Transcript
Reevaluating Permissive Parenting: The Reigning Influence of Psychology in 1950s America
Matthew Sisto
HIS 368W
Professor Borus
November 23, 2015
Sisto 2
Table of Contents
Deep Roots 6
A Lack of Consensus 12
Parental Responsibility for Disaster 20
Exhortation to Trust 25
Warranted Permissiveness 29
Is Spock To Blame? 33
Conclusion 36
Sisto 3
The Fifties in America are often thought by many Americans to be a quite traditional
time in American history, exploding into the antithetically permissive decade of the Sixties.
Recent research has begun to conclude that it was in fact more permissive than was initially
thought. One specific area that is often called out is that of child rearing. Permissiveness has
varied definitions, but I specifically argue in this case that it means parents became more relaxed
in when and how they enforced obedience in the effort to protect their child from maladjustment
and to foster proper growth as an individual; from here on, all references to permissiveness in
this work are to be interpreted according to this definition.
Benjamin Spock is typically accused of being the progenitor of permissive parenting
during the Fifties, leading parents to allow their children to run free, thus resulting in the chaotic
Sixties. Thus the responsibility lay with the parents, who were excessively lenient. The message
is that parents were to blame for the rise in permissiveness, aided by Spock’s influential writings.
Yet taking another look, specifically through the lens of the New York Times, reveals that the
answer is not so clear. In fact, it may be quite different from what has been commonly described.
Analyzing New York Times articles from the year 1950 reveals that perhaps it was not entirely
the parents’ fault; a close reading shows that psychologists were not concordant in their advice
on what behaviors and values were appropriate, and how they were to be enforced. This arose
out of a reaction against behaviorism due to a fear of creating authoritarian adults. Yet
psychologists still exhorted parents to trust their every word, all the while placing the weight of
children’s maldevelopment solely on the parents’ shoulders. Of course this would place a great
deal of stress on the parents and would result in what appears to be permissiveness, but what is
in fact a desperate attempt by parents to follow psychologists’ vacillating advice in order to save
Sisto 4
their children from poor development. This because they were told they no longer knew how to
raise children without psychological advice. This analysis is of course not a blanket statement for
parents and seeks to address only readers of the New York Times.
The reader may of course be wondering why I specifically chose the year 1950 from the
Times. The answer is less about the significance of 1950 and more about a simple desire to keep
this analysis within a reasonable limit. This same analysis could – and should – be done for the
years preceding and following 1950; this is a time- and labor-intensive exercise which far
exceeds the scope of this paper. The objective of my research is to begin an investigation which
will spark further research on this topic. The amount of articles which I examined from just 1950
are numerous enough on their own and I presume that other years are likewise inundated with
these parental advice articles.
The other inevitable question which will arise is why choose The New York Times? Why
not something like Times Magazine? There were certainly other viable options and a study of the
same subject in Time would be equally interesting. However, The New York Times is considered
a paper of record. Additionally, it was read by the group most in question in this paper, white
middle-class families. Alan Petigny, who has done extensive research into permissiveness in
America, explains the reasoning for this in his work The Permissive Society: America, 1941-
1965. Petigny argues that permissiveness is parents’ depart from complete adherence to the
traditional rigid methods of the past. He says that although other groups at this time, particularly
African Americans, did became less rigid in their parenting styles, it was not to the same degree
as “whites who hailed from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.”1 Furthermore, a study by a
Urie Bronfenbrenner showed that “during and prior to World War II… white middle-class
1 Alan Cecil Petigny, The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 42.
Sisto 5
families tended to be more strict with their children than working class parents,” but “‘after
World War II, however, there has been a definite reversal in direction.’”2 Brofenbrenner cited the
reason for this being the resources available to the middle-class: “‘Child-rearing practices are
likely to change most quickly in those segments of society which have closest access and are
most receptive to the agencies or agents of change (e.g., public media, clinics, physicians, and
counselors).’”3 One of those resources certainly would have been The New York Times.
Rather than use the internet database, I used the microfilm version of the Times available
in the University of Rochester’s “Newspaper and Microfilm Center.” My guide was The New
York Times Index which allowed me to search for and locate all articles relevant to the topic at
hand. Besides the Times, I also made use of other primary resources which would reflect the
ideas presented in the Times, such as Benjamin Spock’s Raising Children in a Difficult Time as
well as his original work The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care.4 As for secondary
sources, I owe much to Alan Petigny, whose extensive research into “permissiveness” from his
book The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965, helped to provide a supplementary voice,
buttressing my case. Julia Grant’s Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American
Mothers was also an extremely useful resource, creating a detailed timeline of the different
opinions in parental education as well as their effects on mothers.
Deep Roots
2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 I was not able to obtain a first edition copy. I am therefore dependent at the moment on the quotes offered by Petigny. In this paper, I make use of the 1957 edition.
Sisto 6
Flipping through the New York Times index spanning the years 1890-1893 and searching
for the subject of “psychology” yields no major subject heading. However, there is in fact
mention of the topic itself. A search under the News Index of July 1 to December 31, 1893
reveals two small mentions of psychological studies. Their inclusion in the Times indicates at
least some importance of reporting the stories, even if only two in a half-year period.
With the new style of index in 1907 came the addition of a subject heading for
psychology.5 More articles concerning psychology begin to appear. All this is to simply show the
growing trend in psychological interest. What is important to understand is that as Times readers’
interest in psychology expanded, their opinions on the subject would be shaped by the dominant
theory – that is until competing theories were introduced, resulting in diametrically opposed
messages.
The largest influence in psychology which dominated thought between 1920 and 1950
was behaviorism, championed by John B. Watson. Indeed, the increasing prevalence of this
mode of thought began to appear in the New York Times. In January of 1920, an article was
published simply stating “Study of Behavior.”6 Though dealing more with the effects of madness
on personal liberty, the author asserts that the key to protecting against this spread of mania is to
study behavior.7 He ends his column with a plea for the development of the educational faculties
needed to further the study: “Will not some public benefactor or one of the large foundations
seize the present opportunity to establish in our universitea [sic] departments for the study of
human behavior with proper equipment both for investigation and instruction?”
5 The New York Times Index: For the Published News of 1907, Prior Series Vol. 10 (New York: The New York Times Company, 1976), 175.6 Stewart Paton, New York Times, January 31, 1920, 10:6.7 This article was not a description of Watson’s ideas. I introduce it in order to provide an example of the growing trend of behaviorism.
Sisto 7
Though behaviorism was the dominant force, its antithesis was also coming into
existence; the principles of leniency slowly crept into the conversation of child psychology.
