zyxwvuts Research on Dutch and American parents’ descriptions and interpretations of their children’spersonality and behavior reveals a systematic pattern ofd@erence that defies the idea ofa uniform “Western mind” characterized by individualism. zyxwv Individualism and the “Western Mind” Reconsidered: American and Dutch Parents’ Ethnotheories of the Child Sara Harkness, Charles M. Supel; Nathalie van Tijen As studies of thinking among peoples of many cultures have accumulated in recent years, the idea of a distinctive “Western mind” with its own unique conceptualization of the self has gained acceptance among scholars in anthropology, sociology, and psychology. At the core of this conceptualization is the idea of the self as separate from the social environment. As Geertz (1984, p. 126) describes it, “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures.” The idea of a distinctive “Western mind” as opposed to its non-Western counterpart is very close to the contrasting constructs of individualism or independence versus sociocentrism, collectivism, or interdependence. Each of these constructs can be thought of as a cultural metamodel, a cluster of ideas that characterize cultures at a broad level and that should logically have wide-ranging functions for the organization of human development and ~ ~~ zyx zyxwvut ~ The research reported here was supported by grants from the Spencer Foundation and the National Science Foundation. All statements made and views expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors. zyxwvutsrqponmlkji zyxwvuts N ~ DIRECTIONS w FOR CH1l.u AND ADOLESCENTDEVELOPMFNT. no. 07. Spring Zoo0 0Joescy-Bass Publishers 23 24 zyxwvutsr VARIABILITY I N THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHII-D social relationships. The mediating link between these cultural metamodels and behavior is parental ethnotheories-cultural belief systems that parents hold regarding the nature of children, development, parenting, and the family (Harkness and Super, 1996). The findings of cross-cultural research on parents’ ideas about children are consistent with this general contrast. For example, Harkness and Super’s research (1992) on parents in a rural Kipsigis community of Kenya and a middle-class American sample in the Boston area draws a contrast between concepts of the child that emphasize obedience, responsibility, and socially situated intelligence in the Kipsigis group and independence and school-related cognitive skills in the American group. Although the concept of an individualistic “Western mind” s e e m useful for analyzing differences in relation to non-Western peoples, a growing body of research indicates that the cultural boundaries of this construct cannot easily be delineated on a map of the world. For example, immigrant groups in the United States, including those of Latin American origin, have been contrasted to the mainstream American middle class in terms of interdependence versus independence (Greenfield and Cocking, 1994). Research on developmental timetables among Italian and American parents and preschool teachers also indicates that expectations for early developmentconsistent with an individualistic concept of the self-are not equally shared in these two settings (Edwards, Gandini, and Giovaninni, 1996). A question then arises: Where does the “Western mind” reside? In this chapter, we challenge the idea of a unitary “Western mind” and reexamine the constructs of individualism and sociocentrism through an analysis of parents’ cultural models of the child in two Western, socioeconomically similar populations: one in the United States and the other in the Netherlands. Using parents’ descriptions of their own children as evidence for implicit cultural models of “the child,” we find patterns of similarity and difference between the two groups that belie both the assumed homogeneity of the “Western mind“ and the integrity of individualism and sociocentrism as cross-cultural dimensions of contrast. The ways that parents in both the U.S. and Dutch communities describe and comment on their own children, we find, require a new conceptualization of the individual in social context, which we discuss at the end of the chapter. Our data come from studies of parents and children in the environs of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the United States, during the late 1980s and in a town (which we will refer to by the pseudonym “Bloemenheim”) near Leiden, in the Netherlands, where we caniedout field research in 1992 and subsequently from 1995 to 1996. Cambridge, best known for its major universities and colleges, is home to a diverse population, including many different ethnic groups and social classes. The thirty-six families in the Cambridge study were recruited through a large health maintenance organization located in the city, but most of the participating families lived in surrounding towns. Bloemenheim is a town that lies in the heart of a densely populated area stretching from Amsterdam to The Hague. Although still surrounded by the famous bulb fields, zyxw zyxwvut INDIVlDUALlSM AND THE “WESTERN MIND”RECONSIDERED 25 Bloemenheim has grown from an agricultural community to include light industry as well as new housing for commuters to the nearby cities and towns. Sixty-six families recruited through school and neighborhood networks in Bloemenheim participated in the original 1992 study, which provides the basis for the present analyses. The sample of American families included target children in three cohorts-newborn, eighteen months old, and thirty-six months old-who were followed longtudinally over the course of a year and a half, until they reached the ages of eighteen months, thirty-six months, and four and onehalf years respectively. The Dutch sample included families with children evenly divided into five age cohorts (six months, eighteen months, three years, four and one-half years, and seven to eight years). Both