Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LITTLE EMPERORS.
By Alyssa Rosenberg
Psychology Today's July/August issue has a fascinating story on mental health, academic competition, and the one-child policy in China. The authors paint a portrait of a cycle where parents, many of whom were stuck in blue-collar jobs or denied chances for advancement by the Cultural Revolution, make incredible sacrifices to educate their children and push them beyond the bounds of reason to succeed so they'll be able to rise into the white-collar workforce. But the Chinese economy is creating 1.6 million college-level jobs each year while producing 4 million university graduates, leading to disappointment and burnout that the mental health system, decimated under Mao, is completely unequpped to handle.
The study's timing is apt, coming on top of the news that the girl who sang "Ode to the Motherland" during the Opening Ceremony was lipsynching. The coordinators had decided that her voice wasn't good enough, but the best singer simply wasn't cute enough to put on stage:
Several young girls, including Miaoke and Peiyi, were taken to the Central People’s Radio Station in Beijing. “After the recording, we thought that Lin Miaoke’s voice was not very suitable,” Mr. Chen said. “Finally, we made the decision that the voice we would use was Yang Peiyi’s.”But not use her face: Photos posted online showed a happy girl with imperfect teeth, hardly an uncommon problem in China. “Everyone should understand this in this way,” Mr. Chen said. “This is in the national interest. It is the image of our national music, national culture, especially during the entrance of our national flag. This is an extremely important, extremely serious matter.”
The statistics about the mental health care system are staggering, too. 2,000 therapists for 1.3 billion people is entirely inadequate, especially given the psychological impacts of the Mao years. Harvard psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman has written movingly about how during the Cultural Revolution, following unwritten rules about how you treat your neighbors and behave decently in society were precisely the things that got you in trouble: his main example is a doctor who repeatedly placed his trust in someone who turned out to be a Communist Party Informer. Those unwritten rules were replaced by adherence to the party, and now party loyalty's being replaced by a super-charged ethic of achievement. Though Peter Hessler's probably better known for Oracle Bones, his book about teaching English, River Town, also captures a lot of the intense pressure on students to succeed. One of his female students commits suicide, in part, Hessler suspects, because of a realization about how difficult the prospects are specifically for women.
One thing the Psychology Today piece dismisses a bit too quickly, I think, is the impact of the one-child policy. They place most of the responsibility for students' stress on their parents' obsession with success, and that's certainly a problem, especially when there aren't alternate ways to succeed or other ways to understand that people are valuable. But when I was in China in March, everyone my father and I talked to brought up the one-child policy and their opposition to it. In a huge city like Beijing, it's very hard for families to find other children for their kids to play with. Activities fill some of the time that might otherwise be spent on neighborhood play. When my father stepped out of the room during a lunch, our hosts commented that I was lucky to have such a good father who made sure I had siblings, so I wouldn't be lonely. I'm sure a lot of Chinese parents are extremely super-charged, but the ones we met care a great deal about their children's social development and friendships as well.
COMMENTS (13)
Are you saying this situation:
"...But the Chinese economy is creating 1.6 million college-level jobs each year while producing 4 million university graduates, leading to disappointment"
Would be improved with even more children competing?
"Psychology Today piece dismisses...the impact of the one-child policy. They place most of the responsibility for students' stress on their parents' obsession with success"
I'm sure you are better writer than me, but how about some critical thinking to go along with?
Posted by: S Brennan | August 12, 2008 11:22 AM
I'm sure a lot of Chinese parents are extremely super-charged, but the ones we met care a great deal about their children's social development and friendships as well.
I'd be interested in the evidence that children without siblings have problems with social development and friendships.
Posted by: J | August 12, 2008 11:54 AM
The article seems not to be too bad, but let's remember that Psychology Today is basically Cosmo with intellectual pretensions. Which isn't a terrible thing, but it's not a real academic publication or something.
You can take a look at the cover of the issue that the article appeared in :)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 12, 2008 11:55 AM
The more I read Alyssa's last paragraph, the more annoyed it makes me. It's one thing to report opposition to the one-child policy among the Chinese populace. It's entirely another to buy into, and perpetuate, stereotypes about the psychology of "only" children, whether in China or elsewhere.
There is a lot of unsubstantiated pop-psychology about "Little Emperors", mostly backed up only by anecdotes and speculation.
The best reviews I'm aware of are by Poston and Falbo (1990; Academic Performance and Personality Traits of Chinese Children: "Onlies" Versus Others) and by Polit and Falbo (1987; Only Children and Personality Development: A Quantitative Review).
Poston and Falbo (1990) found that in urban Chinese families, single children had slightly higher academic achievement than children with siblings, but no detectable personality differences. In rural areas, there were no significant differences in either achievement or personality.
