Thanks for the mention -- and I think about this all the time with my kids. It is all so hard to navigate!
It is really hard to resist the grind, even if you consciously object to it! I think part of the problem is the professionalization of hobbies with kids, sports being the most clear and obvious example. I did plenty of extra-curricular activities as a kid, but they were the lowest of stakes because very very few (honestly no one I can remember), kids or parents, were future-oriented about it.
On the other side, I do see my kids' extra activities as a chance to learn about discipline, focus and hard work. For example, my 7 year-old son discovered the cello on his own at age 3 while watching Sesame Street...at his insistence we started his lessons at age 4 and he still plays and loves it, but also of course has nights when he doesn't want to practice and I make him. If he ever made it clear that he wanted to quit, I would be okay with that. But as long as he is in it, I push him to do the work, take practicing seriously etc. Am I the bad guy? Good guy? Tiger parenting ruining childhood? Or teaching him about work ethic? He says he wants to join a youth orchestra...do we do that? How far do we go with this? And do we consider acting in a way that is future-oriented/ gives him some solid ground for later pursuing a musical career?
Point being, in theory I definitely do not want to be THAT parent. But in practice, I feel like I have no idea how this should all work.
And all of the above is why I do my best to stick to some sort of Sabbath, even if I am not hardcore about it. If I can say Friday night and Saturday morning are devoted to connection, introspection and "delighting in God's creation" and not meddling with it, maybe that will provide a buffer to the more ambition/goal-oriented week?
"But in practice, I feel like I have no idea how this should all work." Feels right. haha
Appreciate the Sabbath comment, though. I think that is actually more grounding in the long-term to both parents and children than we may appreciate in the moment.
Love a good connect-the-various-conversations type essay.
"If we want people to lean into relationships — if that’s what I want for my kids — the incentive structure has to flip. The specifics of how to do this deserve more space than I have here, but the point is that if the goal is a paradigm framing relationships as paramount, there have to be positive and negative incentives. People have to believe that there are rewards for climbing a family ladder — and costs for ignoring it."
This is it, I think.
I suppose I'm skeptical of the larger-scale ways this can happen in a society as individualistic as ours... but I think you put the emphasis in the right place. What do we want for OUR kids? We have influence over that environment.
I've seen enough of what happens when families basically accept the dominant ethos of "good for you! get that education and job! don't let us hold you down!" that I would LOVE to see more models of the inverse. (Maybe we *should* bring back a little healthy shaming for those who leave everyone they've ever loved behind in their professional pursuits. Or at least make it clear that there *will be* a negative impact on the village. That it's not an automatic good just because it works for you-the-individual.)
If you ever find enough people... I think this could be a really cool, ongoing interview series: families modeling what you're advocating for, to whatever degree. Like what Ivana Greco has been doing with homemakers.
Many people who leave religious communities carry bitterness about the good aspects lost, as if they were entitled to them anymore. Aaron Renn has spoken of this, and it makes sense that any organisation that bleeds resources instead of supporting its members will incentivise leaving.
An interesting cost example came from a tacit rejection email from a Bible study group I wished to join in our church. The welcoming paragraph ran on about how they couldn't keep families invested all last year, and that the remaining families are the leaders (no kids), the hosts (two kids), and the father of one of the hosts. The closing paragraph stated they did not want people who took many vacations, or who could not join the dinner rotation. This might be reasonable now, but I can see why it is a turn-off to people without a habit of feeding large groups. At the size of the group last year, about 30 people could have been expected, and I know very few singles who can meal plan that, or who would cater +10 times a year for people who won't invite them around other times of the week. It would be a disproportionate burden, but considered fair by family unit. He stated they wanted to structure the study like a family culture, but "found that some people tend to be busy with family...and end up cancelling a lot".
What this couple wants is to create that thick network, it is admirable. It is also understandable why they parachute into the home of the only remaining couple with children, and everyone else with kids either left to start their own group or left the church entirely. There seems to be little cost in leaving, but a lot of cost to being considered at the gate.
Excellent article that raises modern issues with modern potential solutions. I’ve thought about this recently. I want my child to be involved in extra-curriculars, but I also want them to experience life and not be focused on “winning” and “college scholarships.” I think for children, it’s more rewarding to have siblings and we’ll-rounded lives than camp upon camp, activity upon activity. We’re a military family and have to build relationships wherever we go. It’s hard, but you get out there and involve yourself in the community.
Very well said: "I want them to have a life where work and relationships are not pitted against each other. Where there are financial and status incentives to maintain relationships, not neglect them."
