Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life

by Annette Lareau

Class does make a difference in the lives and futures of American children. Drawing on in-depth observations of black and white middle-class, working-class, and poor families, Unequal Childhoods explores this fact, offering a picture of childhood today. Here are the frenetic families managing their children's hectic schedules of "leisure" activities; and here are families with plenty of time but little economic security. Lareau shows how middle-class parents, whether black or white, engage in a process of "concerted cultivation" designed to draw out children's talents and skills, while working-class and poor families rely on "the accomplishment of natural growth," in which a child's development unfolds spontaneously—as long as basic comfort, food, and shelter are provided. Each of these approaches to childrearing brings its own benefits and its own drawbacks. In identifying and analyzing differences between the two, Lareau demonstrates the power, and limits, of social class in shaping the lives of America's children.

The first edition of Unequal Childhoods was an instant classic, portraying in riveting detail the unexpected ways in which social class influences parenting in white and African-American families. A decade later, Annette Lareau has revisited the same families and interviewed the original subjects to examine the impact of social class in the transition to adulthood.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Education, Parenting, Race, Psychology, School

343 pages, Paperback

First published August 12, 2003

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Years ago, when I started on Good Reads, I read Outliers by Gladwell and one of the things I found particularly interesting in that book was the discussion of research into the differences between how working class and middle class kids behaved. This book is the research that Gladwell based his chapter in Outliers on. I really like Gladwell’s writing and think it is wonderful that he did something to popularise this research – but if you can, you should read this as well. This isn’t an insanely difficult read – in fact, it is anything but – all the same, there is much more to this research than even a writer like Gladwell could cover in a single chapter. This is a seriously interesting look at the differences between how working class and middle class raise their children and the consequences of these differences.

Gladwell picks out a particularly telling incident in his use of this research – a working class boy and a middle class boy both preparing to go to see the doctor. In the case of the middle class boy his mother literally rehearses the likely exchange between the boy and the doctor in the car on the way there. Because the boy has been brought up in a world where adults are more or less at his beck and call, he has no trouble in challenging the doctor to explain himself more clearly or in seeking additional information from him. The contrast with the working class boy could not be starker, he defers entirely to the doctor, is barely able to make eye contact and certainly never does anything that might be understood as challenging the authority of the doctor.

The problem is that this deference by the working class is consistent across virtually all interactions between them (parents and children) and those ‘in authority’. There is also a horrible section of the book where a young girl with learning difficulties has been allowed to ‘progress’ through school without learning to read and this is more or less blamed on the mother because she hadn’t done enough to hold the school to account. The working class are shown to be caught between a rock and a hard place – if they complain then they are told they don’t understand the professional judgement of their betters, if they don’t complain they are held to blame for the consequences of professional neglect.

The author defines the differences between these two ways of bringing up children as ‘concerted cultivation’ for the middle class kids and ‘the accomplishment of natural growth’ for the working class kids. That is, for the middle classes, it has become essential to ensure that one’s children are provided with an endless string on extra-curricular activities (soccer, piano lessons, gymnastics and shadow educational activities) and that these are undertaken regardless of the expense in terms of both finances and time for the parents. In fact, the lives of middle class children are scheduled to such an extent that they are often exhausted. Another very interesting aspect of these children’s lives is that they spend their time almost exclusively in groups of children pretty much identical to themselves (the cost of all of these activities excludes children not like them from participating) even to the point of being the same age as them (the activities are virtually always organised according to age cohorts). This is quite different from the working class kids who often play within their own communities and in groups of kids of many different ages. Working class and poor children are forced to ‘make their own amusement’, but, ironically enough, are rarely ‘bored’. The other thing I found remarkably interesting was the observation that middle class kids frequently talked about how much they hated their siblings, while this was never something the researchers observed in the working class kids.

The other interesting thing here was that middle class families never spoke about money. This wasn’t necessarily because they had more than enough money, but more because providing money and time to cultivating their children was seen as a valuable investment in their future. The working class and poor children were constantly reminded about money and the shortage of it.

The real difference here, and one that speaks to the whole problem of ‘merit’ and how that particular lie is used against whole sections of the population, is that middle class parents have been taught that abilities need to be ‘cultivated’ – that is, if a child shows the least interest in something, then that interest needs to be given an opportunity to grow, virtually despite the impact that might have on the parents and rest of the family. Working class parents are much more likely to believe in natural growth – talents are just ‘there’, you either have them or you don’t, and if you don’t then effort isn’t going to make them appear and if you do have them effort isn’t necessary.

Nevertheless, this book certainly doesn’t present the middle class life as unequivocally good and the poor or working class lives as unequivocally bad. What is particularly interesting is that the extent of middle class ‘concerted cultivation’ is a remarkably new phenomenon, and not one that was a part of the lives of the parents of these children. The question, ‘why now?’ rings out in this book, and the answer is that the structural changes in the economy, particularly the increasing precariousness of employment, but also the rising educational attainment brought about by virtually mass tertiary education, means that reproducing middle class advantage is becoming increasingly more difficult. If one wants their children to have the same advantages they had then their children will need to be more highly socialised into the demands of the ‘new economy’. Many of the middle class parents are remarkably specific about these demands and the advantages the various activities they organise for their children provide them with for their futures. Even sports are seen in this light – as training grounds for team work, learning how to deal with both success and failure, being focused on performance, connecting effort to reward and so on. There is a lovely part where a father and son are talking about comic book heroes and the son needs to justify what he has said about various characters with reference to the various texts. That is, something identical to what will be expected of him at school. Needless to say, such a conversation was never observed in a working class family.

Basil Bernstein made very similar observations in relation to working class and middle class kids in England in the 1960s. Middle class parents were much more likely to ‘negotiate’ with their kids, rather than impose authoritarian discipline on them, which was the standard mode for working class children. Middle class parents therefore encouraged their children to develop their language skills, taught them how to construct a reasoned argument and provided them with a sense that they were entitled to ask for things they needed or wanted. Working class kids were mostly taught to defer to authority and that authority (even in the case of parents) was ‘structural’ and so could only be resisted (often in self-defeating ways) and never actually overcome.