Frank Howard Richardson, in his book “Parenthood and the Newer Psychology” asserts that the
desire for a well-disciplined child stems not from concern for the child’s wellbeing, but rather
from a desire of the parent to satisfy their ego by the display of their ability to control the child.8
This then develops into a very strict parent, one who will be feared but in the end hated by their
child. To avoid these problems, Richardson advises that parents work to curb the desire to be
terse in their requests, instead favoring a gentle request and limiting commands to the realm of,
essentially, life-or-death situations:
In other words, there undoubtedly are times when the short, sharp, peremptory command is essential; where its employment, followed by quick, unhesitating obedience, may even be the means of saving a life that would otherwise be lost. But for one such case… there are a hundred or more instances in which the sharp, curt command is employed with one’s child, where the courteous one would have been every bit as efficacious…9
He further advocates for the rephrasing of commands in a positive format, as opposed to those
that begin with “don’t do…” and suggests the avoidance of corporal punishment.10
Though these principles would be considered radical for the time, there is another more
striking implication from the words of Richardson which alludes to the tone of psychological
advice in the coming decades. In seeking to make a point, Richardson uses German atrocities as
an example of the end result of blind obedience, enacting “barbarous, brutal and cruel deeds that
shocked humanity,— deeds that none of them would ever, as individuals, have dreamed of
doing.”11 The descriptors are frightening and would have undoubtedly conjured up a
remembrance of events which were still all too fresh. The implication of this is that if parents
8 Frank Howard Richardson, A.B., M.D., Parenthood and the Newer Psychology (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1926), 128.9 Ibid., 144.10 Ibid., 144-5, 148.11 Ibid., 134.
Sisto 8
were obstinately strict in their demand for obedience, it could result in grave consequences for
their child. Indeed, the chapter on discipline was appositely titled “The Greatest Responsibility
Ever Assumed—Disciplining a Child.”12 What was a parent to do then? Could they really be
trusted to ensure the proper upbringing of their child? If their desire to strictly discipline their
child came not from love but from a deeper desire to defend their own pride, could they then
reliably know what to do in order to direct the path of their child? Richardson provides a simple
answer to these questions, slipped subtly into his text when discussing how to avoid negativism
in giving commands: “Remember that no outsider is as attractive to your child as you are,— until
of your own volition, chiefly out of your ignorance of child psychology, you deliberately or
precipitately abdicate in favor of the outsider, by arousing this force against yourself.”13 Now it
becomes clear. If the worried parent wishes to keep their child on the straight and narrow, they
should adhere to the doctrines of child psychology. Straying from the tenets would be foolish,
and the parents would certainly not have the child’s best interests in mind.
Richard Amaral Howden also seeks to depart from the rigid styles of the past in his book
Child Upbringing and the New Psychology. Howden emphasizes guarding against extremes on
both sides of parenting. In echoing Richardson, he suggests that a figure of authority’s severity
of punishment might “result from an overestimation of their individual ego, or a projection of
their own fears and irritability.”14 Addressing the opposite view, he says, “In spite of the views
expressed by certain schools of psychological thought, it is felt that there could be no greater
12 Ibid., 124.13 Ibid., 140. Emphasis is mine. Richardson states just above this quote that one should “Leave negativism to expend its ugly force upon evil suggestions made by others.” He is essentially telling the parent to allow others to speak of negativism, but to not utilize it in their parenting style; said another way, let the person talk and suffer the consequences of their own advice, but do not apply it to your own parenting. For more on negativism, see pp. 137-41.14 Richard Amaral Howden, Child Upbringing and the New Psychology (New York [etc.]; London;: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1933), 49.
Sisto 9
mistake than to dispense with punishment in a child’s upbringing and education…”15 Howden
cautions against extreme indulgence and lack of discipline, but it is significant that he stated that
there were schools of thought which promulgated this type of parenting, even as early as 1933.
What is truly interesting about Howden’s work is how he justifies the authority of the
psychologists. He addresses his readers with two questions that they are inevitably asking in their
heads. The first of these is, if the methods of the past are so ineffective, why are there so many
normal men, women, and children? Howden’s answer is quite humorous: “I am afraid that the
answer is that it is more by good luck than good management that the past has not had to pay a
larger penalty for its mistakes!”16 In fact, he says that “statistics…actually afford conclusive
evidence that lunacy is on the increase [what constitutes lunacy is a good question], as is also the
the number of suicides.”17 He continues to cite a myriad of social problems as consequences of
the traditional methods of parenting.
His second question deals directly with the authority of psychologists: “‘What evidence
have we got that the claims of modern medical psychology have any justification for their truth
and surety?’”18 In addressing this question, Howden continually compares the work and research
of psychologists with that of physicians. His justification borders on being cheeky. Rather than
paraphrase, it would be better to let Howden speak for himself:
What evidence have we got that certain spots and certain bodily symptoms indicate to a qualified doctor that we are suffering from measles or typhoid fever or eczema? We believe that the doctor’s diagnosis is a correct one because we understand that his training and his practice qualify him to differentiate between measles and encephalitis lethargica. The doctor can make a certainty of this diagnosis because he has years of research by medical men the world over, while his text-books and training have taught him to diagnose specific diseases from certain symptoms. The same argument applies to the results of the deep scientific
15 Ibid., 55.16 Ibid., 6.17 Ibid.18 Ibid., 8.
Sisto 10
research which physicians of all nationalities have been giving to those diseases largely due to definite psychological factors.19
Though Howden does try to separate psychoanalysis from psychology, he still holds this same
attitude when discussing the rejection of Freud’s ideas by the common public. He asserts that the
ideas of Freud were too complex for the common man as the professor had written “as an expert
for experts on a very abstruse subject.”20 According to Howden, Freud never meant for his ideas
interpreted by “people who hadn’t the foggiest idea of what he was talking about, and read into
his writings for their own sexual experiences.”21 What he seems to be indicating is that readers
should only absorb and engage with ideas that are meant for them, that they should trust the
people who have been educated in this field. Besides, Howden and other psychologists had
already done all of the work for the “ordinary reader [who] has neither time nor inclination to
wade through the deep and somewhat turbulent streams of this literature.”22 Howden’s feelings on
this can be summed up with one of his, once again, humorous but slightly cheeky quotes: “After
all, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, and, to carry on this metaphor, a cook who has
eaten the pudding, besides having learnt the ingredients and the process of cooking it, can be said
to be an authority as to whether the pudding is both edible and digestible!”23
The preface to the third edition of Child Care and Training, written by Marion L. Faegre
and John E. Anderson of the University of Minnesota and published in 1930, begins with an
interesting line: “There is no need, in view of the widespread interest at the present time in the
training of young children, to justify either the content or the publication of this book.”24 Indeed,
19 Ibid., 9.20 Ibid., 13.21 Ibid.22 Ibid., 15.23 Ibid.24 Marion Ellison Lyon Faegre, John Edward Anderson, and University of Minnesota. Institute of Child Welfare and Development, Child Care and Training, 4th, rev. ed. (London; Minneapolis;: H. Millford, Oxford University Press, 1937), iii.
