Fragile creatures?
Certainly, there are plenty of neglected children in America. But in middle class & upper middle class communities the coddled kid is becoming the norm, says Peter N. Stearns, a social historian at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. & the author of "Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America."

“In the last few decades the belief became popular that children are exceptionally fragile creatures & we should treat them that way,” says Stearns.

The fact that many Americans are waiting longer to become parents & are having fewer children has also contributed greatly to the phenomenon. “If you have 1 or 2 children - rather than 4 or 5 - obviously, the individual child becomes much more precious,” he says.

Andrea J. Buchanan, author of "Mother Shock: Loving Every (Other) Minute of It," says she sees a clear link between super-parenting & today’s highly educated mommyforce. When it comes time to have children, she says, many career-oriented women still end up putting their career on the backburner & their children on the front.

At the same time, many mothers (& fathers) try to bring the same work ethic to parenting as they once did to their careers: they’re willing to work hard, they’re ambitious & competitive & they have a desire for accomplishment, control & results.

Buchanan says she thinks the problem starts even before the baby arrives. “I like to use the trip analogy," she says. "Instead of just packing your suitcase & reading the tour book, many pregnant women are now made to feel they must learn how to fly the plane. So this is where it begins. You get sucked into it right then.”

Parents are given this false notion that they can & should control all aspects of child-rearing from conception to the child’s post-doctoral work, she says.

The sum effect has been that parenting has become complicated beyond what most of us believe we can handle on our own, says Dr. Bernardo J. Carducci, a professor of psychology at Indiana Univ. in New Albany, Ind., & the director of its Shyness Research Institute.

“As we make parenting more & more complicated," he says, "what happens is people are uncertain what to do. Every time you have uncertainty, you have anxiety.” According to Carducci, fear is the stuff of overparenting.

Maternal bling-bling
Much of the $6 billion that Americans spend annually on baby gear is spent because marketers have scared us into buying it or because everyone we know has a certain stroller or diaper bag, Carducci says. It’s what he calls maternal bling-bling - stuff we get to make us feel like we’re good parents.

“To alleviate your anxiety you buy what the marketers say you need & what the other mothers in Mommy & Me have," he says. "That’s conformity. You can look at a suburban mom & a rapper & see the same thing. They’re surrounded by this stuff. It’s a way to compare yourself to others & announce to the world that you’re a ‘good’ mom.”

Then, once a child starts school, the chances for overparenting & the pitfalls for not doing so abound, says Dr. Alexandra Barzvi, clinical coordinator for the Institute of Anxiety & Mood at the New York University Child Study Center. “Many parents are even worked up about which preschool their child gets into," she says. "They see it as a very competitive world & they introduce this to their children right away.”

By the time the children are ready to try to get into college, the parental anxiety - as well as the child’s - is often out of control. The Child Study Center recently introduced a workshop to help teens & their parents deal with the anxiety of applying for college.

“In our society now, a child’s success in school has become emblematic of your success as a parent,” says Stearns. So if you have a kid who gets into (never mind graduates from) Harvard, that’s as good as a stellar (although long-awaited) performance review.

While over-anxious parenting may make us feel better in the short-term, says Carducci, there are long-term consequences. Over-anxious parents raise emotionally fragile kids - kids who can’t stand on their own. They don’t know how to make sound decisions & they aren’t equipped to deal with failure & frustration.

“Frustration tolerance is the best predictor of self-esteem,” notes Carducci. When a child can endure failing, pick himself up & carry on, he gains strength & confidence. When he knows he’s done something on his own - whether he succeeds or fails - he’ll be proud of his effort.

Charting their own course
On the other hand, if a child is made to believe that he couldn’t survive without his dad or mom bailing him out or somehow protecting him, it has the opposite result. Carducci says it sends a clear message to kids that they are incapable of success or decision-making without their parents.

Furthermore, many professionals contend overparented kids are at a higher risk for anxiety disorders & depression. They also tend to have trouble charting their course later in life.

“Hot-house raised kids often need a period in which they need to wander later,” says Stearns. “This isn’t bad necessarily, but it’s not how life used to be. Kids used to graduate college & then enter the workforce.”