There is so much more to this book – I certainly don’t want to leave you with the impression that reading this review is enough. This book really is fascinating and deserves to be read.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book for the issues that I myself had observed through my student teaching. This book was assigned to me during graduate school while I was transitioning from one student teaching assignment to the other. My first student teaching assignment was on the Upper East Side in New York City. This school was in third place for the most PTA fundraising of any city in the city (the year before I came there, they raised a staggering $500,000 -and they were in third). Parents showed up for every meeting, every conference, every activity (and there were a lot of those). After school, kids skipped off to Hebrew school or CCD, soccer practice, piano lessons, private math enrichment tutoring, and whatever else their parents could dream up.

My second student teaching practicum was in Washington Heights in a largely Hispanic school. Parents sent kids to school with candy as their lunch (not in their lunch, that was lunch). After school, kids went home to watch tv. If they were in the after-school care program, they had 30 minutes to do their homework, then they played out in the parking lot next to the school which served as their playground (people were kind enough to not park there during school hours).

I often found myself wondering why parents treated their kids so differently. I couldn't believe that it was strictly because of a particular culture of any given race (there were Black kids in my room on the Upper East Side and White kids in my room in Washington Heights). When I read this book, the fact of socioeconomic status difference just made sense to me. Socioeconomic status is currently far more segregating than race is, giving each culture room to create its own strategies for raising children without influence from a different culture.

I appreciated that Lareau was sensitive to issues of race, and therefore highlighted an upper-middle class family that was Black, and a working class family that was White to drive the point home that these differences aren't just about race.

As a teacher, I found that this illuminated for me the places where my parents struggle in helping to meet the demands of education today (it is no longer acceptable, as it might once have been to just assume that children will get everything that they need). I now feel better equipped to inform parents about things that they can do to help their child succeed, while still being sensitive to the culture their children are being raised in.

I guess I gave it four stars rather than five because, although it had great take-away, it was a bit dry. On the other hand, not every nonfiction book can be Freakonomics.

[Alexis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Makes some good points, but the author's tripping all over herself trying to avoid siding with the middle class was hard to take. She says several times that physical punishment used to be the norm--as though this makes it okay? I mean she shows plenty of concern that one of the children can barely read even though illiteracy "would have been virtually universal in certain time periods" (as she says of the practice of hitting children). I mean I appreciate her point that most books of this type are going to be written by middle class people so we have to try to avoid normalizing that culture, but her attempts are clumsy. Another example is that middle class children's "sense of entitlement" is consistently used to explain why they feel comfortable asking questions of a doctor. Really? We need to stigmatize the ability to properly interact with a doctor? Though she mentions a working-class person's ability, in contrast, to argue with a landlord or cable company, she does not talk about a sense of entitlement to explain the behavior in those cases.

I end up feeling that the book begs the questions. Yes, the middle class is in sync with major cultural institutions and this gives them advantages. But discussions of what stops others from doing the same don't precisely tie into the thesis. Yes, economic constraints keep their children from expensive extracurriculars. Yes, the parents' education and occupational experience limits their understanding of professional jargon (a point that really could have been made more of in the "What is to be done" section). But the author seems to admit that these have to do with socioeconomic status. Why the working-class and poor families can't make cultural adjustments, the way the middle-class did, like not physically punishing their children or asking them questions to improve their verbal skills is an explanation that is started but never really resolves. Maybe the problem is that if I took a test on this book I would have trouble answering the question "How did the researchers determine a subject's class?" If class is based on cultural things, then a working-class person performs what the author wants to call working-class culture _by definition_. Thus the difficulty of discussing class in America.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that I keep returning to. I've decided to have my qualitative research methods class read it for Spring 2009. Of course I love that it deals with differences in family life as they relate to social class, but I am also amazed at its thoroughness, sensitivity, and scope. One of the book's key insights is that young people who grow up in upper middle class households may be better prepared to argue for their own way within the school systems, but they are also socialized into a troubling individualism and sense of entitlement through our responsiveness. On the other hand, young people from working class households grow up prepared to subsume their own needs to those around them. This is a great value for collective life, but it works against them within the individualistic, meritocratic school system. The book is therefore a great antidote to the many educational studies that seem to normalize the middle class experience as the ideal and too often see impoverished communities as troubled and lacking in their culture. The book doesn't idealize working class backgrounds, but actually adds theoretical and empirical heft to Paul Willis' classic of a generation ago, Learning to Labor: Why Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute must-read that really makes you question and reflect on your own upbringing and how you became the person you are. Simply excellent.

[Manzoid · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book uses extreme close-ups of several families over several months (kind of like "embedded journalists"), to draw the differences in upbringing between poor/working-class families versus middle-class families.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part shows the hectic schedule of organized activities that middle-class children engage in, with parents (especially moms) heavily involved, whereas poorer children's activities are much more disengaged from their parents. The second part describes differences in language use between middle-class families and poorer families. The third part shows the class differences as parents try to intercede on their children's behalf with school authorities.

The close-up stories are pretty fascinating, and the conclusions are not quite what you might expect. For example, one common observation of poorer families was that siblings stuck up for each other and were kinder to each other, whereas siblings in middle-class families were much crueler, ruder, and more competitive with each other. Don't know if that's obvious to you, but that surprised me.

There are other observations like that, making this book definitely worth a read.

One caveat -- the author is really repetitive. For some reason she feels the need to reiterate her main themes during and after every section. You'll quickly learn to skim past these boring repetitive segments.

