I feel like the title of this post reeks of teen angst, but a) I am not a teen and b) I don’t think I’m particularly angst-ridden.  Yet this is more a point of curiosity for me, than a rally against it.

Parents, like people, are unique entities.  Each has their own views, their own experiences as a child being raised by their parents, and–therefore–their own parenting styles.  Each one claims their method works, at least from the outset.  Others aren’t so sure.

There are four parenting styles outlined by Diana Baumrind–namely authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful–but I think there are three different parenting styles.  Some go with an all-controlling approach.  They mark their child’s every move, place stringent regulations on their day-to-day activities, they don’t let them act without their permission.  It is a virtual Shawshank.  Others give leave their child to the elements, placing no real restrictions on them.  Others still fall along a continuum, mixing stringency with freedom.  The first group feels that children are, themselves, likely to fall into bad ways unless they are given strict rules by which they lead their lives.  The second, feels that too much restriction can lead to rebellion, and therefore let their children exercise a substantial amount of free will.  The third feels a bit of a mix is necessary.  So who’s right?

Really it depends on the children themselves.  Like parents and people, children are all unique in their approach to situations.  Some benefit from having a strong scaffold, others like to design their own, and others still like to design but with a little help.  This is the one fact that seems to escape all three groups of parents: that their children are not all cut from the same mold.  This is at least my take on it.

Is parental control necessary or does it impede development?