It seems that my messy appearance, or some combination of those other qualities, causes my students to incorrectly assume that I'm nice.
I know this, because they often mistake my general obliviousness for a fast-and-loose approach to the rules. As a result, I confiscate more of their cellphones than do most teachers, and regularly write kids up for things like pass fraud, insubordination, and cutting. I don't very often catch them in these behaviors, but always follow through with maximum disciplinary action when I do. I've actually had students come to me just after the first bell and ask me for a pass to their Block 1 class. I guess there are nice teachers in the school who will do this, but I'm amazed that they think I'm one of them. In every one of these instances, I am sure to remind them that I'm not nice.
I have observed that nice is actually more complicated than may be immediately obvious. I believe that nice people fall into the following subsets:
- Nice. Often assumed to be the only category, in my experience this is actually the rarest. Legitimately nice people don't have to work for it, and they can do it just as effortlessly with people they don't really like. Or maybe they actually like everyone, how would I know? They also tend to be much better conversationalists than the rest of us because they're not running everything through a filter of "can I safely say this and not offend this person," or "is this person smart enough to know that I've just insulted him/her." I know of exactly two perfect examples of this, and they're both named Nancy. Sorry, if you're not only named Nancy, but happen to be one of those Nancys, perhaps instead you someone who:
- Values niceness. Lots of nice people actually fall into this category, including most elementary-aged kids. Ask almost any fourth-grader which teacher they like best, and then ask them why. I bet no matter how they say it, or whatever else they say, the answer comes down to he/she is nice. It's easy to mistake these people for nice, because they seem rather fixated on it. It's like herd immunity, or the lesser known herd hotness--people assume they're nice because they draw so much attention to niceness that they must be nice themselves. This means that they are merely:
- Considered nice. This is a category of people that you'll recognize, but have probably looped in with the first group. They smile a lot, talk in up-beat tones, and display concern about your embarrassing medical conditions. In the moment, you assume they're nice, but afterward you get a vague irritated feeling that you've shared more than you wanted to, and they seemed to lose interest in your story partway through anyway. At the more professional levels they would be called a:
- Glad-hander. These are often former high school star athletes who are now assistant middle school principals (see also: here) or car salesmen in fancy dealerships. They have either cultivated niceness as a requirement of their profession, or have ascended through the ranks by way of this talent or acquisition of skill. Typically, they have great teeth, a hearty handshake, and always look you squarely in the eye. They flirt with your spouse, flatter you both, and can fill any awkward situation with a charm so practiced that they probably learned it in a six-hour seminar in a hotel ballroom (see also: here).
Here's a list of three things Ms. Chua actually said to her child while supervising practicing:
1. Oh my God, you're just getting worse and worse.
2. I'm going to count to three, then I want musicality.
3. If the next time's not PERFECT, I'm going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM!
I would never say those things. Okay, I would never say that third thing. Okay, I would never say "AND BURN THEM!"
This book has already met with a fair amount of criticism from many of my colleagues in the outraged-o-sphere. In comparison to most of this stuff, my criticisms of Chua's parenting methods are pretty nit-picky. Even so, I am hoping to enrage some people both in my criticisms, and by not rejecting this approach out of hand. One thing we know about marketing is that pissing people off is a great way to sell blogs (see, I'm not nice). I'm comforted by the fact, however, that the author's view of her own choices is actually highly conflicted and self-critical. She's the one relating all of these stories, and very rarely comes to her own defense.
However, the central question of the book, and the one every parent must answer for him/herself, is whether all of this was entirely for the kids', or was some percentage actually for the the parent's own benefit. Chua says unequivocally that it is all entirely for her daughters. This is dishonest, judged only on the evidence that she herself chose to share with us. Having children is at once an entirely selfish and selfless act. We want our children to succeed both for their own success and for what it says about our parenting and genetic contributions. For example, Chua tells a number of stories that revolve around using her children as centerpieces in elaborate and expensive parties. She mentions the cuisine, the guests, and the pieces her children were forced to play in more-or-less the same breath. She also describes the coercion that she needed to engage in to get her kids to play at these venues, and the fact that she couldn't really enjoy most of the performances due to the stress she herself was experiencing.
These episodes were made possible by another factor that hinders her in good parenting: her enormous wealth. I'm sure there are very wealthy people for whom the pressures, opportunities, and biases of having lots of money don't hinder their parenting. Chua isn't one of them. She talks about being there for her kids' violin and piano practicing every day--except that sometimes she was on world-wide book tours. Even if she did manage to fly to California and back in a single day, she still was gone for the entire day. The fact that she could hire a tutor for Mandarin, another (or two, or more) for the instruments, and another for everything else is a tremendous advantage, but it doesn't count as being there. Hiring a staff isn't the same as parenting, and it seems to me that Chua could have gotten better results from more low-quality time with her kids. Her never-let-up approach was often sustained through methods that most of us can't afford.
Third is her inability to properly work herself into a frenzy. Okay, she can properly work herself into a frenzy, but she doesn't do so over a sufficient span of time. If she were an actual musician, rather than an especially engaged stage mother, she would better understand that there are crescendos that happen for a note, those that happen for a phrase, and those that happen for an entire piece. While the occasional outburst can be useful to shock an audience back into attention, much of the time parenting is about proportional response, and keeping something in reserve for the final push to the summit. Whether calling one's children "garbage" can legitimately be defended in any circumstance, I take issue with the fact that it seems that she would do so without passing through nearly enough gradations on the way. I'm not sure how anything she said to those girls had any effect after she jumped from zero to hysterical in one move so many times.
I should also mention that any parent who is more strict than you will seem unreasonable, and any more permissive will be expected to raise hellions. I have friends who put a forty-six inch TV in their preschooler's room, and others who don't have any TVs in their house. I absolutely cannot imagine either approach, and I'm sure that neither of these people can imagine doing things as my wife and I have.
For as much philosophy, history, and theory are in the book, it comes down to Chua's belief that her parenting style is simply a matter of having high standards, and that anyone with similarly high standards is "Chinese." She does, though, acknowledge that she's using the term loosely, and that it is not always present in Chinese parents, nor always absent in everyone else.
I think she's on to something here--both in that high standards are important, and that having them is generally maligned. One of the festival conductors that I observed remarked that we have a word in our society for people with high standards and limited flexibility when people fail to meet those high standards: anal retentive. It's a rather puzzling leap from Freud's concept of difficulties resulting from toilet training, namely a general interest in collecting and keeping things (eeew), to a general descriptor for people who care about stuff. I guess this is how the language goes sometimes.
Another important foray into not nice was the You're Not Special commencement address. Like the Tiger Mother book, the more subtle points--which are actually rather nuanced, and carefully considered--are not catching people's attention the way individual soundbites are. Like Twilight, and The Hunger Games (see also: here) I feel that people have heard about these things, and feel free to comment on them, more than they have actually carefully considered the entire text.
My favorite bit in David McCullough's speech isn't the bit about there being 37,000 valedictorians in this country, or the fact that even if you actually are one-in-a-million, there are 7,000 people just like you in the world--though those are obviously right up there. My favorite part is:
"Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others..."
What Chau's book and McCullough's speech have in common is the belief that the application of high standards and strongly-worded critique is a profession of faith in people's--students', children's, humanity's in general--better selves. The big question is whether this can be applied without morphing over toward cruelty an bullying (see also: here). I can think of some real ball-buster teachers for whom every seemingly-cruel thing they did was clearly for the benefit of their students. I can also think of some who were merely sadists. For each of us, knowing the difference determines who we are, what we're doing, and who it is meant to benefit. Maybe it would be easier just to be nice.