Reevaluating Permissive Parenting: The Reigning Influence of Psychology in 1950s America

Matthew Sisto

HIS 368W

Professor Borus

November 23, 2015

Sisto 2

Table of Contents

Deep Roots 6

A Lack of Consensus 12

Parental Responsibility for Disaster 20

Exhortation to Trust 25

Warranted Permissiveness 29

Is Spock To Blame? 33

Conclusion 36

Sisto 3

The Fifties in America are often thought by many Americans to be a quite traditional

time in American history, exploding into the antithetically permissive decade of the Sixties.

Recent research has begun to conclude that it was in fact more permissive than was initially

thought. One specific area that is often called out is that of child rearing. Permissiveness has

varied definitions, but I specifically argue in this case that it means parents became more relaxed

in when and how they enforced obedience in the effort to protect their child from maladjustment

and to foster proper growth as an individual; from here on, all references to permissiveness in

this work are to be interpreted according to this definition.

Benjamin Spock is typically accused of being the progenitor of permissive parenting

during the Fifties, leading parents to allow their children to run free, thus resulting in the chaotic

Sixties. Thus the responsibility lay with the parents, who were excessively lenient. The message

is that parents were to blame for the rise in permissiveness, aided by Spock’s influential writings.

Yet taking another look, specifically through the lens of the New York Times, reveals that the

answer is not so clear. In fact, it may be quite different from what has been commonly described.

Analyzing New York Times articles from the year 1950 reveals that perhaps it was not entirely

the parents’ fault; a close reading shows that psychologists were not concordant in their advice

on what behaviors and values were appropriate, and how they were to be enforced. This arose

out of a reaction against behaviorism due to a fear of creating authoritarian adults. Yet

psychologists still exhorted parents to trust their every word, all the while placing the weight of

children’s maldevelopment solely on the parents’ shoulders. Of course this would place a great

deal of stress on the parents and would result in what appears to be permissiveness, but what is

in fact a desperate attempt by parents to follow psychologists’ vacillating advice in order to save

Sisto 4

their children from poor development. This because they were told they no longer knew how to

raise children without psychological advice. This analysis is of course not a blanket statement for

parents and seeks to address only readers of the New York Times.

The reader may of course be wondering why I specifically chose the year 1950 from the

Times. The answer is less about the significance of 1950 and more about a simple desire to keep

this analysis within a reasonable limit. This same analysis could – and should – be done for the

years preceding and following 1950; this is a time- and labor-intensive exercise which far

exceeds the scope of this paper. The objective of my research is to begin an investigation which

will spark further research on this topic. The amount of articles which I examined from just 1950

are numerous enough on their own and I presume that other years are likewise inundated with

these parental advice articles.

The other inevitable question which will arise is why choose The New York Times? Why

not something like Times Magazine? There were certainly other viable options and a study of the

same subject in Time would be equally interesting. However, The New York Times is considered

a paper of record. Additionally, it was read by the group most in question in this paper, white

middle-class families. Alan Petigny, who has done extensive research into permissiveness in

America, explains the reasoning for this in his work The Permissive Society: America, 1941-

1965. Petigny argues that permissiveness is parents’ depart from complete adherence to the

traditional rigid methods of the past. He says that although other groups at this time, particularly

African Americans, did became less rigid in their parenting styles, it was not to the same degree

as “whites who hailed from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.”1 Furthermore, a study by a

Urie Bronfenbrenner showed that “during and prior to World War II… white middle-class

1 Alan Cecil Petigny, The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 42.

Sisto 5

families tended to be more strict with their children than working class parents,” but “‘after

World War II, however, there has been a definite reversal in direction.’”2 Brofenbrenner cited the

reason for this being the resources available to the middle-class: “‘Child-rearing practices are

likely to change most quickly in those segments of society which have closest access and are

most receptive to the agencies or agents of change (e.g., public media, clinics, physicians, and

counselors).’”3 One of those resources certainly would have been The New York Times.

Rather than use the internet database, I used the microfilm version of the Times available

in the University of Rochester’s “Newspaper and Microfilm Center.” My guide was The New

York Times Index which allowed me to search for and locate all articles relevant to the topic at

hand. Besides the Times, I also made use of other primary resources which would reflect the

ideas presented in the Times, such as Benjamin Spock’s Raising Children in a Difficult Time as

well as his original work The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care.4 As for secondary

sources, I owe much to Alan Petigny, whose extensive research into “permissiveness” from his

book The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965, helped to provide a supplementary voice,

buttressing my case. Julia Grant’s Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American

Mothers was also an extremely useful resource, creating a detailed timeline of the different

opinions in parental education as well as their effects on mothers.

Deep Roots

2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 I was not able to obtain a first edition copy. I am therefore dependent at the moment on the quotes offered by Petigny. In this paper, I make use of the 1957 edition.

Sisto 6

Flipping through the New York Times index spanning the years 1890-1893 and searching

for the subject of “psychology” yields no major subject heading. However, there is in fact

mention of the topic itself. A search under the News Index of July 1 to December 31, 1893

reveals two small mentions of psychological studies. Their inclusion in the Times indicates at

least some importance of reporting the stories, even if only two in a half-year period.

With the new style of index in 1907 came the addition of a subject heading for

psychology.5 More articles concerning psychology begin to appear. All this is to simply show the

growing trend in psychological interest. What is important to understand is that as Times readers’

interest in psychology expanded, their opinions on the subject would be shaped by the dominant

theory – that is until competing theories were introduced, resulting in diametrically opposed

messages.

The largest influence in psychology which dominated thought between 1920 and 1950

was behaviorism, championed by John B. Watson. Indeed, the increasing prevalence of this

mode of thought began to appear in the New York Times. In January of 1920, an article was

published simply stating “Study of Behavior.”6 Though dealing more with the effects of madness

on personal liberty, the author asserts that the key to protecting against this spread of mania is to

study behavior.7 He ends his column with a plea for the development of the educational faculties

needed to further the study: “Will not some public benefactor or one of the large foundations

seize the present opportunity to establish in our universitea [sic] departments for the study of

human behavior with proper equipment both for investigation and instruction?”

5 The New York Times Index: For the Published News of 1907, Prior Series Vol. 10 (New York: The New York Times Company, 1976), 175.6 Stewart Paton, New York Times, January 31, 1920, 10:6.7 This article was not a description of Watson’s ideas. I introduce it in order to provide an example of the growing trend of behaviorism.

Sisto 7

Though behaviorism was the dominant force, its antithesis was also coming into

existence; the principles of leniency slowly crept into the conversation of child psychology.

