Hello friends,
I am wondering why a more middle-of-the-road view on this question is not being
studied (or is it, and I am just clueless?)
That is, it makes little sense to say, however convincingly, that parents have
virtually NO influence on how their children turn out, and makes equally little sense
to say that the peer group, the importance of which ascends rapidly starting probably
at around the 5-7 shift, has no impact either. Both these views strike me as narrow,
self-serving and naive. There is probably a complex set of interacting factors at work
in shaping each child.
Who one's parents are (genetically, in their social status/financial resources, their
values, the neighborhood they settle the family in, the schools they send the kids to,
etc.) almost certainly affects the type of friends, clique, or crowd a child chooses.
The level of parental involvement in the child's life, even through adolescence, is
key also.
Harris and her foes sometimes seem to present a false dichotomy too - parents versus
peers. Many children also find other adults, in the extended family, in the school and
community, who help to shape them - mentors, coaches, and the like.
Eventually most of us end up struggling most of our lives between identifying
ourselves in relationship to our parents, our peers, our culture, and as a separate
autonomous individual.
I have no scientific way to back this up, of course. It is just my considered
opinion. After awhile, it began to seem to me that the whole Harris versus parents
thing is just far too reductionist in failing to consider all the myriad variables
that can come into play.
My .01 -
Nancy Melucci
East Los Angeles College
Monterey Park, CA
