Amy Chua at Time magazine’s “World's 100 Most Influential People” gala, April 26, 2011, in New York City
DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images

With her first book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, in which she sang the praises of strict parenting and Chinese mothers in particular, Yale law professor Amy Chua evoked some bruising criticism. Some, like the Broad Side’s Joanne Bamberger, wrote that Chua’s parenting prescriptions “bordered on child abuse,” while others simply accused her of being a lousy mom.

But the criticism she has managed to provoke for her latest book may be even worse.

Advertisement

So far she has been accused of being a racist, or at least promoting a racist ideology, and the book hasn’t even hit shelves yet. Cafe Mom’s “The Stir” went with the headline, “‘Tiger Mom’ Is Back With Her Most Racist Views Yet.” And sources who’ve read her latest offering, The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America, say that Chua argues that eight cultural groups are poised for global superiority and success.

African Americans are not one of those designated groups.

But there are black people included on Chua’s eclectic list: Nigerians. According to Chua and her co-author—and husband—Jed Rubenfeld, Nigerians, along with Mormons, Jews, the Chinese, Indians and those of Cuban, Lebanese and Iranian descent, are poised to perform and compete at superior levels in America. The book’s title refers to the characteristics the authors believe people in these groups possess that give them communitywide advantages over others. Those three traits are a superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control.

Advertisement

At first glance, it’s easy to assume that Chua and her husband are making a case for genetic superiority. But their argument is more nuanced than that. They say that because these groups perceive themselves as superior, it allows them to perform at a higher level. I see this argument as no different from when coaches tell athletes to “think like a winner.” After all, thinking like a loser is certainly not a winning strategy.

From the coverage of Chua’s latest tome, it’s clear that she’s struck a nerve—a big one. But I’m not entirely sure why. If the book were titled, “The Triple Package: Three Ways Certain Groups Are Genetically Superior,” then I would be joining in the literary lynch mob going after her right now.

But the book’s premise is rooted not in inherited and unchangeable traits such as race (as that horrifying book The Bell Curve once did) but in cultural traits that can theoretically be taught. So what’s the problem?

After all, the third trait is “impulse control.” The need for greater impulse control is certainly not a race-specific characteristic, but it does manifest in different communities differently. For instance, many of the health woes in the African-American community, such as diabetes, are tied to our diet and the rich cultural history that comes with our food.

But as much as we may try to dismiss the harm that is being done to our bodies by using language that downplays the brutal truth (maybe by telling ourselves “a little cobbler never hurt anybody”), the reality is that consistently making unhealthy food choices constitutes poor impulse control. This gives communities that collectively make wiser food choices an advantage over our community. So why shouldn’t an author be allowed to write about that?

I think what really rankles a lot of Chua’s critics is the fear that—at least some of the time—she may actually be right. Her premise that certain groups may succeed more than others because of communitywide choices—something that cannot be addressed through better government, public policy or social programs—simply scares some people. And it makes some of those it doesn’t scare very uncomfortable.

Advertisement

Now, this doesn’t mean that I don’t believe Chua and Rubenfeld can be criticized. There is something extremely condescending about two people of privilege writing a book about how they “earned” their privilege, in part, by being privileged enough to grow up in the right kinds of communities, with, presumably, the right kinds of people.

There is, as I see it, a fundamental flaw in Chua’s argument. It seems that she and her husband define success in very limited ways. For instance, of the eight “superior” groups mentioned in the book, how many have produced U.S. presidents? Senators? How many of them have produced artists and musicians who have forever changed the face of American culture?

This isn’t to say that no one in these groups has done so, but rock and roll and hip-hop—billion-dollar industries—were not primarily the brainchildren of the groups she touts. And from my vantage point, cultural and political power are also pretty key to group “superiority.” But what do I know?

Maybe—per Chua—I don’t possess the right traits to weigh in.

Keli Goff is The Root’s special correspondent. Follow her on Twitter.

Keli Goff is The Root’s special correspondent. Follow her on Twitter