Essay 2.1: Where Chua Failed

Amy Chua’s, ”Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior” (published by The Wall Street Journal), is a piece that attempts to explain the principles of Chinese parenting and how those values have given birth to a culture that produces high achieving students en masse. However, Chua’s efforts in providing ‘understanding’ of these values come off more so as a rant that is centric to the Chinese culture rather than an insightful article. In fact, throughout her piece Chua maintains a tone that can be perceived as condescending, which could prove to be detrimental to her credibility amongst her audience. With that said, it would be difficult for many readers to regard Chua’s piece as plausible, for it shows bias and fails to adequately acknowledge or credit other forms of child-rearing.

Perhaps one of the major reasons why Chua’s piece isn’t sufficient is because it had a tone that was centered on Chinese culture. So patronizing was her piece, that it seemingly ridicules the values and ethics of other cultures. In one instance she states: “Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight A’s… [While] Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best” [Chua 9]. Chua’s choice of words clearly paints the Chinese parent as superior, particularly when it comes to authoritativeness. Her use of words such as “order” sends across a message that Chinese parenting requires an immense amount of control, which is portrayed as being essential to ‘successful’ parenting and ensuring a positive academic turnout on part of the student. Juxtaposed to phrases like “can only ask” for example, which appears to illustrate ‘Western’ parenting as too submissive thus being inferior to its Chinese counterpart. Such connotations could work against Chua’s clout as a writer in the sense that she depicts one subject as being better than another. In short, by portraying one culture’s ideologies as being superior to that of another, it is likely that Chua’s readers may reject her piece for they may interpret it is as being ethnocentric.

Probably what also helped to fuel the folly of Chua’s piece is the fact that she allows her voice to become bigger than her, hence leading her to not give adequate recognition of other cultural parenting styles. In one instance, Chua tries to pass off her use of the term “Chinese mothers” as an umbrella term for other cultures that may share similar values/customs when it comes to child-rearing. She states: “I'm using the term ‘Chinese mother’ loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too” [Chua 2]. However throughout the rest of her piece, Chua almost exclusively uses the phrase “Chinese” as opposed to identifying the other nationalities she had mentioned previously. Such a move can cause her readers to feel as if their culture is being ignored, thus failing to appeal to a wider and more diverse audience (probably killing all her prospects in establishing a solid audience).

Chua’s attempt to portray education as a top priority within Chinese society is also one that is contorted, on the grounds that it is a notion that is baseless. As Chua gloats about how education is a pillar of Chinese culture, she provides little to no evidence to substantiate her claim. In one instance, Chua speaks of a ‘study’ that asked ninety-eight women (fifty of whom were ‘Western’, the rest being Chinese) on how education should be enforced upon children: “In one study… 70% of the Western mothers said…that ‘stressing academic success is not good for children’… [while] 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way.” [Chua 4]. Meanwhile, Chua has failed to provide any sources to back her claim. With a lack of reliable evidence (or any at all), it will be difficult for members of any audience to view a piece as credible. That said, the absence of proof in Chua’s work could potentially downplay her credibility (along with significance and integrity) as a writer.

Along with presenting unsupported ‘information’, Chua tries to give insight to a concept that isn’t reflected in actuality. In fact, she disregards data to a point in which she not only doesn’t give proof, but the ‘theory’ she delivers is also highly disprovable. With huge generalizations like Chua’s, one would expect that the value of education would be strongly upheld by the Chinese government. Especially when one considers China’s “86.7%” female literacy rate in a nation that is “91.6%” literate (according to the CIA World Fact Book), one would expect the figures to be much higher for a culture that deeply values education. However according to www.china.org.cn’s, “Expenditure on Education” (a government sponsored web-portal): “… [China]… has increased expenditure on education… [up to] only 3.01 percent of the GDP in 2006…” That in stark contrast to the United States’ “5.5%” in expenditures for education in 2007 [CIA], and Lesotho which had “12.4%” of its expenditures go towards its education system in the year 2008 [CIA]. One could argue that if education is imperative to Chinese society, then the government would make more of an effort in giving more funding to the education system. The opposition may contend that Lesotho’s situation is less complex, for it is small in both populace and geography, and that China is too big (in both senses of size) thus equating to more complex problems on a larger scale. However Lesotho is for the most part, a ‘poor’ state. And given China’s current economic status as the world’s largest and fastest growing economy, it would be safe for one to suspect that China has more than enough funds in its reserves to put forth extra funding towards its education system. That said, Amy Chua has not only lagged in providing evidence, but her portrayal of education as being a huge priority to Chinese society is debatable as well.

Overall, it would be fair to say that Chua has made it difficult for readers to widely respect her reputation as a writer. One being she speaks of Chinese values in a light that can be perceived as ‘Sino-centric’. Two being that she allowed her voice to become bigger than her, speaking for not just all Chinese parents, but cultures whose values which she claims could be perceived as ‘Chinese’. Thirdly, Chua provides little to no evidence when it comes to validating her claim. And lastly, her argument is so inaccurate, that even statistics from the Chinese government itself doesn’t help to back Chua’s piece. With that, it goes without saying that Amy Chua’s “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”, can be viewed as nothing more than a well-publicized rant that’s meant to fan a cultural ego.

WORK CITED:

·         Chua, Amy. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 Jan. 2011. Web 27 Feb. 2011

·         Central Intelligence Agency. “CIA World Fact Book.”  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html. 14 Feb. 2011 Web 25 Feb. 2011

·         CHINA. “Expenditure On Education”. http://www.china.org.cn/english/GS-e/238983.htm 11 Jan. 2008. Web 27 Feb. 2011