Sisto 11
the authors stress that this statement is self-evident by the fact that there is such a high demand for
advice on child-rearing all over the U.S. and the world. Granted, this book takes a midline
approach to discipline, encouraging neither of the extremes. However, there are still hints of what
will become more apparent later on, that the parent can cause the detrimental maldevelopment of
their child if they so much as slightly cross the border into “excessive” territory: “Punishment is
so much more likely to have harmful than good results that it should be used with the care one
would take in handling an explosive. As Kilpatrick says, we must be careful to see that the
positive good we expect as a result will outweigh whatever ‘evil will almost surely follow.’”25
However, not all mothers in the early part of the 20th Century accepted the ideas of the
behaviorists. Despite Howden having said that it was by sheer luck that the world did not suffer
from the destructive parenting methods of the past, other mothers were not so quick to agree with
this idea. Younger women more readily believed the new science than older mothers, the latter
being skeptical since the behaviors said to be detrimental by behaviorists had been used by these
women and the predecessors for years without much issue.26 For example, the behaviorists often
recommended parents to stop rocking or soothing their child before sleep, as it would create bad
habits in the child which would be difficult to reverse later. However, many mothers did not wish
to dispense with a method which seemed to work for many children and “undoubtedly gave
comfort to both mother and child.”27 Although the methods made sense to many mothers as a
means of alleviating some of their issues, the strict detachment promulgated by behaviorists
would be the biggest factor in its decline in popularity, especially when children’s
maldevelopment is laid solely at the feet of the parents. The Child Welfare Magazine writer
25 Ibid., 168.26 Julia Grant, Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American Mothers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 140.27 Ibid., 142.
Sisto 12
perfectly exemplifies the claims leveled against parents by the professionals: “How many young
things do you know who are in revolt, parent-ridden? How many almost at the end of their ropes
—nearly done in, in fact, by the over-bearing love of their progenitors?”28
A Lack of Consensus
In the postwar era, behaviorism comes under further criticism due to fears about
authoritarianism. In the same way that Richardson discussed German atrocities, people feared
that inflexible adults would lead to a repeat of World War II. The psychologists seemed to think
they had the answer to the problem. By 1950, this message of obedience to authorities of the
field had not been extinguished. Surely this a question of chicken and egg. Did scholars assert
their ideas and parents obeyed? Or did parents feel that their methods were failing, so they turned
to psychologists? No conclusive answer can be reached, but I argue that the former prompted the
latter to occur during this period. The increasing prevalence of scholarly advice made parents
feel that their methods were not working (or were not going to work) and thus it became a
continuous cycle. Some parents who felt uncertain about their parenting, may have turned to the
New York Times for guidance – only after having read it, become more flummoxed than they
had been before.
Among scholars, the Fifties are often thought of as a time where traditional parenting
styles were being overturned by a quite permissive style, usually attributed to the influence of
Benjamin Spock. Spock is often blamed for the subsequent generation’s relativity of morals and
lifestyle. However, the answer is not so black and white. In fact, as Christopher Lasch states,
28 Katherine Brookman, “To All Parents Everywhere—An Appeal to Loosen the Apron Strings,” Child Welfare Magazine 21 (March 1926): 389, quoted in Julia Grant, Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American Mothers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 143.
Sisto 13
“Spock should be seen instead as one of [permissiveness’s] critics, seeking to restore the rights
of the parent in the face of an exaggerated concern for the rights of the child.”29 Certainly some
of Spock’s earlier writings reflected a permissive attitude in parenting, such as his advice to
provide a child with something which they stole in order to show them their needs can be taken
care of at home.30 In his later work “Raising Children in a Difficult Time” published in 1974, he
attempts to vindicate himself by interpreting his advice which was purportedly misappropriated
by some parents, thus giving him the reputation of being permissive. For example, in reference to
toilet training, he seeks to correct misinterpreted information:
In the first edition of Baby and Child Care I wrote that once in a while an unusually tactless and bossy parent can make a child of a year and a half so rebellious about training that the fight may go on for months and the child’s personality may become lasting obstinate. I advised that when rebellion occurs, the parent can desist for a month and then resume training more gently.
This well-meant advice had the unfortunate effect of making a lot of parents who weren’t tactless or bossy so apprehensive about conflict that they hardly dared start toilet training at all. As soon as they did and the child showed the least reluctance, the parents quickly stopped their efforts.31
Whatever his original intentions, Spock clearly attempts to set the record straight concerning his
advice on toilet training. Perhaps, as Lasch puts it, “he and other experts of the forties and fifties
had become somewhat belatedly aware of the way their own advice undermined parental
confidence.”32 Indeed, as Spock admits, the parents were so fearful that their children would
become so obdurate that they would develop this personal trait and retain it for the rest of their
lives; the responsibility of the child’s wellbeing fell squarely on the parents’ shoulders, which
29 Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), 163. Lasch says this because Spock and some of his contemporaries seek later on to set the record straight concerning parents’ responsibility: “They began to suggest, tentatively at first, that parents should not be held responsible for all their children’s faults. ‘The deepest roots,’ wrote one pediatrician, ‘lie not in the mistakes of the parents but in cultural attitudes of which the parents are merely the purveyors.’”30 Petigny, 39.31 Benjamin Spock, Raising Children in a Difficult Time: A Philosophy of Parental Leadership and High Ideals (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 31. Except for Baby and Child Care, emphasis is mine.32 Lasch, 163.
Sisto 14
was certainly a source of great stress. So, instead of analyzing their own personality, they took
the advice of Spock and misappropriated to their situation, causing instead more difficulties for
themselves.
This ambiguity of information makes itself present in a New York Times article from
1950 in which Spock gives his opinion about indulgences in meeting a baby’s demands. The title
alludes to this with “’Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands Is All Right if Not Overdone,
Experts Agree.”33 The veil is not exactly lifted after the article is read. Spock gives advice on
distinguishing between two types of night crying in infants, asserting “mothers can distinguish
between the two only in light of the child’s total behavior.”34 A nervous parent might at least
hope then that the question of allowable amounts of answering the child’s cries might be
answered, but the response proves to remain shrouded in abstruseness: “In general, the experts
agreed, ‘children need not severity, not complete leniency, but rather supportive guidance at each
step.’”35 This is not a disagreeable statement, but for a mother dependent upon psychological
expert guidance, there is no clear line or delineated course of action. This article could be
interpreted in two other ways. The first is that it is an expression of increased permissiveness,
instructing rigid parents to loosen their grip slightly; instead of always ignoring a crying baby,
they could attempt to look at the child’s total behavior and decide when to answer the child’s
calls. The second is actually a return to some levels of rigidity, by cautioning parents not to
indulge their children to an extreme; they should not answer every cry but discern when it is
appropriate to let the child sort things out by itself. It is not entirely clear which was meant to be
the message, but what is clear is that there was prescription to find some kind of middle ground.
33 “‘Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands Is All Right if Not Overdone, Experts Agree,” New York Times, February 23, 1950, 31:3.34 Ibid.35 Ibid.