[jessica wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to say that this book was surprising to me in the observations unspoken. Not an easy read as the vocabulary and style is quite academic (which for me borders on boring but that is me). As a student of human development or should I write Human Development I was surprised to find no reference to Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological model of development which is a keystone to community that then includes class, race, and family life. I did however learn of Pierre Bourdieu, father of the class deprivation theory. The topic of the book is very interesting to me yet I feel the words lend themselves to bias, Then again, I probably add my own biases into the mix .

If you are a student of sociology or developmental theory, I do think this is a "good" read. Keep a notebook at hand, don't forget a pen, and don't feel poorly about yourself if your family raised you sans concerted cultivation, you'll still do just fine.

[Lauren Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 ⭐️ I really liked the focus of this book, and it definitely brought up some very interesting points on social class and how that affects/is affected by parenting practices. I think some of the topics in the case studies could have been refocused to fit the book a bit better and illuminate more about children’s perspectives and experiences.

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone thinks they understand the concept of inequality, whether based on economic standing, race, education or environment. But do we really understand? When children are enrolled in the same public school system, (theoretically) have access to the same extra-curricular activities and the same social safety nets, why is there still such a discrepancy. Ms. Lareau explored these issues in her in-depth study of 12 third-graders from various racial and socio-economic backgrounds. Ms. Lareau and her team went into the homes of her subjects, followed the children to school, doctor’s appointments and extra-curricular activities. Acting as “invisible” observers of real life they noted the differences (and similarities) in the attitude of the parents, the children themselves as well as the peripheral people in their lives, such as teachers, coaches and social workers. For the purpose of her study Ms. Lareau chose to name her economic classes as “poor”, “working class” and “middle class”. Her findings and conclusions were interesting and sometimes a little disturbing, but truthfully, not all that surprising.

This book is not the type of book I would reach for on a bookshelf, but a friend (whose opinion on books, among other things, I value and trust) posted an excellent review on Goodreads (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...). When I finished reading his review I started thinking back to when I was raising my daughters and began mentally ticking off the study criteria and conclusions he mentioned in his review. That was the reason I read this book … I wanted to see how I “stacked up” to the norm in the parenting department. Or, in other words, how badly I had possibly “messed up”. Going into the book with that as my sole focus I think my impressions of the book are a little different from someone who may be reading this for educational purposes. I understand that this was an ethnological study and thereby needs clear demographic boundaries. According to the book’s definition I am firmly planted in the “working-class” with the occasional dips of my big toe into “poor” and “middle-class” pools. From my perspective I could relate to many of the issues that were discussed in this book and that made it extremely interesting to read. However, when it came time to listen to the study’s conclusions I found myself disagreeing with the author. Not because her conclusions were incorrect according to her study, or because they painted such a drastic discrepancy between the classes of children, but because she was being statistical and analytical and I was being emotional. That could not be helped; I started reading this book with a personal agenda.

I did enjoy the book. It certainly opened my eyes to many aspects of the inequality the book discusses. I am pleased that I read this edition as it had additional chapters following up on most of the original participants into their adult years. Following the first study Ms. Lareau supplied all the participants with a copy of the original publication. In this edition discusses their reactions to her findings. That was interesting reading, as the feelings were so diverse. The only negative comment I have about the book, and about Ms. Lareau as a sociologist, is that she took an inordinate amount of pages to justify why she did the study in the manner she did, and why she came to the conclusions she did. She became almost apologetic (and, if I dare say it, whiny) in her attempt to explain. I found this unprofessional. Twenty-twenty hindsight is fine if she wanted to discuss the “if I knew then what I know now I would have done it this way …” possibilities, but this was her study, her parameters and her conclusions – she should not feel the need to apologize for her findings.

So what did I take away from this study and this book? I certainly have a better understanding of the why’s behind certain behaviors, actions and decisions. And most importantly, I came to the conclusion that I was pretty upper-middle-of-the-road in the mom department and didn’t mess up too badly.

[Robert Owen · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Unequal Childhoods” was fascinating, and added significantly to my understanding of class and racial inequality in America. At its core, "Unequal Childhoods" is a made-for-lay-person summary of Annette Lareau’s 19__ ethnographic study in which she examines the lives of twelve fourth grade children of differing socioeconomic classes in order to explore the root causes of class inequality in American society. Contrary to the popular American conceit that one’s lot in life is the product of one’s own diligence, intelligence and talent, Lareau points out that because wealth is distributed by class and that class membership generally tends to be inherited from generation to generation, who one’s parents are plays a role in personal prosperity that is largely ignored by American citizens at large and policy makers in particular.

Lareau’s study seeks to explore the differences in parenting strategies adopted by poor, working class and middle class families that might explain this trend. Middle class parents (particularly those with college educated mothers) actively engage their kids in programs of child enrichment (soccer, ballet, basketball, baseball, science camp, piano lessons, etc.) that become the centerpiece of family life and tend to adopt parenting styles that favor negotiation and verbal skills. Poor and working class parents on the other hand tend towards a natural growth “let kids be kids” strategy that accepts as healthy and normal large amounts of unstructured, child initiated play and adopt parenting styles that rely more heavily on parent directives and nonverbal communications (including corporal punishment). While both strategies have clear benefits and advantages, schools tend to expect and value more highly the middle-class style over the poor and working class style. Schools expect parents to be actively involved in their kids’ educations and view any inclination to “leave it to the professionals at school” that is common among poor and working class parents as a huge parental failure. The “leave it to the professionals at school” attitude is not a function of laziness or indifference about their kids’ life outcomes, but rather, is a manifestation of poor and working class parents’ acculturated view of their role, rights and obligations as parents. “I wouldn’t tell the brain surgeon how to operate on my brain, so why would I tell a teacher how to teach my kids.” In contrast to poor and working class parents, middle class parents (especially moms) feel completely entitled to tell a teacher how to teach her kids and actively work to successfully intervene on their children’s behalf – they know how the game is played and they play it enthusiastically to the tremendous benefit of their kids. Poor and working class parents do not know how the game is played, and as a consequence, their kids consistently lose.

