In her excellent article “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families,” Annette Lareau looks at differences in childrearing strategies, finding that class differences were more important than racial differences. Lareau argued that childrearing methods are one way in which class-based advantages are reproduced. Middle-class parents use a “concerted cultivation” model, which involved high levels of involvement in extracurricular activities. Working-class parents engaged in what Lareau calls an “accomplishment of natural growth” model, which emphasizes loving children and providing for them and giving children much more leisure time that is self-directed and unstructured. As Lareau writes,
Working-class and poor children spent most of their free time in informal play; middle-class children took part in many adult-organized activities designed to develop their individual talents and interests. (p. 761).
There are downsides to the concerted cultivation model. The range of activities children are involved in “dominate family life and create enormous labor, particularly for mothers” (p. 748). The emphasis on organized activities led to generally weak family ties, as well as weak social ties more generally, since they were based on participation in activities (extracurricular sports, classes, etc.) that have high turnover rates in membership and often last a few weeks regardless. However, Lareau argues that the concerted cultivation model ultimately transmits class advantages, given that the behaviors and assumptions it socializes children into prepare them well for a social world dominated by other middle-class professionals. And she argues that these different models are not just based on preferences; existing class inequalities make it much more difficult for working-class parents to follow the concerted cultivation model:
Enrollment fees that middle-class parents dismissed as “negligible” were formidable expenses for less affluent families…Moreover, families needed reliable private transportation and flexible work schedules to get children to and from events. These resources were disproportionately concentrated in middle-class families. (p. 771)
The Russel Sage foundation recently posted a graph that highlights class differences in spending on activities and products meant to aid child development, learning, and general enrichment. The graph, from Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, shows how the gap in spending on such items — which includes things such as tutoring, private schooling, summer camps, high-quality childcare, and computers — has grown between the poorest and wealthiest Americans in recent decades, illustrating Lareau’s argument about differential access to the products and activities central to the concerted cultivation model:
Full cites:
Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane. 2011. Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, ed. Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane. NY: Russell Sage. [Graph from p. 11.]
Annette Lareau. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families.” American Sociological Review 67(5): 747-776.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
Comments 14
LG — April 3, 2012
I would highly recommend reading Lareau's book, "Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life." In it she talks extensively about the benefits and disadvantages of both parenting models. For instance, she points out the the "accomplishment of natural growth" style of parenting often leads to children who are independent and able to structure their own time. One of the biggest advantages of the "concerted cultivation" model is the "degree of similarity between the cultural repertoires in the home and those standards adopted by institutions" (from "Unequal Childhoods," page 237). That is, middle class children are raised with a home environment that has similar expectations and procedures to the schools they attend, so they are easily able to fit into the school environment.
Not worth reciting more of Lareau's findings here, but definitely read the article linked in this post, or find her book.
Anonymous — April 3, 2012
It would be a good idea to contrast this with an image of the average adjusted income of the top quitile. Or better yet, do it as a percentage of house hold income. I'm still left wondering... "maybe the top quintile got twice as rich"
Lunad — April 3, 2012
I would take Lareau's assertion that Black and White families don't have significantly different parenting styles with a grain of salt. All of her research was done in Philadelphia, and it isn't necessarily indicative of the rest of the country (race-wise). That said, I found the book extremely interesting otherwise.
CLASS DIFFERENCES IN SPENDING ON CHILDREN « Welcome to the Doctor's Office — April 4, 2012
[...] (from SocImages) [...]
eeka — April 10, 2012
Anecdotal, but with the families I work with, who have infants and toddlers, the wealthier families appear to spend less on toys and equipment and have kids who play with mixing bowls and hand-me-down simple toys, and who wear onesies or pajamas, where the poorer families have spent hundreds of dollars on impeccable coordinated designer outfits and electronic "educational" toys that purport to teach children reading and whatnot before they have basic language and play skills and. And yes, the bias there was intentional.
Same with equipment; the poorer families have every last gadget for the baby, have often racked up huge debt to make sure they have a proper highchair, crib, bathtub, potty, wipe warmer, playpen, babyproofing supplies, full adult-type outfits for young babies, bottle warmer, "real Pampers, none of those fake brands" and are highly judgmental toward families (often of higher socioeconomic status) whose babies cosleep, use cloth diapers, don't have a babyproofing latches, have their baby hang out in a onesie or pajamas, etc.
Some of this is rational, because poorer families and families of color are indeed much more likely to be investigated by protective services, and the investigators DO point out stupid things like that a clean baby in clean pajamas was "not dressed" and that a family is putting veggies in the blender instead of using "real baby food," but most of it is families trusting TV marketing beyond scientific and professional research about what promotes better child development. (Similarly with parents who interact minimally with their babies, despite our advice, because people tell them the baby will "become spoiled.")
And yes, of course, there are kids from all backgrounds who turn out just fine, and I realize that I'm seeing mostly kids with developmental issues and risk factors because that's the work I do. But still.
The Olympic-Sized Cost of Putting Kids Through Sports | My Blog — August 8, 2012
[...] just $2,700 per year. That number is now a stark $7,500 per year. That’s because the top group spent almost $9,000 in the 2005-2006 school year, up from about $3,500 in the ‘70s. Even the lower income group [...]
The Olympic-Sized Cost of Putting Kids Through Sports | Daily News Press — August 11, 2012
[...] just $2,700 per year. That series is now a sheer $7,500 per year. That’s since a tip organisation spent roughly $9,000 in a 2005-2006 propagandize year, adult from about $3,500 in a ‘70s. Even a reduce income [...]
SOC331 Population SVSU | Sociology Remix — May 29, 2014
[…] By Age […]
Kacey Chisley — December 30, 2020
Reminds me of Fast Hair Growth Shampoos