I heard Lareau on a podcast, talking about this book, and thought it sounded very interesting. It’s funny, because I have no interest in children — but education (and particularly the U.S. educational system) fascinates me; every time Steve’s mother is around, I pepper her with questions about her experiences as a teacher.
In Unequal Childhoods, Lareau studies the lives of middle class, working class, and poor children–and from this comes to the conclusion “that inequality permeates the fabric of the culture.” Which really comes as no surprise, but it’s fascinating to see how she goes about proving it, and to see the real-life examples of te twelve families she studies in depth.
Middle-class parents tend to adopt a cultural logic of child rearing that stresses the concerted cultivation of children. Working-class and poor parents, by contrast, tend to undertake the accomplishment of natural growth. In the accomplishment of natural growth, children experience long stretches of leisure time, child-initiated play, clear boundaries between adults and children, and daily interactions with kin. Working-class and poor children, despite tremendous economic strain, often have more “childlike” lives … Although middle-class children miss out on kin relationships and leisure time, they appear to … gain important and institutional advantages. From the experience of concerted cultivation, they acquire skills that could be valuable in the future when they enter the world of work.
Interestingly, educational institutions stress concerted cultivation, which means that working class and poor families are increasingly out of sync with conventional educational systems. As one example, middle class parents are usually quite involved in their children’s homework, while working class parents see it as a direct relationship between the child and the school. And as a result, many of these kids seem to fall between the cracks. But there are tradeoffs too: working class and poor children have much more free time to be kids(some of the middle class children have schedules so full, it exhausted me just to read about it); they are more respectful of others; and they are not being molded into walking college applications.
I was talking about the book over dinner with Steve and another couple a few weeks ago. Steve can be described as a reverse snob (in everything), feeling that everyone is responsible for his or her own future. He used himself as an example, having spent his early twenties dirt poor, and then finally deciding to go to college. I pointed out that he grew up with educated parents, a schoolteacher mother, he had books and intellectual stimulation at home, and his parents encouraged him in his interests. Michael countered that he’s a lawyer now and his parents don’t have a single book in their house. Geoff patted Michael’s knee fondly but said he was an exception that proved the rule.
The hors d’ouvres came and our conversation meandered over to nature vs. nurture.
But you know, this is what is fascinating to me: We, as a country, have this notion of egalitarianism. Anyone can do whatever they want. The sky is the limit. You can achieve whatever you want. Which is all true, assuming that there’s a baseline of intelligence and drive. But ultimately, I think our notion of egalitarianism has become skewed, because while everyone has the same opportunities, not everyone is equally equipped to take advantage of them. Enter Lareau’s argument.
And isn’t it ironic that the notion of egalitarianism ends up perpetuating the differences?
Highly recommend.
