The immigrant brings with him to this country this tradition of the
authority of the parent, with no thought of doing anything but
maintaining it here. There are, however, forces at work in this
country that tend to make this impossible. There are suggestions of a
different tradition in the general atmosphere. Many immigrants absorb
these suggestions unconsciously, as they absorb those of a wider
freedom for women. More important, however, is the development of the
child. Circumstances of his daily life force him to take the lead in
many situations. This has been pointed out in a study of the
delinquent child, where it is said:[44]
Obviously, many things which are familiar to the child in the
facts of daily intercourse in the street, or in the school,
will remain unknown or unintelligible to the father and
mother. It has become a commonplace that this cheap wisdom on
the part of the boy or girl leads to a reversal of the usual
relationship between parent and child. The child who knows
English is the interpreter who makes the necessary
explanations for the mother to the landlord, the grocer, the
sanitary inspector, the charity visitor, and the teacher or
truant officer. It is the child again who often interviews
the "boss," finds the father a job, and sees him through the
onerous task of "joining the union." The father and mother
grow accustomed to trusting the child's version of what "they
all do in America," and gradually find themselves at a great
disadvantage in trying to maintain parental control.
In the face of this situation the conduct of the immigrant parent
generally follows along one of three very distinct lines: (a) he
modifies his methods in family discipline little by little, himself
unconscious of the implications, or (b) he stubbornly attempts to
retain the old authority undiminished, or (c) he abandons the old
system without having anything to put in its place. The first method
of behavior is probably the most common; it usually leads to little
difficulty within the family group if the parents' modifications are
made as fast as the child becomes aware of the newer ideas. The
attempt to maintain the old system in its entirety may also be
accomplished without disturbance if the child is willing, and probably
in most cases it is maintained without serious opposition on the part
of the child.
Abandoning the old system without substituting something better is
probably the least frequent reaction to the situation, but it is one
that is especially dangerous in immigrant groups. The native-born
parent who relaxes all discipline has this advantage over the foreign
born; in general he can at will demonstrate his superior knowledge,
and the child looks up to him and takes his advice, while the
foreign-born parent is peculiarly helpless because the child thinks
that his own knowledge, demonstrably superior in some things, extends
to all fields.
The relative frequency of these different modes of reaction would be a
difficult matter to determine. They were all evident from the facts
about discipline obtained from the families visited in this study. To
some extent the maintenance of the old system intact may be judged by
the prevalence of corporal punishment as a method of enforcing
obedience.
A doctor of a Lithuanian district said that one thing he was very
anxious to see disappear was the strap, which could now be seen in
almost every home. Fifty-four of the eighty-seven families from whom
information was obtained said that they used whipping as a method of
punishment. In most of the cases there was nothing to indicate with
what the child was whipped, but in five it was definitely stated that
a strap was used. In very few cases was there any attempt to punish
the child in private. It was usually stated that the whipping was done
before all the other members of the family. Two or three families
stated that they did not whip the children on the street.
A significant fact was the frequently repeated assertion that the
children were whipped because they were too young to understand
anything else. An interesting state of transition was seen in some of
the thirty-three families who had abandoned whipping but had not given
up the idea of absolute obedience. It is evidenced in comments like
the following: "They are not whipped. Father threatens with a strap."
Or, "It [whipping] is not necessary. Father speaks, and children
obey." Some families had relaxed the discipline sufficiently to be
apparent to our investigators, who made such comments as "Children are
making a terrible noise, but nobody seemed to mind."
It has already been said that whatever the reaction, the training of
the children usually takes place without visible disaster to the
family group. This is especially true while the children are young. As
they grow older the dangers that are inherent in such a situation
become more marked. The figures on juvenile delinquency show that an
unduly large proportion of juvenile offenders are children of
foreign-born parents. This subject will be discussed more fully at a
later point in the chapter in connection with the problem of the older
boy and girl. It is important to emphasize here that the foundation
for later trouble is often laid while the children are young, and
hence consideration of the effect of modern ideas on discipline and
training should begin with the very young child.