Sisto 15
Is it fair to say that parents were accepting verbatim what psychologists were saying? It is
true that a sweeping statement cannot be applied and do justice to any said group, but there was a
growing trend among parents to take psychologists at their every word. The gradual transfer of
parenting over to experts was due to a message which implied that uninstructed and unadvised
parents were not able to be vehicles of moral or disciplinary instruction (at least until they
learned the proper methods). The elevation of impotence as a “higher form of awareness”
justified the intellectual consignment of parenting to the experts.36 In this way, parents would
absorb and reflect the teachings bestowed to them by the psychological intelligentsia. It became
problematic when parents sought to trust in experts who provided unclear or conflicting
principles.
Another contested topic was that of aggression. In a February 1950 article of the Times,
Mrs. Helen W. Puner advocated the true expression of feelings as long as doing so was
conducted with self-discipline. Underneath the subheading “Good in ‘Letting Off Steam,’” the
article relates Puner’s opinion: “…When family life is open and frank, where there is
‘houseroom’ for letting off steam in shouts, impatience and quarrels, ‘children do not grow
inward,’ she asserts… instead of despairing when we lose our tempers with our children… let us
admit that our shortcomings are part of our heritage as human beings.”37 This is not altogether
unsound advice, as Puner again seems to be edging toward the middle ground. Being angry is
part of the human experience and it is important for children not to bottle up their emotions.
Essentially, she is trying to bring some much needed realism to the family and some relief to
those who feel that the expression of their emotions does not match “the idealized family of
36 Lasch, 167.37 “Hidden Hostility Found Family Evil: Child Study Pamphlet Urges Expression of True Feelings But With Self-Control,” New York Times, February 27, 1950, 24:2.
Sisto 16
books and advertisements.”38 However, she is unlike some of the other advisors of her time in
that she does not offer two extremes of opinion in the same article.
Dr. David Beres asserts at the beginning of a column in November that “Parents have not
only the right but the duty to control and restrain their children when they are being overly
aggressive…”39 Reading this introduction would make the reader believe that Beres’s opinion
corresponds to the appositely titled article, “Psychiatrist Finds Restraints Needed.” Yet the tone
quickly changes. In the same paragraph, the summary of Beres’s stance begins with the
consequences of unbridled aggression: “More harm can result from permitting uncontrolled
behavior… than from imposing necessary restraints and their resultant frustrations.” He then
cautions “It is important, however, that the restraint be carried out in an atmosphere of
acceptance and parental affection.” From here, the message begins to take on a permissive
flavor, ending with a message which makes one wonder who needs restraint—the children or the
parents? “Because aggression is so much a part of total personality development, he noted,
punishment or attempts at direct education are not likely to be effective. ‘Although we usually
think of aggression as destructive,’ he pointed out, ‘it can be a constructive force that leads to
useful action.’”
This permissive style towards aggression is reinforced in a December article in the
Sunday paper. Writings from Edith Lesser Atkin in a pamphlet she wrote “in conjunction with
the C.S.A. staff” and approved of “by nine other specialists in the field.”40 Atkins reminds
38 Ibid.39 “Psychiatrist Finds Restraints Needed,” New York Times, November 29, 1950, 43:4. The context in the article for Beres’s comments are as follows: “Aggressive feelings create conflicts and anxieties and a sense of guilt, Dr. Beres declared. They can be stimulated by a number of factors, including the deprivation of love. Therefore, it is an important matter who does the restraining and how it is done. ¶ Because aggression is so much a part of total personality development, he noted, punishment or attempts at direct education are not likely to be effective. ‘Although we usually think of aggression as destructive,’ he pointed out, ‘it can be a constructive force that leads to useful action.’”40 Dorothy Barclay, “Aggressiveness in the Very Young,” New York Times, sec. 6, December 17, 1950, 32:3.
Sisto 17
parents that “aggressiveness isn’t always evil and destructive. At its best it makes for initiative,
enterprise and healthy competitiveness. And even at its worst at least a little of it is a normal part
of growing up.” The counsel sounds vaguely familiar to Beres’s charge that aggression can be a
“constructive force.” Yet Atkins takes matters a step further, indicating that perhaps it is the
parents who are at fault for the aggression in the child: "The child who 'just won't stand up for
himself' may be the product of over-anxious, protective, possessive parents who smother his
attempts to do things for himself." It is important to note the word “may,” which is used as a
cautionary opening so as not to be all-inclusive. It would be unfair to say Atkins meant all
aggressive children are the product of such parents. Still, the implication is there and, as in the
case of Spock’s misappropriated guidance on toilet training, it is highly possible that parents to
whom this counsel was not directed would have taken the advice to heart, seeking to restrain less
for fear of being said overbearing parents.
Even after this coverage of a more latitudinarian form, the author of the article endorses
a separate pamphlet called “Some Special Problems of Children (Aged 2 to 5 Years)” composed
not by Atkins, but by Nina Ridenour and Isabel Johnson. Here, an almost antithetical stance is
praised for dealing with issues of hurting other children, to using bad language: “Letting a child
continue overly aggressive behavior completely unrestrained can cause him as much or more
harm than he is causing others.” The article ends by stating that a parent’s success in the matter
“will depend on how well parents sense the child’s need, on the one hand, and, on the other, how
well they know themselves.” Perhaps this advice was aimed at extreme levels of aggression (for
which hurting other children might count), but foul language may not quite fit this description. In
any case, a more rigid model is championed in this pamphlet, and within the same article, the
author presents Atkins’s somewhat conflicting view. Hopefully parents took the advice to “know
Sisto 18
themselves,” as this was probably the best they could do in order to sort through the two
confounding narratives.
Not everyone relayed such ambiguity. In an article titled “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand
Feeding,’” a Boston obstetrician named Frederick C. Irving rails at psychologists for the
misguidance of parents. He says, “‘This business of feeding a new baby every time it howls for
something—demand feeding, they call it—is just one of the ways these so-called child
psychologists have fouled things up.’”41 Clearly he blames not the parents but the pseudo-child
psychologists. His indictment strikes deep at the growing trend in psychology, as the article
recounts that “although he is highly in favor of research, Dr. Irving thinks ‘less than nothing’ of
such new psychological fads as demand feeding.”
One psychological textbook of the time period, “Child Development and Personality” by
Paul Henry Mussen and John Janeway Conger addressed the issue of demand feeding as well,
albeit in an oscillatory fashion. The text basically says that a mother is responsible for how the
child acts towards her and feeding. She can become associated with pleasant or distasteful
feelings depending upon how adroitly the feeding is conducted.42 The implications are even
stretched to adulthood, claiming that “Lack of social feeling, suspiciousness, mistrust of people,
and resentment and hostility towards society may have their deepest roots in the mother’s inept
handling of the feeding situation.”43 To the authors’ credit, they present two completely
antithetical ways of feeding a baby. In the interest of being a textbook and simply presenting
various types of research, this is understandable. Yet the text reflects on a small scale the
41 “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand Feeding’: Boston Obstetrician Declares Child Discipline Should Start in Bassinet,” New York Times, June 28, 1950, 34:5.42 Paul Henry Mussen and John Janeway Conger, Child Development and Personality, (New York: Harper, 1956), 138.43 Ibid., 139.
