Hulbert
has written a long book about child-rearing advice in America over the past
century.  I found it a fascinating book.  She has read and has
referenced a great many books and papers on this topic from the lay press as
well as the professional literature, and she has arrived at a gratifying
synthesis.   The book restricts itself to child-rearing guides from just
before the start of the twentieth century on.  The author focuses on the
writers of these guides and the social contexts of their times – especially in
regard to the roles of mothers.

She takes
as a theme – a simplistic one, but heuristic for this book – that Drs. G. Stanley
Hall and L. Emmett Holt, two of the first twentieth-century child-rearing
experts, continued (and continue) to be progenitors of trends in child-rearing
books and advice.

She pays
little attention to the many child-rearing experts who preceded Holt and Hall,
and who certainly influenced them, and starts the book with a compelling
description of the 1899 meeting of the National Council of Mothers, which
convened in Washington, D. C.   The city was snowbound at the time, and
the conditions of the conference were extremely difficult.  The general
mood, however, was one of optimism about scientific progress and its ultimate
effects on child-rearing.

In the
early years of advice about child-rearing, there were some wonderful and
enduring comments, many of which are included in the book.  One which has
a lasting appeal to me comes from the philosopher, John Dewey, and is quoted in
the book:   "Mere general theories and mere facts about children are
no substitute for insight into children."  (I believe this comment
continues to intrude on our research into and understanding of children and
should be considered by all child-rearing professionals and consumers!)

Hall, the
great theorist of adolescence and the person who introduced Freud to the United States, believed
in the innate ability of children to advance themselves, when this was allowed
– e.g. "The best definition of genius is intensified and prolonged
adolescence, to which excessive or premature systemization is fatal."

Holt, on
the other hand, believed in exerting considerable control over children and
prescribed rules for toilet training and even play based on age and, for play,
even time of day!  He thought that good parenting must rely on
"simplicity, brevity and exactness."   In the early years of the
twentieth century, many parents resonated to Holt’s approach.  One mother
(Anna Rogers) wrote:  "The whole present tendency in life is to the
over-development of emotion among men, women, and especially children€¦ What is
really needed to precipitate both peace and progress is, not the elimination,
but the firm control of emotion and instinct, by cool deliberate feminine
wisdom€¦   If a mother would but strive to put less heart into it all, and
more mind!"

Holt
certainly agreed with such sentiments.  He viewed the well-brought-up
child as a "steady little trooper".  In contrast with Holt, Hall
viewed necessary components of adolescence as "immoderation, irregularity,
irresponsibility", which he thought were necessary for what he called
evolutionary momentum in this period:  adolescence is tumultuous and leads
to transformation of the parent-induced initial personality.  Hall further
introduced the concept of the need for a "pedagogy of sex", realizing
that adolescents are sexual beings and likely to be sexually active beings.
  Even the liberal press, including The Nation, attacked this notion, and
Hall was forced to back-pedal.

Obviously,
several people stood on the shoulders of these progenitors of the
child-rearing-advice movement.  One was J. B. Watson, the behaviorist.
 His goal, in the child-rearing literature, was to predict, control and
shape the behavior of children.   He was recruited to the faculty of the Johns Hopkins Medical School by Dr. John
Rowland, who also recruited Holt’s son, L. E. Holt, to study digestive
chemistry.  Watson’s tenure at Hopkins was a checkered one, and after he had an affair with an
assistant, who later married him, he left academia and had a successful career
in advertising.   He wrote an important book, Psychological Care of
Infant and Child, which was quite popular and which was viewed by readers
as highly "scientific".  Watson was against "coddling"
children – indeed, he inveighed against kissing young children and argued that
this was a sexual practice.   This advice was in the context of similar
advice in 1921 and 1925 by the government’s Children’s Bureau, which published
booklets for parents in favor of "habit training", by-the-clock
feedings, and advocacy of letting infants cry indefinitely.  These booklets
advocated an occasional few minutes of "gentle play".

Watson
recommended that toilet training should start at 3 – 5 weeks and he further
argued that parents should not allow the child to be "dependent" at
this or any other age.  On the positive side, he did argue against
physically punishing children at any age.   He insisted that parents
should "never hug and kiss them.  Never let them sit on your lap€¦
Shake hands with them in the morning." The goal was to be "objective
and kindly".  He paid lip-service to Holt but obviously felt that his
approach was the only scientific one.   His second wife wrote wistfully
about her desire for a more "homey" environment for her children.
 She died, and their son, Jimmy, was a suicide.

