Are Australian Children More Independent than the Chinese Report

Abstract

Child independence is important to his/her development because many communities face various problems irrespective of the social strata, a situation that affects the child’s independence, development and growth. Notably, there is high level of liberalization in Australia than in China.

If the community is not able to meet the prevention measures to the future problem to their children that can be very drastic and may lead to dangerous occurrence during their growth, the parents better reduce the children’s independence at early ages and inculcate virtues among the young generation.

Introduction

Child independence is critical to his/her development because different communities face various problems irrespective of the social strata of a particular locality, a situation that affect the child’s independence and growth. Variations in child independence are as a result of the lifestyle that the community normally leads (Needlman, 2002).

This paper will closely compare and contrast the extent of freedom of the Australian children, in relation to those from China, through analysis of the problems of juvenile delinquencies in our community (Sanders, 2004). To be specific, it gives a general outlook of the assessment between the freedom that the children have in Australia that is not enjoyed by the ones from China.

This research will also extend to discover the problem from family level to the national level that the children from the two regions undergo during their growth and the consequences of such issues on their freedom (Brown, 1998).

Research Question

In this study, the researcher wanted to compare and contrast, then determines the independence of children in Australia and China. Thus, the question that the reach is, are Australian Children more independent than the Chinese?

Research Significant

The research could be seen as imperative because it tries to unveil the truth about children’s independence. However, it does not matter whether the children in Australia enjoy greater freedom compared to those from China. The research is also important because it compares and relates the family orientation towards their children, in the process of growth.

This is significant since the orientation of the child affects his growth and development. For instance, a child who grows in a financially stable background and those who grow up under stable family bond are able to enjoy uninterrupted personal development than those who come from poor and/or families. This is practical since the anomalies affect the physical, psychological social and spiritual growth of the child.

Interview

Scholars prefer interviews in conducting their studies. Therefore, the researcher conducted an interview of 40 people to collect their views about the research questions. For this research, 20 participants of children whose background are from Australia and a similar number from China were interviewed to determine the level of independence and the following results were obtained.

Discussion of the Interview Results

A number of the participants interviewed acknowledged that the level of independence or juvenile freedom in Australia significantly and has existed for along time among the Australian families since time immemorial. The other discovery was that in Australia, the parents gave their children total independence.

This indicated that the level of child’s freedom depends on the different social strata of each family, and it is in agreement with the fact that juvenile freedom since the parents differ (Aldort, 2006). Indeed, the child freedom is on the rise in Australia because the parents have greatly accorded their children adequate liberty to express their opinion. So, the children in this country are free, but with responsibility.

In other opinion that was gathered, the acceptance of child independence in Australia is because of the perception that one needs freedom as they grow. As well, the decrease of influence that the children are subjected to, in the country necessitates child freedom. The view was subjective since a large number of those interviewed about the Australian case, noted the various ideological perspectives (Lab, 2010).

Therefore, I believe that the independence mainly result out of the family breakdown, where the children remain alone without adequate care and guidance from the parents. In addition, the others thought that since the children in Australia are guaranteed a lot of freedom, cases of child impatience is on the increase. Perhaps, they attributed this to the reality that the youth are allowed to enjoy independence as long as they do not misuse the freedom (Correll, 1996).

There are others participants who believed that in Australia, there is child independence in Australia because the parents understand that freedom at juvenile levels is one way of making sure that the children discover lifetime challenges at this early time. However, other noted that the freedom could not be allowed without limitation, thus accepted the fact that the children in Australia have limited independence due to some minimal parental control (Neifert, 2008).

In another development, there were other participants who reiterated that the country experiences some tensions for keeping the children without according them freedom, thus has workend hard in reconciling the issues distressing their young people and the affected community as a whole.

From the information gathered about the Australian case, the communal knowledge about the children’s independence has withstood the historically test as most prominent social problems, wich culminates to deviant behavior. Nonetheless, not all the participants interviewed agreed that child independence in Australia was absolute (Collings, 2012).

The general opinion was that the degree of child independence differs according to household. Since this opinion was greatly shared, one hardly refutes the truth that there is child independence in Australia.

In the case of China, there was the common perception that the children in this country operate within certain limitation. Generally, it is believable that the children in the country are subjected to strict conditions so that they understand that excess freedom is problematic to the youth (Yun, 2012). Here, it is caused by communal influences arising from broken or non-focused societal values.

In this case, some interviewees believed that the limited freedom in China brings out the issue that guaranteeing the youth’s independence is like encouraging them to engage in vices, thus the parents do not allow their children to have excessive freedom in the country. This was due to the shared notion that juvenile independence has been curtailed in China due to the misunderstanding of the extent to which freedom among the youth results to vices that are reported (Leung, 2012).

In the opinion of others, the limitation of child independence was necessary to reduce its negative affects such as poor character formation among the young population, especially when operating under freedom, thus it is the same youths who do suffer from the outcome of broken values. However, the problem of juvenile independence results to the formation of negative behaviors such as violence, when they are left to stay alone, and this affects communal prosperity because of the negative perceptions.

In my opinion, this justifies the limitation of such freedom on the children from China. In this regard, it is believable that the general behavior changes create some aspects of failure in the systems and policy issues affecting the young generation, thus some parents especially from China do not feel like guaranteeing freedom to their children.

