Notions of how to properly raise children change over time and vary across cultures. In early America, children were necessary labor for struggling farmers trying to survive off the land. They were put to work as soon as they were able, apprenticing their parents and older siblings. After the Industrial Revolution, children went to work in factories; this seemed perfectly normal, considering that they had worked on farms for decades to contribute to the economic well-being of their families.
Today, we think that children should not work, but instead should have a “childhood” full of innocence, play, and imagination. This creates new burdens on parents who can no longer simply have their children work alongside them, but must actively cultivate the ability for their children to do what we believe children are supposed to be doing. This has led to what some sociologists have called “intensive mothering” (as it is usually mothers who do it): constant emotional availability and monitoring of their children’s psychological states, endless activity provision, and high investment in their children’s intellectual development.
Indeed, today some argue that failing to nurture children on every dimension of human capacity or, even, to just let them be, borders on neglect. While others argue that this is a new era of “helicopter parenting” in which parents monitor and control everything in their child’s life because they simply can’t look away or let go.
University of Notre Dame Sociology Professor Jessica Collett drew our attention to a set of cartoons illustrating this new contest over proper parenting at Free Range Kids. The first, by Bill Bramhall, suggests that letting children roam free puts them at risk of homelessness. In it, two homeless-looking men sit on a park bench watching children play by themselves. One says, “My mother took me to the park and left me there, too.”
The second, by artist Richard Estell, is in direct response to the first, arguing that parents are acting out of fear and that over-supervised children are more likely to experience mental and physical health problems. The men read newspapers with headlines that read “Parents see only danger” and “Helicopter parents’ kids depressed.”
What we have here, then, is a new social contest. Changes in ideas about who children are (kids vs. small adults), why people have them (as a personal indulgence or an additional laborer), and what good parenting looks like (intensive or functional) has created a new type of parenting.
As this new type has become the dominant idea of what good parenting looks like, a backlash has evolved that critiques it. And thus we have an excellent example of historical change and the social construction of social problems.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 20
Chenoa — September 10, 2010
I *loved* the book Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau; she asserts that "helicopter parenting" is a middle/upper-class phenomenon, while lower class parents structure their children's lives less and interfere less. It's been a while since I read it, but it was very interesting to read about the class-based parenting differences, the cultural advantages of the middle/upper-class parenting style, etc. She didn't argue for/against either style, either, which made it more bearable than reading newspaper editorials about what makes "a good parent."
andie — September 10, 2010
I have to wonder how much the helicopter-parenting phenomenon is a byproduct of leftover guilt from the post-feminist backlash. It seems to me to be some kind of overcompensation that stems from a fear that as career women we have somehow neglected our roles as mothers, rather than learned to share them with our respective co-parents. In the days of stay-at-home mothers, the need to make such a show of parenting may not have been as great since by virtue of being home, you were parenting, without a need to prove oneself.
I do place a lot of blame on the culture of fear and an increasing nanny-state whereby the government dictates chronological ages where children can be allowed to play outside unsupervised, leave their property unsupervised etc.
I remember being taught about 'Stranger Danger' as a child, and I realize that it's not really taught to the coming generation because the prevailing attitude is "Why do they need to learn that? They shouldn't be out of your sight anyway"
So basically we have two-income (or one-income single parent families) that have increasing pressure on them to provide the optimal childhood experience while never letting said children out of their site lest they be kidnapped, molested, murdered, maimed etc.
Meanwhile, previous generations were content to get their kids out of childhood alive. And a LOT of them had at least one parent (or in cases of multi-generational or extended households, some kind of adult supervision around). Oh and kids were expected to HELP.
This generation of parents got a raw deal, I think.
Eve — September 10, 2010
It does seem like mothers can't get a break. Either they are overprotective "helicopter parents" or they are lazy and don't care enough to make sure their kids get perfect home-cooked organic meals and the best possible activities for their future adult lives. Obviously most people are somewhere in the middle and doing the best they can. I don't have any kids, but I feel like if I did I would always be worrying about them when they were out of sight. But is that my personality or has it been imposed on me by our fearful culture?
fuzzy — September 10, 2010
I remember my friend being shocked because I sent my 7 year old to the corner store with a couple bucks for popsicles....but really....it was a few blocks and she was fine. I worked nights so on school holidays and such she was on her own from about 5 or so on--I was in the house, and woke up to create meals, but essentially she was playing on her own with enough common sense to get a snack, let the dog out, etc....