Sisto 19
problems inherent in the world of psychology which was being presented to parents. The fact
that it was published six years after the New York Times articles examined in this paper is
indicative of the deeply rooted nature of this conflict.
The first of these methods is the behaviorist approach. The method was rigid and cold, as
“loving, cuddling, and displays of affection were to be practically eliminated.”44 The authors
proceed to describe a series of experiments conducted by D. P. Marquis, who concluded that
infants can in fact conform to a feeding schedule.45 Below this, they introduce the concept of
“Warm Mothering in Feeding,” in which they state, “The fact that infants can learn to adapt to
feeding schedules does not mean that it is advisable to force them to conform to such
schedules.”46 Aldrich, another scholar on the subject included in Mussen and Conger’s work,
argues for the antithesis of Watson’s tenets, advising “the child is breast fed on demand and is
often cuddled, loved, and played with affectionately…”47
Parental Responsibility for Disaster
Making matters worse for parents was an underlying theme of their overall responsibility
for the shortcomings of their children. Having this message delivered to them time and again
would certainly be a source of stress. In the article citing Mrs. Helen W. Puner on the expression
of emotion, the implications of parents’ inability to express their frustrations are alarming:
“Failure of parents to face and understand their own hostilities can play an important role in
emotional maladjustment of their children. A façade so relentlessly sweet-tempered, reasonable
44 Ibid.45 Ibid., 139-40.46 Ibid., 140.47 Ibid.
Sisto 20
and calm way [sic], of course, not even seem quite honest to children. It may be infuriating to
them, and it can make them ashamed of their own natural and less controllable emotions…”48 Of
course parents do bear the responsibility of bringing up their children, but it would be quite
terrifying as a parent to feel that one small mistake (which parents make all the time) could cause
severe and lasting emotional instability of one’s children.
Thus, parents were stuck in limbo, constantly wondering whether or not their methods
were effective. What if they had been more restrictive? Would that have produced a better
outcome than the one now? Or should they have been more lenient? Either way, they could not
decide because they would receive such mixed ideas from the psychologists, and the weight
rested on parents’ shoulders. Julia Grant cites one woman named Kay D’Amico who, being a
mother in the Fifties, deeply felt the effects of the psychological advice: “‘I had the idea that
every little thing I did could have this terrific impact on this tender little psyche.’”49 Grant also
states that while pediatricians were given ultimate credence over the opinions of women, even
they had no consensus on how to properly bring up a child. They each had differing views on
such things as “when to toilet train, how to feed a young infant, [and] how to handle a child who
would not sleep through the night.”50
Experts would sometimes directly state that it was the shortcomings of the parents which
were to blame for the later maldevelopments that their child would manifest. Julia Grant makes a
compelling case for this by citing a piece of advice on thumb-sucking from The Complete Book
of Mothercraft and a mother’s response to this kind of admonition:
In The Complete Book of Mothercraft (1952), put together by a team of twenty-five experts, including Spock and Gesell, the authors claimed that a child sucks his thumb “when he feels
48 “Hidden Hostility Found Family Evil.”49 Grant, 227.50 Ibid.
Sisto 21
that he is not loved enough, not safe enough, not good enough.” Writing about her seven-year-old son who continued to suck his thumb, a mother confessed, “I keep wondering if he feels insecure and what I can do to help him. We love him very much and have given him all the affection and care that is in our power.”51
One cannot help but have their heartstrings tugged by this account. How painful it must be for
parents who, feeling they have loved their child as much as they can, conclude that they have
failed him simply because he continues to suck his thumb.
Indeed, a parent might believe there to be evidence of this failure on their part by the
reciprocity of their children’s emotions. At the fifty-third annual convention of the New York
State Congress of Parents and Teachers, before one-thousand delegates, Dr. Ruth Andrus
asserted that a child’s behavior is key to understanding his feelings about the family. “‘The
child’s whole being, feelings and behavior are expressions of the way he feels about his family
and they feel about him,’”52 she said.
In a similar vein, there also arose a charge to parents that children should not be isolated
from the struggles present around them. At the annual conference of the Child Study Association
of America on February 27, 1950, Dr. Helen Ross asserted that children were “affected by
outside pressures in the degree to which their parents were affected.”53 Dr. Margaret Mead stated
the consequences of this are visible in “many youngsters who do not want to grow up and adults
who wish they were children again.”54 Again, there are valid ideas communicated in the article,
but the fear of causing the maladjustment of their children to life might cause parents
considerable strain. The recitation that “1,000 members and friends of the Child Study
Association” attended the conference serves to establish the authority of the conclusions reached
51 Ibid., 228.52 “Dual Duty in Family Seen: Dr. Andrus Says It Should Teach Child Respect for Self, Others,” New York Times, October 5, 1950, 36:2.53 “‘False Idea’ of Life is Laid to Parents: Attempt to ‘Box Children Off From Realities and Suffering’ Decried by Dr. Mead,” New York Times, February 28, 1950, 32:1.54 Ibid.
Sisto 22
by the members. This may not have been the author’s intent, but it certainly communicates a sort
of officialdom about those present.
This is not an isolated case. For instance, 2,400 individuals from around the world
attended the 1950 study conference of the Association for Childhood Education International.55
At this conference, it was decided that parents are the origin of children’s overall behavior and
thus shoulder that burden. “When their discussion ended, the problem was right back with
mother and father. Their attitude and behavior, it was decided, determine how responsible the
children will be.”56 Interestingly, although they had made it clear that parents were ultimately
liable for their children’s attitudes, according to the article a Dr. Hymes, knowingly or
unknowingly, made an antithetical declaration: “Opening the discussion, Dr. Hymes said that
with the steady shifting of ideas on child care, parents are often concerned about what they
should expect of their children and as a result the children themselves are confused.”57 Reading
this statement, it is clear that those responsible are actually the psychologists, who flummox the
parents by issuing consistently irresolute ideas about rearing their little ones.
A similar issue arose with parents’ unrealistic expectations being to blame for adolescent
delinquency. Dr. William H. Burton of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education
asserted that the key to understanding preadolescent children was to comprehend the “peer
groups” that they form—groups of preadolescent children who band together with similar sex
and age. Burton says, “By appealing to children through these ‘peer societies’… adults could
take steps to iron out the outbursts of undesirable behavior that seemed to be characteristic of
55 “Parents’ Attitude Is Held Decisive: Child’s Responsibility Depends on Adults, Education Unit Decides at Asheville,” New York Times, April 13, 1950, 33:3.56 Ibid.57 Ibid.
Sisto 23
that period of life.”58 According to Burton, it is normal for these groups to flaunt adult standards
as an assertion of independence. Thus, although he never explicitly states it, it is implied that the
standards for children set by adults are to blame for the children desiring independence, rejecting
the standards, and ending up in delinquency.