Frank Howard Richardson, in his book “Parenthood and the Newer Psychology” asserts that the

desire for a well-disciplined child stems not from concern for the child’s wellbeing, but rather

from a desire of the parent to satisfy their ego by the display of their ability to control the child.8

This then develops into a very strict parent, one who will be feared but in the end hated by their

child. To avoid these problems, Richardson advises that parents work to curb the desire to be

terse in their requests, instead favoring a gentle request and limiting commands to the realm of,

essentially, life-or-death situations:

In other words, there undoubtedly are times when the short, sharp, peremptory command is essential; where its employment, followed by quick, unhesitating obedience, may even be the means of saving a life that would otherwise be lost. But for one such case… there are a hundred or more instances in which the sharp, curt command is employed with one’s child, where the courteous one would have been every bit as efficacious…9

He further advocates for the rephrasing of commands in a positive format, as opposed to those

that begin with “don’t do…” and suggests the avoidance of corporal punishment.10

Though these principles would be considered radical for the time, there is another more

striking implication from the words of Richardson which alludes to the tone of psychological

advice in the coming decades. In seeking to make a point, Richardson uses German atrocities as

an example of the end result of blind obedience, enacting “barbarous, brutal and cruel deeds that

shocked humanity,— deeds that none of them would ever, as individuals, have dreamed of

doing.”11 The descriptors are frightening and would have undoubtedly conjured up a

remembrance of events which were still all too fresh. The implication of this is that if parents

8 Frank Howard Richardson, A.B., M.D., Parenthood and the Newer Psychology (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1926), 128.9 Ibid., 144.10 Ibid., 144-5, 148.11 Ibid., 134.

Sisto 8

were obstinately strict in their demand for obedience, it could result in grave consequences for

their child. Indeed, the chapter on discipline was appositely titled “The Greatest Responsibility

Ever Assumed—Disciplining a Child.”12 What was a parent to do then? Could they really be

trusted to ensure the proper upbringing of their child? If their desire to strictly discipline their

child came not from love but from a deeper desire to defend their own pride, could they then

reliably know what to do in order to direct the path of their child? Richardson provides a simple

answer to these questions, slipped subtly into his text when discussing how to avoid negativism

in giving commands: “Remember that no outsider is as attractive to your child as you are,— until

of your own volition, chiefly out of your ignorance of child psychology, you deliberately or

precipitately abdicate in favor of the outsider, by arousing this force against yourself.”13 Now it

becomes clear. If the worried parent wishes to keep their child on the straight and narrow, they

should adhere to the doctrines of child psychology. Straying from the tenets would be foolish,

and the parents would certainly not have the child’s best interests in mind.

Richard Amaral Howden also seeks to depart from the rigid styles of the past in his book

Child Upbringing and the New Psychology. Howden emphasizes guarding against extremes on

both sides of parenting. In echoing Richardson, he suggests that a figure of authority’s severity

of punishment might “result from an overestimation of their individual ego, or a projection of

their own fears and irritability.”14 Addressing the opposite view, he says, “In spite of the views

expressed by certain schools of psychological thought, it is felt that there could be no greater

12 Ibid., 124.13 Ibid., 140. Emphasis is mine. Richardson states just above this quote that one should “Leave negativism to expend its ugly force upon evil suggestions made by others.” He is essentially telling the parent to allow others to speak of negativism, but to not utilize it in their parenting style; said another way, let the person talk and suffer the consequences of their own advice, but do not apply it to your own parenting. For more on negativism, see pp. 137-41.14 Richard Amaral Howden, Child Upbringing and the New Psychology (New York [etc.]; London;: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1933), 49.

Sisto 9

mistake than to dispense with punishment in a child’s upbringing and education…”15 Howden

cautions against extreme indulgence and lack of discipline, but it is significant that he stated that

there were schools of thought which promulgated this type of parenting, even as early as 1933.

What is truly interesting about Howden’s work is how he justifies the authority of the

psychologists. He addresses his readers with two questions that they are inevitably asking in their

heads. The first of these is, if the methods of the past are so ineffective, why are there so many

normal men, women, and children? Howden’s answer is quite humorous: “I am afraid that the

answer is that it is more by good luck than good management that the past has not had to pay a

larger penalty for its mistakes!”16 In fact, he says that “statistics…actually afford conclusive

evidence that lunacy is on the increase [what constitutes lunacy is a good question], as is also the

the number of suicides.”17 He continues to cite a myriad of social problems as consequences of

the traditional methods of parenting.

His second question deals directly with the authority of psychologists: “‘What evidence

have we got that the claims of modern medical psychology have any justification for their truth

and surety?’”18 In addressing this question, Howden continually compares the work and research

of psychologists with that of physicians. His justification borders on being cheeky. Rather than

paraphrase, it would be better to let Howden speak for himself:

What evidence have we got that certain spots and certain bodily symptoms indicate to a qualified doctor that we are suffering from measles or typhoid fever or eczema? We believe that the doctor’s diagnosis is a correct one because we understand that his training and his practice qualify him to differentiate between measles and encephalitis lethargica. The doctor can make a certainty of this diagnosis because he has years of research by medical men the world over, while his text-books and training have taught him to diagnose specific diseases from certain symptoms. The same argument applies to the results of the deep scientific

15 Ibid., 55.16 Ibid., 6.17 Ibid.18 Ibid., 8.

Sisto 10

research which physicians of all nationalities have been giving to those diseases largely due to definite psychological factors.19

Though Howden does try to separate psychoanalysis from psychology, he still holds this same

attitude when discussing the rejection of Freud’s ideas by the common public. He asserts that the

ideas of Freud were too complex for the common man as the professor had written “as an expert

for experts on a very abstruse subject.”20 According to Howden, Freud never meant for his ideas

interpreted by “people who hadn’t the foggiest idea of what he was talking about, and read into

his writings for their own sexual experiences.”21 What he seems to be indicating is that readers

should only absorb and engage with ideas that are meant for them, that they should trust the

people who have been educated in this field. Besides, Howden and other psychologists had

already done all of the work for the “ordinary reader [who] has neither time nor inclination to

wade through the deep and somewhat turbulent streams of this literature.”22 Howden’s feelings on

this can be summed up with one of his, once again, humorous but slightly cheeky quotes: “After

all, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, and, to carry on this metaphor, a cook who has

eaten the pudding, besides having learnt the ingredients and the process of cooking it, can be said

to be an authority as to whether the pudding is both edible and digestible!”23

The preface to the third edition of Child Care and Training, written by Marion L. Faegre

and John E. Anderson of the University of Minnesota and published in 1930, begins with an

interesting line: “There is no need, in view of the widespread interest at the present time in the

training of young children, to justify either the content or the publication of this book.”24 Indeed,

19 Ibid., 9.20 Ibid., 13.21 Ibid.22 Ibid., 15.23 Ibid.24 Marion Ellison Lyon Faegre, John Edward Anderson, and University of Minnesota. Institute of Child Welfare and Development, Child Care and Training, 4th, rev. ed. (London; Minneapolis;: H. Millford, Oxford University Press, 1937), iii.