He sees the delayed growing up, where kids meander after college, as their way of reclaiming their childhood - leading the less directed & controlled life that they probably should’ve had as youngsters.

Another impact, says Stearns, has been on something even less intangible. “Parenting has become less enjoyable & that’s really the shame,” says Stearns.

Dr. George Cohen, a clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., & a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, says that while overparenting can be a problem, there’s also the good side of it – at least the children are lucky enough to have parents who are vigilant & care, albeit perhaps a little too much.

“Finding a happy medium - parenting enough but not too much - is sometimes easier said than done,” says Cohen.

It’s not even that people who overparent are fanatics necessarily. They’re more than likely just confused & uncertain. “A lot of times the reason some parents are overly anxious is because they don’t know what to do," he says. "They read one article & it tells them to do one thing, another article tells them to do the opposite. Parents often don’t know what to believe or where to turn."

A good pediatrician can do an anxious parent a world of good, according to Cohen. "Sometimes people can start out as an overanxious parent but as they become much more comfortable they strike a better balance," he says.

Love them the way they are
Nobody is suggesting that parenthood can or should be anxiety-free. What they're suggesting is that parents love their children for who they are, not what they want them to be. Most people don’t excel in every subject. So getting straight A's is probably more about what you want rather than a true reflection of your child’s abilities.

Also, allowing your child to fail, experience frustration & negotiate his or her own way in school & life – suffering consequences & reaping the benefits - isn't only wise, it’s essential.

So next time you’re tempted to phone your child’s teacher because of a bad test score, ask yourself:

Is this as important as I think it is? Remember, the world will continue to exist even if your child fails his French test. The idea is that you want to take the pressure off of yourself & allow your child to learn on his own as often as possible.

Victoria Clayton is a freelance writer based in California & co-author of the new book "Fearless Pregnancy: Wisdom & Reassurance from a Doctor, a Midwife & a Mom," published by Fair Winds Press.

This article is alittle deep, but for those who are interested, i thought it was very revealing...

Becoming Nobody
Mark Medweth
Department of Psychology
Simon Fraser University
medweth@sfu.ca

Whether we experience confusion, frustration, or enjoyment, such experiences take place thru the mind. Thus, whether our interests are psychological, scientific, or religious in nature, it would seem important for us to understand the workings of the brain. If the ego or "self" (interchangeable words in Buddhist philosophy) plays a role in these experiences as well as abnormal development, as some psychologies would propose, we should more carefully examine what part they play in our psychological well being.

An examination of some basic tenets concerning the ego, "self," or "I" from a Buddhist perspective reveals a very different view from traditional Western personality theories.

The Western Self
The importance of the ego or "self" which emanates from Western psychology is explicitly extensive. Ego Psychology, typified by Freud, emphasizes the development of the capabilities of the ego (Muzika, 1990). Cognitive-behavioural therapy deals, in part, with inappropriate self-ideas & fosters changes in attitudes we hold about the "self" (Muzika, 1990).

Allport lists a strong ego identity as a descriptor of maturity while Erikson adds ego-integrity to his psychosocial stages of the life cycle (Goleman, 1981). Generally speaking, a wide-spread Western assumption suggests that the ego, "self," or "I" is thought of as a separate system, apart from such aspects as the body, spirit, or even matter in some cases (Welwood, 1976).

While Eastern perspectives of psychology may agree with some Western views of development & treatment (De Silva, 1985), there's a fundamental disagreement as to whether the ego is necessary for normal psychological functioning (Nitis, 1989).

In fact, in regarding the conception of "self" as the main source of all suffering, putting an end to the "self" is a key focus of Buddhist psychology.

While there are more than 200 varieties of psychotherapy, few of these would suggest that the "self" is an illusion (Muzika, 1990). Most would, in fact, attempt to strengthen such aspects of the person, making them more capable of bearing the pain of one's experience.

Since Western traditions would highlight the disappearance of self -other boundaries in major psychoses & borderline cases, it's understandable that the idea of transcending the "self" or ego might be dismissed as regressive psychopathology (Walsh, 1988).