It was not just preadolescence where problems originate. Another article featuring the
views of Dr. René A. Spitz went for the shock factor with the title of “Babies, Too, May
Develop Psychiatric Ills If Their Needs Are Unsatisfied, Doctor Says.”59 The article then
proceeds to list some of these psychiatric problems which could occur: “Among the upsets
listed by Dr. Spitz as psychiatric are ‘anaclitic depression,’ weeping, unappeasable screaming at
the approach of strangers, withdrawal, eating and sleeping disturbances, as well as arrested
development: ‘motor restlessness,’ rocking constantly in a knee-elbow position; eczema and the
‘three months colic.’” The list certainly would be quite horrific to a new parent concerned with
the overall wellbeing and development of their newborn. However, some “simple” advice is
offered to stave off these psychiatric maladies:
This list may sound frightening, Dr. Spitz says, but he explains: “The needs of the child are simple, and an intelligent observation of the child's environment will readily disclose which of these needs is unsatisfied. For its satisfaction no elaborate measures but only those of the simplest type need be taken.” These, he adds, “like so much of psychiatry, correspond to the dictates of common sense.”60
Not only does this run contrary to what was said in June by Dr. Irving about the rejection of
demand feeding61 (which could be a consequence here if the parent feels that in order to meet the
child’s needs, they must feed it whenever it is unhappy); it is ironic that he calls the fix (and for
that matter psychology itself) common sense when in fact they need to tell parents exactly what
58 “Adult Standards For Youth Derided: Educator Bids Home Economics Leaders Recognize Children in Their Own ‘Society,’” New York Times, July 14, 1950, 18:7.59 “Babies, Too, May Develop Psychiatric Ills If Their Needs Are Unsatisfied, Doctor Says,” New York Times, August 22, 1950, 24:2.60 Ibid.61 “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand Feeding.’”
Sisto 24
common sense is. If it truly was common sense, there should be no need for them to even write
about the subject. It truly is indicative of parents’ heightened trust and dependency on
psychologists if they need to be told exactly what constitutes “common sense.”
Exhortation to Trust
Yet was it in fact the parents who were to blame for their overly trusting attitude towards
psychology? Perhaps, but as was evidenced in the early writings of Frank Howard Richardson
and Richard Amaral Howden, there was a distinct message for parents to place their faith in the
teachings of psychology. There appeared to be a growing movement in which parents were
informed that they were in need of reeducation concerning their skills as guardians.
At the same conference at which Dr. Spock addressed the indulgence of babies’
demands, members settled upon a conclusion which stated that “obstetricians and pediatricians
can help a mother understand her relationship to her baby and its affect [sic] on the child… but
her feelings will be determined mainly by her own early childhood experiences.”62 The medical
experts here are responsible for helping the mother to understand her role, but there is another
implication. If ideas about being a mother are shaped in the early childhood, then a mother
should be motivated to receive education in order to bring up her own child to be an adroit
parent. The trepidatious guardian can take comfort in realizing that what will save them is
increased education on child-rearing, not only for them, but for their children as well: “For this
reason [that mother’s feelings are determined by childhood experience], the panel recommended
62 “‘Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands.”
Sisto 25
that ‘greater emphasis should be placed on education for family life in the early years, for this is
a three-generation problem.’”63
A very interesting development occurred at the March 1950 Play Schools Association
Conference. Held at a public school, this conference addressed a variety of issues, one of which
was the purportedly detrimental effect of competition on children, an opinion expressed by a Dr.
Ruth Andrus.64 According to the article, audience members’ oppositional comments about this
seemed to be almost overtly disregarded by the members of the panel.
[Dr. Andrus’s] mention of competition as an evil influence on youngsters was challenged in the question period by members of the audience who held that competition was a powerful force in “the outside world,” that protecting children from it only made life more difficult for them later on.
Other speakers from the floor agreed with Dr. Andrus. The child who has a chance to develop his own inner security free of the “pressure of competition” will be better able to meet the test in adult life, they declared.65
What is not mentioned in the article is how many speakers agreed with the audience members in
opposing Dr. Andrus’s position. Whether this is because there were none, because they were not
the majority, or because it was simply left out, resides in the realm of speculation. However, it
would seem to be one of the former two, given that the representative sides on the issue appear to
be the audience members versus the speakers.
Attesting to the amount of weight placed upon parental education and psychological
experts’ preeminence is actually a critique of the very same. Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vincent
reprimanded child psychiatry for “the overemphasis in parent education in the last twenty years
on praise, no discipline and the need to protect children from failure” for “fill[ing] high schools
and colleges with young people who cannot stand up to difficulty.”66 This is also a criticism of 63 Ibid.64 Dr. Ruth Andrus was from the “Bureau of Child Development and Parent Education, State Education Department, University of the State of New York.” (See following footnote).65 “Child Training Put on a Citizen Basis,” New York Times, March 19, 1950, 40:1.66 “Parent Education is Seen at Fault: Overemphasis on Praise, No Discipline, Protection From Failure Scored at Panel,” New York Times, March 31, 1950, 35:5.
Sisto 26
Dr. Andrus’s position, even if not directly aimed at her. Her mention of the “overemphasis in
parent education” and the resultant consequences attests to the reality that parents were
absorbing the latest doctrines in psychology, and the effects were real enough that Dr. Vincent
felt the need to address them. In an effort to provide a balanced view, she stressed that “Parents
must balance their protection and praise with discipline and a realistic approach to life. Children
need to fail sometimes and learn how to accept it; they need to learn how to succeed without
losing their heads.”67 The only downside to all of this is that in trying to make things better, Dr.
Vincent adds to the confusion by condemning the stance upheld by Dr. Andrus, whose stance
also differed from Dr. Mead’s indictment of parents shielding their children from difficulties.68
Another example of the stress placed on psychological expertise, as well as the evidenced
effects of such, appears in the announcement of the reissuing of the “New York City’s Baby
Book.”69 This pamphlet, which discusses raising children up to the age of two, was certainly in
demand. After all 50,000 copies printed in 1947 had been “exhausted,” another 100,000 were
being printed and distributed. These 100,000 were part of a “backlog of requests… being met.”
An excerpt from the introduction of the book, provided in the article, reads like an owner’s
manual: “‘Parents always have many puzzling and wonderful experiences with a new baby…
They wonder about many things—how soon baby will smile, how to put on diapers, when to
expect the first tooth, when to call the doctor and, when the baby grows older, how he learns
discipline.’”70
The author specifically points out that the booklet was “prepared by a group of experts,
with an assist from the questioning mothers who take their youngsters to the city’s child health
67 Ibid.68 “‘False Idea’ of Life is Laid to Parents.”69 Dorothy Barclay, “Book on Baby Care Reissued by City: 100,000 Copies of New Guide, Answering Many Questions, Now Being Distributed,” New York Times, February 10, 1950, 26:6.70 Ibid.
Sisto 27
stations.” This section serves to prove to readers that the information is trustworthy, not only
composed by the best in the Department of Health’s Bureau of Child Health (responsible for
most of the booklet), but also that it addresses many of the questions plaguing young mothers.
