Unequal childhoods.
concerted cultivation vs. natural growth
middle class parents throuch activities make concerted effort to develop their children's abilities lower ses do not cultivate allow socialization natural growth cultivation in middle class breeds entitlement,
lower class may feel isolated professionals have known set of cultural repetoires passed to middle class but not lower, middle class children trained in rules of game
working class children and lower class grow up in social systems, they are shaped by them but mostly not in control of them working class neighborhood is
lower richmond, decent school, mid level access to stores but school while pretty safe is short on supplies teachers about half students in school reading below grade level, black students face discrimination (or it is a concern)
Swan school, upper ses, safe, no fences, very near stores/other resources, highly regarded parents have exaggerated sense of child accomplishments teachers across schools support cultivating efforts by parents teachers encourage activities and reading through reasoning not directives want involved but deferential parents
both institutions have same demands, different supply of resources
scheduling middle class families adult leisure spent at children activities
working class more leisure but more economic strain but gender of child and race also mattered for middle class, more activities led to more hostility within family and weaker family ties but they had more white collar skills like how to be on a team and meet strangers
parents have invisible work of balancing hectic schedule
mothers have more burden of child care and sacrafices
older sibling activities dictate actions of younger sibs
only in middle class families does sibling hatred seem common
activities are expensive but not mentioned in front of children, not mentioning money conveys entitlement
for working class kids scheduled activities were an interruption
for working class kids activities not as age specic organized activities in working class families occur as a result of a child's request
working and lower class kids showed greater independence and creativity
in middle class households, child's requests are treated seriously
in working class homes, child requests are often ignored, or treated as role of children
ongoing interactions between structure and context
language
middle class families use words in daily life, take pleasure and negotiate life through them versus poor/middle class families where directives and functionality of language is emphasized when parents issue directives in middle class families, they are accompanied by explantion
interrupting person of authority characterizes middle class children
children in middle class families expect institutions to be tailored to them, this is partly due to parental investment
middle class parents have more informal access to institutions
concludes black middle class families have to do more work to avoid exclusion based on race
cites middle class failure when parents don't engage with institutions
while middle class parents engage, working class parents defer
aspects of family intersected by social class better understanding
working class natural growth too requries effort to allow children time in unstructured activities
suggested that for both classes of families these methods of child-rearing were natural
how did concerted cultivation arise? once philosophy of natural growth mcdonaldization, rationalization of society and childrearing problem of intervention is social segregation
followup and reaction
most miiddle class did well and found value to their activities
Lareau does intensive observations and interviews on focal children aged 9 to 10 growing up in families that she identies as middle class, working class, and poor. Laraeu argues that middle class households follow practices of concerted cultivation where the parents are actively involved in shaping their child whereas working and lower class house- 72 holds follow practices of natural growth where parental interference is limited and less rigidly structured.1 Laraeu cites dierences in household behaviors, language use, and interactions with institutions in highlighting these dierences. When Laraeu follows-up with these families 10 years later, the middle class children have obtained a greater level of education and social standing compared to those of working or poor origins. An important argument (I thought) came out of this book is NOT that practices of concerted cultivation are better for children, but rather that the middle class children are raised in a manner aligned with the dominant cultural paradigm. Parents of middle class children recognize the dominant standards, have practices largely aligned with them, can use their resources to adjust institutions to suit their children, and raise children who believe they are entitled to such institutions. In contrast, children born to working and middle class parents are often alienated or raised to be hostile to the dominant institutions and parents defer to them. Some of this argument drew on theoretical work by Bourdieu in suggesting that individuals have a particular social position which is associated with particular strategies and opportunities for social advancement. An alternative model for explaining why inequality dierentials exist is presented by both Raftery and Hout and Goldthorpe and Hope. I'd argue that both models are based on the rational choice decision making paradigm. Raftery and Hout are fairly loose in their formulation of this paradigm (whereas Goldthorpe and Hope are more formal). Raftery and Hout suggests that dierences in educational attainment might be explained by dierences in the cost benet structure. Goldthorpe and Hope specify these dierences as having three dimensions which they parameterize: 1. dierences in perceived costs/benets 2. dierences in perceived abilities 3. dierences in resources. While Laureau seems to focus on dierences in culture, she does also note that dierences in the perception of costs/benets, abilities, and resources do play a role in shaping the dierent lives of middle class children vs. working/lower class. Here she also seems to cite less knowledge and certainty about education in shaping the decisions of the working class and poor. For example, one of the working class kids, Tyrec, joins a football program and while his mother encourages this, she does not perceive football having an important benet whereas middle class 1I had a certain sense of unease in reading this ethnography, and I'm not sure where else to describe my criticism/issue with Lareau's characterization of dierenting parenting styles. An issue that I had was that Laraeau was not very clear on how she denes the classes which she calls categorically dierent. Her appendix A did not suciently satisfy my question of how these denitions came to be. What I was thinking about specically is that the middle class families were those that adhered to dominant paradigms of what the family should be (married individuals, nuclear household, home ownership, suburbs I am thinking like in the sociology of family lit) while the working and lower class were often in violation of these dominant social expectations. My question then is, well if families adhere to or violate dominant social norms, how would one expect the childrearing behaviors to not fracture along these same lines. Does she mean for class to like this, or is class a question of income and education which correlate but are not perfectly associated with dominant norms? Moreover if Lareau means for class to be the latter denition, why didn't she include any families which had sucient levels of income and education but did not conform to dominant social standards (like for example a divorced single parent working in a white collar job)? 73 parents
encourage these activities and see them as important for cultivating characteristics in their children. In other words, the cultural and rational choice explanations for why there are class dierences in educational attainment may not be mutually exclusive. |