The book provides a comprehensible theory for why and how prosperity (or the lack of it) tends to pass from generation to generation. My interests stemmed primarily from issues of American racial inequality; yet while the book talks about race to a certain degree its approach recommends broader, race-independent insights into the effects of class divisions. The poor, working class and middle-class families examined tended, regardless of race, to exhibit broadly comparable child raising strategies and enjoyed or suffered their consequences in like fashion. For the black children studied, the issues of race were toxic enhancements to common general outcomes that resulted from parenting strategies deployed by poor, working - and middle - class parents.

[Starswirl the Bearded · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be required reading for all politicians, educators, parents and voters.

I stumbled across 'Unequal Childhoods', while reading 'Outliers', by Malcolm Gladwell: he uses examples from Lareau to support the central argument of his book (that unusually successful people have almost always benefited from unusually fortunate opportunities - quite often including an unusually high level of parental investment. While it may sound obvious, it goes against everything I was taught to believe as a child: that succeeding is largely due to one's own effort).

Lareau's book is actually very different than Gladwell's. It introduces us to children from different economic backgrounds and their families, following them for over a decade while bringing every individual to life. We're given an engaging insight into the daily routine of our protagonists; though Lareau makes sharp comparisons of parenting styles between socioeconomic classes, these are incorporated naturally into the narrative.

On one level this is a very high quality piece of research - but it never feels dry or lifeless. To the contrary, it's a compelling read; avoiding an academic writing style in favour of a direct, simple, first person narrative.

For me the most relevant part of the book came towards the end when Lareau interviewed the now university-aged participants: perhaps unsurprisingly, the children from the highest socioeconomic bracket (the "concerted cultivation" group) were on track to graduate from university with a wide range of opportunities. Two of the children from the highest income brackets will also be graduating with very little debt: the frankly astonishing investment of parental time/money into extracurricular sports paid off in athletic scholarships.

What fascinated me is that these privileged young adults were blind to just how large a role their parent's investment played in their adult achievements: they viewed themselves as hardworking and responsible for their own success. This blindness is something I have often observed in my fellow university students, many of whom receive financial support from their parents (it also isn't uncommon for said parents to do their laundry, book them onto revision courses, buy them cars, assist them in buying apartments etc.). Yet these students widely condemned the looters in the 2011 London riots as being "scum" and "lazy": from what I could gather, this was because the looters felt entitled to things they hadn't earned.

Another thing I found fascinating is that many of the behaviours teachers interpret as signs of intelligence (asking insightful questions, making eye contact, speaking clearly, backing up one's statements with evidence etc.) were in fact taught and encouraged by the wealthier parents.

While some might argue that the nature/nurture debate wasn't addressed here (and indeed, data from adoption studies would have been welcome), I would still recommend this book to everyone - especially those who think children living in unequal societies have true equality of opportunity: Lareu provides compelling evidence that they do not.

[Carrie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this for a sociology class at school. I'm not sure you really want to get me started on this book so I'll try to condense and keep it brief... Basically Lareau's thinking is that working class and poor parents allow their children the "accomplishment of natural growth" which is largely because the parents have little or not involvement in their kids lives while middle class parents use "concerted cultivation" because they make every effort (to the point of ridiculous schedules) to develop their kids talents and skills. She very clearly prefers the "accomplishment of natural growth."

Now, I will say that Lareau has a couple good points in that the middle class needs to slow down and our kids don't need to be involved in *everything* under the sun. Children do indeed need unstructured, free play time. I agree 100% on that. We also need to reestablish respect for adults - however, the respect that she is so excited about in the working class and poor families is often gained (as shown in her study) through the threat of the child being hit by the parent if they are disrespectful. Is that the best way to gain respect or is that even real respect?

I could go on (and on and on) about this book but I'll stop. It was a compelling read because I was spitting nails through most of it...

[Mythili · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most insightful parenting books I’ve read (despite the fact that it’s not a parenting book). This book really highlights the contrasts between upper/middle class and working-class/poor parents’ assumptions and resources when it comes to raising their kids. Reading it intermittently as I went through the year I often wondered what an ethnographer looking over my shoulder would say about my parenting style. Everyone is portrayed reasonably unflatteringly!—which is refreshing. And fair.

I liked her criticism of the stifling regimens of cultivation imposed by some upper middle class families and recognition of the benefits of the less structured approaches of poorer families. I also kind of loved the section at the end where the researcher explains why various families were mad at her after the book was published. Yikes.

It’s a bit disheartening to see, in great detail, how much these kids’ lives end up constrained by the class they’re born into but also sobering, I guess. Though I also found myself wondering about what the book would have looked like with some upper/middle/lower-income immigrants in the mix. All sorts of other crazy parenting assumptions would come to play!

[Anh Tran · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. A great book in the way that it finally explains to me why I've always feel out of place/uncomfortable by anything suburban, though it is a study so the writing is pretty clinical.

A study on the impact of social class on poverty. Generally the middle class tends to use the concerted cultivation method where the child is usually over-scheduled in various after school activities (sports, piano, choir, etc) and parents solicit their opinions/encourage negotiation. This method provide them with skills in teamwork and performance and also sense of entitlement, which are skills valued in America's institutions but familial connections tend to be more tense and they may end up being pretty rude. The working class and poor use the natural growth method where children have long periods of unstructured play, close connection with extended family, and directives from parents are usually non-negotiable. This method gives children more control of their time and develops a sense of restraint in the children. However, many will not know how to navigate institutional settings like schools, hospitals, workplaces, etc. The conclusion at the end of the book is that class has more of an impact on poverty than race, though black children still experience racism at any class. She lists several ways the state can intervene to reduce inequality, like universal health-care, state daycare, higher minimum wage, etc. None of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

Quote: "Still, any analysis of the rise of concerted cultivation must also, I believe, grapple with the changing position of the United States in the world economy, and the accompanying decline in highly paid manufacturing jobs and increase in less desirable service sector jobs. This restructuring makes it very likely that when today's children are adults, their standards of living will be lower than that of their parents. It means that there will be few "good jobs" and more "bad jobs," and that the competition for them will be intense."