The final sentence in the article is an excerpt from the booklet, urging parents to “have fun, use
common sense and remember that not even parents are perfect…”
This message of common sense (which ironically needs to be delineated for parents) also
appears in the reply by the Children’s Bureau to an attack on a pamphlet issued by them called
“Your Child From Six to Twelve.”71 Though the contention with the booklet is not relevant to the
discussion, the response by the Bureau is.
The Children’s Bureau said the single purpose of the pamphlet in question was “to help parents, to relieve their anxieties, and to increase their confidence in their own capacities to meet the needs of their children.” For thirty-five years, the bureau added, it has been helping parents give their children a better start in life, “the right of every American child.” The best known of the pamphlets, the statement said, is “Infant Care,” of which 25,000,000 copies have been given away or sold.
In making a case for a book which the attackers (the Education and Labor Committee) labelled
as a “publication no one cared for,”72 the bureau responded by calling upon its popular
publications of the past, of which 25,000,000 copies of “Infant Care” is not an insignificant
quantity; this certainly attests to the demand and outreach of these pamphlets. Not only that, the
bureau draws attention to its long history of assistance to parents and, in a further effort to
vindicate its reputation, the overwhelming desire of parents to acquire this pamphlet: “Last year,
the statement continued, the guide for the 6-to-12 age group was published at the urgent request
of parents, and with the sanction of an advisory committee that included a representative of the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric
Association and expert on child development.”73 Apparently, the parents were in desperate need
71 Bess Furman, “Education Aid Bill Put Up to Truman,” New York Times, March 2, 1950, 30:3.72 Ibid.73 Ibid.
Sisto 28
of the booklet and recipients could be assured of the substantial amount of experts working on
the composition.
Warranted Permissiveness
On the other hand, we should understand that there are indeed cases where permissive
parenting is required. In the same way that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms in
respect to their political climates, so too “permissiveness” and “rigidity” all depend on what type
of parenting we are discussing.
Specific instances where permissiveness is actually promulgated as a depart from
extreme rigidity are offered in Judith S. Kestenberg’s book Children and Parents:
Psychoanalytic Studies in Development. Being a psychoanalytic work, Freudian ideas permeate
its content, but this does not invalidate the specific anecdotes provided by the third chapter,
entitled “Mother Types Encountered in Child Guidance Clinics.” Notice that although the book
is from 1975, the paper was actually first published in 194174 and furthermore references works
which date back to 1927, 1929, and 1939, among others,75 which makes them quite apposite to
this discussion.
The first story is of an aggressive mother, who wonders why her young boy is intractable,
causing disturbances at home and to extended family members. It turns out that the boy “felt he
would not grow up and be healthy because he was very thin as a result of the beatings the mother
administered.”76 Indeed, the mother could not seem to keep from torturing this boy in some way
or another: “So unrestrained was her aggression toward the boy that, when she was advised not
to beat him, she resorted to binding his hands and putting him in a dark cellar as punishment.”77
74 Judith S. Kestenberg, MD, Children and Parents: Psychoanalytic Studies in Development, (New York: Jason Aronson, 1975), 63.75 Ibid., 64, 66. Specifically referenced are works by Levy, 1939; Rado, 1927; and Ferenczi, 1929.76 Ibid., 64-5.77 Ibid., 65.
Sisto 29
Only later does she reveal that she actually had an extremely abusive Italian father who harassed
both the children and her mother. Instead of choosing to break the cycle of aggression, she
perpetuated it not only in herself, but in her young son as well. Still, it appears the boy was
reachable because “in play school the teacher recognized his problems, but praised him for his
handiness and intelligence, and found him likable.”78 Gentility trumped stiff parenting in this
case, and rightfully so.
The next case provided was of a mother who, having fed her young boy since early
childhood while he was asleep because he would not eat while awake, decided that fear would be
the only motivator to get him to eat voluntarily.79 His play reflected this aggression and it always
revolved around the subject of ‘feeding.’ He stated that he was “afraid of his mother and that
feeding meant an aggressive act for him.”80 The article reveals that the mother was in fact angry
at the father who was lazy and often absent, so she transferred her aggression to the boy. Her
attitudes were reinforced by her family, who also encouraged her to be angry with her husband.81
Here again we see how permissiveness would be much more preferable in this case because this
permissiveness entails a departure from a very unhealthy and intense parenting style.
It should be noted however that these cases are quite extreme. In fact, these are the type
of people that some psychologists like Benjamin Spock were trying to target. The downside was
that his writings were taken out of context by many parents who feared the worst for their
children because of the nebulous environment of advice being created by psychologists who
could not seem to find a consensus on how to raise children. As noted before in some of the
previous Times articles, Spock actually ridiculed parents for listening too much to the advice of
78 Ibid.79 Ibid., 66.80 Ibid.81 Ibid., 67.
Sisto 30
psychologists, and in his later work “Raising Children in a Difficult Time,” he calls out parents
who tried to implement advice that was not meant for them in his book “The Common Sense
Book of Baby and Child Care.” Can we say then that it was the parents’ fault? Not necessarily.
Also, that Spock is placing the blame solely on their shoulders does not seem to be the case
either. Rather, he appears to be simply trying to correct certain things parents have done in error,
probably out of a real concern for their children caused by the lack of consensus among the
psychological community.
In the newer edition of his book “The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care”
Spock opens with a letter to the readers. By this time (1957), the book was on its third edition,
and Spock had undoubtedly learned how to address his readers’ issues since its first publication
in 1945. His first piece of advice is to let parents know that the person whom they should consult
and trust the most is the child’s primary care physician. Indeed, a quick call on the telephone
would be faster in the “solution of a problem that reading would only get [parents] more mixed
up about.”82
Then, he tackles the very issue which had been plaguing parents’ minds; he tells them not
to take his advice too literally, that it only serves to guide them. There is no one-size-fits-all
solution to every child’s problem:
The most important thing I have to say is that you should not take too literally what is said in this book. Every child is different, every parent is different, every illness or behavior problem is somewhat different from every other. All I can do is describe the most common developments and problems, in the most general terms. Remember that you know a lot about your child and I don’t know anything about him.83
He further addresses the issue of strictness and permissiveness by telling readers that he was only
trying to deal with the problems which were prevalent during the publishing of the first edition,
82 Benjamin Spock, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, New Completely rev. ed. (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1957), 1.83 Ibid.