There are other interviewees who claimed that in China, the parents find it very difficult to identify at an early age those children who are likely to be criminals, thus not willing to guarantee the young ones total independence. As well, the children have to act within the limitations as spelt out by their parents, while still under them. Additionally, in China, the parents curtail the children’s independence through adopting measures, which are drastic in nature because if there is no early control of the same regardless of the child’s gender (Yue, Farrow & Cann, 2008).

It is believable that this is the reason for limiting child’s independence in the country. This creates the idea that the parents’ fear that most victims of juvenile homicide are just acquaintances who are then followed by complete strangers in their life, thus they are not willing to guarantee the children total freedom.

According to the other participants who had some understanding about the Chinese society, child independence is not guaranteed because it culminates to major problems that the community has to deal with in order to bring up responsible youths, and this is the reason justifying the lack of freedom among the young people in the country.

In fact, some of the people interviewed believed that the Chinese parents do not guarantee children independence because they understand that limiting the children’s independence can be effective through community wide approach mechanisms that tend to condemn such groupings.

Besides, the level of freedom guarantee differ, therefore some participants argued that they were given enough freedom. In this regard, the truth of the matter is that the juvenile independence increases the chances of interacting with people whose behaviour is defective and the parents would not allow their children to associate with such people (Carey, 2011).

Personal Analysis

In own assessment of the research findings, it is believable that in China, the parents have realised that reduction of juvenile independence results to the children’s hostility, even though it is understandable that it is very difficult to reduce and curtail the youth’s freedom in the entire country.

This has got effect in the reduction if not eliminating the unwanted behavior completely in the community, which is an issue that was not a consideration in Australia. Of course, the Chinese parents limit the children’s independence. Others thought that the parents curtail child independence because they are cautious while taking care of the children through the life stages.

Since the issue was debatable, it is possible to claim that because the rate of crime is on the rise in the communities, the parents question the character and the priority that their children adopt. This makes the parents to limit the freedom of their children. Notably, there was a dominant thought that it is not good for the parents to guarantee total freedom to their children, and the practice is prevalent in china.

The facts collected from the participants led to a strong belief that the independence of a child could make him develop actions such as stealing, robberies among other vices that culminate into many deaths of youth in societies. In this regard, the Chinese parents do not guarantee their children a lot of freedom compared to those of Australia.

Methodology

In this research, since it focuses on theoretical aspects of a child’s development, the researcher plans to use qualitative technique of gathering the information. Here, the researcher would distribute questionnaire to 20 participants of children whose background are from Australia and a similar number from China.

Since the participants would be chosen from respective countries, they are likely to have more and accurate information about their relationship with the parents and guardian (Goh, 2011). In addition, they can express the level of freedom that they enjoy from the parents and, or guardians. The questionnaire will contain a minimum of ten questions, both closed and open ended questions.

The participants would be expected to answer all the questions and hand the duly filled questionnaire to the researcher. After this, the researcher would then compile and analyze the findings in order to make concrete and dependable conclusions. The open ended questions would enable the participants give details of their responses and the choices, which they make, in terms of the benefits and drawbacks of their decision (Stenhouse, 2006).

Conclusion

In sum, the initial investigation indicated that the Australian children are more independence that the Chinese. This is due to the level of liberalization in Australia than in China. If the community is not able to meet the prevention measures to the future problem to their children that can be very drastic and may lead to dangerous occurrence during their growth, the parents better reduce the children’s independence at early ages and inculcate virtues in them.

Failure to accomplish the mission, leaves the parents and the community with no alternative but just continues suffering from the consequences of the children’s misconduct from generation to generation.

References

Aldort, N. (2006). Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves. New York: Book Publishers Network.

Brown, S. (1998). Understanding Youth and Independence. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Carey, T. (2011). How to Protect Your Daughter from Growing Up Too Soon? New York, NY: Lion Hudson Plc.

Collings, S. (2012). Parenting with Soul. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Correll, E. (1996). Teen Independence Crisis: Societal Consensus Required. Lahore: Vantage Printers.

Goh, E. (2011). China’s One-Child Policy and Multiple Care Giving. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lab, S. (2010). Independence Prevention, Seventh Edition: Approaches, Practices and Evaluation, (7^th Ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishers.

Leung, C. (2012). Modeling of Parenting Style: Hong Kong Chinese & Anglo- Australian Perspectives. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Needlman, (2002). Dr Spock’s Baby Basics: Take-Charge Parenting Guides. Sydney: Simon & Schuster Australia

Neifert, M. (2008). Dr. Mom’s Parenting Guide: Commonsense Guidance for the Life of Your Child. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Sanders, M. (2004). Every Parent: A Guide to Constructive Parenting. Sydney: Viking Australia.

Stenhouse, G. (2006). Practical Parenting: Successful Strategies for Solving Your Child’s Behaviour Problems. Sydney: OUP Australia.

Yue, G., Farrow, C. & Cann, H. (2008). Little Leap Forward: A Boy in Beijing. Cambridge: Barefoot Books.

Yun, S. (2012). Fusion Parenting: Blending the Best of American & Chinese Cultures. New York, NY: Greenleaf Book Group.

Appendices

Interview Questions

1. Are Australian Children more independent than the Chinese?
2. What reasons do the parents have for limiting the children’s independence?
3. What reasons do the parents have for allowing the children’s independence?
4. What are the consequences of child independence?
5. How can the impacts of child in be addressed?
6. Could child’s freedom leads to hostility or increase his/her morality?
7. How do Australian Children react to their parent’s restrictions?
8. How do Chinese Children react to their parent’s restrictions?
9. Does parent’s leniency translates to allowing child independence?
10. What is the relationship between child’s independence and social background?