Lareau Believes that class position influenced critical aspects of family life. These aspects included time use, language use and kin ties. She also believes that middle class-parents, both white and black, tend to conform to a logic of chilrearing Called “concerted cultivation”. This is where they enroll their children in numerous age specific organized activities that dominate family life and create enormous labor, particularly for mothers. Parents believe that these activities help their children with important life skills. When defining cultivation, this approach results in a wider range of experiences for children but also creates a frenetic pace for parents, a cult of individualism within the family and an emphasis on children’s performances.
In Lareau’s research, her data was collected in three different phases. Phase one involved observations in 3rd grade classrooms, Phase two took place at two sites in northern Richmond, and phase 3 involved home observations of 12 children and their families in the Northeast who had been previously interviewed. The research showed the different family setting in each child’s life, the different languages or conversations that children have with their parents and lastly different activities that each child were a part of. I agree with many of these statistics and findings however, some of them may not always be the case. For instance, Lareau believed that working=class and poor families were much less likely to include professionals in their social networks but were much more likely than her middle-class counterparts to see or speak with kin daily. I kind of disagree with this statement because a lot of time children get connections from friends or from school. Often times it is not always the parent that helps with the connection. One thing I found interesting was the differences in education resources. It is obvious that if you are in the middle-class you are more likely to have money to pay for a private school rather than someone who is in the working-class. However, many times children can get scholarships. Many of these statistics were interesting however, I feel that many times you can disagree or argue that they may not always be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The author’s, Annette Lareau, comparisons are between one person of both white and black and middle and working class. One person can’t be used as concrete statistics to draw conclusions on. There is no significance to any conclusions made anywhere in this article but mere observations on eight families. On her own chart the families look almost identical. I can find children that watch television in wealthy and poor families just like you can find the opposite true. I find the claims about language to be narrow minded. Talking to your child about what’s on television can have the same constructive basis as asking about their day. The only observation that I can make is that middle class children have more activities set up by their parents or adults then poor families. The activities of sports are still done by poorer families but are informal and setup by the children rather then adults. There can be limiting factors for children growing up in the projects to be outside for sports but it still exists. Lareau says middle class parents take a more active role, or concerted cultivated, but drawing upon her observations means poor parents don’t care, motivate, or encourage their children as much as middle class parents. The truth is different on case by case basis. This author’s objective would have been better served if she had discussed the advantages of private school, two versus one caring parent households, or the benefits of wealth in succeeding in life.
ReplyDeleteWhile Lareau attempts to show through empirical evidence that social class can create distinctive parenting styles, through her research I find little evidence at all. It's not really her research that I question, but the way that she tries to nail down the idea of social class affecting parenting styles. I would have to think that parenting styles probably differ based on the way those parenting were brought up, regardless of social class. I also think that parenting style in the way she was trying to define it with organized and informal activities can be hard to define. I think that resources have more to do with that, as those with more resources are able to provide more opportunities and activities for their children.
ReplyDeleteThe observations of language use and social connections are fairly loosely defined and I would have to argue that both of those factors could differ very greatly regardless of social class. Seeing as this is an ethnographic research endeavor, the number of people that it represents is probably low, and we have little information regarding whether or not these results could be replicated in other areas of the country.
I really enjoy what Jon said above. I think it is too important to not overlook the upbringing of a person, and ~how~ that upbringing contributes to their own personal parenting styles. I think that is a completely legitimate argument. Most people who have had bad parents, and again I say most, grow up to be better than the parents they had. Most people who were not given many things growing up, grow up to make a living that would be able to cultivate a stimulating lifestyle for their offspring.
ReplyDeleteI do have a problem with one particular part of this reading. With the Williams's case, I do not think children should have such a full schedule. I think that it cultivates and begins to establish an "on the go" culture for that child. When he doesn't even have a Saturday morning to sleep in, wake up whenever he wants to, watch some cartoons, eat some cereal and then get on with his day, that may be harmful to his health. Now, I have to say, just to play my own devil's advocate that I have no idea what happens on Sunday Mornings for the family. I feel like this young man has so much to do that one moment of peace would be considered catastrophic. Now, I would also like to say that it is totally sweet that his parents can provide this type of opportunity for him, and give him all of these different stimulating arenas of life. My fear still remains, this child has so many deadlines that he will grow up to be a man that needs them, depends on them. This, is not necessarily a good thing when we think about how so many people already cannot relax in today's culture. Our work weeks are higher every year, the average hours are increasing, and once perfectly healhty people are subject to obesity because their deadlines come before personal leisure time.
I also do not like how the author does not really give an opinion on the said events. She just gives an overview basically of what happened, and what she talked about. I do not really like that. Give me something to debate about? I guess that's the question I feel. :)
I think that in this article, Lareau is trying to make a connection and show that a person’s social class affects the way that they are raised but I think that she doesn’t have enough evidence to support this claim. Obviously, people that are more well off than others have different resources and are able to more easily provide their children with things but I don’t think that she had a great enough sample to base her research off of. I don’t really think that the social class of a family affects the way that they raise their children. Personally I think that what area and the values that your parents are taught have more of an impact on how you are raised than how much money a family has. At one point, Lareau states that people who were raised in middle class families have larger vocabularies and I found this ridiculous. Children who aren’t in middle class families are just as able to read the same books and learn a lot of the same things that other children are. I felt that Lareau stretched her findings a lot in order to try and make them seem significant.
ReplyDeleteSorry this is late, but I think I was supposed to comment on somebody else's summary....but it is not up here!
ReplyDeleteWell anyhow, I thought Lareau's argument was interesting. I really enjoyed reading the comments above. I think we are all mostly on the same page with this one. If kids are over-scheduled all of their youth, then what are they going to do when they have to go off to college and don't have a concrete schedule all of the time? This can be devastating for people. If they are constantly living their life according to a specific schedule of events, and are always being told what to do then how are they going to think for themselves whatsoever?! I really disagree with scheduling children and adolescents with an excessive amount of tasks. First off, how can any 10 year old go to school, then to soccer practice, then have a piano lesson, then maybe some TV time, then off to bed?? This is absurd! Not many adults can handle this, let alone young children. I think our society is trying to make unreasonable standards for adolescents in order to "succeed", which in reality, are not necessary. Any child with the right parenting and goals in life are going to succeed, no matter what private lessons, or extracurricular activities they may encounter. While I do agree that extracurricular activities are important for young adults and children, I do not find it necessary to deem such absurd standards for them.
Lareau followed some families that enforced such a structured life on their children, and some lower class families that did not. I do agree that she may have stretched her data a bit in order to make an impact. I am not saying that there are not certain families who have children that are not structured, and therefore do not succeed later in life, but I am saying that this is not always the case. I think it doesn't matter so much what class one belongs to, but more so the parenting skills involved. I knew people who were not exactly middle-class, and they turned out great and went on to a prestige oollege, with the help of scholarships. But, in this case, it definitely contributed to how she was raised. Her parents always wanted what was right for her, but she never had an intense scheduled life. They let her play outside for a certain amount of time, but she also was involved in sports, and in the community. Basically, success depends on the parents, environment, and the willingness of the child. Once you have all of these elements, there is no way that someone will not be successful in the future, or will not be able to move up in "class" if they wanted. :)