Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life

by Annette Lareau.

I read about this book in a NYT's article, which I will post here. It is probably more informative than this review. (BTW, the article is further discussed in Lisa Belkin's NYT blog, Motherlode.)

Unequal Childhoods is about Lareau's study into the difference in parenting philosophies between different classes and races during the 90s. She and a team of researchers spent intensive time with different families as they went about their lives. She found that race does not so much affect one's parenting philosophy as class does. Working class and the poor tend toward the philosophy of "natural growth," while middle class families tend to raise their children with the philosophy of "concerted cultivation."

A lot of it comes down to money. If you have money, then you can afford to reason with your kids. You can afford the myriad of activities that help prepare your child for an adult world. Middle class parents teach their child how to elaborate, persuade, and reason. They teach them how to demand individual attention. They teach them how to get what they want and how to manage in an adult world. Hence, middle-class children often have very adult schedules. Why? Middle class parents enjoy their own adult lives greatly and see the pleasures of work, which results in financial gains. They want to prepare their children for the same lifestyle. Low-income and working class parents tend to let their children have lots of free time to manage as they see fit. Why? The parents are busy working, just trying to have ends meet. These parents give directives. Why? Because they don't have the time. In a way, this philosophy reflects the parents' attitudes towards adulthood: a time of struggle. Why try to train your kids for that?

There are distinct advantages to the natural growth philosophy: the kids really don't fight with siblings (versus regular fighting in middle class families with more than one child), the kids learn how to occupy their own time (therefore, less of the "I'm bored" stuff), they easily work and play with kids of different ages, and they argue less with adults.

The advantages to "concerted cultivation"? The children have increased verbal skills. They learn how to persuade and argue. They learn how to speak up to individuals of authority to make their concerns and ideas known. They are better prepared for a middle class lifestyle.

Each chapter begins with the recounting of a different family that was studied. This is the most interesting part. Then the chapters begin a deeper exploration of what those family practices mean for the development of the child, etc.

An interesting read, but a bit repetitive. What I liked about it was that it does shed light on some of what I see as a teacher. The town I work in has a pretty equal divide of "concerted cultivation" and "natural growth." In fact, where I live there is a lot of "natural growth" philosophy out there. It's a kick back to what I imagine the 50s and 60s were like, when most parents (regardless of class), practiced natural growth: Kids playing on the streets, riding bikes everywhere, jump roping, etc. Granted, the problem is that natural growth parenting does not always work well with the educational system. Natural growth parents tend to see school as a totally separate part of their child's life. Therefore, school problems are mostly a teacher's problem. Teachers want the best of both worlds: natural growth, which leaves the teacher alone and doesn't question him/her, and concerted cultivation, which is supportive and actively involved in their child's education.

Grade: B