samples were balanced for sex and birth order of the target children (firstborn versus later born). For the present analyses, we draw on data collected from children ages eighteen months, thirty-six months, and four and one-half years in each cultural sample (a total of twenty-nine American families and thirty-four Dutch families). The Cambridge families were almost entirely of European ancestry; the ethnic background of virtually all families in Bloemenheim was northern European, as is typical in all but the major cities of the Netherlands today. Families in both samples were culturally normative, intact, and nuclear, with at least one parent employed and no major health problems. The Dutch and American parents were generally similar in age, and both samples included a range of variability in socioeconomic status, from skilled worker to professional (Hollingshead categories IV to I; see Super and others, 1996), although the Cambridge sample was more heavily weighted toward the upper end of the scale. zyxwvu Cultural Models of the Child in Parental Descriptions A central component of the research was parent interviews, carried out in the home with both parents together; interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Parents’ descriptions of their children occurred frequently throughout these interviews in the context of talking about the child’s daily routines, current developmental changes, behavioral issues, and parents’ goals for the child. In the Bloemenheim interviews, we also asked parents to “describe your child.” Quite early in our interviews with the Bloemenheim parents, it became evident that parents’ stories and descriptions of their children were rather different in orientation and emphasis from what we had previously heard from the Cambridge parents. Parents in the Cambridge sample often described their children in terms of their intelligence, which parents attributed to them at the earliest possible age. In talking about their children, these parents typically professed to be “amazed” at their children’s abilities, which they found “remarkable” by comparison with other children of the same age or in contrast to what they might have imagined a small child to 26 zyxwvutsrqp VARIABILITY IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD be capable of. For example, a mother of a three-year-old girl described the behavior of her child as a newborn and related it to her current perceptions of the child: zyxwvu I have this vivid memory when she was born of them taking her to clean her off and put the blanket around her and all that. And she was looking all around She was looking at us. She was looking around the delivery room. She was alert from the very first second. Even when I would take her out1 took her out when she was six weeks old to a shopping mall to have her picture taken-people would stop me and say, “What an alert baby.” One guy stopped me and said, “Lady, you have an intelligent baby there.” A n intelligent child. And it was just something about her. She was very engaging and very with the program, very observant. She’s still fabulously observant [Interview 109-1-11. zyxwvu zyxwvu Likewise, a father described his three-year-old son as “active” not only physically but cognitively: Yes,he’s a very active child. He needs to be very active. He needs to play with children who are at a certain level of sophistication. You can’t sit around the house all day. On weekends we’ve got to take him to a museum or park or something or he’ll be impossible. Now I can see that sort of fits a pattern [Interview 133-1-1391. In both of these descriptions, parents point to their child’s superior cognitive abilities, which are manifested in a variety of ways: looking, type of play, need for mental stimulation. The children in these descriptions are active beings who are using the environment (whether social or material) to develop their own internally driven need for knowledge and understanding. The parents seem to refer to the childs environment-including even themselves-as existing to serve the needs of the child for optimal individual development. In contrast to the Cambridge parents, the Bloemenheim parents tended to emphasize the child’s social qualities. The parents of a three-year-old girl offered the following response to our request to describe the child: zyxwvuts Yes, hmm. Very sweet, but also at the stage where she gets angry rather quickly. . . . also very cozy, likes to do everything with you in the house, whatever you’re busy with, chatters nicely also likes to clean the windows. Loves to sing. . . . she really finds everything nice, she likes lots of different things. [To thefather] Do you know of anything more good or bad? FATHER: Yes, she is now in a stage of trying hard to figure out what are the limits. How far can I go before Daddy will get mad? Or before I say, “Hey don’t do that!” Or “Now that’s enough.” And that is trying to push out the boundaries of what is allowed and what isn’t. . . . So at this age, and we’ve seen it also in the older two, there is a certain period when they try to find MOTHER: zyxw zyxwvutsrqpo lNDlVlDUALlSM AND THE “WESTERN MIND”RECONSIDERED 27 out how far they can go. Sometimes it’s hard not to get angry about things that they don’t yet understand aren’t allowed. MOTHER: She also plays well with other children. FATHER: Yes. And she is also-not that I think this is a “must”-but she is also very adaptable, and I think that comes from what she sees in her environment. That she can play by herself, or just sit nicely somewhere with one of her parents, or with other children. And that she can also let other children play with her toys. MOTHER: [Laughing] She can also fight nicely with other children [Interview 227-1-1391. In these parents’ descriptions of their daughter, the central theme is sociability. The mother first describes her as good company-a child who is pleasant and likes to do everything with her around the house. The father focuses on her development in terms of learning the boundaries of acceptable behavior, a social domain. The mother then describes the girl as socially competent with other children (though adding at the end that “she can also fight nicely”), and the father elaborates on the theme of social competence by describing her as able to play either with others or by herself. Thus, in these examples the Cambridge parents’ descriptions of their children emphasize individualistic qualities; by contrast, the Bloemenheim parents focus on the child as a social being. Whereas the environment in the Cambridge descriptions seems to function primarily as a necessary resource for the childs individual development, in Bloemenheim the central task of development seems to be learning how to function successfully as a member of a social world. On the other hand, a closer look at the Bloemenheim parents’ description of their daughter also reveals a concern with cognition (albeit in a social domain-learning the boundaries of what is allowed) and with the ability to entertain oneself and play alone-presumably a mark of independence and maturity. As we reflected on observations such as these, it struck us that such differences mirror the more general contrast between individualism and sociocentrism, but with some intriguing exceptions. In order to test the validity of this interpretation and explore cultural differences further, we devised two analytic strategies: first, a comparison of the occurrence of relevant descriptors in parental discourse about children; and second, an analysis of how parents in each cultural sample talked about the core constructs of dependence and independence. zyxw zyxw Parents’ Descriptions of Their Children: A Quantitative Analysis The extent to which different kinds of descriptors are used to characterize one’s own child, we assume, reflects the degree of importance that parents attach to the qualities mentioned. Such qualities, furthermore, can be mentioned in 28 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvuts VARIABILITY IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD either a positive framework, in which the child is described as possessing the quality, or in a negative framework, in which the child is described as lacking it. In order to measure the relative importance of different qualities in parents’ descriptions of their children, we identified various kinds of descriptors given in the interviews, whether presented in the form of attributes (for example, “He’s a very happy boy”) or in terms of frequent behavior (for example, “She loves to play on the swings”). The descriptors were coded by both Dutch and American investigators according to judgments of similarity in meaning that preserved local distinctions but made possible comparisons between the two samples, eliminating repetitions in the same speaking turn. The proportion of descriptors in each category was then computed separately for each child, based on all the descriptors the parents used for the child. (This is similar to, but less constrained than, the approach used by Kohnstamm, Halverson, and colleagues in their developmental study of the “big five” dimensions of personality; see Kohnstamm, Halverson, Havill, and Mervielde, 1996.) For present purposes, we are concerned with descriptors that can be further categoiized as either individualistic or sociocentric; together these typically constitute about 60 percent of the descriptors for each child. (The remainder, not discussed here, concern temperament-about 30 percent-or fall into a residual category of “other”-about 7 percent.) Individualistic descriptors include those related to being smart, talented or advanced, interested in or curious about the surrounding world, enterprising or achievement oriented, self-confident, independent, a leadet and strong willed. All these descriptors refer to the individual as distinct from the social environment. The sociocentric category was defined to include only two kinds of descriptors: sociable (including being friendly, sharing, liking other people, or liking to be with other people) and obedient. Sociability lies at the heart of a sociocentric orientation 1.oward the group, and obedience has been frequently noted as typical of sociocentric cultures. Finally, being dependent or seeking attention can be seen either as related to egocentrism, an individualistic quality, or as a manifestation of interdependence, a quality ascribed to sociocentric societies. Table 2.1 shows the average proportions of use of each descriptor category for the Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents, together with the results o f t tests for group differences. As Table 2.1 shows, our impression of greater emphasis on intelligence among the Cambridge parents is confirmed in the significant difference in rates of use for that category. In fact, for the Cambridge parents the smart category is by far the largest group of descriptors, comprising almost one-fifth of all descriptors and more than twice the rate of this category for the Bloemenheim parents. The individualistic descriptors self-confident and leader also are significantly more common among the Cambridge parents, although the overall rates in both samples are much lower. Our impression of more attention to social qualities on the part of the Bloemenheim parents is also borne out by the corresponding rates for sociable. Interestingly, the rates of occurrence of this descriptor and smart zyx INDIVIDUALISM AND THE "WESTERN zyxw zyxw zyxwv MIND" RECONSIDERED 29 Table 2.1. Sample Differences in Rates of Individualistic and Sociocentric Descriptors of Children Descriptor Bloemenheim (Percentage) Cambridge (Percentage) t (61) Individualistic Smart" Interested Enterprising" Self-confident" Independent Dependent Leader Strong willed Total Sociocentric Sociablea Obedienta Total 9.1 3.9 3.2 1.2 4.5 4.5 2.5 7.5 36.3 19.3 5.1 1.2 3.5 4.1 4.0 5.4 3.9 46.4 4.47 1.07 -2.53 2.55 -0.33 -0.35 1.99 -2.87 3.70 17.6 5.7 23.2 12.7 5.9 18.6 -2.40 0.87 -1.80 Overall total 57 60 p <= ,000 n.s. .01 .01 n.s. ns. .05 ,006 ,0005 .02 ns. .08 Note: n.s. = not significant. 'Includes opposites (for example, "not very smart"). are the mirror image of each other in the two samples, with sociable being the most frequent descriptor type for the Dutch parents, followed by smart, whereas the opposite is true for the American parents. Thus, the proposition that the Bloemenheim and Cambridge parents' ideas about children can be contrasted in terms of the global categories of individualism and sociocentrism receives some support from this measure of descriptor use. There are also several exceptions to the predicted differences in relation to other descriptors, however. Most notably, the descriptors dependent and independent were equally attributed to children in both samples, as were obedient and interested; and the qualities of being strong willed and enterprising were mentioned more frequently by the Bloemenheim parents. We have argued elsewhere (Super and others, 1996) that differences of this sort cannot be reduced to a common variable, such as parental education, and that instead they reflect qualitatively distinct configurations of cultural meaning. Support for this view is found in the near absence of correlations between maternal and paternal education, on the one hand, and the twelve indices (the ten descriptors plus the total of each of the two classes of descriptors) presented in Table 2.1 (tested separately within the sample). Of the forty-eight correlations shown in Table 2.1, only one reaches statistical significance-approximately the level that can be expected by chance, given the close relationship of the two education measures. (The significant correlation occurs in Cambridge, where families with more educated 30 zyxwvutsrq zyxw zyxw VARIABILITY IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD fathers are more likely to describe their children as being enterprising: r = .47, = .OOl.) Not surprisingly, therefore, we also found that removing the effect of parental education in the pooled samples and then testing again for group differences did not alter our conclusions. Although this procedure does reduce the strength of the group differences (as any variance common to sample and education is now assigned to the latter), the pattern of differences seen in Table 2.1 remains: the group differences in smart, enterprising, strong willed, sociable, and the Individualistic total continue to be statistically significant. The key to understanding the cultural meanings of these differing patterns of descriptors lies in the context, or how they are used in discourse. We turn, therefore, to a more detailed examination of how parents talked about the core concepts of dependence and independence in their children. The concept of independence is central to individualism, while dependence may be relevant to both individualism and sociocentrism. A closer look at these two constructs in context may help in understanding other aspects of parental descriptions as well. p zyxwvu Cultural Concepts of Dependence Both Bloemenheim and Cambridge parents talked about dependence in t e r n of two main kinds of behavior: (1) seeking attention; ( 2 ) seeking comfort, proximity, physical contact, or affection. This operational definition of dependence corresponds closely to the behavioral categories used in a major cross-cultural study of social behavior in children (Whiting and Edwards, 1988) and would seem to be a good candidate for a universally recognizable parental construct. Whereas the Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents agreed on what constitutes dependent behavior, however, they differed considerably in their interpretations of and responses to such behavior. The Bloemenheim parents whose discourse could be coded (n = 19) referred to two main qualities that we include in the category of “dependence”: attention seeking (uundacht-vrugend) and dependence itself (as described by the term uunhankelijk, “dependent”). All of the Bloemenheim families in this subsample considered these kinds of behavior basically normal and positive in young children. In fact, when asked what they thought their children most needed for their development right now, parents frequently responded “attention.” As the father of an eighteen-month-old boy said: zyxw He really needs attention, and through that you see him growing. He’s learning how to talk. . . . it’s not just one thing. It’s a combination of factors. Just the attention from us, from his older brother . . . the examples from his brother . . He does things following his brother. And . . . the love that he gets. Also from his grandfather and grandmother, and his uncle. . . . that is for me at this moment the most important thing. And his little bowl of porridge every morning [Inughs] [Interview 202-1-2371. zyxwv zyxw INDIVIDUALISM AND THE “WESTERN MIND” RECONSIDERED 3 1 Similarly, the father of a four-year-old boy commented: He is a boy who asks for affirmation, he does something and then he comes to ask. You have to give him attention and that’s not a problem because it’s normal. If he’s playing outside then he also gets attention from other children, especially the older children here in the neighborhood. I just think he really needs that. 1 think that if we didn’t give him attention then he would do things that aren’t allowed, he would start getting into mischief [Interview236-1-2221. zyxwvu As expressed here, the Bloemenheim parents suggested that if children demand attention, it is because they need it and that the demand should be satisfied, within the limits of parents’ interest and availability. Children who were very affectionate and needed lots of cuddles were called “dependent” or “snuggle-bunnies” (knuffeeldiertjes). This quality was accepted as part of the