2013 Book Review #96: Baby Meets World

[jethrien]

Title: Baby Meets World: Suck Smile Touch Toddle
Author: Nicholas Day
Genre: Parenting/pop-science
Thingummies: 5

Synopsis: Looking at a lot of the most recent evidence about infant development, as well as historical context, with a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist view.

Thingummies: Nicholas Day won my heart in an article for Slate in which he gave the best description of modern parenthood in America that I've ever seen. He had just detailed an endless list of minor suggestions from experts, which compound into an impossible to-do list for parents who already despair of minor things such as keeping their child even moderately clean ("please, sweetie, let me get the sweet potato out of your eyebrow, no, don't hit me, just stay still, I've almost got it, Mother of God how did you get that in your ear?"), let alone following an exhaustive list that nonetheless must be followed perfectly or your kid will be a socially stunted Neanderthal. Each expert chirped "But why not do [seemingly minor yet insurmountable task]?" Day followed up wryly. "But why not worry, when you can worry?"

So I was on board for his book (which, of course, is the point of writing articles for Slate. And he didn't let me down.

This is a wonderful mix of cutting edge research--behavioral analysis, brain scans, what sounds like the most hilarious obstacle course for toddlers ever--and historical perspective. So he tells us what experts believe now about how babies develop, but also the fact that they believed pretty much the exact opposite twenty years ago, and a different thing a generation before that, and before that, and oh my god I'm so glad I wasn't a parent in the 30s. Pacifiers are currently looked at in horror by most of Williamsburg, thumb sucking was thought to lead to masturbation and brutishness, crawling meant that your child was bestial and would never be a civilized, literally upstanding adult unless swiftly corrected. One should never, ever pick up a baby and touch it as much as possible; one should never, ever put a baby down even for a second.

He also addresses child-raising in different countries. Cameroon and German mothers are shown videos of each others' parenting techniques; each are horrified and convinced the other mothers are abusing their babies. (Somehow, the babies in both countries grow up just fine.)

Basically, his point is that most of child-raising theories and much of our understanding of how babies develop is intensely cultural. As long as kids aren't intensely abused, they tend to be incredibly resilient. Since humanity has yet to produce a generation in which the entire adult population continued crawling about on all fours, sucking thumbs and whacking off, unable to understand the concept of love, it's pretty certain that any strong declaration of How One Must Parent Or Else is probably wrong.

Throughout, he writes with a wry sense of humor that still does not overshadow genuine awe at these tiny creatures in our care. We get a number of genuinely cute anecdotes about his son Isaiah, and their adventures as Daddy does his research.

So overall, we end up with a book that's fascinating, funny, and strangely reassuring.

Comments

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Another recommendation in case you haven't seen it: "How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character," by Paul Tough. It's less about infant development than child development generally (the chapters range from discussion of stress in infancy to elementary education to high school and college). It does a lot to debunk some of the intellect-focused infant development theories--such as the "upper class parents' kids do better because their kids hear a wider range of vocabulary and more words as babies" nonsense that led to encouraging lower class moms to sit their kids in front of educational TV. For infants, he concludes that the real thing that causes lasting harm is major family stress, which explains why today's lower class kids have such a tough time. He goes on to present a lot of evidence that while focusing on intellectual gains is unlikely to succeed and not all that useful for the average kid, developing character (not morality as such, but values and traits like determination and perseverence) works and has a much greater effect on disadvantaged kids.

I thought it was impressive, anyway, and you know my opinion on most child development research (that is, it's all crap).

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of the child development research is interesting. It's the theories I think are crap. There's all kinds of really fascinating stuff out there that we've learned about how kids learn to walk and talk and how their brains develop. The problem is that people take the two sentence summary from the top of the newspaper article and spin it into these elaborate and ridiculous plans for how to game the system when all the researchers proved was how one tiny bit of a very complex whole worked.

Books that I've found convincing and/or effective thus far include Nurtureshock and The Happiest Baby on the Block.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I agree with all that--and I was very impressed by Nurtureshock.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Happiest Baby's reasons may or may not be sound, by the way, but we found that the methods did work.