In the May/June issue of Scientific American Mind, there’s an article called “Family Guy.” This post is a reflection on what it says about fathers. If these observations make you think you'd like to see the whole article and especially if you think I have taken liberties in interpreting it click here. It’s about some of the ways dads and moms handle their kids differently.
It’s a comparison that doesn’t work perfectly because it compares a starting pitcher in the 8th inning, about 130 pitches into the game, with the relief pitcher who is just about to throw his first pitch. But it’s worth thinking about.
I have a metaphor in mind that helped me think about these two sets of relationships. Let’s start with which way the kid is facing. I’m interested in that metaphorically, really, but it was suggested to me by a research note observing that in swimming class, the fathers tended to hold their babies so they faced out into the water, whereas the mothers stood in front of the children, establishing face to face contact.
If I had only one point to make, it would be that having two parents, whose styles of parenting are different, but not irreconcilable, is the best possible setting for the child's development. People make knowing references to the “good cop/bad cop” scenario without pausing the notice that good cop/bad cop really requires two cops. Sometimes, at home, there is only one cop and usually, that’s the mother.
There are lots of reasons why it’s usually the mother. Some are economic, some sociological. The one I have is mind is an odd combination of politics and psychology. Imagine that! Some mothers install themselves as gatekeepers and in that way, they control who is involved in raising the children and also how. The linked article cites research to the effect that mothers with low self-esteem are most likely to control how the children are raised. The father participates with her permission only, and the quality of his fathering is judged byhow similar it is to the mother’s mothering. Mothers with high self-esteem were more likely to permit their husbands to do some fathering, even if what they did looked different from what they themselves did—as, in the case of risk-taking with the child, it often did.
To look at these relationships with the metaphor of who is facing where, I see the first “facing” as the mother and the father. If the mother permits fathering, there is a second “facing;” the father and the child--as in the swimming metaphor. The benefits this gives the child aren’t so much that the way the father is with the child is better than the way the mother is. It is that two styles are better than one. Not just any two styles, of course.
In styles of play, the images the article uses are “lifeguard” and “cheerleader.” The fathers are the cheerleaders. The “facing” motif shows up here again. When the fathers act as cheerleaders, the relationship between the child and the task at hand is emphasized. When the mothers act as lifeguards, the relationship between the child and the caretaker is emphasized. At the risk of using another sports metaphor this close to Fathers’ Day, it’s the difference between a closely called basketball game or a loosely called game. When the game is loosely called, the players have the luxury of attending only to their opponents, the people on the other team. When it is tightly called, they have to divide their attention between their opponents and the refs. The refs are now a crucial audience and a lot of reacting and emoting is done for their sake. But less basketball. In fact, fathers engage in a more physical style of play with children and they engage in more unpredictable play. That may be because they are fathers and that is the kind of play they like. It may be because they function as relief pitchers and they can afford to do that for the few innings they are going to pitch. Hard to say.
The last point is about language development. In the communications setting, either a mother or father would be facing the child, to use the metaphor for the final time. In this area, the three findings that stuck me were: a) it is the father’s language use with the child, not the mother's, that predicts the child's language development at age three, b) fathers use a larger variety of word roots and so are more likely to stretch the children’s verbal abilities, and c) children end up using longer sentences and larger vocabularies when talking to their fathers than to their mothers.
Why? The article isn’t big on why questions, but I’d guess that the mothers, who know their children’s language capabilities better, shape what they say to what they know the child will understand. The fathers, who don’t know the children’s abilities as well, use a broader array of words, which, in small doses at least, is good for the child and more natural for the father.
It’s an interesting article. The main points, it seems to me, are: 1) two cops are better than one cop and not just because it enables the good cop/bad cop routine, and 2) because fathers are either more distant from the children (less time, less knowledge) or because they like being with a child who is focused on something else, e.g., not drowning, the fathers have a very nice complementary effect on how the kids learn.
But since it is (nearly) Fathers' Day, I have a couple of pictures to share. The leadoff picture is of Dawne and me and the family puppy, Heidi. Dan and Doug and I are down here. Sorry guys, I don't seem to be able to post more than one picture in any one post. The pictures come from 1967. I was 29 and the kids were 6, 4. and 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment