Amy Chua's Tiger Mother Parenting Model: A Critical Analysis

Introduction: The Controversy Behind the Article

In an article published by the Wall Street Journal titled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," Amy Chua, a professor at a prominent American law school, ignited a firestorm across the web because of the article's provocative title and the arguments she made in it (Chua, 2011a). The article is actually an excerpt from a memoir she recently published, and "the splashy headline," as Chua pointed out in a follow-up response to readers' comments, was not of her choosing but a coinage of the Journal's editors — clearly intended to generate controversy and viewership. It was not without effect: the page generated almost 8,000 comments, the largest number in the history of the Journal. It is also interesting to note that in a poll conducted by the Journal asking readers to choose between "Permissive Western Parenting" and "Demanding Eastern Parenting," 13,207 (37.7%) chose the former and 21,821 (62.3%) chose the latter (Chua, 2011b). So, despite the negative response the article generated, there appears to be a large pool of readers who at least partially agree with her.

Chua's main argument is that, unlike Western parents, Chinese parents are demanding, strict, and controlling of their children, but also more dedicated to their children's success — and that these efforts ultimately pay off. The differences in parenting are so stark, she says, that "when Western parents think they are being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers" (Chua, 2011a). To make her case, Chua uses argumentative and rhetorical appeals to the reader, resorting to hyperbole and balance, using colloquial language, and being both politically incorrect and brutally honest about her views. Some of her arguments are convincing, while others suffer from logical inconsistencies or fail to see the broader picture. The article has merit, forcing both Western and Chinese parents to re-evaluate their parenting methods and consider what is right or wrong, best or worst.

Chua's Core Argument and Rhetorical Strategy

Chua says she uses the term "Chinese mother" loosely — a label that might also reflect the motherhood practices of Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish, Ghanaian, and Pakistani mothers. If so, why not speak of the "Asian mother"? And why "mother"? Are Chinese or Asian fathers not equally strict and demanding? In telling her own story, Chua recalls an incident from her childhood when she spoke rudely to her mother and was then scolded by her father — who called her "garbage," a term she later used against one of her own daughters. Although Chua appeals to readers' logic by explaining that she uses "Chinese mother" loosely, there is a logical inconsistency in her elaboration.

Appeals to Logos: Strengths and Logical Inconsistencies

Chua does employ the rhetorical appeal of logos more successfully when she cites several studies differentiating between Western and Chinese parenting models. Yet even here she is selective, conveniently ignoring other studies showing that many Chinese and Chinese-American parents favor mixed parenting methods that incorporate both traditional Chinese and Western approaches (Dejesus, 2011; Wu & Hertberg-Davis, 2009). Chua also makes a somewhat arrogant move in attempting to define what "Chinese" means. When she says "I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers," she seems unaware that she is insulting a considerable number of Chinese-American mothers who are proud of their Chinese heritage.

It is in her appeals to logos where Chua's arguments are the weakest. She is considerably stronger when appealing to ethos and pathos. She demonstrates excellent grammar and vocabulary, uses language appropriate for her likely American readership — given the article's publication in American English in the Wall Street Journal — and expresses a fair amount of respect for diverging opinions, especially in her follow-up response. For example, in elaborating the main differences between Western and Chinese parenting methods, Chua explains why the Chinese approach can seem loathsome to many Western parents. She demonstrates an understanding of those concerns before moving on to explain why she believes the Chinese method is effective and worth considering.

Conclusion: Merit and Limitations of Chua's Case

Chua's article is provocative and some of her arguments are not very convincing, but her efforts are not without merit. Her article may indeed serve as a wake-up call to many Western parents who are too soft and indulgent with their children, allowing them to waste time on unnecessary pursuits. At the same time, her sweeping generalizations, selective use of evidence, and occasional logical inconsistencies undermine what is otherwise a thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing debate about how best to raise children in a competitive, globalized world.