However, some of the greatest Buddhist scholars maintain that Western science has yet to learn enough about the brain to appreciate the Eastern understanding of the mind & its implications (Komito, 1983). An examination of general Buddhist views of the "self" leaves the West with much to think about.

An Eastern View of Self
Some Eastern scholars would agree with Freud & others that ego formation is an essential process for the self preservation & protection of the developing organism initially (Nitis, 1989).

However, one of the most perniciously false views which is explicitly criticized by Buddhism has been the belief in a fixed-self or ego (Goleman, 1981). Buddhists would suggest that as the ego begins to turn back on itself, exploring its own creation, it provides the intellect with the capacity to identify & classify, thus initiating the attempt to establish itself as a real & solid entity (Nitis, 1989).

In other words, the ego or "self" is nothing more than a process of self-deception attempting to provide a basis for security. As a result we begin to use words like "self," & "I." Buddhists would warn us, however, that such words don't actually refer to something concrete but are simply grammatical devices (Giles, 1993).

The Dalai Lama, among others, suggests two kinds of truths for consideration: conventional & ultimate. The words "self" & "I" are used by convention & are necessary in building a strong sense-of-self initially so we can function properly in the world, but these words aren't grounded in ultimate reality (Rahula, 1974; Komito, 1984).

It's the exaggeration of the conventional designations which is the cause of pain & suffering (Kalff, 1983). The exaggeration of importance results in our trying to make ourselves real; if the sense-of-self is simply a construct, it can try to make itself real by objectifying itself in some fashion, but leads to a perpetual failure & underlying sense of lack in the end (Loy, 1992b). Why do we refrain from examining this possibility?

Intellectually, nondifferentiation seems much too painful to accept, so a state of ignorance is activated, thus causing people to neglect their original state of egolessness or selflessness. Yet Buddhists would suggest we transcend conventional designations & explore our true nature, for the personal "self" or "I" is considered pathological (Muzika, 1990).

According to Buddhist theory, a person is simply an aggregation of 5 elements:

• physical form
• perceptions
• feelings
• motives
• consciousness (Giles, 1993)

Yet none of these elements when considered separately or in combination can be identified with the "self." Since the inherently existing "self" can neither be found as one with the aggregates or different from them, it can't logically exist (Kalff, 1983).

Thus the illusion of having a self arises because we don't examine our experience closely enough. Instead we look only superficially at our feelings, desires & beliefs & become identified with them by convention (Muzika, 1990).

Walsh (1988) suggests a closer examination reveals that our continuous sense-of-self is selectively constructed from a myriad of mental contents. In fact the experience of "I" is a constantly changing impersonal process & is seen to be increasingly insubstantial the more closely we look at it (Epstein, 1988).

This examination reveals an ongoing, overlapping sequence of different mind - moments, as though they were objects in an environment.

Looking closely, it becomes clear that each differentiated moment of perception or thought takes on its specific nature or quality by virtue of the spaces that surround them (Welwood, 1976). Thus, distinct thoughts can be isolated as separate moments, as though they're figures against the ground of some larger mind-landscape, fragmenting the notion of a continuous "self."

The human personality could therefore be described as "a river that keeps a constant form, seemingly a single identity, though not a single drop is the same as a moment ago" (Hall & Lindzey, 1978, p. 359). The trouble with overlooking these open spaces within the mind-environment & equating thought-events w/a "self" is the anxiety that is connected with the defenses of these beliefs.

In addition to this error, a sense of consistency in interpersonal interactions & recognition by others of temporal & interpersonal consistency confirms falsely for us that we remain the same (Engler, 1984).

One concept related to the above argument is dependent origination. The "self" that is refuted above is one that is seen as permanent & independent, as most Westerners would posit. However, this notion of self is negated by virtue of the fact that all phenomena arise together in dependence & are thus void of independent existence.

This interdependence is referred to as dependent origination (Kalff, 1983). Just as Hume implied that diversity means no identity can exist (Giles, 1993), Buddhists would suggest that the interdependence diversity of elements that make up a person point to no existing "self."

Interdependence factors diametrically oppose the Western conception of autonomous, self-grounded consciousness (Loy, 1992b).