Sisto 31
particularly an extreme degree of rigidity. But between 1945 and 1957, this style of parenting
had swung to the other side of the pendulum in response to this extremism, so that parents now
suffered from what appeared to be too much permissiveness in their parenting. Therefore, Spock
had to make the requisite alterations to the new edition in order to deal with these drastic
changes:
If you are an old reader of this book, you’ll see that a lot has been added and changed, especially about discipline, spoiling, and the parents’ part. When I was writing the first edition, between 1943 and 1946, the attitude of a majority of people toward infant feeding, toilet training, and general child management was still fairly strict and inflexible. However, the need for greater understanding of children and for flexibility in their care had been made clear by educators, psychoanalysis, and pediatricians, and I was trying to encourage this. Since then a great change in attitude has occurred, and nowadays there seems to be more chance of a conscientious parent’s getting into trouble with permissiveness than with strictness. So I have tried to give a more balanced view.84
Spock was also aware of the effect psychologists were having on parents and sought to
correct the thinking that these scholars were omniscient. He advises parents to trust themselves
rather than “be overawed by what the experts say.”85 Spock also places the child’s doctor on a
higher pedestal than psychology,86 consistent with his earlier recommendation that only parents
and the primary physician know the child best. A psychologist, far removed from each unique
situation can only be of so much help. Rather than looking at the larger picture, parents were
conditioned by the myriad of theories to sweat the small things, feeling that the devil was almost
literally within the details. He reassures parents that these things are of significantly less
importance that the overall love they give to their children: “We know for a fact that the natural
loving care that kindly parents give their children is a hundred times more valuable than their
knowing how to pin a diaper on just right or how to make a formula expertly.”87 Spock’s overall
message was one stressing a natural style of parenting over one which sought to artificially craft
84 Ibid., 1-2.85 Ibid., 3.86 Ibid.87 Ibid.
Sisto 32
a child by programming it according to some sort of quasi-universal user’s manual. Mistakes
were bound to happen and therefore it was “better to make a few mistakes from being natural
than do everything letter-perfect out of a feeling of worry.”88 Additionally, he addresses the issue
of psychological child care books seeming to ignore the needs of parents. Indeed, “parents
sometimes feel emotionally exhausted just from reading about what is expected of them. They
get the impression that they are meant to have no needs themselves.”89 Consequently, “they can’t
help feeling that an author who seems to be standing up for children all the time must be critical
of parents when anything goes wrong.”90 Spock was attuned to this feeling in parents which
would drive them to seek every perfect remedy for their child’s behavior and health problems –
getting them into trouble when they received conflicting advice from the “experts.”
Is Spock to Blame?
It is important to reiterate that Spock wrote the book I use here in 1957, because a close
reading of the text will show that he too needed to alter his advice in response to the changing
tide of parenting. It may be that he felt his advice to be too permissive after watching a decade of
his teachings take root in American society. It was certainly a popular book, as it “sold more than
a million copies within a year of its debut,” reaching four million copies by 1952.91 Not only that,
but the book was highly praised by physicians as well, indicating that they were reading and
giving his advice to parents.
With this kind of influence, it is not hard to see how Alan Petigny devotes a few pages in
The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965 to Spock’s publication. Petigny expresses the
88 Ibid., 4.89 Ibid.90 Ibid.91 Petigny, 37.
Sisto 33
nontraditional nature of Spock’s ideas, drawing specific examples from Spock’s ideas about
theft. Petigny cites the 1946 edition of Spock’s work The Common Sense Book of Baby and
Child Care. One of the most curious portions of the original work is Spock’s advice to “‘make a
present to the child of an object similar to the one he has stolen and returned.’”92 This would
undoubtedly be shocking to many readers and so Spock mitigated this by saying it was “‘not a
reward for stealing, but a sign that the parent is concerned that the child not take what isn’t his,
and that he should have his heart’s desire if it is reasonable.’”93 An unsuccessful rephrasing of
the same sentiment, at best.
It is possible that this particular piece of advice may have had adverse consequences in
the years to come, as in the new edition, this advice in gone. Though Spock’s advice to “consider
whether he [a thieving child] needs more affection and approval at home”94 is still in the third
edition, the advice to give them a relatively identical item to the one they stole, is not. The same
paragraph appears to be there, but this specific piece of advice is gone. Perhaps Spock had a
reconsideration of this in light of the increasing permissiveness that was manifesting itself.
Petigny makes it clear that Spock may have been the posterchild for ‘permissive’
parenting, but he was not alone in his ideas, nor was he necessarily the progenitor of them.
Rather, Spock’s ideas “reflected child-rearing practices in general, especially among the middle
class.”95 Most importantly, he asserts that Spock’s book was “more a reflection than the primary
cause of less traditional parenting attitudes.”96 In fact, it was a cultural trend which transcended
class boundaries.
92 Petigny, 39.93 Ibid., 39.94 Ibid. The original quote Petigny references from the 1946 edition is, “consider whether he needs more affection and approval at home, and help in making closer friendships outside.” The same passage from the 1957 edition only contains a minor change: “It is time to think over whether the child needs more affection and approval at home, and help in making closer friendships outside (pg. 397).”95 Ibid., 41.96 Ibid.
Sisto 34
This was shown in a 1958 study by sociologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, who found through
studying “white middle- and working-class parents over the span of twenty-five years” that
parents in general had taken a more permissive attitude regarding their children’s needs and
desires.97 Ultimately, Petigny distills the study down the important conclusion that
Bronfenbrenner had shown that “a permissive turn in child rearing was not solely confined to the
middle class and elites who might have been consulting the Common Sense Book.”98 Of course it
should be noted that this study was only conducted among whites. Thus Petigny points out that
although African American parenting styles became less rigid over time, they were usually “less
permissive in their child-rearing approach than whites who hailed from similar socioeconomic
backgrounds.”99
Still, according to Brofenbrenner’s research, permissive attitudes in parenting seemed to
permeate middle-class whites more than working-class whites. Consider the following presented
by Petigny:
During and prior to World War II, it was found that white middle-class families tended to be more strict with their children than working class parents. “After World War II, however, there has been a definite reversal in direction,” observed Bronfenbrenner. “Now it is the middle-class mother who is the more permissive…”
Bronfenbrenner attributed this class divide to a lower degree of sophistication on the part of working-class families. As he put it, “Child-rearing practices are likely to change most quickly in those segments of society which have closest access and are most receptive to the agencies or agents of change (e.g., public media, clinics, physicians, and counselors).”100
As we have already learned, Spock advised parents to listen closely to their child’s physician.
Ironically, many doctors were using Spock’s book, so in some circumstances, it was probably a
circular system. However, how much physicians relied on the book to give parents advice is
another question, which may not have a satisfactory answer. The point is, middle-class parents
97 Ibid.98 Ibid.99 Ibid., 42.100 Ibid.
Sisto 35
were the most susceptible to new theories about child rearing due to their exposure to doctors,
counselors, The New York Times, etc.
Conclusion
It would seem then that there was indeed a permissive trend in parenting, but what
seemed more evident was that there was continuing conflict between two influential approaches
to child-rearing, one permissive, the other rigid. Through all of this confusion, parents would
become flummoxed by psychologists’ lack of unanimity. Indeed, they were caught up in the
psychologists’ advice to follow the latest research, which was of course indeterminate. Yet they
never failed to mention that if a child grew up to be a maladjusted adult, it was not the
psychologists’ fault, but rather responsibility lay with the parents. In a distressed desire to shield
their children from maldevelopment, parents would follow any advice provided to them. The
resultant trend probably reflected more of the permissive side, as behaviorism began to lose
ground. Therefore, it is not rigidity that needs reconsideration, nor permissiveness, but rather a
reevaluation of the role of psychology as a whole during Mid-Twentieth Century America.
top related