child’s innate character: FATHER:She is also very affectionate, I think, she always creeps up to you. Dependent. FATHER: Dependent, yes. MOTHER:She’s a snuggle-bunny [Interview 230-1-971. MOTHER: Parents noticed individual differences in children’s demands for attention; but even those children who made it impossible for parents to focus on anything else in the childs presence were not deemed problematic. As the mother of an eighteen-month-old boy recounted: If I’m sitting with the newspaper or a book, then it has to be put aside, and then if I pick it up again later he comes here and sits on top of it, so I just think, “Well, 1 can do that in the evening.” But if he’s busy playing then I can just go wash the dishes or something like that, but as soon as it’s like, “Oh, she’s not looking at me anymore,” then he needs attention again. After describing more of such behavior in his son, the father concludes: You can really notice that he needs a lot of attention, but it’s not troublesome [Interview 239-1-1791. Some parents attributed their child’s attention-seeking behavior to experience rather than the childs nature. According to all of them, however, the child’s behavior was natural, reasonable, and not a cause for concern. For example, one mother explained that her daughter demanded extra attention because she was used to it, since the mother had been at home with her since birth. In summary, many Bloemenheim parents described their children as attention-seeking or emotionally dependent, but they did not seem to worry 32 zyxwvutsrq VARI~BILITY IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD about this. Dependent behavior was understood as normal for young children in general or as a characteristic of the particular child. In a few cases, parents also gave environmental explanations but characterized the childs response as natural and reasonable. Parents themselves enjoyed snuggling or playing with their children but were ready to set limits when they needed to, without feeling guilty. Giving attention and love was seen as one of the most important things parents could do for their children. Parents felt that children’s requests for attention and affection should be granted but that children should also learn to play by themselves and not be entirely dependent on others to be entertained. In contrast to the Bloemenheim parents’ generally positive perceptions of dependence in their children, none of the twelve Cambridge couples who talked about dependence described this behavior as normal or desirable. Instead, the attention-seeking child was characterized as “craving” attention or “clingy,” and the behavior was described as problematic for the parents. A major issue raised by these parents was the child’s difficulty in sharing parental attention with others. The mother of three children, for example, commented about her four-year-old son: Somehow it’s doing things with all of them that seems difficult, but you can do almost anything with Jonathan by himself. And you can take him anywhere and he’ll be generally very accommodating just because he is then the sole focus of attention [Interview 102-4-361. A particularly dramatic example of the childs need for her mother’s undivided attention was recounted by a mother who had spent the day “doing her colors” with a visiting friend: Nancy ]the friend] and I did it and Marcie Ithe three-year-old daughter] was just around us. While we’d include her periodically, she was just there and I wasn’t making a special effort to do special things with her. Well, by the end of the day, she had a temper tantrum like I have never seen before. John [the husband] was out of town. It went on for at least 45 minutes of screaming and kicking and crying and stuff. I mean I’ve never seen it-it made me realize that here she had been-here Nancy was taking my attention and Marcie was having a very hard time sharing me. She has had a hard enough time sharing me with Matthew [the younger brother]. Here a friend of mine had been here since Sunday that she had to share me with. By Thursday she had just had it [Interview 108-4-121. As in the above quote, an idea expressed by several parents was that the childs dependent behavior was the unfortunate consequence of stresses in the environment. In a similar vein, the mother of a four-year-old girl described hassles at the childs preschool and their own busy schedule to her daughter’s excessive demands for attention at home and at school: zyx zyxw zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut zyxwv ~NDlVlDUALlSMAND THE “WESTERN MIND”RECONSIDERED 33 If a child comes to give me a hug, she’s immediately over hugging me-“my mommy, my mommy.” That kind of stuff. [What] 1 have also noticed since we’ve been both so busy the last few weeks-I think Bob [the father] has noticed it too-is very much more, 1 wouldn’t say clinginess, but constantly coming back for hugs and kisses, wanting to have hugs and kisses, and a lot more than . . . before, and wanting me to sit down and watch Sesame Street in the morning, the need to be there. Like tonight, she didn’t want me to leave her. She wanted me to be up there and read stories and sing her a lullaby and that kind of stuff, to the point where it drives you crazy [Interview 117-4-171. Even more’distressing for this mother than the child’s demanding behavior itself, however, was the thought that perhaps it reflected a problem for which the mother herself might be to blame: I get upset and it bothers me that she might think that she needs to-it bothers me that she needs to reach out-this is what I think-that she needs to reach out a little bit more to us. Like right now she’s clingier with me. That bothers me because 1 think, “Well, does that mean that 1 don’t . . .” Not that I don’t love her as much, but I’m not spending as much time with her. I really-I’ve always felt, and they told us this when we went for our refresher course-we went for our refresher course