Scan barcode
roddej86's review against another edition
5.0
Lareau's honest investigation of class-based child-rearing strategies does really compelling analytical work without playing into the tired tropes that tend to pervade thinking about parenting. There's no hysterical bemoaning of the overscheduled middle class kid, nor the mockery of ignorant poor parents who create a culture of poverty with their failure to parent like the middle class. The book takes its subjects points of view very seriously and delivers a smartly contextualized portrayal of how class impacts on parenting, and vice versa. It's a classic for good reason.
I considered docking a star because the prose is often awkward--not excessively complicated, but slightly irksome: strange word choice, odd constructions, the like. I gave the fifth star back for the chapters added to the latest edition, depicting the reaction of each child subject and his/her family to the book. This is so rarely included, and so fascinating as a counterbalance to her analysis. I found it so interesting the families that felt their portrayal was unfair, because in most cases, I had found their depiction to be extremely positive! Her discussion of methods is probably beyond the interest of the typical reader (including myself), but I think it would be extremely interesting to someone headed out into the field.
I considered docking a star because the prose is often awkward--not excessively complicated, but slightly irksome: strange word choice, odd constructions, the like. I gave the fifth star back for the chapters added to the latest edition, depicting the reaction of each child subject and his/her family to the book. This is so rarely included, and so fascinating as a counterbalance to her analysis. I found it so interesting the families that felt their portrayal was unfair, because in most cases, I had found their depiction to be extremely positive! Her discussion of methods is probably beyond the interest of the typical reader (including myself), but I think it would be extremely interesting to someone headed out into the field.
sarabasti's review against another edition
we didn’t read the whole book in class
bethnellvaccaro's review against another edition
5.0
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.
leaton01's review against another edition
4.0
Lareau's book explores the challenges that class offer up to children particularly as it comes to outcomes and opportunities. What I really liked about this book is how she is able to connect the various ways that class does substantively change what youth are aware of and available to act upon based upon the class dynamics of their upbringing. This is particularly true when it comes to the education and job process.
If you enjoyed this review, feel free to check out my other reviews and writings at By Any Other Nerd/
If you enjoyed this review, feel free to check out my other reviews and writings at By Any Other Nerd/
finesilkflower's review against another edition
5.0
Upfront, I am not an educator or sociology student. I don't remember why I requested this from the library--I must have read about it in the notes of a pop-social-science book, a Malcolm Gladwell or something. At first it looked like a sociology textbook, and I set it aside after trying to make headway in the jargony first chapter. But at some point it fell open to one of the case studies, and I was hooked. The book is all case studies and for some reason I cannot stop reading them. It's deeply satisfying in a voyeuristic way.
Each study concerns a family with a nine-year-old child. Field workers studied each family closely, spending weeks living at their homes and carefully recording small interactions. Through juxtaposition of case studies, the book effectively argues that children from middle-class, working-class, and poor families are taught different life lessons, not just because of their families' differing access to resources, but because the classes have fundamentally different cultures.
The middle-class families studied tended to practice "concerted cultivation," that is, they saw the child as a project to be worked on and they saw it as their parental duty to arrange and prioritize activities specifically designed to educate and mold the child (sports, extracurriculars, church groups, tutoring, etc.) Working-class and poor families tended toward the "natural growth" model. Children's and adults' worlds were considered more separate. Children had more unstructured time and devised their own activities with playmates and siblings.
The book shows advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. Although middle-class parents were often convinced that their method of parenting was "right" and that they had no choice but to rearrange their lives around organized activities if they wanted the children to succeed, the studies show some advantages to the "natural growth" approach that may surprise some middle-class parents: the children engaged more deeply in play, never complained of boredom, resolved their own conflicts, played well with children of various ages (including insinuating themselves with older groups with ease and caring for younger children without being asked), and had closer bonds with siblings. Still, the lessons taught by middle-class children's activities and parental attitudes were more advantageous in our society: hand-shaking and eye-contact-making; juggling multiple commitments; confidently demanding & getting "customized" treatment from authority figures (such as asking questions of the doctor or reasoning their way around parental directives); fluently speaking the language of education, medicine, and other powerful institutions. The book shows how cultural differences between the classes contribute to a lack of social mobility and perpetuate themselves across generations.
Things may have changed since 1995 when the study was conducted (though I suspect they haven't much), but I was nine then, the same age as the "focal children," and I had both working-class and middle-class friends, so the cultures described feel true to life to me, and seem to accurately describe differences that I never put into words before.