Sisto 11

the authors stress that this statement is self-evident by the fact that there is such a high demand for

advice on child-rearing all over the U.S. and the world. Granted, this book takes a midline

approach to discipline, encouraging neither of the extremes. However, there are still hints of what

will become more apparent later on, that the parent can cause the detrimental maldevelopment of

their child if they so much as slightly cross the border into “excessive” territory: “Punishment is

so much more likely to have harmful than good results that it should be used with the care one

would take in handling an explosive. As Kilpatrick says, we must be careful to see that the

positive good we expect as a result will outweigh whatever ‘evil will almost surely follow.’”25

However, not all mothers in the early part of the 20th Century accepted the ideas of the

behaviorists. Despite Howden having said that it was by sheer luck that the world did not suffer

from the destructive parenting methods of the past, other mothers were not so quick to agree with

this idea. Younger women more readily believed the new science than older mothers, the latter

being skeptical since the behaviors said to be detrimental by behaviorists had been used by these

women and the predecessors for years without much issue.26 For example, the behaviorists often

recommended parents to stop rocking or soothing their child before sleep, as it would create bad

habits in the child which would be difficult to reverse later. However, many mothers did not wish

to dispense with a method which seemed to work for many children and “undoubtedly gave

comfort to both mother and child.”27 Although the methods made sense to many mothers as a

means of alleviating some of their issues, the strict detachment promulgated by behaviorists

would be the biggest factor in its decline in popularity, especially when children’s

maldevelopment is laid solely at the feet of the parents. The Child Welfare Magazine writer

25 Ibid., 168.26 Julia Grant, Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American Mothers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 140.27 Ibid., 142.

Sisto 12

perfectly exemplifies the claims leveled against parents by the professionals: “How many young

things do you know who are in revolt, parent-ridden? How many almost at the end of their ropes

—nearly done in, in fact, by the over-bearing love of their progenitors?”28

A Lack of Consensus

In the postwar era, behaviorism comes under further criticism due to fears about

authoritarianism. In the same way that Richardson discussed German atrocities, people feared

that inflexible adults would lead to a repeat of World War II. The psychologists seemed to think

they had the answer to the problem. By 1950, this message of obedience to authorities of the

field had not been extinguished. Surely this a question of chicken and egg. Did scholars assert

their ideas and parents obeyed? Or did parents feel that their methods were failing, so they turned

to psychologists? No conclusive answer can be reached, but I argue that the former prompted the

latter to occur during this period. The increasing prevalence of scholarly advice made parents

feel that their methods were not working (or were not going to work) and thus it became a

continuous cycle. Some parents who felt uncertain about their parenting, may have turned to the

New York Times for guidance – only after having read it, become more flummoxed than they

had been before.

Among scholars, the Fifties are often thought of as a time where traditional parenting

styles were being overturned by a quite permissive style, usually attributed to the influence of

Benjamin Spock. Spock is often blamed for the subsequent generation’s relativity of morals and

lifestyle. However, the answer is not so black and white. In fact, as Christopher Lasch states,

28 Katherine Brookman, “To All Parents Everywhere—An Appeal to Loosen the Apron Strings,” Child Welfare Magazine 21 (March 1926): 389, quoted in Julia Grant, Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American Mothers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 143.

Sisto 13

“Spock should be seen instead as one of [permissiveness’s] critics, seeking to restore the rights

of the parent in the face of an exaggerated concern for the rights of the child.”29 Certainly some

of Spock’s earlier writings reflected a permissive attitude in parenting, such as his advice to

provide a child with something which they stole in order to show them their needs can be taken

care of at home.30 In his later work “Raising Children in a Difficult Time” published in 1974, he

attempts to vindicate himself by interpreting his advice which was purportedly misappropriated

by some parents, thus giving him the reputation of being permissive. For example, in reference to

toilet training, he seeks to correct misinterpreted information:

In the first edition of Baby and Child Care I wrote that once in a while an unusually tactless and bossy parent can make a child of a year and a half so rebellious about training that the fight may go on for months and the child’s personality may become lasting obstinate. I advised that when rebellion occurs, the parent can desist for a month and then resume training more gently.

This well-meant advice had the unfortunate effect of making a lot of parents who weren’t tactless or bossy so apprehensive about conflict that they hardly dared start toilet training at all. As soon as they did and the child showed the least reluctance, the parents quickly stopped their efforts.31

Whatever his original intentions, Spock clearly attempts to set the record straight concerning his

advice on toilet training. Perhaps, as Lasch puts it, “he and other experts of the forties and fifties

had become somewhat belatedly aware of the way their own advice undermined parental

confidence.”32 Indeed, as Spock admits, the parents were so fearful that their children would

become so obdurate that they would develop this personal trait and retain it for the rest of their

lives; the responsibility of the child’s wellbeing fell squarely on the parents’ shoulders, which

29 Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), 163. Lasch says this because Spock and some of his contemporaries seek later on to set the record straight concerning parents’ responsibility: “They began to suggest, tentatively at first, that parents should not be held responsible for all their children’s faults. ‘The deepest roots,’ wrote one pediatrician, ‘lie not in the mistakes of the parents but in cultural attitudes of which the parents are merely the purveyors.’”30 Petigny, 39.31 Benjamin Spock, Raising Children in a Difficult Time: A Philosophy of Parental Leadership and High Ideals (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 31. Except for Baby and Child Care, emphasis is mine.32 Lasch, 163.

Sisto 14

was certainly a source of great stress. So, instead of analyzing their own personality, they took

the advice of Spock and misappropriated to their situation, causing instead more difficulties for

themselves.

This ambiguity of information makes itself present in a New York Times article from

1950 in which Spock gives his opinion about indulgences in meeting a baby’s demands. The title

alludes to this with “’Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands Is All Right if Not Overdone,

Experts Agree.”33 The veil is not exactly lifted after the article is read. Spock gives advice on

distinguishing between two types of night crying in infants, asserting “mothers can distinguish

between the two only in light of the child’s total behavior.”34 A nervous parent might at least

hope then that the question of allowable amounts of answering the child’s cries might be

answered, but the response proves to remain shrouded in abstruseness: “In general, the experts

agreed, ‘children need not severity, not complete leniency, but rather supportive guidance at each

step.’”35 This is not a disagreeable statement, but for a mother dependent upon psychological

expert guidance, there is no clear line or delineated course of action. This article could be

interpreted in two other ways. The first is that it is an expression of increased permissiveness,

instructing rigid parents to loosen their grip slightly; instead of always ignoring a crying baby,

they could attempt to look at the child’s total behavior and decide when to answer the child’s

calls. The second is actually a return to some levels of rigidity, by cautioning parents not to

indulge their children to an extreme; they should not answer every cry but discern when it is

appropriate to let the child sort things out by itself. It is not entirely clear which was meant to be

the message, but what is clear is that there was prescription to find some kind of middle ground.

33 “‘Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands Is All Right if Not Overdone, Experts Agree,” New York Times, February 23, 1950, 31:3.34 Ibid.35 Ibid.

Sisto 15

Is it fair to say that parents were accepting verbatim what psychologists were saying? It is

true that a sweeping statement cannot be applied and do justice to any said group, but there was a

growing trend among parents to take psychologists at their every word. The gradual transfer of

parenting over to experts was due to a message which implied that uninstructed and unadvised

parents were not able to be vehicles of moral or disciplinary instruction (at least until they

learned the proper methods). The elevation of impotence as a “higher form of awareness”

justified the intellectual consignment of parenting to the experts.36 In this way, parents would

absorb and reflect the teachings bestowed to them by the psychological intelligentsia. It became

problematic when parents sought to trust in experts who provided unclear or conflicting

principles.