A second related concept is the Buddhist notion of emptiness.

Emptinesshas been a term used to describe many psychological states in the West including the confusing numbness of the psychotic, incomplete feelings of the personality disorders, identity diffusion & existential meaninglessness (Epstein, 1989). Buddhists, however, refer to emptiness as ultimate reality.

Emptiness assumes a defining role in the notion of "self"; it is the experience of emptiness that destroys the idea of a continuous, independent individual nature. Unlike many Western misconceptions, emptiness isn't an end in itself nor is emptiness considered real in a concrete sense but merely a specific negative of inherent existence (Epstein, 1988).

While the ordinary consciousness perceives things as permanent & independent, Buddhists would counter that perceived phenomena are interdependence & thus empty of permanence & without an identity based on their own assumed nature (Komito, 1984).

In relation to the sense-of-self, emptiness doesn't imply (as Westerners have often interpreted) the abandonment or annihilation of the ego, "self," or "I" but simply a recognition that this "self" actually never existed at all (Epstein, 1989).

Buddhism isn't an escape from the world but simply a refusal to extend or exaggerate the importance of conventional reality. In so doing, the mind becomes empty of struggle, allowing us to see things as they are in an ultimate sense.

Thus, in Buddhist psychology, the empty quality of the mind is regarded as the true nature of a person. To continue to ignore such propositions in the West, however, can have far reaching & possibly deleterious effects.

Implications of Having a Self
The implications of believing in & thus defending a "self" are wide & far reaching. The suffering, pain, discomfort & frustration we experience from day to day is a result of our delusive sense-of-self (Loy, 1992b).

Buddhist psychology has long insisted that the result of the illusive ego necessarily is fear, jealousy, desire & despair (Nitis, 1989). One basic difficulty we face is the inevitable insecurity we experience: as long as people are convinced they are separate, self-existing, or autonomous, the more uncomfortable they will feel in the world since separation is an insecure position (Loy, 1992b).

These experiences of suffering are maintained by the sense-of-self we entertain. This doesn't suggest that the feelings of frustration, fear, or discomfort are not real, but that they are born out of, & are held in place by, the false "self" (Tulku, 1974).

It's proposed by some psychologies in the East that such problems as self-esteem, depression, fragmentation, worthlessness & loneliness, are all considered subsets of the more enveloping problem of having this "self" when examined as a clinical condition (Muzika, 1990).

Essentially our constant clinging to this false sense-of-self opposes a universe in which all things are in constant flux, where events last no more than a brief moment.

The belief that we have a "self," according to Loy (1992a), can explain several twentieth century obsessions that, while widely accepted in our society, are merely attempts to real-ize the ego, "self," or "I." The first obsession is fame. It seems the "real" world has been captured more & more by newspapers, television & other forms of mass media.

Having been conditioned by others that we are real, the tendency to reassure our "being" by capturing the attention of others will escalate. It has been suggested that many people seek fame as an end in itself because of some reality they believe it confers, a reality they somehow lack (Loy, 1992a).

Another pursuit is monetary gain. While money is an effective & necessary medium of exchange, the excessive & relentless pursuit of wealth witnessed in modern times may actually reduce the quality of life one experiences (Loy, 1992a).

It seems that money has become the most popular way of accumulating the feeling of being real. Loy states that people used to go to temples & churches to real-ize themselves but w/the decline of religious influence over the past several decades, people now real-ize themselves with such substitutes as wealth.

A similar argument can be made for technological advancement. Technological achievements appears to be an attempt to create the ultimate security, but is necessarily doomed to failure in a world that ceaselessly changes (Loy, 1992a).

The paradox of all of these pursuits surfaces when one considers that the attempt to "get away from something" is disguised as an attempt to "get to somewhere." A consciousness which attempts to make itself real by fixating on, or objectifying, something is subject to constant dissatisfaction, for it's an underlying sense of lack (or wanting) which can't be fulfilled which propels us (Loy, 1992b).

The Buddhist solution, what some may consider a radical resolution, to all psychological illnesses is bringing an end to the source of suffering. In other words, bringing an end to the "self" & expanding one's consciousness toward a greater, interdependent  identification w/reality eliminates the suffering brought about by a sense of lack (Muzika, 1990).

