Little Emperor Syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (May 2009)

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (May 2009)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (May 2009)

Little Emperor Syndrome The only children of China’s one-child policy have come to bear the title of “Little Emperor:” “China's new generation of spoiled only-children now in their early teens and under, the result of an enforced one-family, one-child policy introduced in the mid-70s.”^[1] Attributed most frequently to an increased spending power within the family unit and the parents’ desire for their child to experience the benefits they were denied, these Little Emperors command the sole attention of their parents and grandparents. Described as a problem “so acute that it’s changing how society functions,”^[2] the Little Emperor effect has grown beyond a side-effect that “the architects of China's one-child policy could never have foreseen,”^[3] into a “behavioral time-bomb.”^[4]

The Little Emperor effect is primarily an urban phenomenon. The one child policy is not enforced as rigidly in the countryside as in the urban communities; “peasants intent upon producing a healthy male heir are officially allowed to try again if the first child is… deformed in some way, or a girl.”^[5] Combined with the valuable labor of children, only children are not prevalent within rural communities. Beyond the lack of single children, economic development has not has had as large of an impact outside of urban centers.

Contents 1 Socio-economical Implications 2 Psychological Implications 3 References 4 External links

[edit] Socio-economical Implications

China economic growth has tremendously elevated the annual per capita income of urban areas as women have become increasingly more represented within the workforce frequently resulting in families having two sources of income.^[6] This greatly improved purchasing power of the Chinese family unit coupled with excessive pampering of only children is the cause for increased spending on children. From toys to clothes, parents shower their child in material goods and give in to every demand; it is not uncommon for children to be the “best-dressed members of their families.”^[7] Recently, it is common for nearly half a family’s income to be spent on the child.^[8] This effect has become considerable enough to be noticed on a global scale: marketing groups attribute a near doubling of platinum jewelry sales in China to “China’s ‘spoilt brat’ generation.”^[9]

However, the Little Emperors bear not only the indulgence of their parents, but also the burden of heavy expectations. Again considered part of the parents’ “compensation syndrome,”^[10] as they live vicariously having lost their chance in the Cultural Revolution, these children carry immense pressure to succeed and compete academically.^[11] From an early age parents push their only child to educational extremes as they cater to their whims; “Though many of these precocious kids can recite the English alphabet or read newspapers in traditional Chinese characters by the time they're 10, their parents often still perform basic tasks for them: fixing their hair, tying their shoes, wiping their bottoms.”^[12] Boarding school, private English lessons, music lessons and an additional range of extracurricular activities are the normal fare though after tough competition only two percent of the Little Emperors will be able to study at a university.^[13]

One factor frequently associated with the Little Emperor effect, the four-two-one family structure refers to the collapse of the traditionally large Chinese family into four grandparents and two parents doting on one child.^[14] Beyond the obvious further funneling of resources towards the whims and potential of the only child, this four-two-one reconfiguration of the familial structure has distinct ramifications for Chinese society. The Little Emperors of the one-child policy have warped the traditional family beyond recognition; “in the past, the power in a household devolved from the father,” who ruled over a multitude of offspring.^[15] However, within the current influence of the “spoiled” only children, the household structures itself entirely around the one child. This shift from earlier structures that supported the culture of filial piety has caused much concern; “traditionally, a great number of children, particularly sons, was seen as proof of the family's standing and it guaranteed the continuity of ancestor-worshipping customs.”^[16] Specifically the most salient issue stems from the worry about who will look after the elderly. Aside from a potentially radical shift in cultural norms concerning the treatment of the elderly, this new family structure poses a purely demographic problem: “the composition of the dependent population is shifting away from children toward elderly population.”^[17]

[edit] Psychological Implications

The combination of the immense pressure to excel within their education and the extreme pampering has resulted in a stunting of social and emotional growth.^[18] The perceived maladjustment of the Little Emperors is an exaggerated subject within the media; “the government has [tried] to cope with the Little Emperor problem through frequent cautionary stories in the press.”^[19] These stories depict children hanging themselves after being denied sweets, and cases of matricide in retribution for a scolding or late dinner.^[20][21] The discussion of Little Emperors has saturated public discussion concerning the generation of the one-child policy within Chinese and international media.

However, psychological studies do not support this view, or at best, offered mixed results. Results from earlier studies are cumulatively inconsistent with some studies suggesting there are “no differences in dependency, helping others, or aggressive behavior,” between only children and children with siblings and other studies concluding that “only children were more egocentric,” and “children with siblings were more persistent and cooperative, and they had higher peer prestige.”^[22] One study found that though differences in “interpersonal skills and attitude toward manual labor…did not achieve statistical significance,” only children had higher scores on achievement motivation.^[23] However, this difference became statistically insignificant in higher grades. (Wan et al.) Wan et al. view the popular conception of spoiled Little Emperors as a result of the frequent citation of one of the earliest studies performed by The Shanghai Preschool Education Study Group in 1980.^[24]

These results corroborate a more recent study with similar findings of no difference between single and sibling children in “Chinese values and terminal values…values sanctioned by the society and promoted vigorously by the school,” though single children placed more emphasis on “instrumental values such as leadership, self-motivation, and kindness.”^[25] The researchers attributed the lack of difference in socially stressed values to the moderating effect of schooling that “attenuates the possible differences in family environment.”^[26] The “children’s immediate environment,” of “parents with one child [who] seem to have only one chance to realize their worth through that child,” explained the increase in instrumental values.^[27] Overall, “the findings do not support the existing stereotype that only children are spoiled and have lower moral standards.”^[28]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Problems Encountered by Little Emperors
• Wolff, Alexander; David Fleming and Jeff Lilley (October 16, 1995). "The China Syndrome". Sports Illustrated. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/storyolympic/china1.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-20.