Another contested topic was that of aggression. In a February 1950 article of the Times,

Mrs. Helen W. Puner advocated the true expression of feelings as long as doing so was

conducted with self-discipline. Underneath the subheading “Good in ‘Letting Off Steam,’” the

article relates Puner’s opinion: “…When family life is open and frank, where there is

‘houseroom’ for letting off steam in shouts, impatience and quarrels, ‘children do not grow

inward,’ she asserts… instead of despairing when we lose our tempers with our children… let us

admit that our shortcomings are part of our heritage as human beings.”37 This is not altogether

unsound advice, as Puner again seems to be edging toward the middle ground. Being angry is

part of the human experience and it is important for children not to bottle up their emotions.

Essentially, she is trying to bring some much needed realism to the family and some relief to

those who feel that the expression of their emotions does not match “the idealized family of

36 Lasch, 167.37 “Hidden Hostility Found Family Evil: Child Study Pamphlet Urges Expression of True Feelings But With Self-Control,” New York Times, February 27, 1950, 24:2.

Sisto 16

books and advertisements.”38 However, she is unlike some of the other advisors of her time in

that she does not offer two extremes of opinion in the same article.

Dr. David Beres asserts at the beginning of a column in November that “Parents have not

only the right but the duty to control and restrain their children when they are being overly

aggressive…”39 Reading this introduction would make the reader believe that Beres’s opinion

corresponds to the appositely titled article, “Psychiatrist Finds Restraints Needed.” Yet the tone

quickly changes. In the same paragraph, the summary of Beres’s stance begins with the

consequences of unbridled aggression: “More harm can result from permitting uncontrolled

behavior… than from imposing necessary restraints and their resultant frustrations.” He then

cautions “It is important, however, that the restraint be carried out in an atmosphere of

acceptance and parental affection.” From here, the message begins to take on a permissive

flavor, ending with a message which makes one wonder who needs restraint—the children or the

parents? “Because aggression is so much a part of total personality development, he noted,

punishment or attempts at direct education are not likely to be effective. ‘Although we usually

think of aggression as destructive,’ he pointed out, ‘it can be a constructive force that leads to

useful action.’”

This permissive style towards aggression is reinforced in a December article in the

Sunday paper. Writings from Edith Lesser Atkin in a pamphlet she wrote “in conjunction with

the C.S.A. staff” and approved of “by nine other specialists in the field.”40 Atkins reminds

38 Ibid.39 “Psychiatrist Finds Restraints Needed,” New York Times, November 29, 1950, 43:4. The context in the article for Beres’s comments are as follows: “Aggressive feelings create conflicts and anxieties and a sense of guilt, Dr. Beres declared. They can be stimulated by a number of factors, including the deprivation of love. Therefore, it is an important matter who does the restraining and how it is done. ¶ Because aggression is so much a part of total personality development, he noted, punishment or attempts at direct education are not likely to be effective. ‘Although we usually think of aggression as destructive,’ he pointed out, ‘it can be a constructive force that leads to useful action.’”40 Dorothy Barclay, “Aggressiveness in the Very Young,” New York Times, sec. 6, December 17, 1950, 32:3.

Sisto 17

parents that “aggressiveness isn’t always evil and destructive. At its best it makes for initiative,

enterprise and healthy competitiveness. And even at its worst at least a little of it is a normal part

of growing up.” The counsel sounds vaguely familiar to Beres’s charge that aggression can be a

“constructive force.” Yet Atkins takes matters a step further, indicating that perhaps it is the

parents who are at fault for the aggression in the child: "The child who 'just won't stand up for

himself' may be the product of over-anxious, protective, possessive parents who smother his

attempts to do things for himself." It is important to note the word “may,” which is used as a

cautionary opening so as not to be all-inclusive. It would be unfair to say Atkins meant all

aggressive children are the product of such parents. Still, the implication is there and, as in the

case of Spock’s misappropriated guidance on toilet training, it is highly possible that parents to

whom this counsel was not directed would have taken the advice to heart, seeking to restrain less

for fear of being said overbearing parents.

Even after this coverage of a more latitudinarian form, the author of the article endorses

a separate pamphlet called “Some Special Problems of Children (Aged 2 to 5 Years)” composed

not by Atkins, but by Nina Ridenour and Isabel Johnson. Here, an almost antithetical stance is

praised for dealing with issues of hurting other children, to using bad language: “Letting a child

continue overly aggressive behavior completely unrestrained can cause him as much or more

harm than he is causing others.” The article ends by stating that a parent’s success in the matter

“will depend on how well parents sense the child’s need, on the one hand, and, on the other, how

well they know themselves.” Perhaps this advice was aimed at extreme levels of aggression (for

which hurting other children might count), but foul language may not quite fit this description. In

any case, a more rigid model is championed in this pamphlet, and within the same article, the

author presents Atkins’s somewhat conflicting view. Hopefully parents took the advice to “know

Sisto 18

themselves,” as this was probably the best they could do in order to sort through the two

confounding narratives.

Not everyone relayed such ambiguity. In an article titled “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand

Feeding,’” a Boston obstetrician named Frederick C. Irving rails at psychologists for the

misguidance of parents. He says, “‘This business of feeding a new baby every time it howls for

something—demand feeding, they call it—is just one of the ways these so-called child

psychologists have fouled things up.’”41 Clearly he blames not the parents but the pseudo-child

psychologists. His indictment strikes deep at the growing trend in psychology, as the article

recounts that “although he is highly in favor of research, Dr. Irving thinks ‘less than nothing’ of

such new psychological fads as demand feeding.”

One psychological textbook of the time period, “Child Development and Personality” by

Paul Henry Mussen and John Janeway Conger addressed the issue of demand feeding as well,

albeit in an oscillatory fashion. The text basically says that a mother is responsible for how the

child acts towards her and feeding. She can become associated with pleasant or distasteful

feelings depending upon how adroitly the feeding is conducted.42 The implications are even

stretched to adulthood, claiming that “Lack of social feeling, suspiciousness, mistrust of people,

and resentment and hostility towards society may have their deepest roots in the mother’s inept

handling of the feeding situation.”43 To the authors’ credit, they present two completely

antithetical ways of feeding a baby. In the interest of being a textbook and simply presenting

various types of research, this is understandable. Yet the text reflects on a small scale the

41 “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand Feeding’: Boston Obstetrician Declares Child Discipline Should Start in Bassinet,” New York Times, June 28, 1950, 34:5.42 Paul Henry Mussen and John Janeway Conger, Child Development and Personality, (New York: Harper, 1956), 138.43 Ibid., 139.

Sisto 19

problems inherent in the world of psychology which was being presented to parents. The fact

that it was published six years after the New York Times articles examined in this paper is

indicative of the deeply rooted nature of this conflict.

