Most folks have probably now heard of the brouhaha Bill Cosby has started via his remarks at the NAACP’s shindig celebrating the golden anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
For those who have not, here is the gist of his comments summed up in one quote:
Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won’t spend $200 for “Hooked on Phonics.”
My question is, was Cos right? Are the parents to blame or praise for their children’s outcomes?
I postulate the answer is both yes and no.
Yes, in that biological parents give their children part of their DNA, which, ipso facto, means that they are “responsible” for their children’s behavior. But a mom and dad cannot select what nucleotide sequences they give their children, so it is basically a pseudo-random crap shoot what predispositions the children will inherit. Unless a mom/dad specifically picks a reproduction partner based on the probabilities of what the partner will pass on to the offspring (which, I would say, is not a conscious action in most parents), the parents really do not volitionally act here. But this is not what most people would think of when talking of parents and their children’s behaviors.
What most people think of when “parental effects” is the topic of discussion is the home environment the parents provide, including the child behaviors the parents reinforce and punish. But are these parental effects really that strong? Well, it depends on the behavior, but for the most part the answer is no. Judith Rich Harris has a theory, Group Socialization Theory, which postulates that, sans a few isolated constructs, it is a child’s genes and peers that are the two major influencers of his/her life outcomes. The late David C. Rowe did a lot of work here before his untimely death, a lot of which supported Harris’ view.
Personally, I think the literature supports a view that parents exert a lot of influence, but not in the conventional shared-environment (c^2) way. Rather, in addition to genetics, they influence their children by the environments they allow their children to find themselves, not necessarily the environments the parents themselves create. In other words, parents who pay for Smitty to go to science camp are placing him among a set of peers and role models that positively view math, science, and academics in general; so they are making it much more probable for Smitty to have a positive view of science, and make a career out of it. It is not that the parents are overtly cheerleading for Smitty to be a Chemist (as that is likely to have little long-lasting impact), but they are placing him in an environment where the norm is for chemistry to be highly valued.*
So, Cos is partially correct in that parents do play a part in their children’s outcomes, but it is not as simple as saying parental behavior has a bijective relationship (much less a definitive cause-and-effect relationship) with child behavior. Rather, it is a more complicated relationship. Still, for what it is worth, I do have to say that I commend him for at least not giving lip service to some tiresome bromide about how society, TV, or some -ism is the plight of all wayward utes.
*Of course I realize that the ability to pay for science camp and/or the knowledge that such things exist, takes a level of intellect, etc., which, in and of itself, has an influence on Smitty’s life outcomes.
Posted by A. Beaujean at 12:46 AM