. My advice is to carefully understand your genetic makeup and choose wisely regarding whom you mix your genetic soup in hopes of offspring traits. Otherwise, culture and economy rules.
Humans are mostly similar especially regarding offsprings and "by nature", competitive skill and merit based knowhow is as old as humans. Sense 100,000 years, parents and children have been having both successful and unsucceful relationships due to parenting. However, on balance, more successful overall. Else-wise, the species would have perished and become extinct. My advice is to carefully understand your genetic makeup and choose wisely regarding whom you mix your genetic soup in hopes of offspring traits. Otherwise, culture and economy rules.
3
Parents would do well to foster a sense of humor in their children. It is among the most important survival skills of all. And it is in short supply these days. Robin Williams was Mork in his 20's. George Carlin was the hippie dippie weatherman. Dave Chapelle debuted his show in his late 20's. Chris Rock had ended his first SNL gig before 30. And Gilda Radner was doing her SNL shtick in her late 20's. According to New York Magazine, 88% of millennials consider humor vital. In my experience, though, millennial humor is way too much about how hard it is to get ahead these days, no doubt relecting the values fostered by their parents, as Mr. Brooks argues..
4
I wish someone would pay me to promulgate my presumptions and unjustified generalizations as if they were facts.
365
The dark side always needs intelligent apologists. Step one: create your own alternate reality which justifies the plutocratic status quo. Step two: Defend it without shame, embarrassment or evidence. Do you think you have what it takes ?
1
Isn't that the truth! Nice work if you can get it. What should I suggest my unconditionally loved children major in to become pundits - sociology or mythology??
yes, Mr Eisenberg! I am not into the push of my child into the Ivys or being a champion but my sense of the world is a lot more frightening than it was when I grew up which is if you don't have money, you won't make it. bottom line. look at the water in California. look at the poor migrants, look at how all of our resources are shrinking. who is going be above the flood? won't be the poor people. I am raising our daughter for survival.
5
Because, nothing happened in the news this week?
17
Don't tell us gay kids about conditional love.
52
I agree with Mr.Brooks here. I find it astonishing that some parents will take issue with a teacher, or the school, for any infraction by the child. Somehow, nothing is ever the kid's fault. In public places, I notice some parents allowing behavior ( loud, argumentative, unruly) to happen without any redirection.
I am not sure what this says. I suppose they love the child, but to me, this is bad parenting and is creating another generation of completely self absorbed individuals. Mix in the electronic device isolation and it is complete.
I am not sure what this says. I suppose they love the child, but to me, this is bad parenting and is creating another generation of completely self absorbed individuals. Mix in the electronic device isolation and it is complete.
16
Consider that when you see "bad parenting" the child has an emotional or mental heath problem. Rather than pointing fingers perhaps offer a smile or kind word. The parents probably are overwhelmed.
3
Excellent piece examining American domestic culture: thoughtful and relevant. Please do more like this, and eschew whitewashing worn-out neo-con politicking.
2
My children were brought up the same way that I was (and thus it makes no difference that the generation gap also involves different countries): 1. Do the best that you can 2. Laziness not allowed.
Guidance and advice were offered, but children are brought up to be independent and find their own ways. They ultimately have to do what is good for themselves and not their parents.
Love and support are unconditional, but it helps if they abide by rules #1-2 above. They know however that they can depend on parental support, just as I knew I could depend on my parents.
Hopefully they will do the same for their children.
Guidance and advice were offered, but children are brought up to be independent and find their own ways. They ultimately have to do what is good for themselves and not their parents.
Love and support are unconditional, but it helps if they abide by rules #1-2 above. They know however that they can depend on parental support, just as I knew I could depend on my parents.
Hopefully they will do the same for their children.
12
Well-written and right on target.
8
Well, gee golly gosh this column looks like it's targeted at the upper classes. In Normal World, parents don't hector their children and pressure them to get straight A's so they can get into Harvard, Princeton, or Yale; rather, they eat fast food or microwave-dinners on TV trays and watch sitcoms while their kids do homework while texting or playing computer games in their rooms.
The people who act the way you're describing are the set who live in old-money neighborhoods, drive Volvos, and have kids who go to private schools. Not that there's anything wrong with writing a column aimed at the well-born, but I suspect Karen Garcia won't be happy about it. And what ever do you mean by that concluding bit, "the closest humans come to grace"? Is there something (or Something) that comes closer?
I don't actually think there's anything wrong, per se, with pressuring your children to succeed, because succeeding is better than failing. But approval and disapproval should not be the same as love and hate. Your child should know that you love her (notice how I employ the feminine, so as not to be accused of male chauvinism) without boundaries or conditions; but there's nothing too very inappropriate about frowning upon her C+.
An examen should not be in order after one's cello teacher complains to one's parents about one's lack of progress.