at childbirth classes. The nurse said to us, when 1 was pregnant with Megan, “You will probably feel guilt with the second one that you just don’t spend the time with the second that you did with the first one.” So, with that on my mind all the time, I’m always feeling, “Gee, did I spend more time with Amos?” She’s not getting as much ‘cause now I’m working. Now I’m at the nursery school working. Even though she sees me all morning at the nursery school, still I’m with other children. So I’m constantly feeling that pressure, if you want to call it pressure. It’s always there [Interview 117-4-2121. As is evident in these excerpts, some of the Cambridge parents gave the impression that they were rather stressed, in contrast to the typically calm and cheerful Bloemenheim parents. On the other hand, they seemed to demand more of themselves in terms of devoting time exclusively to the child, even though they expressed more impatience with it than did the Bloemenheim parents. It appears that these Cambridge parents found dependent, attention-seeking behavior problematic in a way that the Bloemenheim parents did not. Table 2.2 summarizes these differences in terms of percentages of parents in each cultural sample who expressed each major theme. As is evident from Table 2.2, parents in Bloemenheim were significantly more likely to discuss dependence as a normal, nonproblematic phenomenon than were the Cambridge parents. The Bloemenheim parents also more frequently (although not significantly) described dependent behavior as an aspect of the child’s innate character. Conversely, the Cambridge parents much more 34 zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq zyxwv zyxw VARltiBILITY IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD Table 2.2. Sample Differences in Meaning of ”DependentnBehavior Meaning Bloemenheim (Percentage) Cambridge (Percentage) Chi-Square p <= zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu Dependence Normal” Innate to child” Problem, needing change” Result of experience” Experiential effect Positive adaptationb Stressb Note: n.s. = no!.significant. 42 63 11 21 100 0 8 33 75 42 0 100 4.07 2.62 13.35 1.51 .04 n.s. ,001 n.s. ,008‘ ,008‘ zyxwvutsrq an = 19 for Bloemenheirn, n = 12 lor Cambridge. bn = 4 for Bloemenheirn, n = 5 for Cambridge. ‘p of Fisher’s exact test. frequently viewed dependent behavior as a problem requiring change, and they also mentioned experiential causes somewhat more frequently. Of those parents who mentioned environmental causes in each sample, it is striking that the Cambridge parents mentioned only negative experience, whereas Bloemenheim parents mentioned only positive experience. Thus, even though the two sets of parents identified similar child behaviors as dependent, they were working with different understandings of the causes, significance, and implications of such behavior. The Significance of Independence Like dependence, the concept of independence also encompasses a variety of behaviors that parents in both settings recognized as expressions of independence, but with significant differences in meaning (summarized in Table 2.3). Many American parents, for example, would see the familiar in this Bloemenheim mother’s account of a child wanting to “do things by oneself”: Often, when she gets dressed, and for example she brings her socks to me and asks, “Should 1 put these socks on?” She asks me that. And I help her, just without thinking. And then she has her socks on, and then she sees that and she gets angry and then the socks have to be taken off. . . . “Do self!” And then she begins all over with everything! A bow that I just put on, a T-shirt that I just dressed her in, also have to come off. Then you have to start completely over again [Interview 221-1-591. Being able to play alone, or entertain oneself, is a second expression of independence recognized by both the Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents, but the Bloemenheim parents highlighted this more (see also Super and oth- INDIVIDUALISM AND THE zyxw zyx zyxw “WESTERN MIND”RECONSIDERED 35 Table 2.3. Sample Differences in Meaning of “Independent”Behavior Meaning Doing things by oneself Entertaining oneself Making one’s own decisions Having one’s own will Asserting oneself in oppositional way Problem for parents Conflict of independence versus dependence Bloemenheim (Percentage) n=16 Cambridge (Percentage) n=ll Chi-square p <= 43 45 0.008 n.s. 38 9 2.74 .10 19 27 0.27 n.s. 31 27 0.049 ns. 6 0 64 55 10.30 11.22 ,001 0 45 8.93 ,003 ,001 Note: n.s. = not significant. zyxw ers, 1996). A mother in Bloemenheim summarized this as part of what she thought being “independent” (zelfstandig) means: Independence. I think that everyone must be independent. And I have the idea myself that you don’t have to push them to be that way. Playing alone outside is independent. Doing a puzzle by yourself is independent. Making a mess and cleaning it up yourself is independent. So, it all belongs together [Interview 220-1- 1061. Other aspects of independence mentioned by parents in both communities include making one’s own decisions and having one’s “own mind” or “own will.” Thus parents in both Cambridge and Bloemenheim generally recognized similar kinds of behavior as relevant to the concept of independence, although the Bloemenheim parents focused more on being able to entertain oneself as a developmental goal. As with dependence, however, there is a striking difference between these two groups of parents in the significance they attached to independence as a developmental and relationship issue. The Cambridge parents typically saw the development of independence as involving an internal struggle on the part of children, tom between wanting to cling to their parents and wanting to strike out on their own. This perspective is evident in the comments of two mothers in particular (one the mother of a three-year-old girl, the other of an eighteen-month-old