That quote above basically predicted millennials. Linking this to another book called "Can't Even: How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation", it makes a lot of sense why they can't even. A lot of millennials are probably middle class children who grew up in concerted cultivation, where parents invest a lot of time and money cultivating children into middle-class adults. There's now have a generation of people with middle-class skills and used to a certain standard of living, and there's not enough "good jobs" to sustain that.

[Sierra Luce · Rating 4 out of 5]

super super interesting. i learned a lot. some of this is outdated (because it was written a while ago) and i disagree with some of the conclusions and methods…but overall, really really interesting and I appreciate Lareau’s openness and honesty. will definitely be thinking about this for a long time!

[Katie Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very useful read for teachers who work with students of various backgrounds and need to communicate with student parents on a regular basis. It provides insight and perspective on what their lives could be like at home.

[Chunchun · Rating 5 out of 5]

社会学经典著作。
研究方法采用ethnography参与观察，所经历的许多方法与情感方面的挑战可以解答许多定性研究者的困惑。
研究结果更加发人深省：中产阶层concerted cultivation预设孩子需要父母的全面参与，课余有大量organized activities，父母与孩子的沟通方式本身是对孩子思维和语言的启发、丰富；穷人阶层则是natural growth方式培养孩子，预设孩子会自然地长大，课余多为自由活动。不同阶层通过文化资本的transfer而再生产其阶层，其子女耳濡目染父母的处事方式，使得中产阶层子女更可能自如地将各类institution为我所用，而穷人阶层成长于在权威面前感觉constraint的氛围，缺少entitlement，在与权威机构打交道时置身于服从的弱势地位。
中国有类似的阶层文化资本代际传递问题，但是有研究认为目前我国的阶层壁垒主要是经济资本，而非社会资本、文化资本的合力，这与样本代表性有关。应该说，贫穷确实限制了我们的想象力，富裕阶层在许多方面绝对早已远远领先于穷人阶层。但是中国和美国不同的是，我们有阶层上升的重要通道——高考。美国中小学由地方税收拨款，房产税是政府财政重要来源，穷富区域恶性、良性循环一目了然，而恶性的后果是高考申请方面的劣势。还有一点，过于自由和民主对穷人而言并不必然是好事，我在加州首府小白宫见到声势浩大的演讲和抗议，反对给孩子打疫苗，其中一张牌子上写着“疫苗并不能消除measles”，从着装以及利益诉求来讲，抗议者普通阶层居多，对比小白宫内精英着装的政府工作人员，感觉精英阶层在努力奋斗的时候，普通阶层在缴纳智商税，代价是下一代的阶层固化。

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall an intriguing book, and I believe that Lareau presents several thoughtful ideas in the course of her study, which focuses on the lives of middle and working- class children (ages 9 or 10)from various families. The writing style remained less personal than I would have preferred, and rarely did I feel that I "got to know" any of the children whose lives were discussed. I suppose, however, that this personalization had to be sacrificed in order to maintain a sense of professionalism. Sometimes, however, "professionalism" caused the book to read too much like a haphazard collection of field notes, and many details and ideas were repeated over much. I believe this book, if it is to be marketed to the public, could benefit from a bit of editorial work in making it more engaging to readers.

I felt that Lareau's discussion of "concerted cultivation" vs. "natural growth" was the most effective part of the work. In this section, she discusses the tendency of middle class families to schedule their children's free time, preparing them for challenges they foresee in the adult world, whereas most working- class families prefer to allow children's leisure time to remain unscheduled. I appreciated Lareau's readiness to see the merits of both, as well as their faults. Indeed, as she writes, though middle class children may be more prepared to interact with authority than their working- class counterparts, they often have trouble organizing their own free time, as they have grown so accustomed to such a level of structure in their lives.

I also applaud Lareau's refusal to make this division in children's opportunities into a racial issue, which too many tend to discount it as. To say that these "unequal childhoods" are merely the product of racial disparities would be to cheapen the issue, and I agree with Lareau that social polarization is an issue which transcends ethnicity.

[Kathrina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans don't consider social class often enough in evaluating systemic bias in schooling as well as career opportunities. Parenting styles tend to adhere to social class practices, and middle class parenting styles tend to be rewarded in our capitalist economy. But not always, and not dependably. Everything matters, and unfortunately, best intentions are not enough. I knew this, but it's nice to hear again -- having a family is hard work, especially when you're your own best resource.

[Kris · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting ethnology, but showcases a completely biased researcher who makes no bones about criticizing parental decisions.

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been meaning to read this book for years. Great book for teachers to read. I particularly enjoyed the additions in the second edition that discussed family reactions to being in the study.

[Rachael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second time I've read this book in a few years; it greatly interests me, as we are a middle class family with five kids. I come from a working class background myself, while my husband's family was middle class. I see that many of Lareau's observations of the differences in children's upbringings bear out in my memories of growing up, and in my husband's stories from his childhood. As we parent together, I am always thinking of the benefits and drawbacks to the two approaches of childrearing that Lareau discusses: concerted cultivation, which is favored by middle class; and facilitation of natural growth, favored by the working class and poor. The two of us would like our children to have the best of both those worlds.

The children raised under the natural growth approach have a lot of unscheduled downtime to enjoy with siblings, friends, and extended family. They have more autonomy than middle class kids do, do not complain of being bored, and in general, they do as adults tell them, without any arguing or reasoning. They also get along with their siblings better, for the most part. The kids don't participate in many extracurriculars, mostly because they don't have the money, and it's not a priority. Therefore, after providing the necessities of life, the families are relaxed at home. These are the benefits as I see them, and these are the things I want most for my kids. The biggest drawback to this kind of upbringing, that I gather from this book, is that these kids do not end up with a robust sense of entitlement, as middle class kids do. And while I might be inclined to say, "great!" as the examples in the book show, that is a real handicap in our society that rewards assertiveness and confidence.

