Professional middle-class parents suggested that in addition to allowing them to know if a child was in some kind of danger, baby monitors were important devices because they allowed them to be deeply connected to their children, to know what was happening at every moment, and thus to be responsive in a very immediate and personal way. As was the case when elite parents talked more generally about their approach to parenting, they drew a contrast between their own level of engagement and the more casual attitude of previous generations. Their connection, they claim, not only provides them with immense satisfaction, but it helps to create a more secure bond between parent and child.
Marian English, a white mother of three teens, was explicit about her belief in the necessity of immediate responsiveness. She was also explicit about the
ways in which she believes this style of care deviates from that adopted by other members of her extended family:
I really didn’t believe in letting them just sit there and cry; as soon as they woke up I went to get them. Same thing if they were crying; I went to get them, always. My family would criticize me for that. … I wanted to be able to get [the babies]. I just don’t believe that babies cry for nothing— they needed a change or they were hungry or they needed to be held. I don’t think babies need to have a reason to be held. I think thev should be
J
held whenever they felt like it. I think the big advantage [of a monitor was for the child]—it’s not a quantifiable advantage. Part of the whole realm of invisible assumptions they have about life is if they cry someone will come, if they need help someone will help. … I don’t think it had a major effect one way or another [on my relationship to my children] except for that invisible part—the unquantifiable part—about knowing that someone will always respond.
Marian’s comments take seriously an infant’s cries and incorporate the belief that ready responsiveness—what she calls the “unquantifiable” benefit—is good for a child; children learn that whatever they define as a need or want will be met with a supportive response. Marian also happily believes that her children have learned that “someone” will always respond.
Professional middle-class parents thus position children as not only in need of surveillance for the sake of protection (there are safety issues, children are fragile, and parents are anxious) but also in need of what one parent called “totally immediate service.” Rather than assuming children should learn to soothe themselves or being concerned that children might become in any way “spoiled” by a parent’s too-hasty responsiveness, professional middle — class parents believe it is their obligation to be always available and at the ready to meet the needs of their infants as soon as those needs are expressed. They assume that this responsiveness leads to secure bonds. As they do so, they legitimate children’s needs. These assumptions and responses are compatible with (and may even provide the basis for) what we have seen to be the other components of parenting out of control: the respectful—even deferential—attitudes parents hold toward an infant’s needs and desires pave the way for the subsequent negotiation that takes place between parents and teens, a
negotiation that has as its premise the legitimacy of adolescents’ stated needs and desires. Thus, the closeness created by hearing every peep an infant makes might be carried into more sophisticated verbal communication in later years. The patterns set in infancy may have lasting effects. It may also be the case, however, that these early patterns emerge because they are compatible with the style of parenting anticipated during a child’s adolescence.9