A Response to Alfie Kohn's Article, "Atrocious Advice from 'Supernanny'"

Alfie Kohn's criticism of ABC's Supernanny-- and Nanny 911 to a lesser degree-- has little credibility: he is simply looking at the show from a camera's eye, applying limited-use (read: almost useless) academic theory to the flesh-and-blood world of disciplining children. Unfortunately, Kohn doesn't seem to grasp that the real world doesn't always operate within the bounds of theory.

I've been interested in shows like Supernanny, Nanny 911, and other child-rearing shows on television. Part of my interest, I think, stems from the fact that I am an educator. While I can't yet put a 'Dr.' in front of my name, I do have experiences in education and in higher education that allow me to recognize some major flaws in Kohn's article. I find it to be an amusing coincidence that this article is from a book entitled What does it mean to be well educated. Indeed, I've seen these same shortcomings so many times in higher ed: academics and philosophers just love to jump into the sandbox and play with their theories, but they never go so far as to stick their neck out and apply their ideas to reality. Rarely will you find a shred of practical advice in an article that that uses the term "pop-behaviorism" when describing Supernanny. (Academics just love their ego stroking buzz-words, don't they?)

Yes, it is clear that Kohn himself is aware of the complete lack of practicality contained in his admonitions of Supernanny. He recognizes and, apparently, attempts to compensate for his lack of corrective advice. Throughout the article, I found myself wondering, "alright Mr. Kohn, what would you do better than Supernanny Jo Frost?". This question-- which was never answered-- obviously nagged at Dr. Kohn as well. This is evidenced by a subtle bit of lexical guilt that leaks out in his self-conscious attempt at offering advice (advice I find to be laughably simplistic in the context of dealing with the behaviors of actual children). "Rely instead on warmth and reason." Indeed, these words are his theoretical pontifications distilled into one guilt induced generality. I've never heard the word warmth sound so cold and scholarly, by the way.

I think we can agree that, of course every good parent wants to share warmth and love with their child! And I think most parents would love to be able to reason with their child as well. What Kohn seems to miss is that disciplining children is rarely fun, and it's never pretty: they are children after all. Now, I'm not necessarily defending Supernanny, Nanny 911, or othersuch parenting shows on television. I have my specific beefs with Supernanny too. I would like to see nanny Jo Frost follow up behavioral problems with more logical consequences, children being given less external reinforcement through material rewards such as marble jars, and I'd also like to be shown more follow-up with the families to see if the parents followed through with their new routine. Kohn, however, resorts again to generalities. He says (vaguely) that he's found evidence and research indicating these techniques to be downright "damaging". What research? Which evidence? Why hasn't Kohn included this out-of-the-park evidence in his article? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but a credible writer rarely leaves their good bat in the dugout when they mosey out onto the field to take a swing. Unless, of course, they are being deceptive, inflammatory, or lazy.

Ultimately, what bothers me about this article is that Kohn does nothing but scrutinize Supernanny and Nanny 911 from the lifeguard's chair. It's so typical of what you see in academia these days: armchair philosophers with loudspeakers. Or, as Kohn would probably put it: progressive logicians with electroacoustic transducers. See? I can talk 'telligent too. (Another reason I find it so difficult to take academia seriously.) Kohn needs to reflect on and think more deeply about his own specious argument that rigid theory has limited application when dealing with children. There's a grain of highly ironical truth there that he hasn't quite grasped.