Children raised by the concerted cultivation approach, on the other hand, are being coached by their parents from early on how best to develop their talents and how to interact with institutions in a confident way that gets them what they want. Every conversation is a teaching opportunity. Every disagreement is a negotiation, as the parents in her study seem to welcome pushback and chances to explain things (I do have to wonder if they weren't performing a little for the fieldworkers). They typically play a lot of organized sports, and learn to win and lose gracefully (ideally). They learn to look people in the eye and shake their hand (which I would argue is something most working class and poor kids learn too, albeit with fewer opportunities, perhaps?). Their families live hectic, overscheduled lives, and the author reported that exhaustion was a common characteristic in not only the parents, but also the kids. Sibling rivalry is intense in these families, with children casually mentioning that they hate each other. As I said before, I think the only benefit to this approach is the confidence of being able to negotiate with people in positions of power, and to navigate institutions such as education and healthcare, which are the two that working class and poor are most intimidated by.

Is it possible, as a middle class family, to raise our kids with the best that both approaches have to offer? I have to say we're trying our best to raise them with what you might call "concerted cultivation LITE." We make a point of not being the "helicopter" or "zamboni" parents. For example, as a rule I do not intervene in school matters unless I learn that there is a major issue and I'm the only one who can fix it. When my high school daughter was upset because she'd been scheduled an elective that she didn't want, her best friend's mother urged me to make a phone call. We opted not to go that route because, as I explained, an elective is kind of low-stakes, and a good opportunity for our daughter to try to resolve the issue herself. We try to leave some margin in our days, and encourage our kids to look for friends and play outside. Fortunately, other families in our neighborhood must feel the same way, since there are friends to play with. We do encourage them in developing their talents, driving them to and from extracurriculars and paying the sometimes hefty fees. We believe that things like organized sports and marching band, while somewhat time-consuming, have many benefits such as exercise, being part of a team, and discipline, to name a few. Lessons they learn on these settings can help equip them for life.

However, I fear that despite our best efforts we give them too much and they take too much for granted. When money isn't a struggle, it is easy to give. Gratitude is a difficult thing to foster in children who have been raised to expect a lot, and are surrounded by other kids who do the same. As the one who grew up with less, I find myself flabbergasted at times. Fights between siblings happen often -- no need to look out for one another when someone's always looking out for them and they are in such comfortable, safe surroundings. And yet, I am proud that my oldest kids manage their academics themselves, taking challenging courses with little to no involvement from me, probably as the result of my being pulled in many directions with five kids. Their friends' parents take a much more hands-on approach, routinely logging onto websites that I probably never have, and monitoring grades. I see my little boy come in the door hungry and barefoot after running around our suburban neighborhood with friends mostly older than he is, and I think he is really living his best life. He loves his rec-level organized sports too, and they are not terribly time-consuming. So maybe it's working, but it's a continuous give and take.

Another reason I picked up the book again is that in this edition, the author follows up with her cohort when they are in college or college-age, and again in their late-20s. It's all fascinating stuff to me, whether due to my being a mother, or a nerd, it's hard to say.

[Sushil · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was surprised by a lot of what was discussed through this book, especially as it related to my own family life. I remembered how much my sister and I would laugh at kids on American Sitcoms for being upset over being grounded, being upset that I couldn't take more Karate Classes as a kid, unsure of how to go through the college application process because my parents did not have a comprehensive understanding of it, and much more.

I never thought about how so many of those experiences were drawn on social classes. I thought most kids either hung out with their friends or watched TV at home when they weren't in school. I didn't know that some parents talk to their kids through reason as opposed to through directives. I used to be repulsed by kids I saw talking back to their parents. Then, everything that was said of how Middle Class parents differ from Working Class and Poor Parents when it comes to involvement in school activity. I think my particular school experiences were unique from the ones in the book because my parents are immigrants to the U.S.

I think this is a great book to learn more about how social class has implicit affected your life, the advantages and disadvantages. I'm uncertain of what Annette Lareau had to say about race though. She makes an argument that one's social class is more impactful on their life than their race. Race in the U.S. plays a crucial role in what social class you fall in the U.S. though.

[Elida H]

read for mc 280 sooo interesting to hear all this analysis and i really liked the in depth method. the end was kinda sad tho. definitely made me think more about why me and my peers are the way that we are

[Kuenzang Om · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book follows kids who are born into different socio-economic families and follow their development over the years. Very insightful. Must read especially if you are in the field of education.

[Pat Roberts]

Intriguing and captivating

[Patricia Farley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the second edition and even though it’s out of date it’s still relevant.

[Grace Alvarez · Rating 2 out of 5]

didn’t like the way she spoke in this book
“class if the biggest dictator of outcomes”
nahhh white lady, ever heard of intersectionality? or is that too complex of an praxis for you

[Crystal · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mildly interesting study. Nothing ground breaking but clearly shows habits and impacts across class and race.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a rare ‘5’ out of 5 for me and a brilliant and timeless work about social class and a rare readable well written academic text. 5 years ago I placed this on my ‘to read’ list after it was reference in another work that I can no longer remember. I have found Lareau repeatedly referenced in other books. I decided now was the time, and quickly regretted not reading this 5 years ago. This is an impactful book caused a lot of deep reflection about the subject matter, my class (or lack of it) and the class implication for our blended class family.

Kerri came from an upper middle class background and myself from the lower end of class. In many ways our combined parenting style aimed to fuse for the best of both worlds (and I hope we achieved this). We are not the helicopter parents with the entitled middle class children, whilst having enough financial resources to provide privileges for our children that the lower class families struggle with. I hope we have struck a balance between ‘concerted cultivation’ and ‘natural growth’ in parenting styles. Time will tell (and it seems to be going okay).