For such experiences as pride, embarrassment, envy, etc., which are easily brought about by clinging to an illusive "self," can't occur when one is selfless, so to speak: how can I feel pride if there's no "I" (Giles, 1993)?

The correct position then is to see things as they are in an objective fashion without mental projections, to see that no "self" can be identified with the 5 aggregates, to recognize the reality of emptiness & lose one's being in the dependent origination of life (Rahula, 1974).

To achieve such a state requires the practice of mindfulness meditation.

The Buddhist Theory of Cure
One can only develop excessive attachments or the need to cling to other things & people if one has misinterpreted their own nature. Thus knowledge of one's true nature would serve as an antidote for this misinterpretation. The true nature of impermanence, emptiness & dependent origination can be realized thru meditation, the Buddhist approach to cure.

Mindfulness meditation is simply a continuous attempt to retrain attention (Goleman, 1981). Some have described meditation as the path to forgetting the sense-of-self, thereby becoming nothing (Loy, 1992a).

The ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation isn't withdrawal from the illusion of "self" but simply a recognition of one's conditioned & erroneous interpretation (Epstein, 1989). In so doing, the influence of the false belief is weakened.

In meditation, we're investigating the "I" which is felt to be permanent & seems to be self-sufficient. Thru examining the natural process of the mind, the inherent existence of the "I" is eventually exposed as a delusion (Epstein, 1989).

With careful introspection, each successive mental state is seen to be interspersed w/innumerable other feelings, all separated by gaps of space, sometimes described as brief flashes of non-personal awareness or spaces without self-interest (Welwood, 1976).

In meditation there's no appeal to some mystical, other world but merely a need to come out from behind the delusion of the "self" which is the root of our trouble. In the end, the result of meditation is a negation of the belief of a permanent individual nature, rather than attachment to emptiness as though it were something in itself (a view the West often assumes) (Epstein, 1989).

The "self" is finally seen for what it really is - a collection of fleeting elements (Giles, 1993). Meditation is a necessary response to the bipolar dualism of the "self" being either real or not real. To resolve this dualism, according to Buddhist psychology, one must become nothing if nothing is what the sense-of-self fears (Loy, 1992b).

What one fears can't be resolved if it isn't explored. As you begin to explore this fear thru meditation, you begin to see there are discrete units, these very small chunks of consciousness & you begin to see that they're always changing.

Perceiving these units reveals 3 basic insights of Buddhism...that everything is impermanent...that there's no abiding self...that seeking & clinging to satisfaction is actually the source of suffering (Goleman, 1981, p. 131).

In an ideal situation then, meditation allows the practitioner to experience these 3 cognitive insights. With continual practice of meditation, we sufficiently refine our attention process so we can observe our true nature, overcoming our previous inability to perceive the more microscopic level of mind-events (Engler, 1988).

This refined attention reveals a continuously changing flux of images, thoughts & emotions; the mind is deconstructed (Walsh, 1988). There is, however, one warning that accompanies the practice of meditation.

What the Buddhist system at the outset presupposes is a fairly intact or "normal" ego in the individual (Engler, 1984). Thus there are many for whom meditation may not be a viable practice, including schizophrenics, psychotics, borderline & other personality disorder patients.

Aside from this, it can be simply stated that Buddhism assumes the usual sense-of-self which people harbour is an illusion & that this claim can be tested directly by any person who diligently & minutely examines mental processes thru meditative practices.

Conclusion
It would seem, in studying Buddhist literature, that there's little concern with the every day problems which lead many people to seek psychotherapy (Muzika, 1990). Buddhism lacks a developmental theory of self & seldom dwells on such symptoms as depression, shame, worthlessness, loneliness, hypochondria & more.

The one exception to this disregard for feelings is the deep concern that Buddhism has for the general pain associated with becoming attached to other people & objects. Western science must examine more carefully the role that the ego, "self," or "I" plays in psychopathology, something Buddhism has done for more than 2000 years with the long standing conclusion that the desire to become somebody may not be as important as the wisdom of becoming nobody.