girl). One of these mothers explained: zyxw And Courtney is at a point where she really likes my company. “1 want some company.” So on one hand she wants to be grown up and do things on her 36 zyxwvutsrq zyxwv zyxwvutsr VARIABILITY IN THE SOCIALCONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD own, but on the other hand she wants to make sure you’re there. And so I get that a lot during the week. It’s just hard [Interview 108-4-1801. The other said regarding her own daughter: Well, I think it’s-in terms of her developing independence, she feels a very strong need to assert herself. Whenever I feel 1 have to put a limit on her, I feel she’s developing more of an understanding of that. That’s a big process she has to sort out in her mind. 1 think partly the better she feels about herself, also the more scared she gets about growing up and leaving babyhood behind I Interview 130-2-821. In contrast, the Bloemenheim parents presented a view of children’s oppositional behavior as a natural maturational process of discovering one’s selfhood. One mother explained her three-year-old daughter’s frequently saying “no”: Well, I lhink she is discovering her own self. That she is also an “I,” she is also a person who lives here. That she can do things with the family, but she’s discovering her own will. A person who can say, “1 want milk” or “1 don’t want milk” [Interview 221-1-541. The Bloemenheim parents encouraged this development, as it laid a foundation for the ability later in life to make one’s own decisions rather than being too strongly influenced by others. One father described the importance of being independent: Then he will go his own way and will therefore feel better about himself, I think. If you just try to follow others because you think that they have it better or that others do. How should I say? Independent people attract others to them. And I don’t want him to follow after others, 1 want him to decide what he wants. And then he’ll be more comfortable with himself, I think. 1 do that also. I’m always a bad listener to others. Or at least, I listen well, but then 1 always follow my own will. And 1 hope he’ll be that way too [Interview 220-1-1151. zyxw Dependence and Independence: The Cultural Contrast To summarize the themes in the Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents’ talk about dependence and independence in their young children, it appears that parents in both settings recognized the same kinds of behavior as relevant to each construct. Dependence was defined as seeking attention and love, and the concept of independence included wanting to do things oneself, having one’s own will, and being able to entertain oneself. The two groups of parents diverged sharply, however, in their interpretations of such behaviors and in their attitudes and responses. Whereas the Bloemenheim parents INDIVIDUALISM AND THE “WESTERN zyxw MIND”RECONSIDERED 37 found young children’s need for attention and love natural, legitimate, and generally not a burden to themselves, the Cambridge parents worried about whether dependent behavior might be the result of some negative experience and felt torn between wanting to be attentive parents and feeling hassled by their children’s excessive demands. Ironically, the Cambridge parents also found independence to entail difficult relationship issues in a way that the Bloemenheim parents did not. Why did the two groups of parents differ so much in their interpretations of and responses to what were evidently perceived as very similarindeed probably universal-aspects of behavior in their young children? To address this question, we turn to a reexamination of the basic constructs of independence and interdependence as they have been conceptualized in Western psychology, and in the process we revisit the parallel concepts of individualism and sociocentrism. zyxwvu Individualism, Sociocentrism, and the “AutonomousRelational Self” Kagitcibasi (1996) has proposed a new synthesis of what she sees as the two dimensions of autonomy inherent, but not recognized, in Western conceptualizations: agency and separateness. “Given this individualistic orientation [of the Western world],” she argues, “autonomy is often construed as separateness from others. Even though autonomy does not necessarily imply distancing oneself from others, such a meaning is commonly attributed to it. It is seen to result from a separation-individuation process and to reflect the differentiation of the self from ‘the other.’ Independence and separateness appear as prerequisites for autonomy. From such a perspective, therefore, an interdependent self construal would exclude autonomy” (Kagitcibasi, 1996, p. 180). Furthermore, Kagitcibasi proposes, the two dimensions of autonomy are paralleled by two meanings in the construal of individualism versus sociocentrism (or “collectivism,” in her terms), wherein collectivism is supposed to entail both subordination of one’s own self to the group and emotional closeness or interdependence. She suggests that, in contrast to this confounding of two logically separate dimensions, in some societies (notably those in transition from traditional to individualistic family lifestyles) there is a “dialectical synthesis” involving close emotional relationships but allowing for individual agency. According to this interpretation, the “autonomous relational self” not only is adaptive in certain socioeconomic situations but also provides a healthier solution to the basic human need for both connectedness and agency than do prevailing Western psychological theories. Although Kagitcibasi draws her examples of the autonomous relational self from outside the Western world, her conceptualization corresponds remarkably closely to the differences observed in the ways that the Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents talked about dependence and independence in their children. For the Cambridge parents, the conflict inherent