Lareau’s central premise is the middle class parents are likely to engage in ‘concerted cultivation’, whilst poor and working class parents allow ‘natural growth’ to occur. I noted I conform to my working class norm’s and beliefs when it came to intervening in our children’s educational life, compared to Kerri who has been a lot more assertive with teachers and educators (conforming to the middle class). Lareau writes, “I see it as a mistake to accept, carte blanche, the views of officials in dominant institutions (e.g., schools or social service agencies) regarding how children should be raised. Indeed, outside of institutional settings there are benefits and costs to both of these logics of child rearing. For example, concerted cultivation places intense labor demands on busy parents, exhausts children, and emphasizes the development of individualism, at times at the expense of the development of the notion of the family group. Middle-class children argue with their parents, complain about their parents’ incompetence, and disparage parents’ decisions. In other historical moments, a ten year-old child who gave orders to a doctor would have been chastised for engaging in disrespectful and inappropriate behaviour. Nor are the actions of children who display an emerging sense of entitlement intrinsically more valuable or desirable than those of children who display an emerging sense of constraint. In a society less dominated by individualism than the United States, with more of an emphasis on the group, the sense of constraint displayed by working-class and poor children might be interpreted as healthy and appropriate. But in this society, the strategies of the working class and poor families are generally denigrated and seen as unhelpful or even harmful to children’s life chances. The benefits that accrue to middle-class children can be significant, but they are often invisible to them and to others. In popular language, middle class children can be said to have been ‘born on third base but believe they hit a triple’. This book makes the invisible visible through a study of pleasures, opportunities, challenges and conflicts in the daily lives of children and their families” (p 35).

Lareau noted that competition and engagement in competition was encouraged in middle and upper classed families in environments external to the home environment. She suggested an effect of this was increased sibling rivalry and alienation between siblings within the home environment and the children would openly express hate for each other, this was absent in poor and working class families. “Compared to their working-class and poor counterparts, the middle-class children we observed are more competitive with and hostile toward their siblings, and they have much weaker ties with extended family members. Ironically, the greater the number of activities children are involved in, the fewer opportunities they have for face-to-face interactions with members of their own family” (p 61). Adding, “the greatest gulf we observed is one that has not been fully recognized in the existing literature: a class rooted difference in the organization of daily life where by middle and upper-middle class children pursue a hectic schedule of adult organized activities while working-class and poor children follow a more open-ended agenda that is not as heavily controlled by adults” (p 90). I hope that we are a little balance and that our kids have been allowed to pursue their interests, and been supported in doing so, without being over-scheduled.

The children of the elite participate in elite sporting programs in higher numbers. Garrett’s father bemoans the demands of his son’s participation in an elite program saying if he had to work for an hourly rate, his son would not be able to attend. “Mr Tallinger’s observation that ‘there’s something arrogant about soccer. I mean, they just assume that you have the time, that you can get off work, to lug your kids to games. What if you worked at a job that paid an hourly wage?’” (p 70). Blind to the point the only reason Garrett could attend was that he could organise his work around this, an option not available to poor and working class children (who may have more talent).

Lareau observed that their was more kin affection in the poor and working class, compared to the middle and upper class who were often alienated and horrible to their siblings. She noted “middle-class children have trouble adjusting to unstructured time and they often find it difficult to forge deep, positive bonds with siblings are largely unrecognized costs of concerted cultivation. So too are the ways that one child’s schedule dominates family time, particularly at the expense of schedules of younger siblings” (p 87). One thing I like about our family is that our kids seem to get on well enough, which is more representative the a working class atmosphere. I have heard other parents talking about the aggression and hostility between their siblings, and thankfully this is foreign to me.

Laraeu wrote of the cost of increased parental engagement is parental intrusion into the teaching space. Upper-middle class parents did not hesitate to tell educators what methods should be used with their children. The upper middle class treated educators as a subservient role, beneath them in the social hierarchy, whilst working and poor parents deferred the educators as experts, and were less likely to intervene (and appear less engaged) in their children’s education. As noted before, this is a difference between Kerri and I. She is the assertive one who build relationships with educators to ensure our children’s individual needs have been meet.

Mrs McAllister believed her drug addicted sister stole and sold her children's clothing and she threatened her sister with physical violence. This lead to reflections that appropriate behaviours for the poor and working class are not appropriate for the middle and upper classes. The laws are written to suit the middle and upper classes and their norms, and the working and poor class have to conform or hide their behaviours. There is nobody to advocate for poor and working class norms when laws are written. This is reflected in the differing attitudes to corporal punishment (along with the story of ‘Little Billy Yanelli’. What is considered abuse by the upper and middle classes, is permissible and reasonable parenting amongst the poor and working classes. This lead to the poor and working classes to mistrust the institutions such as schools, with the real and legitimate worry they would take their children away from them for perceived abuse. A hornets nest of questions arose: do we need a tiered legal system that considers class? If we do not do this, how do we ensure our laws do not discriminate against the poor and working classes (which we appear to do with the status quo)? I considered corporal punishment valid when Michael was born (and he got the worst of my parenting) and have not ever smacked Melanie. I would not condemn parents who engage in corporal punishment and do not believe it should be illegal. I am just glad that other things worked in provided correction and discipline (that I learned with Kerri).

I had a number of other observations: The children of the Upper/Middle Class got shorter childhood and a delayed and prolonged adolescence compared to the Poor/Working Class children. The Upper/Middle Class children were encouraged to responded to adults and professionals (such as Doctors) as equals at an earlier age, and were able to extend their adolescence into university studies, when the same age poor and working class children were working full time and often providing financial support to their families. The sense of obligation and duty to family was higher amongst the working class and poor children. They took on the burdens of adulthood at a much younger age.

