Every cultural group has their own values and traditions that they apply to infant caretaking. Americans may sometimes find these customs odd and couldn't imagine implementing them in their own lives (like genital mutilation as mentioned in earlier posts). However, Americans aren't completely closed minded when raising their children. After picking and choosing the aspects of parenting methods seen in other parts of the world, America has seen a growing popularity in these infant caretaking customs.
One example of international influence on American parenting is babywearing. The term may not be familiar, but it isn’t uncommon to see these mothers carrying their infants in a sling around their body. Babywearing has only recently become popular in America, yet it has been a prominent part of childrearing across the world for centuries.
• In China, mothers have been wearing their babies for thousands of years, including in the traditional Mei Tai carrier hold.
• Native Americans on United States soil wore their babies during the busy day of cooking, cleaning, preparing animal skins, and more.
• In many nations, babywearing is still a vital practice of parenting, part of cultures dating back centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Wd-Rj17jg
Another everyday international method being used by American parents is Lamaze birthing. Most likely if a woman were to go into labor, even somebody not trained in the Lamaze method would tell the expecting mother to breath in and out. “The method isn’t quite this simple, but includes childbirth education classes, relaxation, breathing techniques and continuous emotional support from the father and a specially trained nurse”. The French Dr. Fernand Lamaze was credited after formalizing the method, but the first people to use these techniques were the Soviets. It wasn’t until the 1960s that this method was embraced by parents across the nation.
Even things as common as name choice for babies in America are showing an increase in foreign origins. Parents are moving away from traditional Christian names like John and Mary to more names like the Irish Aiden (the most popular name given to boys in 2009 in America) or the Persian Jasmine (ranked #100 in most popular names given to American girls in 2009).
Some interesting questions to think about…
1. How often do you notice mothers babywearing in a given week?
2. What are the benefits of babywearing?
3. Do you know somebody who has practiced Lamaze? How can this method ease the birthing process?
4. Which names would you be likely to name your children? Do they have a traditional English/Latin/Christian origin, or do they fall outside this realm?
5. Common names from the 1950s are predicted to soon become popular again, do you think names like Gary and Deborah will be making a comeback?
References:
http://www.baby2see.com/names/decades_trends.html
http://www.heavenlyhold.com/pages/Babywearing101.htm
http://www.lamaze.org/WhoWeAre/History/tabid/104/Default.aspx
http://www.babynames.com/Names/Popular/
Post provided by Karl Daruwala, Annika, Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Elissa May, Sally Pitcher, and Stephanie Vassillion.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
International Adoption: Problematic or Beneficial?
The Possible Risks of International Adoptions
One major component of studying families from a global perspective is the issue of international adoptions, and the decision adoptive parents have to make about assimilating their adopted child into their own culture, or preserving the child’s original culture. This can be a difficult choice for parents because it could possibly lead to a loss of cultural identity for the child in the future. Some parents are eager to assimilate their child into their own culture, while others are looking to find the balance between setting the child apart from the family culture and diminishing the original culture of the child. (Vonk).
Many advocates of adoption agencies prefer to place children with families of the same race for the sake of the child’s racial and cultural identity. Some organizations, such as the National Association of Black Social Workers opposed placing African children in homes of white American families. Their opposition stems from their belief that this mixture of races within the family will cause the child to have racial identity confusion or encounter racism or difficulty forming an ethnic identity. Many adoption agencies based in Africa have fear that the adoption of African children by American families will cause the child to lose the cultural and traditional values of their country of origin and take on an Americanized way of living (Roby).
Along with affecting their cultural identity, international adoption and the assimilation into a new culture influences the identity the child forms as a member of their new adoptive family. Many children have difficulty identifying or attaching to parents who appear and act differently than they do. In one study, almost one third of the children examined showed feelings of wanting to be white at a young age, and about one half of the children expressed the desire to have been born into their adoptive family. This may be due to the fact that they feel distant from their parents and other siblings because of their appearance, and have difficulty communicating their concern with their parents because they feel misunderstood or alone (Juffer).
The question to think about is : Are these challenges of preserving the child’s cultural identity while teaching him the skills he will need to thrive in an American community significant enough that possible adoptive parents should not adopt a child if he or she is of another race?
What services would be appropriate to carefully ease adopted children into a new culture without confusing the child about his or her ethnic or racial identity? Do you think these services are necessary for every adopted child?
What do you think adoptive families could do in order to make the child feel as much of a member of the family as a biological child?
