What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

Free Newsletters

books we're reading



« The Unfunny Side of Modern Feminism | Main | When Doubt Comes to Church »

October 4, 2010

Why Parenting May Be Your 'Highest' Calling

Researchers re-vamp Maslow's famed hierarchy of needs, replacing "self-actualization" with something more self-giving.

Elrena Evans

I’ve been following the comments on Amy Julia Becker’s latest Her.meneutics post with some interest. When the time came for my husband and I to make and act on a decision regarding the schooling of our eldest (a decision-making process that began long before said child was even conceived), I made a mental list of friends and acquaintances who were going to criticize our decision, no matter what choices we made. If we public school, these people will criticize; if we private school, those people will criticize; if we homeschool, still others will criticize. I didn’t make the list in order to sway our decision one way or the other, simply to be ready for the inevitable backlash we would — did — face.

800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.png

Reading the comments on Amy Julia’s post, I’m saddened at some of the replies. Why is it that so many people, perhaps especially parents, feel the need to justify their own decisions by criticizing the decisions of others? At the risk of sounding like all I want is to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya," why can’t we all decide to support each other, acknowledging that every family is different and that God has different plans for our lives? Imagine if we could spend half the time we currently invest in criticizing other Christian families asking, instead, how we might best support them in the choices they have made, as their brothers and sisters in Christ?

It’s interesting that this conversation should take place at a time when psychologists are considering a shift to famed psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Long a fixture in the training of educators and workforce managers, Maslow’s pyramid argues that humans’ basic needs (food, water, air, sleep) must be met before they can begin to seek other, “higher” fulfillments. It makes sense: bereft of basic needs, people can’t concentrate on bigger goals. I saw this pyramid again and again when in college, minoring in education, used to stress that a child who feels hungry, tired, and unsafe is really not going to care about learning algebra, and with good reason.

Now, though, a team of four researchers headed by Arizona State University social psychology professor Douglas T. Kenrick is challenging the top tier of Maslow’s pyramid. They write in a paper recently published in Perspectives on Psychological Science that Maslow’s ultimate goal, the pinnacle of human achievement, is not “self-actualization” or the accomplishment of such higher-order functions as creativity, problem-solving, and morality. It is — wait for it — parenting.

pyramid.jpg

It goes without saying that the switch has stirred up some reaction.

Kenrick isn’t completely discounting motivations to do things like create art or engage in complicated problem-solving, formerly top-of-the-pyramid, “self-actualization” achievements. As Lisa Belkin writes, quoting Kenrick, in The New York Times:

If the only purpose of art, music and literature is self-fulfillment, how does that abet the survival of the species? After all, [Kenrick] argues, “the time you spend playing the guitar or creating poetry or contemplating the meaning of life could be otherwise spent finding food.” Kenrick isn’t saying the pursuit of art and such has no evolutionary purpose; he just sees it as subordinate to the main act. “Look at it this way,” he says. “If you are a good poet or a good musician, there is a reproductive payoff: women are attracted to men with these abilities. What a man is saying when he is playing his guitar up there is ‘look at my good genes.’ ”

I’m not ready to completely rethink my children’s education on the basis of one study, but it is interesting to consider how a reshaping of Maslow’s pyramid might affect those choices. If the ultimate goal of human existence is not art, creativity, or problem-solving, but rather the continuation of the species through parenting (which, I might add, involves quite a bit of art, creativity, and problem-solving), how might that impact the choices we make when it comes to how we educate our offspring?

Then again, the Westminster Catechism poses this same question of our highest attainment as created beings, and provides an answer:

Question: What is the chief and highest end of man?

Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

Share |

Posted by Katelyn Beaty on October 4, 2010 10:52 AM

Comments

This made me think of the C.S. Lewis quote (paraphrase) that "Art has no survival value, but it gives value to survival."

Posted By: LivewithFlair | October 4, 2010 12:23 PM

Gee, what a revelation.

Many of us "simple" homemakers (often treated as "simpletons") have lived by this quote, from Jackie Kennedy:

“If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do matters very much.” -- Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

The "erudite" psychologists who promote "self", as in Self-Actualization being the goal of one's life, are the same ones who gave us the quest for "Self-Esteem" . . . as if society and you should esteem yourself regardless of your destructive/criminal actions toward self or others.

Heaven forbid you might feel "shameful" for committing crimes or abusing yourself with drugs/alcohol. You should Feel Good About Yourself no matter what you're doing to destroy your family and other relationships.

Godless psychologists are a big part of this society's race to the sewer, with parents in search of self while the kids raise themselves.

Posted By: Mom First | October 4, 2010 4:38 PM

My friend just gave birth to her second child early this morning, and this article reminded me of something her husband (also my friend) once told me. He was talking about how the two of them got into a debate over the use of the phrase "the miracle of birth". She is very practical, and grew up on a farm, and objected to the word "miracle" being used to describe the most natural process in the world. But he maintained that "miracle" is indeed the right word, for one reason:

He is an artist of sorts - a senior programmer at a major video game developer, and has worked on some of the biggest releases of the past decade. His career is making things for people to use and enjoy; some of them will play a game for 40 hours and then trade it in for the next newest one, and others will continue playing it over the course of the next few years. But when his first child was born, he was stunned by the realization that he had made something that will never expire. She didn't exist before, but now she does, and she - her soul - always will. That conversation didn't just change my views on parenting, it changed my attitude towards people in general.

Remembering that conversation, this new thinking on Maslow makes perfect sense.

Posted By: elly | October 4, 2010 5:29 PM

The article you linked was interesting. I was very concerned that your analysis was going to go in the direction of "WOMEN'S highest calling is to be mothers" or even "Women's ONLY calling is to be mothers." Both of which are incorrect.

Both my husband and I do feel that parenting our children is one of our highest corporeal priorities, and that by doing so we bring glory to God. However, we also agree that it is not our ONLY priority.

To quote the article, "Whether you prefer writing poetry over changing diapers is irrelevant. This new pyramid shows a human's needs for individual reproductive success -- and those aren't necessarily the same things that you need to be happy." The revised pyramid reflects the biological imperative of the continuation of the species. It is not prescriptive. It is descriptive. And largely without spiritual implication.

As for my opinion, I heartily agree with Westminster.

Posted By: Robyn | October 5, 2010 2:27 PM

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

May 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31