The description of the different cultures within the different classes reminded me of the Alphas, Betas, and Gammas described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Lareau given a dismal picture of the potential of social mobility between the classes. I asked myself how someone from a working class background, found himself a patriarch in a middle class family?

I reflected on the role of professions like Nursing, Teaching, and Military Service that can be a catalyst for movement between the classes. I was in the military and became a nurse. Lareau showed the lower and working classes saw these people above them in the hierarchy and middle and upper class people saw them below. To this day I am more comfortable in the working class milieu. My social friends are: Electricians; Digger Drivers; Carpenters; Clerks; Pest Controllers. I have a few professional friends I have meet through work, and they are the exception and not the rule and often come from working class back grounds themselves. Chris Rock gave a great explanation of this in ‘Selective Outrage’, where he acknowledged he is objectively rich, but identifies as poor. His children are both objectively and culturally rich. These comments support the work of Judith Rich Harris in ‘The Nurture Assumption’, who suggested your childhood peer group is more important even than your family of origin in your identity as an adult.

If we shook up the world and allowed it to become more chaotic, I think the working class children would have more skills to survive as the elites rely on the structures of civilisation to justify their position at the top of it. Remove that structure and they would perish first, and we would be left with an anarchist chaos (not a good outcome, even for the poor). How do we structure our society to allow more mobility between the classes and become the aspired for meritocracy?

The Union’s role was evident as an important role in improving the economic situation of the working class participants in this study. However, my view is that Union’s have lost connection to their working class roots, and have been taken over ideologically by the values of the established ‘liberal’ upper classes and the social/identity justice agenda and now take the leadership positions of these institutions. They seem disconnected from the working class base of getting better wages and conditions for their members, and have become more worried about identity politics and issues of diversity. We are seeing a rejection of ‘the elites’ across the West, which is being described by them as a rise of the right wing. Our elites have been blinded and corrupted by their own ideology. This is actually from the working classes who see the privileges of the elites, and are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo.

We are becoming blind to class, at a time where identity of race and other identities are becoming sacred. In ‘Alexander’ Lareau shows that black children can become entitled brats given the Upper Class environment. The Black Upper Class parents were the most blind to the privilege their class gave them, whilst simultaneously claiming the victim-hood of race.“the biggest differences in the cultural logic if child rearing in the day to day behaviour of children in this study were between middle class children on the one hand (including wealthy members of the middle class) and working class and poor children on the other. As a middle class Black boy, Alexander Williams had much more in common with white middle class Garrett Tallinger than he did with less privileged Black boys, such as Tyree Tayler and Harold McAllister” (p 268).

In the first edition Lareau’s concluding remarks are, “There are those in the population who overcome the predicted odds, particularly certain immigrant groups, The social structure of inequality is not all determining. But it exists. This system of social location, largely unacknowledged by most Americans, means that Katie Brindle, Wendy Driver, and Tyree Taylor have important elements of their lives in common, just as Garrett Tallinger, Alexandeer Williams, and Stacey Marshell have important aspects of their lives in common. It means that class, in some instances, is more important than race. And it suggests that boys and girls of the same social class, while having important gender-related differences in their lives, also have important commonalities.

Americans tend to resist the notion that they live in a society of social classes. Most people describe themselves as middle class. When asked about social divisions, many readily discuss the power of race, but the idea of social class in not a systemic part of the vocabulary of most Americans. Nor is there a set of widely discussed beliefs, as in earlier decades, of the importance of eliminating poverty or narrowing gaps in social inequality.

Looking at social class differences in the standards of institutions provides a vocabulary for understanding inequality. It highlights the ways in which institutional standards give some people an advantage over others as well as the unequal ways that cultural practices in the home pay off on settings outside the home. Such a focus helps to undercut the middle class presumption of moral superiority over the poor and working class. And a vocabulary of social structure and social class is vastly preferable to a moral vocabulary that blames individuals for their life circumstances and saves the harshest criticism for those deemed the ‘undeserving poor’. It is also more accurate then relying only on race categories. The social position of one’s family of origin has profound implications for life experiences and life outcomes. But the inequality our system creates and sustains is invisible and thus unrecognized. We would be better off as a country if we could enlarge our truncated vocabulary about the importance of social class. For only then might we begin to acknowledge more systemically the class divisions among us” (p 285).

This ended chapter twelve and concluded the first edition. I read the second edition where Lareau revisited the families ten years later. In chapter 14 Lareau investigates the family’s progress and outcomes. A lot of her participants are not pleased about how they are shown, amongst all classes. It is a quality of Lareau that she does not paint over the ugly parts and present a romantic view of any of her participants. She acknowledged regrets, such as describing one participant as ‘chubby’, where more objective language could have been used, such as clinically overweight. Any person who has worked in the social sphere with a degree of honesty would agree with Lareau’s observations of the effects of class on parenting styles in what you see in the world.

Lareau concludes the second edition noting, “it is worth bearing in mind that income and education frequently ‘overlap’ with one another – that is, families that the ones described as ‘middle class’ in Unequal Childhoods tend to have both high income and high levels of educational attainment” (p 364). I am not so sure this will continue to be true. Amongst the working class is a loss of trust in the established institutions, and the elites that populate them. The re-election of Donald Trump is a symptom of a paradigm shift that seems to be underway, as the institutions are not being seen to fulfil the social contract and have become a tool for maintaining the status quo. We live in interesting times.

What I like about Lareau’s writing is she is an observer and attempts to explain what she is seeing. She gives both sides of the coin and does not romanticise any class. All classes have costs and benefits in their approaches. She does not appear to take a side in what she observes. If she has opinions of which approach is superior, she does not make these clear. She acknowledged preferring the resources of the rich, than the challenges of the poor. She poses the ‘chicken and egg’ question of does the money create the culture or the culture create the money? The poor make the best choices given what they have available to them, that make sense when considering those resources. The institutions are run by the elite and serve their interests. This is a seminal book and deserves to be more well known.