Do you agree that interracial adoptions cause more risks for the child’s identity than same race adoptions? Are there equal risks?
Do you think the birth families should have a say in whether or not the adoptive family preserves the adopted child’s culture in the future?
Juffer, Femmie and Wendie Tieman. (2009) Being adopted: Internationally adopted children’s interests and feelings. International Social Work 52(5), 635-647. http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/52
/5/635.
M Elizabeth Vonk, Peggy J Simms, & Larry Nackerud. (1999). Political and personal aspects of intercountry adoption of Chinese children in the United States. Families in Society, 80(5), 496-505. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 44580377).
Roby, Jini L., Shaw, Stacey A. (2006) The African Orphan Crisis and International Adoption. Social Work 51(3), 199-210. http://lesley.ezproxy.blackboard.com/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22702483&site=ehost-live
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
One major component of studying families from a global perspective is the issue of international adoptions, and the decision adoptive parents have to make about assimilating their adopted child into their own culture, or preserving the child’s original culture. This can be a difficult choice for parents because it could possibly lead to a loss of cultural identity for the child in the future. Some parents are eager to assimilate their child into their own culture, while others are looking to find the balance between setting the child apart from the family culture and diminishing the original culture of the child. (Vonk).
Many advocates of adoption agencies prefer to place children with families of the same race for the sake of the child’s racial and cultural identity. Some organizations, such as the National Association of Black Social Workers opposed placing African children in homes of white American families. Their opposition stems from their belief that this mixture of races within the family will cause the child to have racial identity confusion or encounter racism or difficulty forming an ethnic identity. Many adoption agencies based in Africa have fear that the adoption of African children by American families will cause the child to lose the cultural and traditional values of their country of origin and take on an Americanized way of living (Roby).
Along with affecting their cultural identity, international adoption and the assimilation into a new culture influences the identity the child forms as a member of their new adoptive family. Many children have difficulty identifying or attaching to parents who appear and act differently than they do. In one study, almost one third of the children examined showed feelings of wanting to be white at a young age, and about one half of the children expressed the desire to have been born into their adoptive family. This may be due to the fact that they feel distant from their parents and other siblings because of their appearance, and have difficulty communicating their concern with their parents because they feel misunderstood or alone (Juffer).
The question to think about is : Are these challenges of preserving the child’s cultural identity while teaching him the skills he will need to thrive in an American community significant enough that possible adoptive parents should not adopt a child if he or she is of another race?
What services would be appropriate to carefully ease adopted children into a new culture without confusing the child about his or her ethnic or racial identity? Do you think these services are necessary for every adopted child?
What do you think adoptive families could do in order to make the child feel as much of a member of the family as a biological child?
Do you agree that interracial adoptions cause more risks for the child’s identity than same race adoptions? Are there equal risks?
Do you think the birth families should have a say in whether or not the adoptive family preserves the adopted child’s culture in the future?
Juffer, Femmie and Wendie Tieman. (2009) Being adopted: Internationally adopted children’s interests and feelings. International Social Work 52(5), 635-647. http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/52
/5/635.
M Elizabeth Vonk, Peggy J Simms, & Larry Nackerud. (1999). Political and personal aspects of intercountry adoption of Chinese children in the United States. Families in Society, 80(5), 496-505. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 44580377).
Roby, Jini L., Shaw, Stacey A. (2006) The African Orphan Crisis and International Adoption. Social Work 51(3), 199-210. http://lesley.ezproxy.blackboard.com/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22702483&site=ehost-live
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Self-Esteem and Child Rearing: Cross-Culturally
Self-Esteem is defined as the extent to which an individual believes himself or herself to be capable, significant, successful, and worthy. The amount of self-esteem, or having self-esteem has become a marker for the psychological well-being of a person, as well as a factor in the resiliency of an individual. So how does one develop self-esteem?
Self esteem is developed in middle childhood, when a child reaches elementary school and begins to compare themselves to other children based on their abilities, appearances and many other factors. In addition to this, the most important way a child gains their self-esteem is through parent-child interactions, or child-rearing. Parents can affect their child's self esteem simply by the way they encourage or discourage them. A parent who is accepting and gives positive reinforcement and is nurturing of their child will most likely produce a child with high self-esteem. On the other hand, a parent who puts down a child's self-worth, or is negative and not nurturing to their child is likely to produce a child with low self-worth and self-esteem. Also, the amount of support or expectations that a parent puts on a child has a huge effect on the child. A child who receives support that coincides with their skills and helps them just enough is likely to develop self-esteem and confidence in their skills, while a child who receives too much or no help is likely to feel negatively about their skills.