The older I get, the more I think about the business my parents had when I was a kid. They owned a small wholesale warehouse. We worked there together most days as a family. At most my parents employed 25 people, almost all of them either ladies from church who wanted part time office jobs, friends of my older brothers or friends of friends. There was at least some incentive to maintain relationships with each other and to use work time to "build a village"
I think if we can figure out work, the rest is relatively easy. Work, career, credentials, are maybe the biggest barrier we face.
But I also believe in one that synthesizes the upsides of status-driven techno-capitalism as well as "rootedness" of family/clans, and that's support more regional economic development over hyper-concentrated coastal enclaves.
This means public policies that spread out funding for econ development, that encourage state or regional flagship public universities - including "honors" colleges that can pull the more competitive kids away from the "ivy league."
We see some of this happening with a lot more Tier 2 and T3 cities developing amenities that reach maybe the 80-90th percentile of the T1; more than "good enough" for people wanting good careers but also local roots.
We left Austin and moved to North Colorado Springs, and then pulled family out of Texas to live nearby and build our little clan. We have tons of ethnic restaurants, my nearby coffee shop has great french pastries and pour-overs, and a world-class airport an hour away in Denver.
That kind of option is also something very viable for a lot of strivers who may not be able to pull it off in NYC or SF, but in a T2 or T3 city with lower cost of living much more do-able.
"Here’s the problem, though: If you focus on relationships, you run the risk of falling behind. Think about it, while your 5-year-old is making cookies with grandma, my 5-year-old is in an SAT prep program."
But what if grandma is also the SAT prep program? Homeschooling really can be the best of both worlds here: academically superior to school on average, and lots of time spent with family.
I say this as someone who was homeschooled through 7th grade myself, but has chosen not to homeschool my kids so far (my oldest has done K-1st at our local public school). Why am I not homeschooling? Because I'm making more family for us all to have relationships with. I'm planning to have a fourth baby and don't have enough "spoons" to do pregnancy and postpartum while also homeschooling. Surprisingly, being a homemaker still doesn't give me infinite time and energy. But it helps a lot.
Ramaswamy did use a family ladder to propel his upward mobility, but he wants everyone else to use democratised merit themselves. He is not really a bootstraps man, and he knows credential-maxxing has severe limits absent cashflow, but this is only a problem to people who are forced to do as he says and not as he did.
Thanks for the mention -- and I think about this all the time with my kids. It is all so hard to navigate!
It is really hard to resist the grind, even if you consciously object to it! I think part of the problem is the professionalization of hobbies with kids, sports being the most clear and obvious example. I did plenty of extra-curricular activities as a kid, but they were the lowest of stakes because very very few (honestly no one I can remember), kids or parents, were future-oriented about it.
On the other side, I do see my kids' extra activities as a chance to learn about discipline, focus and hard work. For example, my 7 year-old son discovered the cello on his own at age 3 while watching Sesame Street...at his insistence we started his lessons at age 4 and he still plays and loves it, but also of course has nights when he doesn't want to practice and I make him. If he ever made it clear that he wanted to quit, I would be okay with that. But as long as he is in it, I push him to do the work, take practicing seriously etc. Am I the bad guy? Good guy? Tiger parenting ruining childhood? Or teaching him about work ethic? He says he wants to join a youth orchestra...do we do that? How far do we go with this? And do we consider acting in a way that is future-oriented/ gives him some solid ground for later pursuing a musical career?
Point being, in theory I definitely do not want to be THAT parent. But in practice, I feel like I have no idea how this should all work.
And all of the above is why I do my best to stick to some sort of Sabbath, even if I am not hardcore about it. If I can say Friday night and Saturday morning are devoted to connection, introspection and "delighting in God's creation" and not meddling with it, maybe that will provide a buffer to the more ambition/goal-oriented week?
"But in practice, I feel like I have no idea how this should all work." Feels right. haha
Appreciate the Sabbath comment, though. I think that is actually more grounding in the long-term to both parents and children than we may appreciate in the moment.
Love a good connect-the-various-conversations type essay.
"If we want people to lean into relationships — if that’s what I want for my kids — the incentive structure has to flip. The specifics of how to do this deserve more space than I have here, but the point is that if the goal is a paradigm framing relationships as paramount, there have to be positive and negative incentives. People have to believe that there are rewards for climbing a family ladder — and costs for ignoring it."
This is it, I think.
I suppose I'm skeptical of the larger-scale ways this can happen in a society as individualistic as ours... but I think you put the emphasis in the right place. What do we want for OUR kids? We have influence over that environment.