I'm personally biased toward the "natural growth" model, and I identify with it a lot more; it's how I was raised, which is odd, because I definitely grew up socioeconomically middle class. Judging from the book, my parents' interactions with me mimic the middle-class model of language use--drawing out my opinion, cultivating my vocabulary, encouraging me to reason with them. But their attitudes about school and activities are firmly in the "natural growth" model. I had hours of unstructured time, which I mostly spent reading or drawing. It never would have occurred to my parents to sign me up for anything. Nor would it have occurred to them to initiate contact with my teachers or school professionals. On the other hand, I definitely had the advantages of a middle-class upbringing, like access to money, parental knowledge of how college applications work, a working knowledge of educational and medical vocabulary, etc. I think my case demonstrates that "concerted cultivation" is not necessary for access to middle-class privilege. It's the privilege itself, not the details of any particular (arbitrary) cultural expression of it, that creates generational advantages for children.
Each study concerns a family with a nine-year-old child. Field workers studied each family closely, spending weeks living at their homes and carefully recording small interactions. Through juxtaposition of case studies, the book effectively argues that children from middle-class, working-class, and poor families are taught different life lessons, not just because of their families' differing access to resources, but because the classes have fundamentally different cultures.
The middle-class families studied tended to practice "concerted cultivation," that is, they saw the child as a project to be worked on and they saw it as their parental duty to arrange and prioritize activities specifically designed to educate and mold the child (sports, extracurriculars, church groups, tutoring, etc.) Working-class and poor families tended toward the "natural growth" model. Children's and adults' worlds were considered more separate. Children had more unstructured time and devised their own activities with playmates and siblings.
The book shows advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. Although middle-class parents were often convinced that their method of parenting was "right" and that they had no choice but to rearrange their lives around organized activities if they wanted the children to succeed, the studies show some advantages to the "natural growth" approach that may surprise some middle-class parents: the children engaged more deeply in play, never complained of boredom, resolved their own conflicts, played well with children of various ages (including insinuating themselves with older groups with ease and caring for younger children without being asked), and had closer bonds with siblings. Still, the lessons taught by middle-class children's activities and parental attitudes were more advantageous in our society: hand-shaking and eye-contact-making; juggling multiple commitments; confidently demanding & getting "customized" treatment from authority figures (such as asking questions of the doctor or reasoning their way around parental directives); fluently speaking the language of education, medicine, and other powerful institutions. The book shows how cultural differences between the classes contribute to a lack of social mobility and perpetuate themselves across generations.
Things may have changed since 1995 when the study was conducted (though I suspect they haven't much), but I was nine then, the same age as the "focal children," and I had both working-class and middle-class friends, so the cultures described feel true to life to me, and seem to accurately describe differences that I never put into words before.
I'm personally biased toward the "natural growth" model, and I identify with it a lot more; it's how I was raised, which is odd, because I definitely grew up socioeconomically middle class. Judging from the book, my parents' interactions with me mimic the middle-class model of language use--drawing out my opinion, cultivating my vocabulary, encouraging me to reason with them. But their attitudes about school and activities are firmly in the "natural growth" model. I had hours of unstructured time, which I mostly spent reading or drawing. It never would have occurred to my parents to sign me up for anything. Nor would it have occurred to them to initiate contact with my teachers or school professionals. On the other hand, I definitely had the advantages of a middle-class upbringing, like access to money, parental knowledge of how college applications work, a working knowledge of educational and medical vocabulary, etc. I think my case demonstrates that "concerted cultivation" is not necessary for access to middle-class privilege. It's the privilege itself, not the details of any particular (arbitrary) cultural expression of it, that creates generational advantages for children.
insearchofanap's review against another edition
4.0
Phenomenal. This book is a series of very interesting case studies that reads like a novel. I was hooked from start to finish, and learned SO much. I highly recommend it.
vdikovit's review against another edition
4.0
Through Unequal Childhoods, Annette Lareau sheds light on the many implications class has on an individual's upbringing, their skills in different settings, and their potential professional/academic fate. It's the most narrative, interesting textbook I've ever read.
Some kernels:
Middle class children spend a lot of time per week in adult-organized activities, e.g. soccer team, ballet class, learning piano.
- These children are frequently around adults, and develop a level of comfort around them, as well as a sense of entitlement to attention. They learn to advocate for themselves and customize institutional situations to fit their needs.
- Spending so much time in prescheduled activities helps the children to learn to prioritize (they still have to complete school homework, and often choose one activity over another due to overlapping schedules). Knowing how to prioritize is a skill often required or desired in employment situations with quickly changing organizational needs. So middle class children are set up to understand a basic need in the working world.
- On the other hand, so much time spent in predetermined activities means these children can be easily bored in an unexpected gap of free time.