When friends' children were learning to unload the dishwasher at age 8, mine could cook a meal, change a (cloth) diaper---yeah, the kind with pins!--and basically manage the kids younger than themselves. It wasn't an ideal situation, but it was all we had, and the kids today are grown, independent---before 21, I might add---and self-supporting. I doubt that it hurt them much.
Helena — September 10, 2010
I agree with T. I'm a university professor, and the universal opinion of myself and my colleagues is that entitlement issues in current proto-adults are a serious problem. I cannot imagine that the current generation's feelings of entitlement are unrelated to the more recent trend of helicopter parenting. These kids, who were constantly coddled and praised, now expect A's without studying - the mere fact of being themselves merits praise.
I'm not at a top school, but a mid-range state school, so I can't speak to the other demographics. Maybe the ends of the spectrum behave differently, but my observations after 7 years is that: 1. The more socioeconomically advantaged students have more serious cases of entitlement. 2. The less-entitled students are either exceptionally bright, minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, non-traditional (older and working), or one or more of the above.
I would never criticize anyone else's parenting strategies (assuming no abuse was involved), but I do believe that over-parenting conveys a disadvantage on the child that propagates into adulthood. Perhaps this disadvantage will disappear as a higher proportion of the workforce is composed of coddled, entitled individuals, but is that really beneficial to our economy and productivity? Does that convey any advantage whatsoever to the child?
I'd rather raise a grounded child who understands that rewards must be earned, and who is capable of independent decision making than one who expects success to fall into his/her lap.
shorelines — September 10, 2010
Minnesota Public Radio had an interesting interview a few weeks back with Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who wrote "The Case Against Adolescence". http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/10/13/midmorning1/ He argues that teenage rebellion is a modern, socially constructed phenomenon that has nothing to do with hormones, immature brains or any other intrinsic biological characteristic of teenagers. He believes many teens behave badly because they lead "ridiculous lives", being treated like children long after that should have been expected to behave like adults - which he believes should happen very soon after puberty. He argues that demonstrated competency, and not age should determine when young people are ready to enjoy the rights, responsibilities and privileges of adulthood - and crossing the bridge should happen sooner rather than later - for everyone's sake. He also makes a big point of saying children spend too much time with other children and should spend more time with adults learning how to be adults - not just being "monitored".
I am not a helicopter mom, put I do parent a tween who is well on her way to becoming a teen-aged pain in in my behind. I found Dr. Epstein's arguments interesting and compelling. My natural inclination is to parent along the lines, if not to the extreme, that he suggests. I have to say though, the disturbed judgmental looks and comments from the hovering types really dampen my resolve.
Von — September 10, 2010
A few points..most abuse of kids happens in the home by people they know or relatives.The rise of infertility and fertility technolgies and the number of adoptions in America for which large sums of money are paid, must have an effect on how 'precious' children are, how protected and how the freedom of childhood is viewed.
ora — September 12, 2010
No-one thinks of comparing "going to school" to child labour...
child labour has different aspects:
1) can be detrimental to child's health
2) Asks the child to do more of one chore than it would want to
however, school might also correspond to aspect 2).
Pia — September 15, 2010
I find this article very interesting because I myself have over protective parents who pay all my bills, and threaten to call campus police if I don't respond to their phone calls. I am trying to be more independent, and even planning to stay over the summer or part of the winter because it's getting a bit ridiculous now. I appreciate the help with the loans, but the constant calling needs to stop.
‘I am a victim of nothing but my own bad choices': Women Against Feminism and neoliberal individualism | genders, bodies, politics — October 31, 2014
[…] risks through financial investments and prescribed bodily practices such as breastfeeding and intensive attachment parenting. This individualising of responsibility holds them personally to account when things go wrong, with […]
Intensive Farming Vs Free Range | Pinoyfans Game Club — August 2, 2015
[…] Intensive Mothering vs. Free Range Kids: Contesting … – Sep 10, 2010 · Notions of how to properly raise children change over time and vary across cultures. In early America, children were necessary labor for struggling farmers … […]
Невидимые слёзы супермамы, или об интенсивном материнстве | ПолитВести — November 27, 2017
[…] Л. Вэйд указывает, что сегодня альтернативой интенсивного материнства […]