Following the parenting herd? Part 1: Yes! Why do I?
“It’s wild to me that we parent our children to fit into society, then get together with our friends and talk about how broken society is.” Mike Monteiro's Good News
“Why do we do this?,” asked a daughter-in-law. Which got me wondering, too. I realized that our family has an unbroken line beginning with my grandparents’ parenting in which we’ve “parent[ed] our children to fit into society” by sending our kids to school (through college or beyond), urging them to excel, and involving them in extracurriculars like sports, arts, or STEM activities. We’ve encouraged leadership, but also being socially adept and a team player. We’ve taught our kids good manners and grooming that present well to people in authority. And we’ve emphasized moral basics, like honor your promises; don’t lie, cheat, or steal; be kind. Realizing that we, and lots of others, have charted similar paths for generations, in this post I’ll propose a hypothesis (definitely not “an answer”) as to why the urge is powerful and commonplace. Next the next week or two (Following the Parenting Herd? Part 2: No, Thanks!), I’ll suggest that we* often don’t follow in lockstep—and if we do, ways we can and often should get out of the rut.
So, “Why do we do this?” Here are some possible reasons:
Basically, we have hopes for our kids, wanting them to have a good life. But people differ on what a good life is and how to help the kids get there.
Pragmatism. Some people like “the system” well enough, given that it serves them, and they figure it will serve their children, too.Even those who haven’t “made it” socially may calculate that fitting in will give their kids the best chance in the social world as we know it: Immigrant parents, for example, may pragmatically adopt this strategy.
Fear. On the flip side, not following the script is scary. On the privileged side of society, parents worry that if their kids don’t have good grades/evident talents/the right degrees, they’ll be unable to thrive in our economy. For other folks, it’s even scarier: All too often, the reason parents in nonprivileged demographics teach their children to fit in is that not doing so will leave the kids unemployed, or imprisoned, or dead.
Habit. For others, our “why” may just be habit. As philosopher and psychologist William James put the point in the late 19thcentury, ingrained habits let us—and our children—fit effortlessly to the existing social world, so that we have capacity left to work at succeeding in it. As far as James is concerned, that’s a good thing, because it keeps the poor and uneducated in their place: “Habit is thus the enormous fly-wheel of society, its most precious conservative agent. It alone is what keeps us all within the bounds of ordinance, and saves the children of fortune from the envious uprisings of the poor.” Eek! In his cringe-worthy fashion, James helps us see that, yes, habit and acculturation stick, serving to perpetuate the status quo—for better or worse.
Perpetuation of the status quo can be a good thing. People tend to appreciate stability: It helps set up the next generation to keep food on the table, launch a career or grow a business, find a partner, a home, raise children, plan for their kids’ education, accumulate assets for old age. But of course there are the ways our status quo is seriously broken, such as in the grossly unequal distribution of income, wealth, privilege, and safety. (Add your own top worries here.) Perpetuating the brokenness is not a good thing…so why do we?
Competition. Beyond habit, fear, and pragmatics, there’s competition. Competition is a constant in our society—for Mom’s attention, grades, jobs, market share, world domination—and success is marked by being better than others, beating them to relatively scarce opportunities. And the competition begins early: In some places, gifted kindergarten is considered an important stepping stone toward the holy grail: admission to a selective college. So we emphasize activities that instill habits of competition, hard and persistent work, leadership skills, and winning, so that the young person can use these tools to succeed in their adult lives.
Nonhuman animals compete, too, leading some researchers to propose that humans have a similar genetically-primed inclination. It turns out to be more complicated than that, however. As is typical in discussions of (supposed) human nature, how you see our competitive streak depends on what you’re looking for and how you define “competitive.” For example, a range of behaviors can be construed as competitive: people may compete to dominate at all costs, or to surpass others, or to develop their own skills (those personal bests). People’s degree of competitiveness also varies by situation: for example, people compete harder in small groups, where the odds of winning are greater.
The overall picture seems to be that high competitiveness often does secure resources, but that it comes at a cost. Personal costs of competition include stress and burnout. Society-level costs include excess consumption as we flash our status, divisiveness as we struggle to keep or enlarge our share of the pie, poor attention to the needs of those forced out of the race, and, all too often, justification of violence as a way to stay ahead of the pack. So many creatures (human and nonhuman) opt out: They compete less or little, making do with what they can get. If it’s right that we naturally compete, the results are complex: It’s part of why we urge kids to fit in, it’s part of why we end up with a broken society, and it shows that there are limits to how much we’re willing to go along.
Conformity. People also simply tend to conform. In his book Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, physician and sociologist Nicholas Christakis writes, “Humans have a constellation of psychological traits built for culture, including the tendency to conform to what others are doing, to develop and obey local norms, to privilege high-status or older people who could be potential teachers, and to pay attention to the people whom others are paying attention to.” This tendency to copy others pays off by helping people learn quickly, adapt within a wide range of circumstances, and hand on knowledge to others, including children. While the tendency can invoke trivia (think TikTok memes and endless influencers) or lock people into subgroups, it can also be cohesive, carrying culture and social stability across generations. Because groups of copiers can self-isolate, even parents who are nonconformist with wider society typically conform within their subgroup: Home schoolers have home schooling groups; members of religious sects peg their child-rearing to their own shared norms.
If the scientists and philosophers who’ve considered our general human tendencies are on the right track, the sum of competition and conformity is basically, “Do what the Joneses do, only better.” If kids in your peer group go to college, prepare your kid to get into the top college. Or prepare them for the highest possible degrees, the most successful business, or the hardest work, or to rule among their peers. If that’s too daunting, opt for the less competitive, but still conformist, approach—do your best, keep your head down, aim for sustained income and simple joys.
It's easier. All that said, perhaps the clincher answer to the “why” question is that hacking out a new trail is a lot of work! Pathways that take the current social situation as a given are laid out and well-trodden: The route to the highest-ranked colleges leads through high grades and lots of extracurriculars; other routes lead through trade schools or small business loans. Finding one’s way on a new path is arduous, and potentially lonely and scary, too.
So, yes, for reasons ranging from fear to follow-the-leader to compulsion to dominate, we often enact hopes for our children by helping them fit into society as it is. But that’s not the whole story: People don’t always follow the leaders, and social and psychological realities are plural and changeable. Plus, there are (thank goodness!) limits on what adult efforts can do to push kids toward desired goals. But all that needs more discussion. So in a week or two, I’ll add more about this “but wait!” response to our daughter-in-law’s question.
* The “we” I have in mind includes parents and grandparents: Parents in their role as chief deciders for their children, grandparents in our typical side role with our grandchildren, and in recognition of our experience with acculturating our now-adult children. But in a multicultural society and world, parents and grandparents respond to a wide range of social realities. I’ll primarily address parents and grandparents who—like myself and the majority of my readers—are relatively successful in the status quo, while raising up those who experience society very differently.