Likewise, Polit and Falbo (1987) examined the results of 141 studies and found that "only" children scored slightly higher in achievement motivation and personal adjustment, but were otherwise similar in personality to children with siblings.
It would be nice if people writing about China's one-child policy could manage to avoid perpetuating stereotypes about "only" children. By all means, do tell us what popular opinion in China says, but don't portray those opinions as statements of fact.
Posted by: J | August 12, 2008 12:29 PM
"...But the Chinese economy is creating 1.6 million college-level jobs each year while producing 4 million university graduates, leading to disappointment"
Did the 'surplus' of college graduates caused by the GI Bill result in disappointment in the 50's?
Posted by: Kolohe | August 12, 2008 12:33 PM
All I meant to say is that the folks we talked to perceived that the one-child policy had an impact on the way they could raise their kids, as opposed to the way they'd like to. Our contacts talked about not living near other families that their kids could play with casually. Getting folks together in Beijing is a serious undertaking; it can take an hour to go ten miles. More kids just meant that there would be more proximity, and the families we talked to could do things differently. I'm more than happy to read the stuff you sent, and accept its validity. All I'm saying is that people said they felt impacted by the one-child policy, even if it doesn't ultimately produce social problems, lower test scores, etc. The impact may not be as quantifiable, but that doesn't mean it's not important.
Posted by: Alyssa | August 12, 2008 1:08 PM
Kolohe,
US population
July 1, 1950 152,271,417
July 1, 2008 304,821,678
China population
Est. for 1950 563,000,000
July 1, 2008 1,330,044,605
Comparing the US and the GI bill in 1950 to China today is kinda silly...wouldn't you agree?
I mean, we're talking about a factor of eight involved in these comparisons, not to mention, all countries are producing far more college graduates that in 1950, so the oversupply is worldwide.
Posted by: S Brennan | August 12, 2008 1:55 PM
S Brennan-
What's kinda silly is thinking that the demand for college graduates in the Chinese economy won't grow as explosive as the Chinese economy will. My point is that all those college grads that the GI bill created was done in the absence of any explicit demand signal. And was a boon to the US economy because the supply of a skilled workforce more or less creates it own demand. This is pretty much why the 'new GI bil' and programs like it are generally good things.
What's also silly, is, as your figures indicate, worrying about 4 million college gradauates is worrying about the top 0.5 percent. Somehow, I think the 90th+ percentile is going to get by.
Last, what's supremely silly is that a whole lot of people in China that are Hillary Clinton's age has personal memories of parents and siblings starving during the great leap forward. And people Obama's age have personal memories being forced to move and of parents and friends disappearing during the Cultural Revolution. So I have a feeling that if a few precious little snowflakes aren't allowed to sing 'god bless china' in the christmas pagent, they'll somehow muddle through.
Posted by: Kolohe | August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
Actually Kolohe,
You have it exactly backwards, the need for US college grads after WWII far exceeded supply and this can be shown by salary growth and employment from 1940-1970. The demand, however, would never jump at factors of 4 in a time frame that would absorb the excess, which is what you would require to give your "theory" any validity.
But I get your point, you think comparing the USA in 1950 to China in 2008 is a good match-up and you are willing to defend the comparison as valid. Let's just say, I have my doubts.
As for the Clinton and Obama inclusion in your last paragraph...that is so tortured that the phrase you to start the paragraph with:
"what's supremely silly" - Kolohe | August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
is spot on...if you are referring to your writing.
The reality is, you're trying to knock me in this post because know I don't not love Obama as dearly as you do and so you attack all those who do not feel the love for Barak.
Do you think this behavior of yours helps Barak?.
Posted by: S Brennan | August 12, 2008 2:58 PM
S Brennan-
I thought I was frickin agreeing with you (and J) that what was silly was the original post
I blame no preview for tortured language:
Shorter me:
The Chinese people have undergone a lot a s*** within the living memory of most of the population. If a college graduate has to work at starbucks for a couple years, they'll get over it.
Posted by: Kolohe | August 12, 2008 3:26 PM
Kolohe,
You are full of beans...and anybody reading your post[s] will see right through you.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2008 3:33 PM
Is today asshole day on the blog?
J, Alyssa's final paragraph was clearly about how the one-child policy impacts kids who don't get to socalize with other kids, because there aren't any -- whether related or not. Your point about siblings might be right, but it's irrelevant.
Anyway, another reason why there's such an achievement push is, of course, that for most of the country there is so little retirement security. You depend on your kids to provide for you in old age in a way that we in America don't anymore, at least in the middle classes. This is compounded by the one-child policy and directly contributes to why so many little girls end up in orphanages (or American suburbs), because now you've only got one shot to raise a kid who will keep you in clover once you can work no longer.
Posted by: Cliffy | August 12, 2008 5:07 PM
thanks
بنت جده
Posted by: شات بنت جده | June 16, 2009 5:17 PM