The people who act the way you're describing are the set who live in old-money neighborhoods, drive Volvos, and have kids who go to private schools. Not that there's anything wrong with writing a column aimed at the well-born, but I suspect Karen Garcia won't be happy about it. And what ever do you mean by that concluding bit, "the closest humans come to grace"? Is there something (or Something) that comes closer?
I don't actually think there's anything wrong, per se, with pressuring your children to succeed, because succeeding is better than failing. But approval and disapproval should not be the same as love and hate. Your child should know that you love her (notice how I employ the feminine, so as not to be accused of male chauvinism) without boundaries or conditions; but there's nothing too very inappropriate about frowning upon her C+.
An examen should not be in order after one's cello teacher complains to one's parents about one's lack of progress.
7
I would argue that it's the newly monied that behave this way. Old monied have gotten it down already.
Agree about setting standards for kids' performance. In our home, family and school came first. School was actually an extension of our values, which included hard work, doing one's personal best, valuing the opportunities one had (good schools).
The most important thing about achievement, to me, having seen how cut-throat many could be in our wealthy suburb, was to emphasize the importance of "doing right" above getting ahead.
Agree about setting standards for kids' performance. In our home, family and school came first. School was actually an extension of our values, which included hard work, doing one's personal best, valuing the opportunities one had (good schools).
The most important thing about achievement, to me, having seen how cut-throat many could be in our wealthy suburb, was to emphasize the importance of "doing right" above getting ahead.
5
For shame those dirty strivers, dont they know *true* success is only attainable to those born into comfortable environments?? For shame, expecting children to do better than their parents- just leave them alone and let the cards fall where they may. those at the top will stay there, those in the middle or bottom will prevent their nervous break downs and become good little worker bees.
8
Oh, the agony of affluenza.
Because David Brooks isn't talking about the poor and working classes here. He's talking about the rich. In the bubble which he inhabits, the most pressing problem for families is not where the next meal or paycheck is coming from, but which Ivy will accept their child.
The rich and the politicians they own are fond of speaking of kids as commodities. They're investments, just like pork belly futures. The rich want a return on their investments, and kids are no exception. It's no surprise that the suicide rate among young people in Silicon Valley is on the upswing. They are abused by wealth.
So their parents need an intervention. Their excess income needs to be trimmed, and their kids need to be let out of their gated communities. The curriculum has to be modeled less on careerist success, and more on social and economic justice for all.
Extreme wealth inequality is bad for everybody, both rich and poor. Die from indigestion or die from starvation, both are painful. So why not level the playing field and let everybody live, David? The cruel social policies born of Reagan and his paramour Thatcher have metastasized to lethal proportions. We are the sickest, most indebted, most overworked, insecure people in the civilized world, and the most pessimistic about our children's futures.
Social Darwinism is coming back to haunt its right-wing perpetrators where they live and breed. So tax the rich. Their spawn will thank you.
Because David Brooks isn't talking about the poor and working classes here. He's talking about the rich. In the bubble which he inhabits, the most pressing problem for families is not where the next meal or paycheck is coming from, but which Ivy will accept their child.
The rich and the politicians they own are fond of speaking of kids as commodities. They're investments, just like pork belly futures. The rich want a return on their investments, and kids are no exception. It's no surprise that the suicide rate among young people in Silicon Valley is on the upswing. They are abused by wealth.
So their parents need an intervention. Their excess income needs to be trimmed, and their kids need to be let out of their gated communities. The curriculum has to be modeled less on careerist success, and more on social and economic justice for all.
Extreme wealth inequality is bad for everybody, both rich and poor. Die from indigestion or die from starvation, both are painful. So why not level the playing field and let everybody live, David? The cruel social policies born of Reagan and his paramour Thatcher have metastasized to lethal proportions. We are the sickest, most indebted, most overworked, insecure people in the civilized world, and the most pessimistic about our children's futures.
Social Darwinism is coming back to haunt its right-wing perpetrators where they live and breed. So tax the rich. Their spawn will thank you.
426
The society you describe is incredibly miserable. The rich are miserable, the poor are miserable. This description seems pretty extreme and, well, miserable.
1
Why are arguments always invalidated if they refer mainly to the rich? I don't necessarily agree that he's only talking about the rich. Not all involved over-aggressive over-ambitious tiger mother helicopter parents are rich. But either way why does the existence of poor families invalidate every discussion, argument or observation that may center around the wealthy?
3
Karen,
As much as I agree with you comment I must point out that Social Darwinism is about as far from Darwin as one can get and its use is as perfidious as William F Buckley's use of the word conservative to describe the right wing reactionary movement he and his father had been a part of for forty years.