A parent who uses an "authoritative" approach to child-rearing will find that it provides the optimal level of assistance and nurturing to give the child good self-esteem. As you can see, the parent to child dynamic is a very large factor in the development of a child's self-esteem.
Culturally, other things also affect a child's self-esteem. Children in Asian countries, while having high test scores, have low self-esteem, probably because while they view others with high levels of praise, do not feel the same about themselves. Meanwhile, African American children have high levels of self-esteem probably because of their extended families and ethnic pride in their heritage.
Here is a link to a video on how to help develop a child's self-esteem, in ways other than only child-rearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASpyeZ6ZP-o&feature=related
Some interesting questions:
Did your parents positively or negatively affect YOUR self-esteem when you were growing up?
Do you think that the concept of the "authoritative" parent is ideal for all aspects of child-rearing, or only for self-esteem building?
Do you think that parents in other cultures are typically, or try to be, authoritative parents? Or do they use other parenting styles?
Herz, L. and Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between self esteem and parenting style: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Retrieved from http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/30/6/742
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
How The Media Affects Child Rearing in International Families
Child rearing has been greatly influenced by the media. Especially in the United States, international families have no choice but to look at how the media portrays them. Television shows such as “The Simpsons” portray international families in a certain way that may make a child watching the show think that this is how their life is supposed to be. A character on the show, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is an Immigrant from India. He works in a convenience store even though he has a Ph. D. in computer science. He had an arranged marriage, even though Apu resisted this idea, and had eight children. This portrayal alone sends a certain message to children who are Indian Immigrants watching the show. Even if they work very hard in school, will they still end up working in a job similar to a convenience store? Also, not all Indians have arranged marriages and this sends a confusing message as to whether arranged marriages are a good or bad thing.
According to an article on The Portrayal of Family on Television,
“Minority families continue to struggle for representation and positive portrayals. Native Americans appear infrequently and are often stereotyped as alcoholics with impoverished, dysfunctional families. Latino families are underrepresented and often portrayed as lawbreakers with little education, but with strong family ties. Asian-American families rarely appear. In the 1990s, unmarried relationships and couples without children were more common than ever on television.”
Popular television shows such as “The Cosby Show” or “Roots” show African American families and sends a message to how they should act. The same goes for shows such as “The Goldbergs” that portrays a Jewish family. There are shows that are more diverse, classical favorites such as “I love Lucy” or modern shows such as “Grey’s Anatomy”.
The difference in the amount of men and women as the lead role (or hero figure) is also an issue for all families but certainly affects international families. According to an editorial about Girls, Boys and Families, “The most comprehensive international analysis of children’s television to date reveals an unambiguous tendency: Of all the main characters on children’s TV only 32 % are female – in reality, however, women count for 51 % of the world’s population.” Many cultures already see the man as the more dominant figure and a lot of the media just continues to push that idea. Families may try to mimic the ideals that are shown by the media and try to rear their children based on how the media says they should be reared.
Other media proponents such as commercials and news shows or articles, also depict people with different cultures and nationalities in a certain light. We hear about many more African American or Latino crimes committed than of other nationalities. Some commercials include all different nationalities of babies for things such as diapers or food while other commercials only show white babies. All of these things affect how families look at (and identify with) themselves. Does it matter how hard they work if they are going to just fall into the stereotype? Are certain diapers designated for certain nationalities? These issues are absorbed by all families at every moment and have an influence on how families act and choose to bring up their children.
Maya Gotz (2008). Retrieved From: http://www.br-online.de/jugend/izi/english/publication/televizion/21_2008_E/21_2008_E.htm
What is child abuse? An international Perspective:
Child rearing is affected by the cultures view of abuse to a child. However, there is much gray area and disagreement about what is defined as abuse in different cultures and countries.
What about spanking?
In trying to discipline children many parents use spanking or other corporal punishment to discipline their children and show then what is okay and not okay to do. However, views on corporal punishment have much variation. Is it abuse?
In Sweden (as well as other European countries) spanking and all corporal punishment is illegal, as it is considered abusive. The US has hotly debated the legalities of spanking in recent years in Massachusetts and California. American’s are generally not in support of the state intervening with a parent’s choice to spank their child, as they don’t see it as abuse.