The first of these methods is the behaviorist approach. The method was rigid and cold, as

“loving, cuddling, and displays of affection were to be practically eliminated.”44 The authors

proceed to describe a series of experiments conducted by D. P. Marquis, who concluded that

infants can in fact conform to a feeding schedule.45 Below this, they introduce the concept of

“Warm Mothering in Feeding,” in which they state, “The fact that infants can learn to adapt to

feeding schedules does not mean that it is advisable to force them to conform to such

schedules.”46 Aldrich, another scholar on the subject included in Mussen and Conger’s work,

argues for the antithesis of Watson’s tenets, advising “the child is breast fed on demand and is

often cuddled, loved, and played with affectionately…”47

Parental Responsibility for Disaster

Making matters worse for parents was an underlying theme of their overall responsibility

for the shortcomings of their children. Having this message delivered to them time and again

would certainly be a source of stress. In the article citing Mrs. Helen W. Puner on the expression

of emotion, the implications of parents’ inability to express their frustrations are alarming:

“Failure of parents to face and understand their own hostilities can play an important role in

emotional maladjustment of their children. A façade so relentlessly sweet-tempered, reasonable

44 Ibid.45 Ibid., 139-40.46 Ibid., 140.47 Ibid.

Sisto 20

and calm way [sic], of course, not even seem quite honest to children. It may be infuriating to

them, and it can make them ashamed of their own natural and less controllable emotions…”48 Of

course parents do bear the responsibility of bringing up their children, but it would be quite

terrifying as a parent to feel that one small mistake (which parents make all the time) could cause

severe and lasting emotional instability of one’s children.

Thus, parents were stuck in limbo, constantly wondering whether or not their methods

were effective. What if they had been more restrictive? Would that have produced a better

outcome than the one now? Or should they have been more lenient? Either way, they could not

decide because they would receive such mixed ideas from the psychologists, and the weight

rested on parents’ shoulders. Julia Grant cites one woman named Kay D’Amico who, being a

mother in the Fifties, deeply felt the effects of the psychological advice: “‘I had the idea that

every little thing I did could have this terrific impact on this tender little psyche.’”49 Grant also

states that while pediatricians were given ultimate credence over the opinions of women, even

they had no consensus on how to properly bring up a child. They each had differing views on

such things as “when to toilet train, how to feed a young infant, [and] how to handle a child who

would not sleep through the night.”50

Experts would sometimes directly state that it was the shortcomings of the parents which

were to blame for the later maldevelopments that their child would manifest. Julia Grant makes a

compelling case for this by citing a piece of advice on thumb-sucking from The Complete Book

of Mothercraft and a mother’s response to this kind of admonition:

In The Complete Book of Mothercraft (1952), put together by a team of twenty-five experts, including Spock and Gesell, the authors claimed that a child sucks his thumb “when he feels

48 “Hidden Hostility Found Family Evil.”49 Grant, 227.50 Ibid.

Sisto 21

that he is not loved enough, not safe enough, not good enough.” Writing about her seven-year-old son who continued to suck his thumb, a mother confessed, “I keep wondering if he feels insecure and what I can do to help him. We love him very much and have given him all the affection and care that is in our power.”51

One cannot help but have their heartstrings tugged by this account. How painful it must be for

parents who, feeling they have loved their child as much as they can, conclude that they have

failed him simply because he continues to suck his thumb.

Indeed, a parent might believe there to be evidence of this failure on their part by the

reciprocity of their children’s emotions. At the fifty-third annual convention of the New York

State Congress of Parents and Teachers, before one-thousand delegates, Dr. Ruth Andrus

asserted that a child’s behavior is key to understanding his feelings about the family. “‘The

child’s whole being, feelings and behavior are expressions of the way he feels about his family

and they feel about him,’”52 she said.

In a similar vein, there also arose a charge to parents that children should not be isolated

from the struggles present around them. At the annual conference of the Child Study Association

of America on February 27, 1950, Dr. Helen Ross asserted that children were “affected by

outside pressures in the degree to which their parents were affected.”53 Dr. Margaret Mead stated

the consequences of this are visible in “many youngsters who do not want to grow up and adults

who wish they were children again.”54 Again, there are valid ideas communicated in the article,

but the fear of causing the maladjustment of their children to life might cause parents

considerable strain. The recitation that “1,000 members and friends of the Child Study

Association” attended the conference serves to establish the authority of the conclusions reached

51 Ibid., 228.52 “Dual Duty in Family Seen: Dr. Andrus Says It Should Teach Child Respect for Self, Others,” New York Times, October 5, 1950, 36:2.53 “‘False Idea’ of Life is Laid to Parents: Attempt to ‘Box Children Off From Realities and Suffering’ Decried by Dr. Mead,” New York Times, February 28, 1950, 32:1.54 Ibid.

Sisto 22

by the members. This may not have been the author’s intent, but it certainly communicates a sort

of officialdom about those present.

This is not an isolated case. For instance, 2,400 individuals from around the world

attended the 1950 study conference of the Association for Childhood Education International.55

At this conference, it was decided that parents are the origin of children’s overall behavior and

thus shoulder that burden. “When their discussion ended, the problem was right back with

mother and father. Their attitude and behavior, it was decided, determine how responsible the

children will be.”56 Interestingly, although they had made it clear that parents were ultimately

liable for their children’s attitudes, according to the article a Dr. Hymes, knowingly or

unknowingly, made an antithetical declaration: “Opening the discussion, Dr. Hymes said that

with the steady shifting of ideas on child care, parents are often concerned about what they

should expect of their children and as a result the children themselves are confused.”57 Reading

this statement, it is clear that those responsible are actually the psychologists, who flummox the

parents by issuing consistently irresolute ideas about rearing their little ones.

A similar issue arose with parents’ unrealistic expectations being to blame for adolescent

delinquency. Dr. William H. Burton of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education

asserted that the key to understanding preadolescent children was to comprehend the “peer

groups” that they form—groups of preadolescent children who band together with similar sex

and age. Burton says, “By appealing to children through these ‘peer societies’… adults could

take steps to iron out the outbursts of undesirable behavior that seemed to be characteristic of

55 “Parents’ Attitude Is Held Decisive: Child’s Responsibility Depends on Adults, Education Unit Decides at Asheville,” New York Times, April 13, 1950, 33:3.56 Ibid.57 Ibid.

Sisto 23

that period of life.”58 According to Burton, it is normal for these groups to flaunt adult standards

as an assertion of independence. Thus, although he never explicitly states it, it is implied that the

standards for children set by adults are to blame for the children desiring independence, rejecting

the standards, and ending up in delinquency.

