[littletimmy]

As a non-American, this was one of the biggest culture shocks I faced. On the surface, relationships in the US seem very transactional (not making the judgment that they are really transactional). For example, in the US a son would thank his parents for paying his college tuition. In my culture, this would be insulting because it would suggest being distant from family, in the sense that the son ought to believe his parents wealth is his also, and later willingly contribute his earnings when his parents need anything. It is a difference in the degree to which individualism is the norm.

Reminds of the book "Debt" by David Graeber. He talks about how many cultures have systems where everyone is indebted to their family and community, and this debt is never to be settled. To want to settle a debt (or to even calculate it) would indicate that a relationship has ended. So it is a huge culture shock to see the degree to which calculation plays a part in US relationships (like Sheryl Sandberg precisely splitting domestic chores with her husband 50:50).

I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties, but that might just be because that's the system I'm familiar with.

[marktangotango]

>> In my culture, this would be insulting because it would suggest being distant from family, in the sense that the son ought to believe his parents wealth is his also, and later willingly contribute his earnings when his parents need anything. It is a difference in the degree to which individualism is the norm.

This is very interesting, and brings to mind something I've been struggling with recently (I'm USA-ian by the way). As a father I want to instill in my children a sense of self reliance, a sense that they can go into the world and make their own way, and be successful, without my help. In my world view, that is the best gift I can give them.

I personally come from a background of rural poverty, my parents weren't able to help me at all financially, but growing up working shoulder to shoulder with my father on the (meager) family farm taught me the value of hard work and thrift. Which I think have served me well (I am clearly biased).

So, from that angle, I don't want my children to see my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success. I would like them to view my success as the result of hard work and perseverance, and an example of what they can achieve, indeed, they can achieve more.

I post this merely as an example of my thought process, which is evolving. I can see how there is value in what you relate here. So thanks to you in a non-distancing sense :)

[littletimmy]

Hah, you're welcome. This is really interesting because it raises the question: what role does affluence have to play in all of this?

In the case of my country, people usually aren't rich enough to save for retirement, nor are starting salaries high enough for young adults to stake out on their own. So parents help their kids right up to the point they can no longer work, and then kids take over to provide for the family.

In case of you being affluent (as in with a completely well-funded retirement), I can totally see why you'd want your kids to not see your wealth as theirs. It might ruin their incentives to be productive citizens.

So, does affluence naturally lead to a weakening of strong family ties? Dunno.

[bpyne]

I think we need to have a better idea what's meant by "family ties". I'm from the US. My teammate on a project is a woman from India. (We're both working in the US.) She doesn't have children, but I have a 9yo daughter. We talk about differences in how my wife and I raise our daughter versus how she was raised. My wife and I follow the trend in the US of being very involved in our daughter's life. We walk her to school, volunteer for her softball and basketball leagues, and play key roles in the PTA. I stepped back my software engineering career so that I can pick her up a few days a week from school and either hang out, setup a play date, or bring her to an activity. (As an aside, because I'm part-time employed now, I assumed more of the household tasks. There seems to be a trend in this direction in the US for men.)

In my teammate's experience, parents in India tend to be more hands off and let their kids develop independence earlier. Parents focus more on career. Grandparents are more involved with caring for the children while parents work. Despite the more hands off approach, my teammate misses her parents greatly and was very sad and worried when her father was ill recently.

The parenting approaches are different, but the ephemeral "family tie" seems to be present in both situations.

[Manishearth]

Actually, my experience (Indian-American, brought up in the States but currently studying in India), is sort of the opposite.

Americans inculcate a _lot_ more independence than Indians do.

For example, in the US:

- Kids often get jobs and earn their own pocket money at 13+. It's the norm in most places after 16.

- Kids fund their own education

- After 18, there's an expectation in many families that the child will leave and become independent (or at least start paying rent)

- Kids generally make their own life decisions

- This reverses in old age; "old people's homes" are common in the US. After retirement, parents stay separate, and if they're unable to take care of themselves will often move into one of these. Nuclear families are common

In India:

- Middle class kids will not earn until 18, mostly not until after college. When they do earn it's something you can brag about. Definitely not the norm.

- Education is funded by parents. I earned a lot of money last year (I'm a college student). When my friends asked me what I intended to do with it, I got quizzical looks when I said that I was repaying my education. (Higher ed isn't particularly expensive here, but it's not cheap either, and I sort of wanted to start being more independent)

- It is perfectly fine to stay home till ... forever.

