Bringing Up Parents

Fashions in child training are as extreme, and change almost as much, as women's hats. In the last two decades there has been a complete revolution in the nursery and playroom. In the Journal of Pediatrics, Dr. Celia B. Stendler of the University of Illinois' College of Education describes it: "From an era where the mother was taught that the child must have his physical wants cared for and then be left alone, must be fed on a rigid schedule, must learn to cry it out, must be toilet-trained early and must not be spoiled by attention, we have come to a time when exactly the opposite advice is advocated.

"Today the mother is advised to feed the baby when he's hungry, to delay toilet training until he's ready for it, to see that the baby gets a reasonable amount of cuddling and mothering, to let the baby initiate the weaning process . . . There appears to be considerable question whether the new doctrine is any sounder than the old."

Mother Knows Best. Checking the back files of magazines (Ladies' Home Journal, Woman's Home Companion and Good Housekeeping), Dr. Stendler found that in 1890 there were about as many articles telling mothers how to bring up their children as there are nowadays. The volume of advice stayed fairly constant through all -the intervening years. But the "tone changed.

A turn-of-the-century Gibson girl who became a wife & mother was exhorted to be "good, honest, cheerful and orderly, because whatever kind of behavior she portrayed, the child would imitate . . . Mothers occupied a position of importance which they have never since recovered. This was the day when Mother knew best; there was no book, no scientific authority to shake her maternal self-con fidence . . . Her 'instincts' were right." She was not told when to feed the baby, nor was she told not to pet him.

In 1900 a writer spelled it out: "Love, petting and indulgence will not hurt a child if at the same time he is taught to be unselfish and obedient. Love is the mighty solvent."

Discipline & Love. After 1910 came the most abrupt change. Instead of love, stern discipline was recommended. To stop nail-biting, one expert wrote: "Get some white cotton gloves and make her wear these all the time--even in school. They will not only serve as a reminder, but also make her ashamed when people ask her about them." Obedience was to be required at all times, "and if temper tantrums resulted, they should be ignored."

Then came psychology--Watson's behaviorism and Freud's psychoanalysis. As a result of the former, "parents were told that if a baby were . . . picked up just once when he cried, he would be 'conditioned' [to expect it] ... On the other hand, a properly trained baby would result if 'everything done for him [were] so regular that one can tell time by what is going on in the nursery.' "

In the 1920s, young mothers rejected every last remnant of Victorianism. Mother love was replaced by "science." Freudianism was being "interpreted to mean that repression was bad for the child." The "feed-'em-on-schedule, let-'em-cry-it-out" school of thought was in command.

The fight against metronome maternalism gathered strength through the 1930s. By 1940, an authority wrote: "It is reasonable to feed a baby when he's hungry. It is unreasonable to make him wait . . ." That is the prevailing fashion today.

There is still plenty of room for progress in child training. So far, the emphasis has been on what to do with the child. "What we can do," Dr. Stendler says, "and what certainly needs to be done, is to help parents develop insight into their own personalities in the hope that they can more intelligently approach problems of child rearing. No trend in this direction has been noted . . ."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.