Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life

Middle-class family life and concerted cultivation comes with its challenges and stipulations. The Handlon family finds homework to be one of the greatest threats to household unity and peace, as Ms. Handlon spends a good portion of her time helping her daughter Melanie with her homework, which often leads to conflict and frustration. Both Mr. and Ms. Handlon have degrees and work high-earning jobs. They have three children: Melanie (9), and her two older brothers. Melanie is quiet, has a few close friends, and playful with her parents. Both parents are active in the household, but Ms. Handlon again is the one who takes care of the children’s affairs. The family’s life is predominantly surrounded by other white people, and Lareau notes that many of their middle-class luxuries are “taken for granted” (184). Melanie takes part in several church activities as well as Girl Scouts but is not as busy as Alexander or Garrett. Her parents see inherent value in unscheduled time for the children, unlike many other parents in the middle class.

Ms. Handlon plays an active role in managing these activities for Melanie as well as in “monitoring, criticizing, and intervening in Melanie’s schooling” (186). Melanie frequently complains of minor illnesses, often just to avoid school, and performs poorly compared to others in her class. Her mother believes Melanie does not have enough positive associations with school and voices this to Melanie’s teachers. She also feels there is far too much homework assigned, which overwhelms her and her daughter. However, instead of raising this last concern with the school, she takes it upon herself to help Melanie with her homework, which leads to even more stress. Ms. Handlon helps Melanie in a very hands-on fashion, guiding her through each question in detail, and Melanie often resists or gives into letting her mother do it for her. Melanie’s teachers believe Melanie’s lack of success is due to her parents’ overbearing nature when it comes to school and the way they catastrophize the amount of work, which her teacher believes is normal (Garrett, who is in the same class, finishes the work in about 30 minutes on his own). The teachers also feel that Melanie’s frequent absences due to minor issues and coming to school late often affect her performance and motivation. Ms. Handlon’s defensiveness and blaming of the teachers does not help the situation, and she refuses to get Melanie tested for a learning disability, which her teachers suspect she may have. Lareau compares the Handlons’ experience as more similar to those in the working class rather than other middle-class families, as Ms. Handlon’s negotiating power seemed to not only have created no headway but actually held Melanie back.

Lareau looks into education further and finds that working-class and poor parents tend to leave educating to the teachers, believing it to be their responsibility and often fearing “doing the wrong thing” (198). They may seek advice from educators, but they do not generally attempt to tailor the education experience for their children’s needs to the same degree as middle-class parents. A separation between school and home life results, and this approach can lead to disadvantages for these children. Lareau notes that this “pattern of parental deference” (198) seems only to exist toward the school. These parents also resist institutions in subtle but powerful ways, such as encouraging their children to defy school rules and strike back at their bully or complaining that a particular educator is unfair. Often, educators “openly criticize” (199) working-class and poor parents, believing they should take a more active role in their children’s education.

Wendy Driver (white), who is 10 and also attends Lower Richmond, lives at home with an older brother, a younger stepsister, and a mother and stepfather (Mr. Fallon). Wendy enjoys simple things like going out to dinner and playing Barbies with her friends, and she often takes on a leadership role in the playground. Wendy’s father died a couple of years prior, and she still misses him. Wendy is close with her older brother Willie, and the two spend much of their leisure time together watching TV or playing board games. Ms. Driver works as a secretary and earns a max of $25,000 per year; she does not enjoy her job. Mr. Fallon works at a home for people with disabilities, cleaning floors and other such tasks and earns about $20,000 per year. They barely get by, and money is a constant stretch. They manage to prepare for special occasions and have enough food, but never seem to breach that barrier. Most of the people Wendy interacts with are white, aside from some of her classmates and teachers. She spends a great deal of time with her extended family, including grandparents and cousins, who all live nearby. Despite being working-class, Wendy has a busy extracurricular schedule that includes dance and choir, but the rest of the time, she decides what she wants to do. Lareau notes gender differences in the rules for each child, as Willie is allowed to go out, but Wendy is not. She observes other similarities with the other working-class families as well, such as the use of language as a practical and directive tool and the general obedience of the children toward adults. Lareau also observes that Ms. Driver takes a back-seat approach to her children’s education. Wendy is being tested for a potential learning disability, and while her mother “welcomes these official efforts” (209), she does not intervene or press for more information. Further problems arose because Lower Richmond lacks funding for Special Needs, and as a result, Wendy’s case was pushed back over a year. Educators, specifically Wendy’s fourth-grade teacher, frequently advise Ms. Driver to become more active in the effort and emphasize “the role of parents as leaders in developing their children’s language skills” (212). Lareau describes the reasons for this approach by Ms. Driver toward Wendy’s education, citing that it is mainly due to her class position. Lareau observes that Ms. Driver is very active and responsive about Wendy’s education but does not initiate herself. She sees herself as separate from the world of schooling and “does not […] challenge the school’s authority” (214). She assumes that any serious problems will be communicated to her. Furthermore, a lack of access to resources and information that middle-class parents have leaves working-class parents in the dark regarding terminology used by professionals. At one point, Wendy developed two cavities because her mother did not know that “tooth decay” (216) would lead to cavities. Lareau also theorizes that part of the reason for the deference onto schools by working-class and poor parents is the fear of the state, having their children taken away, or being deemed unfit parents. They also have doubts in the school’s discipline policies and tend to view the school as a singular unit. Parents of the working-class often do not trust the institution of school, and the educators there seem to lack trust in the parents. Because of this separation between school and home, “school is Wendy’s world” (215), and Wendy is left behind in terms of her education. 