- Life decisions are made by the family, sometimes. Marriage is an example of this (though arguably there's a lot of legacy cultural reasons behind that). But career choices are too. A ton of the folks in my college are there because their family wanted them to study engineering.

- Kids take care of their parents as they get older. Extended families are common.

YMMV, of course, but this is commonly how things go from talking with my peers in both countries. Perhaps what you're noticing is a difference in generations, not in countries. Parents are universally more involved in the minutae of their children's lives than they used to be in the past.

[harryh]

Articles like this make me think the Indian way is better:

http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/children-today-are-suffering...

I'm about to have a kid (wife is 8 months pregnant) so I've been thinking about this some. Unfortunately though, a lot of this is culture and individual parents can't necessarily do a lot. It doesn't matter if I'd rather my kid play in a pick-up game instead of an organized league if all the other kids in the neighborhood are only in leagues.

[bpyne]

Just some advice, don't worry about organized league vs. street play so much. I played organized hockey year-round (up to 3 teams at a time) and still had plenty of time for unorganized play with neighborhood kids. I grew up in an urban, relatively population-dense neighborhood. Within 2 blocks, there were at least 30 kids within 3 years of my age. Your child's chance to do unorganized activity depends mostly on the number of kids close to his/her age within shouting distance.

The biggest drain on your child's free time is going to be school. Our culture is scared right now about falling behind the rest of the developed world in cognitive skills necessary for the future job market. The knee-jerk reaction is to work harder. The result is that more homework gets assigned, more testing takes place, and some groups are calling for longer school days and less vacation time.

You're a parent now. Educate yourself on child development and Education reform. Then get yourself involved politically so you can be your child's advocate.

[amalag]

That is an interesting article but I don't think they do it any better in India. In India there is even more emphasis on memorizing things. In India academics are probably over emphasized.

[harryh]

shrug

I really have no idea. Was just responding to the parent comment which said: "In my teammate's experience, parents in India tend to be more hands off and let their kids develop independence earlier."

[jldugger]

> So, does affluence naturally lead to a weakening of strong family ties?

IMO, what you call strong family ties, others might call patriarchy. When women have improved ability to support themselves, they're more inclined to leave abusive relationships. And like Sandberg, they're less willing to accept menial household roles traditionally assigned to them. There's a podcast from Planet Money about how this plays out among textile workers, if I recall correctly.

[dragonwriter]

> IMO, what you call strong family ties, others might call patriarchy.

They are often correlated and found in similar cultural sources, but they are distinct elements. The US idealization of the nuclear rather than extended family and corresponding weaker family ties didn't (and still often doesn't) come with the breaking of patriarchy -- in fact, it is rooted in a time when patriarchy was quite strong -- though you sometimes (especially now) find non-patriarchal arrangements along with it.

Strong family ties and non-transactional view of family interactions doesn't have any essential tie to patriarchy, nor do weak family ties and a transaction approach to interactions have any essential tie to the absence of patriarchy.

[ska]

These views both have value, and both can be overplayed.

Hopefully you can also instill in your children an understanding that there is always some luck involved also, and help them avoid that pernicious failure to understand that because someone is not successful does not mean you can conclude they just have not worked hard enough.

[gumby]

> This is very interesting, and brings to mind something I've been struggling with recently (I'm USA-ian by the way). As a father I want to instill in my children a sense of self reliance, a sense that they can go into the world and make their own way, and be successful, without my help. In my world view, that is the best gift I can give them.

Me too. I have spent more than 1/2 my life in the US, though I have one Indian parent and one parent from a culture where families have, for lack of a better term, "collective success" (as you put it well, "my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success.")

But I moved out at 16 and feel that my life now, decades later, is the life _I_ made. And my son is perfectly happy knowing that he won't inherit a penny (I find even the concept of "estate planning" grotesque and anti-republican).

None of this should imply I am any sort of Randian libertarian. I was incredibly lucky to be born in a wealthy country not at war, to have been able to go through a excellent school systems, and to have had a stable family and to have spent most of my working life in western democracies. It certainly has bred an orientation to be of benefit to society and to support my own child to be self reliant and also to be, I hope, a net contributor to society as well.

But the atavistic desire to emphasize obligations within a family is to me a sign of a weakness in a society.

[fallinghawks]

> I don't want my children to see my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success

I think that's a good view. I had Chinese immigrant parents who did pretty well financially. They used money as a means of control: they gave me an extremely meager allowance but said if I ever wanted something, I should just ask. Meaning I could have it only if they also approved of it. This resulted in me getting jobs as soon as possible.

