Unequal childhoods: In case being a kid isn't hard enough

 In "Unequal Childhoods", Annette Lareau tried, like many other authors, to capture the texture of inequality in America. Unlike many of the other books and movies I've covered over the course of my semester, Lareu's findings are not racially driven. Instead, she describes how child-rearing techniques in upper-middle-class homes differ from those in working-class and poor homes, and what this means for the prospects of the kids inside each type of home life. To her, class is more important than race, even though the white race tended to be more privileged to be in the middle class. Lareau dispels the theories that society is fundamentally open (ex. the American dream) or that disparities exist in America but can have different "degrees of difference". She states that class always matters. Period.


For me, her book's most meaningful point point is you can't claim that good parents raise successful kids and bad parents raise unsuccessful ones. For children, reality is much more complicated than that cut-and-dried philosophy.


Looking at upper-middle-class homes, Lareau describes a parenting style that many of the student's in my college honors class claimed to be brought up it. This style is called concerted cultivation. It involves enrolling kids in vast numbers of adult-supervised activities and driving them from place to place. Parents are deeply involved in all aspects of their children's lives, from social activies to sports and classwork assignments. They make "concerted efforts" to provide learning experiences in every situation that arises, and rarely leave children to their own devices. Now, this method of "helicopter parenting" works great for me with my puppy, who has a bladder the size of a thimble and takes on rubber-protected furniture as a personal chewing challenge, but I personally don't know if this same method is the best for raising children. Kids are much better at finding productive ways to amuse themselves than bored puppies, and I think they  should be allowed the chance to prove it. 

If you couldn't tell, concerted cultivation is not the type of background I was brought up in. It is also certainly not the lifestyle I encounter when I'm helping or tutoring minority children. But, that isn't to say studies don't prove it is successful. Check out this link from The Sydney Morning Herald, which says research proves that busy children are shown to do better "in life".
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/09/28/kids_wideweb__470x310,2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.smh.com.au/news/life--style-home/busy-children-shown-to-do-better/2008/09/28/1222540247454.html&usg=__m60BI1AG2dowe2EMWf3GCCvlak4=&h=310&w=470&sz=63&hl=en&start=2&sig2=MJQyT_vjE40ia9lCLKvR1Q&zoom=1&tbnid=n2ZBCW5zsgwDEM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=129&ei=7pN3T7v-JIGNgwfx2MGJDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbusy%2Bchildren%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26authuser%3D0%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1



Concerted cultivation, or the lifestyle of the well-off, is without-a-doubt the better of the two methods in preparing children for the work force. I agree with Lareau's statement that:


This kind of training developed middle-class children a sense of entitlement. They felt they had a right to weigh in with an opinion, to make special requests, to pass judgment on others, and to offer advice to adults. They expected to receive attention and to be taken very seriously. It is important to recognize that these advantages and entitlements are historically specific…. They are highly effective strategies in the United States today precisely because our society places a premium on assertive, individualised actions executed by persons who command skills in reasoning and negotiation.


Doesn't that sound like a manager or top-salary wage earner to you?


Working-class child-rearing is different, Lareau writes. These children, often minorities, were not as well prepared for the world of organizations and adulthood. They used the "natural growth" method and there was much less talk in the working-class homes. Parents were more likely to issue brusque orders without not give explanations or welcoming discussion. 


Lareau argued that these children, like their parents, were easily intimidated by and pushed around by verbally dexterous teachers and doctors. Middle-class kids felt entitled to individual treatment when entering the wider world, but working-class kids felt constrained and tongue-tied. This prepared middle-class children for upper management positions better than all of the tutoring or academic formal education in the world could. Lower-class children missed that informal education opportunity. 


But I was raised largely using the natural growth method! Surely it can't be all bad! It isn't, in fact, the benefits of a natural growth method are, as quoted by Lareau:

The parents… organised their children’s lives so they spent more time in and around the home, in informal play with peers, siblings, and cousins. As a result, the children had more autonomy regarding leisure time and more opportunities for child initiated play. They were also more responsible for their lives outside the home.

Also:
They played outside, creating their own games… They did not complain of being bored…also appeared to have boundless energy. They did not have the exhaustion that we saw in middle-class children of the same age.


It is important to me that these distinctions are not black and white. Yes, middle class children raised with cultivation might do better in the long run, but they may not have the creativity the natural growth kids fostered when entertaining themselves. Converesly, the children who were so tired and scheduled early on in life can keep up with vigorous career demands, fear no one, and have excellent time management skills. After all, Lareau observed that in both types of families: 
There were episodes of laughter, emotional connection, and happiness as well as quiet comforts in every family...moments of connection seemed deeply meaningful to both children and parents in all social classes, even as the take different shape by social class, in terms of language, activity, and character. 


The only thing that  surprised me about this book, and the ensuing class discussion, was that not much emphasis was placed on how a healthy mix of the two methods should be the ideal to strive for. Seriously? No tips on better parenting? Was the book just to point out these inequalities without offering a solution? Somehow the other authors I've been reading prepared me for a more enlightening ending.  I expected a bit more of a merging of the cultures, and was disappointed that Lareau merely placed people in these categories, said parents can raise children in whichever category they want, and didn't give us much best practice advice. 


The children Lareau describes in her book were playful 10-year-olds. Now they're probably in their early 20's, and their destinies might be just as you'd have predicted. The perhaps overprogrammed middle-class kids got into good colleges and are heading for careers as doctors and other professionals. The working-class kids are not doing well. They're probably housecleaners or lower-level blue collar workers and tradesmen. But, according to Lareau, the core issue is that today's rich don't exploit the poor; they just outcompete them. No one is being held back from excelling, but lower-class culture just isn't preparing its children for the rigorous demands of the workforce. Maybe that was the point, a calling out, or challenge to parents to find ways to make their children become the new class of workplace competition.