The next
great giver of advice was Arnold Gesell.  He was the son of a German
immigrant who became a photographer in Wisconsin.  The book does not mention that the father’s work is
greatly sought after, currently, and that his photographs are greatly desired.
  Arnold Gesell did his undergraduate work at Stevens Point, Wisconsin, training as a
teacher.  He eventually trained as a physician and psychologist and had an
immensely important research career at Yale.  He studied the behavior of
children in incredibly intricate detail, describing fifty-eight stages of
pellet behavior, fifty-three stages of rattle behavior, and many stages of some
forty other behavioral patterns.   He viewed the regulating process of
development as "reciprocal interweaving".  In retrospect, the
main challenge to his immense work, which is still formative in any
understanding of child development, is that the subjects were not randomly
chosen, and a great many were the children of Yale faculty.   He wrote
many books relevant to parents in their efforts to raise children.  They
were useful and perhaps helpful, though perhaps overly detailed, but because of
his selection of subjects, the ages given for the acquisition of various tasks
were not as accurate as he would have hoped.

Another
White House Conference occurred in 1950, with the theme, "How Can We Rear
an Emotionally Healthy Generation"?  Benjamin Spock was an important
participant at this conference, but Erik Erikson was its lead spokesperson.
 In contrast to earlier conferences, scientists were humble: research was
in progress, but all the data were not in, in terms of how to raise an
emotionally healthy generation.  Erikson’s views were certainly available
to the well-informed public, but he never attempted to write a child-rearing
guide.

Spock
did, and his efforts were amazing.  He attempted, through a great many
editions, to empower parents.  Basically, he felt that well-intentioned
parents could develop reasonable strategies for child-rearing, and his book
attempted to help them do this.   For parents who had less capacity, his
book had more directions.  Incredibly enough, this wonderful book, which
has gone through so many editions, came under political attack by the right
wing as somehow causing parents not to hold their children accountable for
their actions, and even to cause delinquent behavior.   This is and has
been an amazing phenomenon.

There
were several other parenting books in this time frame, many of which deserve a
greater press than they have had.  Hilde Bruch’s 1952 book, Don’t Be
Afraid of Your Child, should be reprinted and popularized.  It is a
wonderful and sage book.

Spock, of
course, became politicized during the Vietnam War, and he was arrested in old
age for conspiracy to aid draft resistors, an activity of which he was very
proud.  He stated, "I say to the American people, Wake Up!  Get
out there and do something before it’s too late!"   His book
continues to be useful.

Bettelheim’s
book, The Uses of Enchantment, enjoyed a brief popularity in the
‘eighties, as did Elkins’, The Hurried Child.  The book by Elkins
continues to be extremely relevant, though rarely read, in our own time.

By 1980,
there was another White House conference on Families, hosted by President
Carter.  There were data that eighteen-year-olds had spent more time with
television than with parents.  This was decried, but there was little
policy initiative.

Brazleton,
Greenspan, and several others followed this conference with multiple books on
parenting, inspired by incipient research and in some cases proclaiming more
research base than existed.  Television shows also became prominent.
  While these efforts made many inroads, they did not come close to
eclipsing Dr. Spock.  In retrospect, many of the scientific assertions
have not been enduring.

The book
concludes with several examples of current books including many by right-wing
extremists who believe in beating children, etc.  This is unfortunate, and
these books do not belong in the mainstream of the books reviewed in this
effort, most of which were scientifically informed.   The fact that, after
a century of books relying on data-driven approaches to child-rearing, such
books are even being written, is a sad commentary on our society.

Five
times as many parenting books were published in 1997 as in 1995.  This is
a growth industry.  It is a growth industry because parents are cautious
and uncertain about what to do, which may correlate with the loss of the
extended family in many areas of American life.   This book captures much
of it, and does a wonderful job of delineating two major themes in this
endeavor.

Some
major efforts are left out.  There is no reference, for example, to the
efforts of John Holt.  But, over all, this is a wonderful endeavor, which
I applaud.  The vast reading of the author is not entirely reflected in
the references, which is unfortunate, but a minor defect.

When I
was twenty-seven, my wife, Denise, and I were expecting our first child.
 We had acquired several of these books.  My psychotherapy supervisor
and mentor at that time was Harold Martin, a Sullivanian analyst.  I
mentioned the books we had and asked for his advice.   He suggested we
throw the books away and rely on our knowledge and common sense.  We did,
and it worked out well.

© 2004 Lloyd A. Wells

 

Lloyd A.
Wells, Ph.D., M.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Categories: General, Relationships