[notNow]

So, from that angle, I don't want my children to see my wealth as their wealth, or my success as their success. I would like them to view my success as the result of hard work and perseverance, and an example of what they can achieve, indeed, they can achieve more.

I advise to look out for the opposite perspective or angle to this that it might be viewed as a form of abuse, unnecessary harshness or worse meagerness.

Teaching your kids survival skills esp. males and how to be strong in life is very crucial and "tough love" can sometimes yield good results but you don't wanna to break the bond or the good relationship you have between you and your kids in the process.

It is all about their wellbeing and fostering and nurturing this relationship after all, isn't it or am I mistaken?

[noxToken]

I think there is a fine line between the two. When you look at upper-class society, you realize that giving your child everything can cause them to become spoiled without any perspective of the value of a dollar. If the money should dry up, they'll likely hit the ground hard. On the other end of the spectrum, you start to tip-toe into the, "I had to work 12 hour days. Why can't you do it?" territory.

The balance comes when showing them that food doesn't magically appear on the table while still acknowledging that life can still kick you in the rear in spite of you doing everything right. It's telling them that it's time for them to make their own way, but it's also putting out the crash mat when they're free falling.

[Tactic]

I think there is a clear balance that can be struck with saying "This is what I have created and I share it with you out of love" and "What I created is yours by virtue of being my child". I think the results he seeks can be achieved without wandering into "tough love" realms. In fact, I assume he means it more in that sense.

My children have thanked me for giving them that strength and individualism. For allowing them to not having it all handed to them. I practiced similar to the parent and my relationship with my children is rock solid.

[klodolph]

You may be reading a lot of value into this distinction. To me, as an American, equality in a peer relationship is important but bookkeeping and debt is destructive. The 50:50 split is just an ongoing division of labor, it is explicitly NOT debt because it never accumulates. Any "thank you" is an acknowledgment of gratitude or merely a polite exit to a conversation one doesn't want to continue. The debt that children have to their parents is to be paid to the next generation.

It's another one of those cultural quirks that seems more telling than it actually is. For example, because Russians don't smile to strangers, they're cold and unfriendly. Or because Americans do smile to strangers, we're untrustworthy and insincere.

The reason we think it's so big is because we're translating the literal contents (smile, "thank you") but ending up with a completely different meaning or set of pragmatics. and then we miss the ability to use set phrases in our native language. Just like you can say "pleased to meet you" in Enhlish, but you can't say "よろしくお願いします".

Edit: to clarify, cultures are different and language reflects that, but I think a lot of set phrases reflect history more than they reflect living culture.

[billjings]

Upthread someone mentions Graeber's _Debt_ book. You might find it interesting. It has a whole discussion on exactly these set of phrases. They were not always with us, and it's interesting to see when and why they came into common usage. In a large part it was out of the need to have economic transactions with strangers, and the need to not be tied up so tightly with our families.

[ManFromUranus]

What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism? Need to hire somebody for a job? family first (you owe them remember?), tender a contract (family first) the list goes on. You are a public servant, someone comes to your office to get you to do the job that you were hired to do, but they're not your family, you don't owe them anything... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India

Yeah that system is better because it fosters closer family ties.

[Lawtonfogle]

And the opposite does not? It makes calling in the debt owed much more discrete, which means the corruption is more conscious, but the transactional nature would foster corruption among those who are of higher power instead of those who are family.

In the culture grandparent comment describe, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their being close to my family.

In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism.

If anything, our system is worse because favoritism among the powerful is a worse problem that favoritism among families and friends.

[ManFromUranus]

>In a culture without that, if someone comes into my office, any favoritism will be based on their ability to offer me favoritism

So your first point is: one hand washes the other. I will show favoritism to people who can be of some benefit to me. Sounds like merit based favoritism. So for example could I show favoritism to a guy that works really hard? Is that corruption? Or I show favoritism to a guy who can invest in my company because his family has money? Is that corruption? (probably more so than the first example but I'm not sure).

The second point favoritism among the powerful is worse than the familial sort, because of your first point.

If anything it seems that the opposite is true because according to your logic the favoritism here is more merit based.

[Lawtonfogle]

Power isn't based on merit and even if it were, the damage from corruption is not dependant upon how deserved/merit based the corruption is.

[sumedh]

What if that system also fosters corruption and nepotism?

It actually does. Just look at the well known public companies in India (Reliance, Infosys, Wipro and many others). You will always see the son or some other relative of the chairman/CEO directly gets hired as a VP or a director.

[novaleaf]

a bit too snarky of a comment, but interesting tie in to corruption! I didn't think about that, but it does seem plausible.