The culture/perspective of the parents affects the outcome of corporal punishment on the child. One study in the US showed that the long term effects of corporal punishment are different in African American families than in white middle class families. The difference was because the white middle class families felt they were not supposed to spank their children, so if they did, it was because they were emotionally frustrated. On the other hand, in African American families, corporal punishment is a consequence without such emotional charge; therefore the children do not get nearly as much harm from being spanked in African American families. In fact, it was an affected means of discipline (although not as much as time outs, etc) (Berk, Laura). This study shows that the long term effects of “abuse” or “punishment” depend on the meaning of those giving it.
What about female circumcision? (Female Genital Mutilation -aka FGM)
The women in the following link think that it is helpful to their daughters to have their clitorises cut off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqEyGdLh8I&feature=related
The mothers say it is normal, and that it helps the girl be calm and have self-restraint. However, in western societies, FGM is usually considered abusive to a young girl.
If cutting off a piece of girls’ genitals is considered traumatic and abusive…
What about circumcision of baby boys? They have no ability to give consent and are also strapped down while a piece of their genitals is cut off. In the US most males are circumcised, and the same rational is used: that it is normal and the boy would not like it if he were not circumcised. In Australia and Europe, circumcision is not done routinely (but for religious and particular health reasons), and movements banning it age gaining momentum.
Some questions:
Is it okay for any culture to decide what abuse to a child is? What if that includes female genital mutilation or striking a child?
How much difference does the culture’s meaning of the “abuse” change the experience of those being “abused”? (Think of the study cited above.) Is circumcision or FGM less harmful if the culture has positive connotations for it?
Do you think spanking is abuse? Why or why not?
Do you think male or female circumcision is abuse? Why or why not?
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
Sources:
Berk, Laura. (2004/7) Development through the Lifespan. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fourth Edition
http://blog.thepastoralcompany.com/?p=956
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/125
What about spanking?
In trying to discipline children many parents use spanking or other corporal punishment to discipline their children and show then what is okay and not okay to do. However, views on corporal punishment have much variation. Is it abuse?
In Sweden (as well as other European countries) spanking and all corporal punishment is illegal, as it is considered abusive. The US has hotly debated the legalities of spanking in recent years in Massachusetts and California. American’s are generally not in support of the state intervening with a parent’s choice to spank their child, as they don’t see it as abuse.
The culture/perspective of the parents affects the outcome of corporal punishment on the child. One study in the US showed that the long term effects of corporal punishment are different in African American families than in white middle class families. The difference was because the white middle class families felt they were not supposed to spank their children, so if they did, it was because they were emotionally frustrated. On the other hand, in African American families, corporal punishment is a consequence without such emotional charge; therefore the children do not get nearly as much harm from being spanked in African American families. In fact, it was an affected means of discipline (although not as much as time outs, etc) (Berk, Laura). This study shows that the long term effects of “abuse” or “punishment” depend on the meaning of those giving it.
What about female circumcision? (Female Genital Mutilation -aka FGM)
The women in the following link think that it is helpful to their daughters to have their clitorises cut off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqEyGdLh8I&feature=related
The mothers say it is normal, and that it helps the girl be calm and have self-restraint. However, in western societies, FGM is usually considered abusive to a young girl.
If cutting off a piece of girls’ genitals is considered traumatic and abusive…
What about circumcision of baby boys? They have no ability to give consent and are also strapped down while a piece of their genitals is cut off. In the US most males are circumcised, and the same rational is used: that it is normal and the boy would not like it if he were not circumcised. In Australia and Europe, circumcision is not done routinely (but for religious and particular health reasons), and movements banning it age gaining momentum.
Some questions:
Is it okay for any culture to decide what abuse to a child is? What if that includes female genital mutilation or striking a child?
How much difference does the culture’s meaning of the “abuse” change the experience of those being “abused”? (Think of the study cited above.) Is circumcision or FGM less harmful if the culture has positive connotations for it?
Do you think spanking is abuse? Why or why not?
Do you think male or female circumcision is abuse? Why or why not?