Lareau opens every chapter with a quote, and this chapter’s quote is particularly potent: “Now I go through different phases with Billy. I want to be the kind of parent that never hits my kid and everything, but Billy gets so out of control that maybe he does need it once in a while” (Ms. Yanelli, 221). This chapter focuses on the contrast between discipline in working-class and poor families and the institutional values of therapists, schools, and doctors. Lareau notes that physical discipline is frowned upon more than emotional abuse or neglect in many cases, and child-rearing laws are selectively enforced. Little Billy (10) lives with his older half-brother, mother, and father in a white working-class neighborhood. Like the other working-class children in the study, Little Billy spends much of his leisure time engaged in open play with his friends from the neighborhood. Ms. Yanelli cleans houses for $12 an hour, and Mr. Yanelli paints houses and makes little more. Little Billy takes part in baseball, which his father enthusiastically supports. Ms. Yanelli has suffered through a couple of traumatic close deaths and worries deeply for her son. She restricts his movement more often than not and is concerned that his behavior is getting out of control. His mother describes him as fun but difficult. Little Billy explains to the fieldworker that his school setting has its positive aspects, such as the pets and recess, but that his teacher frequently disciplines children by hitting them. Little Billy also reports the view that people see him as being “trouble” (224), and his teacher describes him as a “goofball” (225) who regularly acts out and agitates other children. Billy explains that his mother does not get along well with the school.

The school suggests to the Yanellis that not only should Little Billy get counselling, but the whole family should. Ms. Yanelli reports feeling pushed into it, and Mr. Yanelli is adamantly against it. They often disagree with the school’s policies as well, teaching Little Billy how to fight and defending him when he is suspended. Lareau notes that “working-class parents such as the Yanellis experienced a sense of distance and distrust, of exclusion and risk, with schools” (227). Ms. Yanelli reports that Little Billy is harshly punished but when he is bullied, the same does not occur with other children. She also feels like she cannot speak up and confront the teacher about his abuse toward her son and other children because she does not have the words or the power; instead, she feels “powerless and constrained” (228). Another issue that the Yanellis face is the clash between the physical discipline used at home and the values of the state. One night while the researcher is present, Ms. Yanelli hits Little Billy with a belt twice when he refuses to go shower. The observers find this happens about once a week while they are there. Lareau notes that physical discipline was not used in the middle-class families they observed but was not present in all working-class families either. Another afternoon, Little Billy raises his arm to block the belt and ends up with welts on his arm. Ms. Yanelli panics with the thought of him going to school and possibly being exposed as someone who abuses her child. Lareau stresses that the “gap in the connections between working-class and poor families and school […] undermines their feeling of trust or comfort at school” (231). This is in stark contrast to middle-class families, whose relationship with the school is one of mutual understanding and negotiation. They do not feel threatened or controlled in the same way that working-class and poor parents do, and thus “appear to enjoy largely invisible benefits not available to working-class and poor families” (232).