I've seen enough of what happens when families basically accept the dominant ethos of "good for you! get that education and job! don't let us hold you down!" that I would LOVE to see more models of the inverse. (Maybe we *should* bring back a little healthy shaming for those who leave everyone they've ever loved behind in their professional pursuits. Or at least make it clear that there *will be* a negative impact on the village. That it's not an automatic good just because it works for you-the-individual.)
If you ever find enough people... I think this could be a really cool, ongoing interview series: families modeling what you're advocating for, to whatever degree. Like what Ivana Greco has been doing with homemakers.
Many people who leave religious communities carry bitterness about the good aspects lost, as if they were entitled to them anymore. Aaron Renn has spoken of this, and it makes sense that any organisation that bleeds resources instead of supporting its members will incentivise leaving.
An interesting cost example came from a tacit rejection email from a Bible study group I wished to join in our church. The welcoming paragraph ran on about how they couldn't keep families invested all last year, and that the remaining families are the leaders (no kids), the hosts (two kids), and the father of one of the hosts. The closing paragraph stated they did not want people who took many vacations, or who could not join the dinner rotation. This might be reasonable now, but I can see why it is a turn-off to people without a habit of feeding large groups. At the size of the group last year, about 30 people could have been expected, and I know very few singles who can meal plan that, or who would cater +10 times a year for people who won't invite them around other times of the week. It would be a disproportionate burden, but considered fair by family unit. He stated they wanted to structure the study like a family culture, but "found that some people tend to be busy with family...and end up cancelling a lot".
What this couple wants is to create that thick network, it is admirable. It is also understandable why they parachute into the home of the only remaining couple with children, and everyone else with kids either left to start their own group or left the church entirely. There seems to be little cost in leaving, but a lot of cost to being considered at the gate.
Excellent article that raises modern issues with modern potential solutions. I’ve thought about this recently. I want my child to be involved in extra-curriculars, but I also want them to experience life and not be focused on “winning” and “college scholarships.” I think for children, it’s more rewarding to have siblings and we’ll-rounded lives than camp upon camp, activity upon activity. We’re a military family and have to build relationships wherever we go. It’s hard, but you get out there and involve yourself in the community.
Very well said: "I want them to have a life where work and relationships are not pitted against each other. Where there are financial and status incentives to maintain relationships, not neglect them."
The older I get, the more I think about the business my parents had when I was a kid. They owned a small wholesale warehouse. We worked there together most days as a family. At most my parents employed 25 people, almost all of them either ladies from church who wanted part time office jobs, friends of my older brothers or friends of friends. There was at least some incentive to maintain relationships with each other and to use work time to "build a village"
I think if we can figure out work, the rest is relatively easy. Work, career, credentials, are maybe the biggest barrier we face.
And thank you for the mention of my article.
I think this is a good strategy for many people.
But I also believe in one that synthesizes the upsides of status-driven techno-capitalism as well as "rootedness" of family/clans, and that's support more regional economic development over hyper-concentrated coastal enclaves.
This means public policies that spread out funding for econ development, that encourage state or regional flagship public universities - including "honors" colleges that can pull the more competitive kids away from the "ivy league."
We see some of this happening with a lot more Tier 2 and T3 cities developing amenities that reach maybe the 80-90th percentile of the T1; more than "good enough" for people wanting good careers but also local roots.
We left Austin and moved to North Colorado Springs, and then pulled family out of Texas to live nearby and build our little clan. We have tons of ethnic restaurants, my nearby coffee shop has great french pastries and pour-overs, and a world-class airport an hour away in Denver.
That kind of option is also something very viable for a lot of strivers who may not be able to pull it off in NYC or SF, but in a T2 or T3 city with lower cost of living much more do-able.
"Here’s the problem, though: If you focus on relationships, you run the risk of falling behind. Think about it, while your 5-year-old is making cookies with grandma, my 5-year-old is in an SAT prep program."
But what if grandma is also the SAT prep program? Homeschooling really can be the best of both worlds here: academically superior to school on average, and lots of time spent with family.
I say this as someone who was homeschooled through 7th grade myself, but has chosen not to homeschool my kids so far (my oldest has done K-1st at our local public school). Why am I not homeschooling? Because I'm making more family for us all to have relationships with. I'm planning to have a fourth baby and don't have enough "spoons" to do pregnancy and postpartum while also homeschooling. Surprisingly, being a homemaker still doesn't give me infinite time and energy. But it helps a lot.
Ramaswamy did use a family ladder to propel his upward mobility, but he wants everyone else to use democratised merit themselves. He is not really a bootstraps man, and he knows credential-maxxing has severe limits absent cashflow, but this is only a problem to people who are forced to do as he says and not as he did.