It was not just preadolescence where problems originate. Another article featuring the

views of Dr. René A. Spitz went for the shock factor with the title of “Babies, Too, May

Develop Psychiatric Ills If Their Needs Are Unsatisfied, Doctor Says.”59 The article then

proceeds to list some of these psychiatric problems which could occur: “Among the upsets

listed by Dr. Spitz as psychiatric are ‘anaclitic depression,’ weeping, unappeasable screaming at

the approach of strangers, withdrawal, eating and sleeping disturbances, as well as arrested

development: ‘motor restlessness,’ rocking constantly in a knee-elbow position; eczema and the

‘three months colic.’” The list certainly would be quite horrific to a new parent concerned with

the overall wellbeing and development of their newborn. However, some “simple” advice is

offered to stave off these psychiatric maladies:

This list may sound frightening, Dr. Spitz says, but he explains: “The needs of the child are simple, and an intelligent observation of the child's environment will readily disclose which of these needs is unsatisfied. For its satisfaction no elaborate measures but only those of the simplest type need be taken.” These, he adds, “like so much of psychiatry, correspond to the dictates of common sense.”60

Not only does this run contrary to what was said in June by Dr. Irving about the rejection of

demand feeding61 (which could be a consequence here if the parent feels that in order to meet the

child’s needs, they must feed it whenever it is unhappy); it is ironic that he calls the fix (and for

that matter psychology itself) common sense when in fact they need to tell parents exactly what

58 “Adult Standards For Youth Derided: Educator Bids Home Economics Leaders Recognize Children in Their Own ‘Society,’” New York Times, July 14, 1950, 18:7.59 “Babies, Too, May Develop Psychiatric Ills If Their Needs Are Unsatisfied, Doctor Says,” New York Times, August 22, 1950, 24:2.60 Ibid.61 “Doctor Deplores ‘Demand Feeding.’”

Sisto 24

common sense is. If it truly was common sense, there should be no need for them to even write

about the subject. It truly is indicative of parents’ heightened trust and dependency on

psychologists if they need to be told exactly what constitutes “common sense.”

Exhortation to Trust

Yet was it in fact the parents who were to blame for their overly trusting attitude towards

psychology? Perhaps, but as was evidenced in the early writings of Frank Howard Richardson

and Richard Amaral Howden, there was a distinct message for parents to place their faith in the

teachings of psychology. There appeared to be a growing movement in which parents were

informed that they were in need of reeducation concerning their skills as guardians.

At the same conference at which Dr. Spock addressed the indulgence of babies’

demands, members settled upon a conclusion which stated that “obstetricians and pediatricians

can help a mother understand her relationship to her baby and its affect [sic] on the child… but

her feelings will be determined mainly by her own early childhood experiences.”62 The medical

experts here are responsible for helping the mother to understand her role, but there is another

implication. If ideas about being a mother are shaped in the early childhood, then a mother

should be motivated to receive education in order to bring up her own child to be an adroit

parent. The trepidatious guardian can take comfort in realizing that what will save them is

increased education on child-rearing, not only for them, but for their children as well: “For this

reason [that mother’s feelings are determined by childhood experience], the panel recommended

62 “‘Indulgence’ in Meeting of Baby’s Demands.”

Sisto 25

that ‘greater emphasis should be placed on education for family life in the early years, for this is

a three-generation problem.’”63

A very interesting development occurred at the March 1950 Play Schools Association

Conference. Held at a public school, this conference addressed a variety of issues, one of which

was the purportedly detrimental effect of competition on children, an opinion expressed by a Dr.

Ruth Andrus.64 According to the article, audience members’ oppositional comments about this

seemed to be almost overtly disregarded by the members of the panel.

[Dr. Andrus’s] mention of competition as an evil influence on youngsters was challenged in the question period by members of the audience who held that competition was a powerful force in “the outside world,” that protecting children from it only made life more difficult for them later on.

Other speakers from the floor agreed with Dr. Andrus. The child who has a chance to develop his own inner security free of the “pressure of competition” will be better able to meet the test in adult life, they declared.65

What is not mentioned in the article is how many speakers agreed with the audience members in

opposing Dr. Andrus’s position. Whether this is because there were none, because they were not

the majority, or because it was simply left out, resides in the realm of speculation. However, it

would seem to be one of the former two, given that the representative sides on the issue appear to

be the audience members versus the speakers.

Attesting to the amount of weight placed upon parental education and psychological

experts’ preeminence is actually a critique of the very same. Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vincent

reprimanded child psychiatry for “the overemphasis in parent education in the last twenty years

on praise, no discipline and the need to protect children from failure” for “fill[ing] high schools

and colleges with young people who cannot stand up to difficulty.”66 This is also a criticism of 63 Ibid.64 Dr. Ruth Andrus was from the “Bureau of Child Development and Parent Education, State Education Department, University of the State of New York.” (See following footnote).65 “Child Training Put on a Citizen Basis,” New York Times, March 19, 1950, 40:1.66 “Parent Education is Seen at Fault: Overemphasis on Praise, No Discipline, Protection From Failure Scored at Panel,” New York Times, March 31, 1950, 35:5.

Sisto 26

Dr. Andrus’s position, even if not directly aimed at her. Her mention of the “overemphasis in

parent education” and the resultant consequences attests to the reality that parents were

absorbing the latest doctrines in psychology, and the effects were real enough that Dr. Vincent

felt the need to address them. In an effort to provide a balanced view, she stressed that “Parents

must balance their protection and praise with discipline and a realistic approach to life. Children

need to fail sometimes and learn how to accept it; they need to learn how to succeed without

losing their heads.”67 The only downside to all of this is that in trying to make things better, Dr.

Vincent adds to the confusion by condemning the stance upheld by Dr. Andrus, whose stance

also differed from Dr. Mead’s indictment of parents shielding their children from difficulties.68

Another example of the stress placed on psychological expertise, as well as the evidenced

effects of such, appears in the announcement of the reissuing of the “New York City’s Baby

Book.”69 This pamphlet, which discusses raising children up to the age of two, was certainly in

demand. After all 50,000 copies printed in 1947 had been “exhausted,” another 100,000 were

being printed and distributed. These 100,000 were part of a “backlog of requests… being met.”

An excerpt from the introduction of the book, provided in the article, reads like an owner’s

manual: “‘Parents always have many puzzling and wonderful experiences with a new baby…

They wonder about many things—how soon baby will smile, how to put on diapers, when to

expect the first tooth, when to call the doctor and, when the baby grows older, how he learns

discipline.’”70

The author specifically points out that the booklet was “prepared by a group of experts,

with an assist from the questioning mothers who take their youngsters to the city’s child health

67 Ibid.68 “‘False Idea’ of Life is Laid to Parents.”69 Dorothy Barclay, “Book on Baby Care Reissued by City: 100,000 Copies of New Guide, Answering Many Questions, Now Being Distributed,” New York Times, February 10, 1950, 26:6.70 Ibid.

Sisto 27

stations.” This section serves to prove to readers that the information is trustworthy, not only

composed by the best in the Department of Health’s Bureau of Child Health (responsible for

most of the booklet), but also that it addresses many of the questions plaguing young mothers.