Lareau opens the chapter with a scene of the day of the Lower Richmond children’s graduation into middle school. All of the children and families are dressed for the occasion, and the children walk onto the stage single-file as their families cheer with joy. A few of the parents show their resentment for the institution and snide remarks about the teachers as they appear. The Swan graduation is somewhat less of an affair, with parents and children more casually dressed. The underlying messages of each ceremony seem different as well, with the Lower Richmond ceremony leaning more toward warning the children of future strife and danger and the Swan School ceremony speaking of hope and excitement for the future. For the middle-class children of Swan school, their big graduation was yet to come with university or college. For the working-class and poor families of Lower Richmond, this may be the only graduation they ever see.

Lareau discusses the differences in perception of the power of class in America. Many people, she notes, believe in the American dream and the responsibility of the individual to work their way up the ladder. This view essentially rejects the idea that class decides what opportunities children will have. Others, particularly scholars, argue that “there are systemic forms of inequality, including, for example, differences in parents’ educational levels, occupational prestige and income, as well as in their child-rearing practices” (235). Lareau explains that the latter view still does not factor in the entire picture because their correlational research does not account for distinct differences that can be categorized into social classes. Lareau takes on a third perspective, arguing that a categorical analysis “wherein families are grouped into social categories such as poor, working class, and middle class” (236) is more useful in understanding family behavior across various spheres. Lareau states that she adopts this view because class seems to be the most overarching and powerful influence of family outcomes in America.

Lareau remembers the commonalities she and her team observed among all the families, including moments of laughter and affection, rituals for meals and games, and the way that these events were meaningful and bonding for each family. All families experienced tension and moments of conflict, and each family felt stresses about areas in their life they felt were out of their control. Within each family, variations of temperament, humor, and organization were plentiful. Lareau insists that every family’s home they visited “felt like home” (238). There were also major differences, such as those between concerted cultivation in middle-class families and the accomplishment of natural growth in working-class and poor families. Both approaches require “ongoing effort” (238) on the parents’ part, but there are key differences in discipline, use of language, and the boundaries between parents and children. Another similarity Lareau finds is that “across all social classes, child-rearing practices often appeared to be natural” (239) and not something the parents do intentionally. Furthermore, Black families across all classes experience racial discrimination, but that the influence of race was “less powerful than [Lareau] expected” (240); instead, families of both Black and white background lived similar lives and engaged in similar child-rearing practices.

There are benefits and burdens to both concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of natural growth, but “these practices are accorded different social values by important social institutions” (241). Concerted cultivation seems to be more commonly recognized as preferrable. When it comes to daily life, middle-class children learn specialized skills through their activities and their maintenance of a schedule as well as how to perform. Parents sacrifice much of their time, money, and energy to raise children in this manner. Children who are raised using the accomplishment of natural growth learn how to take care of and entertain themselves and have very close family ties. Middle-class families seem more open and comfortable when interacting with institutions, which puts their children at an advantage. The time and effort parents put in may be similar, but middle-class parents’ effort seems to get more notice and bear more fruit.

Lareau looks into the past and finds that, historically, children were part of the labor force or worked with or for their family. It was only for a brief period following the Second World War until recently that children seemed to be granted extended leisure time. In the modern era, parents who were raised with the accomplishment of natural growth have turned to concerted cultivation to raise their own children. Lareau explains that this shift may be due to the increased demand for “rationalization” (246) of family life along with all other aspects of life. Everything must be organized and calculated. Furthermore, as prices rise and resources diminish, middle-class parents have anxiety about ensuring their children are prepared for the uncertain future. Lareau seeks to answer the question of why working-class and poor parents have not adopted the concerted cultivation approach and cites the main reason to be a lack of resources (financial, educational, and social). Working-class and poor parents also spend more time and energy worrying and covering for basic needs. Lareau points out that these are not causational factors, and these individuals still have “relative autonomy” (250) about their own lives.

Lareau argues that the United States should look to solutions for the discrepancies in the advantages between classes and their financial divide. She believes that state intervention through a child allowance would be an effective method of reducing poverty and lack of opportunity as well as state assistance in providing families with access to transportation and activities. These children can also benefit from direct interventions and programs designed to offer the advantages they otherwise would not have. For overly scheduled middle-class families, emphasis on family time and reducing pressure on children is essential to reducing their stress and giving these children a chance to enjoy their friends and their leisure. In essence, this means a return to the values of the accomplishment of natural growth but with a new balance of cultivation. Lareau concludes by explaining that while each person is genetically and experientially unique, the social structures in which they live (while not “all determining” [256]) cannot be ignored as dominant influences over the positions they hold within society.