Aldous Huxley was a Darwinist. When Huxley wrote Brave New World it was supposed to demonstrate the horrors of a dystopian world of incredible design and was meant to show the horrors of eugenics and the other solutions to world dysfunction offered by Europe and America's right wing.
Social Darwinism is the exact opposite of Darwin it is a world of design it is a world where those that do well today produce offspring that do well tomorrow because unintended change doesn't happen. I am not confused by climate change denial or the anti science bent of America's right wing. I am not confused by legacy scholarships to your best universities. Random change is the enemy of power and privilege but random change is the core Darwin's science. The right wing is devoted to creating a Brave New World and that is simply not Darwin.
As much as I agree with you comment I must point out that Social Darwinism is about as far from Darwin as one can get and its use is as perfidious as William F Buckley's use of the word conservative to describe the right wing reactionary movement he and his father had been a part of for forty years.
Aldous Huxley was a Darwinist. When Huxley wrote Brave New World it was supposed to demonstrate the horrors of a dystopian world of incredible design and was meant to show the horrors of eugenics and the other solutions to world dysfunction offered by Europe and America's right wing.
Social Darwinism is the exact opposite of Darwin it is a world of design it is a world where those that do well today produce offspring that do well tomorrow because unintended change doesn't happen. I am not confused by climate change denial or the anti science bent of America's right wing. I am not confused by legacy scholarships to your best universities. Random change is the enemy of power and privilege but random change is the core Darwin's science. The right wing is devoted to creating a Brave New World and that is simply not Darwin.
3
Brooks says in his last graph: " The meritocracy is based on earned success. It is based on talent and achievement " which is utter poppycock to kids who have been watching things around them as they mature through their teens, or anyone half-observant of our society through just watching our TeeVee commercials.
This is confirmed by mountains of data showing that the best predictor of a child's economic status is her parents' economic status:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/cruel-key-individual-prosperity...
underlined by the fact that the economies/societies of Canada and most of western YURP are more economically mobile than the U.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-l...
When kids understand that reality in the U.S. is so entirely different from the myth they may have been fed, cognitive dissonance is bound to result; intellectual resolution of the dissonance in young minds is obviously unpredictable.
This is confirmed by mountains of data showing that the best predictor of a child's economic status is her parents' economic status:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/cruel-key-individual-prosperity...
underlined by the fact that the economies/societies of Canada and most of western YURP are more economically mobile than the U.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-l...
When kids understand that reality in the U.S. is so entirely different from the myth they may have been fed, cognitive dissonance is bound to result; intellectual resolution of the dissonance in young minds is obviously unpredictable.
192
There is no doubt that parents' economic status is of great importance in creating opportunities for their children. Captains of industry seldom come from poor families. But mass quality employers, like those in Silicon Valley, have no use for computer scientists whose skills are deficient. While you're talking about jobs in the power structure, most of us just want our kids to have high quality jobs. And make all the excuses you want, if you're kids don't have talent and ambition, and you're not a Bush or a Kennedy, they aren't going to make it.
1
michjas - the empirical data in the linked articles do not make a distinction between ' power structure ' jobs and any other type of jobs; ' talent and ambition ' are beside the point when the power structure is stacked against meritocracy, favoring socio-economic class factors that can better weather all the vicissitudes of life visited on middle class families which effect what opportunities they can provide their kids.
Parents know this, which is why so many think their kids' futures are not as bright as past generations of Americans have thought their kids' lives would be:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/04/the-single-mos...
True, these empiric facts don't line up with the ' pluck ' so often associated with Americans - yet another indication that the wealth/inequality issues of our New Gilded Age on steroids are destroying the country's fabric.
Parents know this, which is why so many think their kids' futures are not as bright as past generations of Americans have thought their kids' lives would be:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/04/the-single-mos...
True, these empiric facts don't line up with the ' pluck ' so often associated with Americans - yet another indication that the wealth/inequality issues of our New Gilded Age on steroids are destroying the country's fabric.
3
From what muck-filled pond does David Brooks dredge these ideas? Not that there isn’t precedent-- Brooks always spits on the ground when he mentions meritocracy, but this is taking things a bit too far. It’s important to realize that Brooks despises meritocracy because it’s a form of liberalism. It suggests that anyone can rise to power, which might threaten the aristocracy or the plutocracy or some other less egalitarian –ocracy that he thinks should rightly run the show.
Parents have guided and misguided their offspring for millennia, long before our last common ancestor split into humans and chimps. At one level parental love has always been unconditional, yet parents also want their children to excel and to thrive. They don’t conspire to irritate conservatives by giving undue praise to their kids. They do what they’ve always done: they look around and see what is being rewarded in the prevailing culture, and they react accordingly.
These days it seems that a very small percentage of chimps have all the bananas. There is no safety net for those without special skills, or for those not lucky enough to be born rich. The shrinking middle class coddles and incites their kids, while far too many others sink into financial oblivion.
