Diverse parenting goals have roots in developmental temperament, and researchers in this area have endeavoured to determine the patterns of attitudes and behaviours in which parents typically differ (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). However, the keenness to define diverse parenting styles has been mostly prognostic as researchers pursued patterns of parental behaviour which could predict childhood outcomes (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Baumrind (1991) expanded this discussion through categorising
parenting into four different styles: Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive and Indulgent.
Authoritarian parenting styles apply when children are expected to follow the strict rules established by their parents, and failure to follow such rules usually results in
punishment. Such parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules: they have high demands but are not responsive to their children's emotional needs. These parents are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation.
The second style is authoritative parenting, which differs from authoritarian parenting. This second type of parent sets rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. Such parents are more democratic and responsive to their children and are willing to listen to their questions, and when the children fail to meet the expectations, they are more nurturing and forgiving than punitive. Such parents monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but less intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive, as they expect their children to be assertive, socially responsible, self-regulated and cooperative.
Baumrind's (1991) third parenting style is permissive; parents who apply this style make few demands of their children as they rarely discipline them because they have low
38
expectations of maturity and self-control. Permissive parents are more responsive than demanding. They are non-traditionalists and lenient; they do not require mature behaviour but allow much self-regulation and avoid confrontation. They are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, but often take on the status of a friend more than that of a parent.
Baumrind’s fourth parenting style is indulgent, which is almost the same as the
permissive parenting style except that the indulgent parents are characterised by making few demands, have low responsiveness and provide little communication. While these parents meet the child's basic needs, they are mostly detached from their children's lives. In extreme circumstances, they may even reject or neglect the needs of their children.
Looking closely at these parenting styles, there are both positive and negative aspects for each in child development outcomes. For instance, authoritarian parenting can create children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank lower in happiness, social competence, and self-esteem. Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These children are more prone to experience problems with authority and may perform poorly in school (Baumrind, 1991). However, the indulgent parenting style ranked the lowest across all life domains, as children nurtured under this style lack self-control, have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers. The most preferred of all are authoritative parenting styles, which result in children who are happy, capable and successful (Baumrind, 1991).
Although Baumrind’s parenting styles reflect Western understanding and concepts of parenting, these styles are reflected in both individualist and collectivist societies despite cultural differences in childrearing. As discussed throughout the subsequent chapters, South Sudanese participants highlighted some of Baumrind’s (1991) parenting styles within the context of what good and bad parenting means according to their cultural understanding and concepts. In the same way there are common understandings of parenting with the focus on supporting children's overall well-being with meticulous attention to their physical, emotional and developmental needs (McEvoy et al., 2005). It is understood that more individualistic-oriented societies valued autonomy,
independence and the ability to get things done on one’s own, and the children in those societies are encouraged to act autonomously and demonstrate initiative as early as possible. In contrast, collectivist societies seem to place more emphasis on community
39
responsibility by encouraging children to learn their responsibilities from their family and the wider community, and act accordingly (Triandis et al., 1988, Wise and Da Silva, 2007). The other main similarity in parenting goals includes health and survival of the children as well as teaching them necessary survival skills, together with encouraging the qualities and values that are considered valuable within a given culture and society (Kolar and Soriano, 2000a).
However, LeVine (1988) asked, How do parents of a given culture define 'the requirements of childcare during the first years of life, and how do they perceive the obstacles to be overcome in fulfilling those needs'? To LeVine, cultural perspectives assumed that parents are guided by culture-specific models of interpersonal relations, and that independence is considered common in individualist societies, while
interdependence applies more widely in communal cultures. However, LeVine recognised that this concept has failed to show how future goals, along with other parental aims within a given culture, work with the parents’ perception of their children's adaptive problems in their early life. The other noteworthy difference in parenting goals concerns physical punishment. In Australia and most other Western cultures, this practice is considered to have a negative impact on children later in life, but in other cultures (including South Sudanese) it is seen as an important component of improving children's behaviour for a better future (Kolar and Soriano, 2000a, Deng and Marlowe, 2013).
Later chapters in this thesis discuss in greater detail the changes in traditional forms of discipline for South Sudanese children resulting from a new environment with different child protection policies. This has led to many refugees experiencing a sense of loss and powerlessness (Levi, 2014). Research into parental discipline indicates that parental responses to their children’s misbehaviour depend on the nature of the rules or standards the children have violated, as parents have a large repertoire of disciplinary strategies (Kolar and Soriano, 2000a, Zubrick et al., 2008). In some situations, they employ power assertive techniques such as unexplained commands and punishments, whereas at other times they may use more cognitively-oriented strategies such as reasoning and
explanations (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994). As discussed in Baumrind’s (1991) parenting styles, this suggests that parental responses to transgressions are not
40
consistent and the choice of disciplinary strategy depends on the nature of the situation or wrongdoing (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994).