in 38 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrqp VARUBILITY I N THE SOCIALCONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD both dependence and independence has to do with separation. Although the conflict is attributed to the child, parents also may experience conflict over the presupposed necessity of separation, assumed to be necessary in order for the child to achieve a solid sense of agency. For the Bloemenheim parents, on the other hand, emotional closeness and interdependence are valued, and independence is seen as related mainly to the development of agency-being able to make one’s own choices. Note that in the last Dutch example quoted above (Interview 220-1-115), the alternative to being able to make one‘s own decisions is to be a follower of others; nowhere does the issue of separateness arise. With the idea of the autonomous relational self in mind, we can more easily make sense of the other differences between Cambridge and Bloemenheim parents’ descriptions that appear anomalous in the framework of individualism versus collectivism. Attribution of obedience to children is rare in both samples, although manageability and cooperativeness are definitely issues. The low profile for obedience in these settings reflects the fact that neither is a traditional society in which obedience and respect are highlighted. As Kagitcibasi (1996) notes, obedience (lack of personal agency) is adaptive in traditional societies, characterized by the extended family and a household-based economy, but these constraints on the individual’s need for agency are not necessary in modem societies. On the other hand, the higher frequency of “strong-willed’’ and “enterprising” among Dutch parents as descriptions of their children reflects the strong emphasis on agency in that society. The reasoning behind this seems to be that in Holland, where people live so close together and cannot avoid dealing with each other, parents find it important that one know what one wants in order not to be manipulated by others. However, one cannot be too strong minded because to maintain a peaceful society (long a Dutch priority), other people have to be taken into consideration. Similarly, the ability to make one’s own choices and take the initiative, expressed in the descriptor “enterprising” (ondernemend), is a vital component of personal agency in a densely social environment. Although Kagitcibasi’s conceptualization of the autonomous relational self appears to correspond well to the Bloemenheim parents’ cultural model of the child as expressed in their descriptions of their own children, it is notable that Kagitcibasi also assumes that such a model can be found only outside Western societies. Are we to imagine, then, that Dutch communities such as Bloemenheim are rare deviants from an otherwise hegemonic “Western mind”? Only further research within the broad bounds of Western culture can answer this question. It seems likely, however, that such research will show that there is not one “Western mind” but many culturally structured ways of conceptualizing the self, and thus of thinking about children and the family. This should be reassuring to both researchers and parents: although each formulation creates its own internal tensions, it also opens the door for more viable solutions to the basic human needs for personal achievement and autonomy as well as sociability and relatedness. zyxwvutsr INDIVIDUALISM AND THE “WESTERN References MIND”RECONSIDERED zyxwv 39 Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., and Giovaninni, D. “The Contrasting Developmental Timetables of Parents and Preschool Teachers in Two Cultural Communities.” In S. Harkness and C. M. Super (eds.), Parents’ Cultural Belief Systems: Their Origins, Expressions, and Consequences. New York: Guilford Press, 1996. Geertz, C. “From the Native’s Point of View.” In R. A. Shweder and R. A. LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Greenfield, P. M., and Cocking, R. R. (ed.). Cross-CulturalRoots ofMinority Child Development. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1994. Harkness, S., and Super, C. M. “Parental Ethnotheories in Action.” In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, and J. J. Goodnow (eds.), Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequencesfor Children. (2nd ed.) Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1992. Harkness, S., and Super, C. M. (eds.). Parents’ Cultural Belief Systems: Their Origins, Expressions, and Consequences. New York: Guilford Press, 1996. Kagitqibasi, C. “The Autonomous-Relational Self A New Synthesis.” European Psychologist, 1996, 1 , 180-186. Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Jr., Havill, V., and Mervielde, 1. “Parents’ Free Descriptions of Child Characteristics: A Cross-Cultural Search for the Developmental Antecedents of the Big Five.” In S. Harkness and C. M. Super (eds.), Parents’ Cultural Belief Systems: Their Origins, Expressions, and Consequences. New York: Guilford Press, 1996. Super, C. M., Harkness, S., van Tijen, N., van der Vlugt, E., Fintelman, M., and Dijkstra, J. “The Three Rs of Dutch Childrearing and the Socialization of Infant Arousal.” In S. Harkness and C. M. Super (eds.), Parents’ Cultural Belief Systems: Their Origins, Expressions, and Consequences. New York: Guilford Press, 1996. Whiting, B. B., and Edwards, C. P. Children of DDifferentWorlds: The Formation of Social Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrqp zyxw zyxwvut SARA HARKNESS is professor in the School of Family Studies and director ofthe Centerfor the Study of Culture, Health, and Human Development at the University of Connecticut. zyxwvutsrqpo CHARLES M. SUPER is professor and dean in the School ofFamily Studies at the University of Connecticut. TUENholds a masterk degree in developmental psychologyfrom the University of Leiden and is now a doctoral student at the Free University of Amsterdam. NAJHALIE VAN