This is what happens when a government ceases to be a meritocracy, and greedy zealots take the reins of power. Maybe that’s why it’s called a banana republic.
Parents have guided and misguided their offspring for millennia, long before our last common ancestor split into humans and chimps. At one level parental love has always been unconditional, yet parents also want their children to excel and to thrive. They don’t conspire to irritate conservatives by giving undue praise to their kids. They do what they’ve always done: they look around and see what is being rewarded in the prevailing culture, and they react accordingly.
These days it seems that a very small percentage of chimps have all the bananas. There is no safety net for those without special skills, or for those not lucky enough to be born rich. The shrinking middle class coddles and incites their kids, while far too many others sink into financial oblivion.
This is what happens when a government ceases to be a meritocracy, and greedy zealots take the reins of power. Maybe that’s why it’s called a banana republic.
421
You are way overreacting. Parents need to try. But many try too hard. That's a lesson for all of us, not an anti-liberal rant.
9
I have to disagree a bit. David loves the concept of a meritocracy. He just cares little for those who are not fortunate to have aggressive parents and also the financial head start to navigate the choppy waters to get to the top of the ever narrow pyramid.
9
@Kevin Rothstein,
Googling 'David Brooks Meritocracy' will call up several examples of his previous columns on the topic. In one he pins the faults of of the Obama administration on his elitist background ("The Great Migration," 1/24/13). In Brooks' view, a meritocratic government widens inequality. In my comment to that column, I said that meritocracy raises the specter of elitism, income redistribution, and other socialistic bugaboos, which he then uses as reasons to attack big government.
Smart people who value individualism and education are threats to a conservative government. They're troublemakers. That's why Brooks and Douthat shill for the Republicans.
Googling 'David Brooks Meritocracy' will call up several examples of his previous columns on the topic. In one he pins the faults of of the Obama administration on his elitist background ("The Great Migration," 1/24/13). In Brooks' view, a meritocratic government widens inequality. In my comment to that column, I said that meritocracy raises the specter of elitism, income redistribution, and other socialistic bugaboos, which he then uses as reasons to attack big government.
Smart people who value individualism and education are threats to a conservative government. They're troublemakers. That's why Brooks and Douthat shill for the Republicans.
32
The culture of meritocracy is the culture of commerce. You buy love with good deeds, and your parents buy good deeds with love. In a commercial context you have to earn the right to exist. Either you are useful, with something to sell that others want to buy, or you are useless, an object of contempt and perhaps charity.
Unconditional love wastes the opportunity to shape and mold the beloved. Like any waste, it is immoral. And molding your children is imperative, because if they cannot win they will lose and we have made sure that losing is a miserable experience (so that those who are losing will try harder). Children often see the folly of the whole structure and want to be free of it, but it is the game they must play to avoid the miseries we have prepared for those who try to sit the game out.
Unconditional love wastes the opportunity to shape and mold the beloved. Like any waste, it is immoral. And molding your children is imperative, because if they cannot win they will lose and we have made sure that losing is a miserable experience (so that those who are losing will try harder). Children often see the folly of the whole structure and want to be free of it, but it is the game they must play to avoid the miseries we have prepared for those who try to sit the game out.
41
sdavidc9
What is this American seeing at a late age? It is my African friends who are holding the banner when it comes to the rearing of their children, and what a success it has been with unconditional love, fraught with worry at times while they remind their children of the importance of achieving in an increasingly competitive world. They have passed this message on to me and when I am approached by our young ones, I tell them when they complain, look high, don't play games, don't compare your life to anyone else but keep learning because we have a long way to go.
When we cease to learn, we cease to grow, and a special note to the President and his family, it's not easy for them but they keep growing high in this old child's esteem and caring. A role model for this Irish French American to pass on to others, brought up in the luxury of the Middle Class without a penny in the till, and yet feeling rich in more important ways.
What is this American seeing at a late age? It is my African friends who are holding the banner when it comes to the rearing of their children, and what a success it has been with unconditional love, fraught with worry at times while they remind their children of the importance of achieving in an increasingly competitive world. They have passed this message on to me and when I am approached by our young ones, I tell them when they complain, look high, don't play games, don't compare your life to anyone else but keep learning because we have a long way to go.
When we cease to learn, we cease to grow, and a special note to the President and his family, it's not easy for them but they keep growing high in this old child's esteem and caring. A role model for this Irish French American to pass on to others, brought up in the luxury of the Middle Class without a penny in the till, and yet feeling rich in more important ways.
5
I'm touched by Brooksian concern
For kids which I never discern
When Repubs cut and slash
Social programs, while cash
Flows to rich folk which they didn't earn.
For kids which I never discern
When Repubs cut and slash
Social programs, while cash
Flows to rich folk which they didn't earn.
261