The final sentence in the article is an excerpt from the booklet, urging parents to “have fun, use

common sense and remember that not even parents are perfect…”

This message of common sense (which ironically needs to be delineated for parents) also

appears in the reply by the Children’s Bureau to an attack on a pamphlet issued by them called

“Your Child From Six to Twelve.”71 Though the contention with the booklet is not relevant to the

discussion, the response by the Bureau is.

The Children’s Bureau said the single purpose of the pamphlet in question was “to help parents, to relieve their anxieties, and to increase their confidence in their own capacities to meet the needs of their children.” For thirty-five years, the bureau added, it has been helping parents give their children a better start in life, “the right of every American child.” The best known of the pamphlets, the statement said, is “Infant Care,” of which 25,000,000 copies have been given away or sold.

In making a case for a book which the attackers (the Education and Labor Committee) labelled

as a “publication no one cared for,”72 the bureau responded by calling upon its popular

publications of the past, of which 25,000,000 copies of “Infant Care” is not an insignificant

quantity; this certainly attests to the demand and outreach of these pamphlets. Not only that, the

bureau draws attention to its long history of assistance to parents and, in a further effort to

vindicate its reputation, the overwhelming desire of parents to acquire this pamphlet: “Last year,

the statement continued, the guide for the 6-to-12 age group was published at the urgent request

of parents, and with the sanction of an advisory committee that included a representative of the

American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric

Association and expert on child development.”73 Apparently, the parents were in desperate need

71 Bess Furman, “Education Aid Bill Put Up to Truman,” New York Times, March 2, 1950, 30:3.72 Ibid.73 Ibid.

Sisto 28

of the booklet and recipients could be assured of the substantial amount of experts working on

the composition.

Warranted Permissiveness

On the other hand, we should understand that there are indeed cases where permissive

parenting is required. In the same way that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms in

respect to their political climates, so too “permissiveness” and “rigidity” all depend on what type

of parenting we are discussing.

Specific instances where permissiveness is actually promulgated as a depart from

extreme rigidity are offered in Judith S. Kestenberg’s book Children and Parents:

Psychoanalytic Studies in Development. Being a psychoanalytic work, Freudian ideas permeate

its content, but this does not invalidate the specific anecdotes provided by the third chapter,

entitled “Mother Types Encountered in Child Guidance Clinics.” Notice that although the book

is from 1975, the paper was actually first published in 194174 and furthermore references works

which date back to 1927, 1929, and 1939, among others,75 which makes them quite apposite to

this discussion.

The first story is of an aggressive mother, who wonders why her young boy is intractable,

causing disturbances at home and to extended family members. It turns out that the boy “felt he

would not grow up and be healthy because he was very thin as a result of the beatings the mother

administered.”76 Indeed, the mother could not seem to keep from torturing this boy in some way

or another: “So unrestrained was her aggression toward the boy that, when she was advised not

to beat him, she resorted to binding his hands and putting him in a dark cellar as punishment.”77

74 Judith S. Kestenberg, MD, Children and Parents: Psychoanalytic Studies in Development, (New York: Jason Aronson, 1975), 63.75 Ibid., 64, 66. Specifically referenced are works by Levy, 1939; Rado, 1927; and Ferenczi, 1929.76 Ibid., 64-5.77 Ibid., 65.

Sisto 29

Only later does she reveal that she actually had an extremely abusive Italian father who harassed

both the children and her mother. Instead of choosing to break the cycle of aggression, she

perpetuated it not only in herself, but in her young son as well. Still, it appears the boy was

reachable because “in play school the teacher recognized his problems, but praised him for his

handiness and intelligence, and found him likable.”78 Gentility trumped stiff parenting in this

case, and rightfully so.

The next case provided was of a mother who, having fed her young boy since early

childhood while he was asleep because he would not eat while awake, decided that fear would be

the only motivator to get him to eat voluntarily.79 His play reflected this aggression and it always

revolved around the subject of ‘feeding.’ He stated that he was “afraid of his mother and that

feeding meant an aggressive act for him.”80 The article reveals that the mother was in fact angry

at the father who was lazy and often absent, so she transferred her aggression to the boy. Her

attitudes were reinforced by her family, who also encouraged her to be angry with her husband.81

Here again we see how permissiveness would be much more preferable in this case because this

permissiveness entails a departure from a very unhealthy and intense parenting style.

It should be noted however that these cases are quite extreme. In fact, these are the type

of people that some psychologists like Benjamin Spock were trying to target. The downside was

that his writings were taken out of context by many parents who feared the worst for their

children because of the nebulous environment of advice being created by psychologists who

could not seem to find a consensus on how to raise children. As noted before in some of the

previous Times articles, Spock actually ridiculed parents for listening too much to the advice of

78 Ibid.79 Ibid., 66.80 Ibid.81 Ibid., 67.

Sisto 30

psychologists, and in his later work “Raising Children in a Difficult Time,” he calls out parents

who tried to implement advice that was not meant for them in his book “The Common Sense

Book of Baby and Child Care.” Can we say then that it was the parents’ fault? Not necessarily.

Also, that Spock is placing the blame solely on their shoulders does not seem to be the case

either. Rather, he appears to be simply trying to correct certain things parents have done in error,

probably out of a real concern for their children caused by the lack of consensus among the

psychological community.

In the newer edition of his book “The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care”

Spock opens with a letter to the readers. By this time (1957), the book was on its third edition,

and Spock had undoubtedly learned how to address his readers’ issues since its first publication

in 1945. His first piece of advice is to let parents know that the person whom they should consult

and trust the most is the child’s primary care physician. Indeed, a quick call on the telephone

would be faster in the “solution of a problem that reading would only get [parents] more mixed

up about.”82

Then, he tackles the very issue which had been plaguing parents’ minds; he tells them not

to take his advice too literally, that it only serves to guide them. There is no one-size-fits-all

solution to every child’s problem:

The most important thing I have to say is that you should not take too literally what is said in this book. Every child is different, every parent is different, every illness or behavior problem is somewhat different from every other. All I can do is describe the most common developments and problems, in the most general terms. Remember that you know a lot about your child and I don’t know anything about him.83

He further addresses the issue of strictness and permissiveness by telling readers that he was only

trying to deal with the problems which were prevalent during the publishing of the first edition,

82 Benjamin Spock, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, New Completely rev. ed. (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1957), 1.83 Ibid.

