By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
In the midst of a worldwide debate about the character, or lack thereof, of President Clinton, as shown in his behavior - adultery, lies, abuse of power, etc., we suddenly discover, according to the current Newsweek magazine that, whatever his problems, he can't blame it on is mother. Judith Rich Harris in a new book (The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less Than you Think and Peers Matter More")that, for some reason that totally escapes me, is making the rounds of the top talk shows, says: "the belief that what influences children's development...is the way their parents bring them up...is wrong."
Harris claims, Newsweek reports, that after parents contribute an egg or a sperm filled with DNA, virtually noting they do or say - no kind words or hugs, slaps or tirades; neither permissiveness nor authoritarianism; neither a encouragement nor score - makes a smidgen of difference to what kind of adult the child become. Nothing parents do will affect his behavior, mental health, ability to form relationships, sense of self-worth, intelligence or personality. What genes don't do, peers do.
Who on earth is Judith Harris? She is the natural mother of one child and adoptive mother of another - two children who, the article claims, was "thrown out of Harvard University's graduate department of psychology because her professors believed she showed no ability to do important original research.
Apparently her professors were right. She clearly has no ability to do original research.
As it happens, I have done some original research on this topic. I am the mother of six children and twenty-two grandchildren. I've had more than 45 years of research just in my own family, to say nothing of hundreds, thousands, of other young people I've observed over the years, and I say Judith Harris is totally wrong. First she lumps "personality" in with "behavior, mental health, ability to form relationships of self-worth and intelligence.
Sigmund Freud said at the age of 61, "If a man has been his mother's undisputed darling he retains throughout life the triumphant feeling, the confidence in success, which not seldom brings actual success along with it" (Freud, 1917/1961a, p. 156). Freud thought himself a real example of success and left the reader no doubt that he believed parents and their expectations not only were important, but more important than any other factor. Freud apparently used only one subject - himself - to come to that conclusion. So much for science.
Ralph L. Beals and Harry Hoijer, writing on much the same topic in the 1950's said, "A baby two weeks old does not have much personality. Many psychologists are inclined to attribute the formation of personality entirely to the operation of the cultural and physical environment."
Now, here we are, forty five years later, just in time to absolve a generation of baby-boomer parents of any responsibility (or presumably credit) for how their kids turned out, along comes Judith Harris to proclaim that parents make no difference. Using the observation that her natural daughter and her adopted daughter "grew up in the same home filled to overflowing with books and magazines, where classical music was played, where jokes were told" but turned out very differently, Harris argues that parents just don't matter. It's all genes and/or environment and the kids peer group that mold the personality.
The problem will all this gobble-de-gook is that all of them are wrong. Two week old babies HAVE very distinct personalities. How much time did Beals and Hoijer spend observing two week old babies before making such a stupid statement. In fact, babies have a personality BEFORE they are born, a truth that any mother of many children can tell you. Neither parents, nor peer groups, nor genes form the personality. As William Wordsworth put it:
Put another way, from the Old Testament, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty given them understanding."
That spirit is remarkably distinct not only in infancy, but before birth. My quiet, deliberate, thoughtful daughter was quiet before birth. My very physically active, rambunctious son was active before birth. And, the kind of upbringing needed for one type of child won't work on the other type of child. A good mother and father will figure out what kind of child they have, and adapt their parenting to fit the child, not try to force their child into a mold to fit their pre-conceived ideas of what the child should be like.
It sounds like Harris thought her natural and adopted daughters ought to respond the same way to her orders. In fact, her notion that a child's peer group has more impact on the child than parents shows that she taught her children to respond to peer pressure. She appears to have come to her conclusions largely because her daughters were "polar opposites....Nomi was a well-behaved child who "didn't want to do anything we didn't want her to do," Harris said. Elaine, adopted at 2 months was defiant by the age of 11.
Actually, had she actually been paying attention she might have discovered that Elaine had an independent personality, with which she was born, and was showing signs of it in potty training, learning to drink out of a cup or hold a spoon. Some children can be pushed into doing things. Others can only be led and will resist any pushing.
The problem with all the psychological gobbledegook is the notion that parenting can be standardized, thereby obtaining a standard result. Clearly from what she has written, Harris believed that, regardless of the inborn personalities of her daughters, she could standardize her treatment and end up with identical final results. That is simply absurd. Just as we all have fingerprints at birth different from anyone else, we also have personalities that are different from that of anyone else. No two of my six children and twenty-two grandchildren have personalities alike. Occasionally a talent in the family shows up - music here, math there, but that has nothing to do with personality or character. But, personality shows up very early.
I have an eleven year old friend who as a 4 month old would scan a room looking for someone to smile at. When he caught your eye he would give you a big smile which always earned a big smile back. As an eleven year old he is still trying to make people laugh - only now some teachers think its disruptive. Both of his parents are reserved people and they certainly didn't teach their four-month-old how to make people smile. Where did such a delightful personality trait come from? We come with them - trailing clouds of glory do we come, from God. And when we die - we return with much of that same personality, with character traits and knowledge we have gained. A thoughtful, methodical person doesn't become a fast-moving hyper person - regardless of what parents do.
But, hopefully, through good parenting our various personalities will be tempered with self-control, integrity, honesty, and courage. The reason why the most helpless of infants, the human infant, needs two parents ought to be obvious, even to those whose common sense has been warped by too many books on psychology. Infants need parents to help them learn things like self-control, integrity, honesty, courage and morals. And, they need to have those things learned generally by the age of seven or eight - long before "peer pressure" become a factor.
So far as peer pressure is concerned, most teen-agers who are slaves to their peers were taught to be slaves to their peers by mothers who got upset because their child was not doing or could not do what all the other kids were doing. "Susie can do that. Why can't you?" Usually parents can blame themselves for kids that succumb to peer pressure.
I would imagine, for example, that young Bill Clinton was always outgoing and personable. Unfortunately, he was never taught self-control, honesty, integrity, courage and sexual morality. So, to his inborn personality traits he added character traits which cause him to fail, in spite of a winning personality.
What mystifies me about Judith Harris is why anyone is paying any attention to her silly notions. She has no background, original research or in depth analysis of the issue she is talking about. Her own personal experience is meager. Why would talk show hosts and reporters give her so much space?
Can women really hide behind such flimsy writing? Can Harris get women that already are shamelessly neglecting their offspring to spend even less time with their children? It appears that a lot of women already are ready to swallow her bait hook, line and sinker.
Contrary to Harris, parenting is not only very important, it is the most important job anyone will ever have in life. No activity in life is as important or as satisfying than being a mother raising the next generation. Children cannot raise children, Judith Harris notwithstanding. And that's what her notion of parenting through peer pressure is all about.
Eighty-one years ago, in 1917, David O. McKay, who later became president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it all in a few words, "Oh, how helpless, how helpless the state, when the home has failed!" Some fifty years later he noted, "No success compensates for failure in the home."
I think Judith Harris is covering up her own failures as a parent by advocating a policy that will bring wholesale failure to families throughout America. We have enough problems already without ruining still another generation of our children.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com