[geon]

> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties

There is just no coorelation. The american "thank you" is simply not translatable to idiomatic hindi.

An american is not diluting the importance of gratitude by saying thanks to the bus driver.

Just as an indian is not an ungrateful bastard for not saying thanks to his parents.

[gutnor]

You missed the bit:

> That day, I made the mistake of telling him, in English, “Thank you for inviting me” before leaving his house, realizing the import of my words only after they had left my mouth. He didn’t respond, but I saw his expression turn sour. He was filled with disgust. I couldn’t even apologize for thanking him. The damage was done.

So of course, implicit debt and duty is great because of the closer ties. On the other hand, you run into the risk of hurting people and breaking those ties quite easily by simply talking about it.

That's not a scenario that would happen by mistake in ordinary condition, only when foreign influence is put into the mix. In a multi-cultural context, the American way seems a bit more robust to mistake.

[rayiner]

My wife is American and I'm Bangladeshi, and we definitely see the differences you're talking about in our relationships with our families. Especially because we have crazy work/commute schedules and also a toddler, so we end up leaning heavily on our mothers for childcare.

I don't think I agree with your conclusion about "closer family ties." My mother in law is definitely very transactional, while my mother isn't, but my mother will also build up resentment when we exceed her unstated boundaries that will manifest into a fight months later.

Obviously a lot of that is just the particular personalities involved, but I would not be surprised if there was a general tendency for Americans to negotiate more up-front to avoid conflict later.

I think the cultural difference comes particularly to a head in the Sheryl Sandberg example. Let's face it--the typical Indian/Bangladeshi solution to negotiating chores 50:50 with your spouse is for the woman to do much more of the domestic work and sacrifice her career for her husband's. That's common everywhere, of course, but I think it's a particularly difficult problem to solve if you look down on calculating inter-spousal debt.

[ta119a08]

> I have a feeling that the non-American system is better because it fosters closer family ties, but that might just be because that's the system I'm familiar with.

Fostering closer family ties has good sides and bad sides.

Individuals from a toxic family background benefit from being able to keep their family at arm's length or farther, which isn't as acceptable in cultures that so strongly and universally emphasize family loyalty. Not all parents are good parents!

[bane]

I think this is an interesting idea. Cultures are often categorized as "individualistic" or "shame-based"...but I wonder if "debt-based" might be a good descriptor for many cultures.

There's definitely a range of individualism in the U.S. as well, some people take it to a kind of local maximum, some people just try to find workable balances. When my wife first immigrated here from South Korea, she struggled to characterize "America" in simple, digestible differences so that she could work within the society. No a couple decades later, she's developed a more nuanced view, and understands that it's very hard to say "Americans do x" without going into a higher level of abstraction like "some Americans do x" when explaining something to her friends.

[Dowwie]

Better? That depends on what socioeconomic sphere you're in. This kind of familial dependency protects entrenched interests. If you don't care about upward mobility and social progress, it may suit you.

It has produced some interesting outcomes over history:

Historically, the fate of family members in Russia was deeply intertwined. With this government-sponsored arrangement, family members of "revolutionaries" would be punished. This was an effective device of the tsars for a long time. Eventually, though, they enforced familial punishment with the wrong family and created a formidable adversary -- V.I. Lenin. Creating Lenin The Revolutionary in a deeply disgruntled society was the tipping point.

[panglott]

On some level there's a tradeoff between individual autonomy and social interdependence, and different cultures fall at different places on the continuum between them.

Clearly the U.S. is at one extreme. But I don't know that one is "better": there are different benefits and costs. In the U.S. people have huge amounts of personal freedom and autonomy, but are more likely to live thousands of miles away from their friends and family, and struggle with loneliness. But there are different costs when you erode individual autonomy.

[SilasX]

That was implicit model I used growing up, until learned people use "thank you" differently. I was reluctant to thank anyone for doing what I thought was already their obligation -- it didn't make sense. And likewise, I would be confused at receiving thanks for what I thought was my job.

(Naturally, in either case, it would make sense if the thanked did something that went above-and-beyond.)

[tootie]

My in-laws are from a culture that is one of the heaviest in terms of familial obligation. Parental or elder sibling authority is strictly observed. Once they relocated to the US, it only took a few years for them to realize they could tell their ornery older relatives to fuck off and not become social pariahs. They love America and want their kids to totally free of dependence on them.

[dharmach]

Some languages are more explicit and formal compared to others for historical reasons. That's why so many things get lost in translation.

[seraph787]

Better for what? If you mean family sure. If you mean for shared burden probably not.