Sisto 31

particularly an extreme degree of rigidity. But between 1945 and 1957, this style of parenting

had swung to the other side of the pendulum in response to this extremism, so that parents now

suffered from what appeared to be too much permissiveness in their parenting. Therefore, Spock

had to make the requisite alterations to the new edition in order to deal with these drastic

changes:

If you are an old reader of this book, you’ll see that a lot has been added and changed, especially about discipline, spoiling, and the parents’ part. When I was writing the first edition, between 1943 and 1946, the attitude of a majority of people toward infant feeding, toilet training, and general child management was still fairly strict and inflexible. However, the need for greater understanding of children and for flexibility in their care had been made clear by educators, psychoanalysis, and pediatricians, and I was trying to encourage this. Since then a great change in attitude has occurred, and nowadays there seems to be more chance of a conscientious parent’s getting into trouble with permissiveness than with strictness. So I have tried to give a more balanced view.84

Spock was also aware of the effect psychologists were having on parents and sought to

correct the thinking that these scholars were omniscient. He advises parents to trust themselves

rather than “be overawed by what the experts say.”85 Spock also places the child’s doctor on a

higher pedestal than psychology,86 consistent with his earlier recommendation that only parents

and the primary physician know the child best. A psychologist, far removed from each unique

situation can only be of so much help. Rather than looking at the larger picture, parents were

conditioned by the myriad of theories to sweat the small things, feeling that the devil was almost

literally within the details. He reassures parents that these things are of significantly less

importance that the overall love they give to their children: “We know for a fact that the natural

loving care that kindly parents give their children is a hundred times more valuable than their

knowing how to pin a diaper on just right or how to make a formula expertly.”87 Spock’s overall

message was one stressing a natural style of parenting over one which sought to artificially craft

84 Ibid., 1-2.85 Ibid., 3.86 Ibid.87 Ibid.

Sisto 32

a child by programming it according to some sort of quasi-universal user’s manual. Mistakes

were bound to happen and therefore it was “better to make a few mistakes from being natural

than do everything letter-perfect out of a feeling of worry.”88 Additionally, he addresses the issue

of psychological child care books seeming to ignore the needs of parents. Indeed, “parents

sometimes feel emotionally exhausted just from reading about what is expected of them. They

get the impression that they are meant to have no needs themselves.”89 Consequently, “they can’t

help feeling that an author who seems to be standing up for children all the time must be critical

of parents when anything goes wrong.”90 Spock was attuned to this feeling in parents which

would drive them to seek every perfect remedy for their child’s behavior and health problems –

getting them into trouble when they received conflicting advice from the “experts.”

Is Spock to Blame?

It is important to reiterate that Spock wrote the book I use here in 1957, because a close

reading of the text will show that he too needed to alter his advice in response to the changing

tide of parenting. It may be that he felt his advice to be too permissive after watching a decade of

his teachings take root in American society. It was certainly a popular book, as it “sold more than

a million copies within a year of its debut,” reaching four million copies by 1952.91 Not only that,

but the book was highly praised by physicians as well, indicating that they were reading and

giving his advice to parents.

With this kind of influence, it is not hard to see how Alan Petigny devotes a few pages in

The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965 to Spock’s publication. Petigny expresses the

88 Ibid., 4.89 Ibid.90 Ibid.91 Petigny, 37.

Sisto 33

nontraditional nature of Spock’s ideas, drawing specific examples from Spock’s ideas about

theft. Petigny cites the 1946 edition of Spock’s work The Common Sense Book of Baby and

Child Care. One of the most curious portions of the original work is Spock’s advice to “‘make a

present to the child of an object similar to the one he has stolen and returned.’”92 This would

undoubtedly be shocking to many readers and so Spock mitigated this by saying it was “‘not a

reward for stealing, but a sign that the parent is concerned that the child not take what isn’t his,

and that he should have his heart’s desire if it is reasonable.’”93 An unsuccessful rephrasing of

the same sentiment, at best.

It is possible that this particular piece of advice may have had adverse consequences in

the years to come, as in the new edition, this advice in gone. Though Spock’s advice to “consider

whether he [a thieving child] needs more affection and approval at home”94 is still in the third

edition, the advice to give them a relatively identical item to the one they stole, is not. The same

paragraph appears to be there, but this specific piece of advice is gone. Perhaps Spock had a

reconsideration of this in light of the increasing permissiveness that was manifesting itself.

Petigny makes it clear that Spock may have been the posterchild for ‘permissive’

parenting, but he was not alone in his ideas, nor was he necessarily the progenitor of them.

Rather, Spock’s ideas “reflected child-rearing practices in general, especially among the middle

class.”95 Most importantly, he asserts that Spock’s book was “more a reflection than the primary

cause of less traditional parenting attitudes.”96 In fact, it was a cultural trend which transcended

class boundaries.

92 Petigny, 39.93 Ibid., 39.94 Ibid. The original quote Petigny references from the 1946 edition is, “consider whether he needs more affection and approval at home, and help in making closer friendships outside.” The same passage from the 1957 edition only contains a minor change: “It is time to think over whether the child needs more affection and approval at home, and help in making closer friendships outside (pg. 397).”95 Ibid., 41.96 Ibid.

Sisto 34

This was shown in a 1958 study by sociologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, who found through

studying “white middle- and working-class parents over the span of twenty-five years” that

parents in general had taken a more permissive attitude regarding their children’s needs and

desires.97 Ultimately, Petigny distills the study down the important conclusion that

Bronfenbrenner had shown that “a permissive turn in child rearing was not solely confined to the

middle class and elites who might have been consulting the Common Sense Book.”98 Of course it

should be noted that this study was only conducted among whites. Thus Petigny points out that

although African American parenting styles became less rigid over time, they were usually “less

permissive in their child-rearing approach than whites who hailed from similar socioeconomic

backgrounds.”99

Still, according to Brofenbrenner’s research, permissive attitudes in parenting seemed to

permeate middle-class whites more than working-class whites. Consider the following presented

by Petigny:

During and prior to World War II, it was found that white middle-class families tended to be more strict with their children than working class parents. “After World War II, however, there has been a definite reversal in direction,” observed Bronfenbrenner. “Now it is the middle-class mother who is the more permissive…”

Bronfenbrenner attributed this class divide to a lower degree of sophistication on the part of working-class families. As he put it, “Child-rearing practices are likely to change most quickly in those segments of society which have closest access and are most receptive to the agencies or agents of change (e.g., public media, clinics, physicians, and counselors).”100

As we have already learned, Spock advised parents to listen closely to their child’s physician.

Ironically, many doctors were using Spock’s book, so in some circumstances, it was probably a

circular system. However, how much physicians relied on the book to give parents advice is

another question, which may not have a satisfactory answer. The point is, middle-class parents

97 Ibid.98 Ibid.99 Ibid., 42.100 Ibid.

Sisto 35

were the most susceptible to new theories about child rearing due to their exposure to doctors,

counselors, The New York Times, etc.

Conclusion

It would seem then that there was indeed a permissive trend in parenting, but what

seemed more evident was that there was continuing conflict between two influential approaches

to child-rearing, one permissive, the other rigid. Through all of this confusion, parents would

become flummoxed by psychologists’ lack of unanimity. Indeed, they were caught up in the

psychologists’ advice to follow the latest research, which was of course indeterminate. Yet they

never failed to mention that if a child grew up to be a maladjusted adult, it was not the

psychologists’ fault, but rather responsibility lay with the parents. In a distressed desire to shield

their children from maldevelopment, parents would follow any advice provided to them. The

resultant trend probably reflected more of the permissive side, as behaviorism began to lose

ground. Therefore, it is not rigidity that needs reconsideration, nor permissiveness, but rather a

reevaluation of the role of psychology as a whole during Mid-Twentieth Century America.