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
Sources:
Berk, Laura. (2004/7) Development through the Lifespan. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fourth Edition
http://blog.thepastoralcompany.com/?p=956
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/125
Monday, March 15, 2010
Introduction to how varying International Perspectives affect Child Rearing
One of the many ways to define child rearing is “The training or bringing-up of children by parents or parent-substitutes. It is used also for child rearing practices in different societies, at different economic levels, in different ethnic groups, etc. It differs from parenting in that in child rearing the emphasis is on the act of training or bringing up the child and the interaction between the parent and child, while parenting emphasizes the responsibility and qualities of exemplary behavior of the parent.”(http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Ch/Child+Rearing.html) Child rearing is a term that can be divided by physical and human made borders. Some physical borders that may affect a families perspective on child rearing, may be a family living in a underdeveloped mountainous region versus a family who lives in a thriving city. Some of the human made borders may include, varying country borders, different cultures, and differing religious views.
Child rearing is carried out by the way that each individual child is socialized into their specific society. Having a child socialized to their own society does not necessarily mean conforming to every standard that society has put on them but rather adapting to those standards.( http://www.roxbury.net/images/pdfs/casintro.pdf) The way in which a child is socialized into their society may be greatly influenced by who (gender wise) runs the household, cultural norms, etc. However in a study done by Anne M. Ferrari, it seems that ethnicity is the most influential cause on how a child is reared.
Another important factor to think about when talking about child rearing is of how various governments play a factor in this subject. For example the American government has much more strict child labor laws in comparison to third world countries. In light of this one may assume that the way a child is brought up in a third world country may be much different the way in which a child is brought up in America.
No matter of how you look at child rearing, it is important to understand that this is an essential topic to learn about when talking about family life across the world.
Some key questions to keep in mind when thinking about the international perspective on childrearing would be
1. What is the impact of child abuse on childrearing?
2. How does adoption affect the way a child is reared?
3. What are the expectations of the way a child should act based on region lived, and cultural influences?
4. What is the “Western” view of how a child should be brought up?
5. How do race, ethnicity, and gender roles affect children differ from on a another?
Ferrari, Anne M. “The impact of culture upon child rearing practices and definitions of maltreatment,” Child Abuse and Neglect 26, no. 8 (2002): 793-813. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-468CBDF-1&_user=1075869&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000051322&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1075869&md5=9aab88977155fcc2213c5a2e74bf7695
Cahill, Spencer E., Gerald Handel, Frederick Elkin. “CHILDREN AND SOCIETY
The Sociology of Children and Childhood Socialization First Edition, http://www.roxbury.net/images/pdfs/casintro.pdf
Patel-Amin, N. & Power, T. G. (2002). “Modernity and childrearing in families of Gujarati Indian adolescents.” International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 239-245. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a741933849
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
Child rearing is carried out by the way that each individual child is socialized into their specific society. Having a child socialized to their own society does not necessarily mean conforming to every standard that society has put on them but rather adapting to those standards.( http://www.roxbury.net/images/pdfs/casintro.pdf) The way in which a child is socialized into their society may be greatly influenced by who (gender wise) runs the household, cultural norms, etc. However in a study done by Anne M. Ferrari, it seems that ethnicity is the most influential cause on how a child is reared.
Another important factor to think about when talking about child rearing is of how various governments play a factor in this subject. For example the American government has much more strict child labor laws in comparison to third world countries. In light of this one may assume that the way a child is brought up in a third world country may be much different the way in which a child is brought up in America.
No matter of how you look at child rearing, it is important to understand that this is an essential topic to learn about when talking about family life across the world.
Some key questions to keep in mind when thinking about the international perspective on childrearing would be
1. What is the impact of child abuse on childrearing?
2. How does adoption affect the way a child is reared?
3. What are the expectations of the way a child should act based on region lived, and cultural influences?
4. What is the “Western” view of how a child should be brought up?
5. How do race, ethnicity, and gender roles affect children differ from on a another?
Ferrari, Anne M. “The impact of culture upon child rearing practices and definitions of maltreatment,” Child Abuse and Neglect 26, no. 8 (2002): 793-813. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-468CBDF-1&_user=1075869&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000051322&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1075869&md5=9aab88977155fcc2213c5a2e74bf7695
Cahill, Spencer E., Gerald Handel, Frederick Elkin. “CHILDREN AND SOCIETY
The Sociology of Children and Childhood Socialization First Edition, http://www.roxbury.net/images/pdfs/casintro.pdf
Patel-Amin, N. & Power, T. G. (2002). “Modernity and childrearing in families of Gujarati Indian adolescents.” International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 239-245. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a741933849
This post was presented by: Annika Ecklund, Carolyn Kaufman, Sally Pitcher, Stephanie Vassillion, Karl Daruwala, Elissa May
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