- Still, the activities in and of themselves are educational and develop the children's talents, curiosities, and broaden their horizons.
- The significant time middle class children spend developing themselves can mean one child's schedule can seriously dictate that of a sibling, which can lead to stress and antagonistic sibling rivalry. Spending time with extended family is a lesser priority, which can lead to loving, but distant extended family relationships.
- Middle class parents encourage their children to expand on thoughts, provide evidence to back up claims and opinions, and in general develop their language skills. The ability to express oneself and argue a point is widely respected (much more so than violence) and helps individuals to gain employment and recognition within that employment later on in life.
Working class and poor kids spend a lot of time with extended family, siblings, and neighborhood children in self-organized play.
- Spending so much time in the absence of adults helps children to develop independence, leadership skills, and autonomy. They have ample freedom to pursue their own interests. Without adult-issued directives, children naturally exhibit creativity and energy in self-organized play.
- Spending time among neighborhood children, siblings, and cousins means these children have contact with a range of ages in their free time (not to mention that they develop very close ties with their siblings and family). They swim in a diverse pool of experiences and maturity levels, possible becoming comfortable as mentors to younger children and deferring to older children in times of uncertainty. Their middle class counterparts mostly spend time with adults or peers, with little experience in between.
- Working class and poor parents, while managing significant financial worries, prioritize keeping their children safe, fed, healthy, and clean over "concerted cultivation" like developing their children's exhibited talents. These children may not develop a talent until much later than their middle class counterparts, resulting in a talent/experience gap that may be long-term.
- Working class and poor parents tend to defer to the expertise of a teacher or doctor, in any situation, rather than attempt requesting customization for their child and risk worsening the situation. Long term, the children do not learn to advocate for themselves in professional settings, nor do they benefit from customization as they develop. In contrast, Middle class parents are consistently involved in their children's school and other development and frequently intervene on their children's behalf.
"There are signs that middle-class children benefit, in ways that are invisible to them and to their parents, from the degree of similarity between the cultural repertoires in the home and those standards adopted by institutions." (p. 237)
I had never looked at the world in this way. I think the concept that we all start the race with different levels of a head start is true. Some people are born knuckleheads, but have a rich dad, and they can just become president.
Some kernels:
Middle class children spend a lot of time per week in adult-organized activities, e.g. soccer team, ballet class, learning piano.
- These children are frequently around adults, and develop a level of comfort around them, as well as a sense of entitlement to attention. They learn to advocate for themselves and customize institutional situations to fit their needs.
- Spending so much time in prescheduled activities helps the children to learn to prioritize (they still have to complete school homework, and often choose one activity over another due to overlapping schedules). Knowing how to prioritize is a skill often required or desired in employment situations with quickly changing organizational needs. So middle class children are set up to understand a basic need in the working world.
- On the other hand, so much time spent in predetermined activities means these children can be easily bored in an unexpected gap of free time.
- Still, the activities in and of themselves are educational and develop the children's talents, curiosities, and broaden their horizons.
- The significant time middle class children spend developing themselves can mean one child's schedule can seriously dictate that of a sibling, which can lead to stress and antagonistic sibling rivalry. Spending time with extended family is a lesser priority, which can lead to loving, but distant extended family relationships.
- Middle class parents encourage their children to expand on thoughts, provide evidence to back up claims and opinions, and in general develop their language skills. The ability to express oneself and argue a point is widely respected (much more so than violence) and helps individuals to gain employment and recognition within that employment later on in life.
Working class and poor kids spend a lot of time with extended family, siblings, and neighborhood children in self-organized play.
- Spending so much time in the absence of adults helps children to develop independence, leadership skills, and autonomy. They have ample freedom to pursue their own interests. Without adult-issued directives, children naturally exhibit creativity and energy in self-organized play.
- Spending time among neighborhood children, siblings, and cousins means these children have contact with a range of ages in their free time (not to mention that they develop very close ties with their siblings and family). They swim in a diverse pool of experiences and maturity levels, possible becoming comfortable as mentors to younger children and deferring to older children in times of uncertainty. Their middle class counterparts mostly spend time with adults or peers, with little experience in between.
- Working class and poor parents, while managing significant financial worries, prioritize keeping their children safe, fed, healthy, and clean over "concerted cultivation" like developing their children's exhibited talents. These children may not develop a talent until much later than their middle class counterparts, resulting in a talent/experience gap that may be long-term.
- Working class and poor parents tend to defer to the expertise of a teacher or doctor, in any situation, rather than attempt requesting customization for their child and risk worsening the situation. Long term, the children do not learn to advocate for themselves in professional settings, nor do they benefit from customization as they develop. In contrast, Middle class parents are consistently involved in their children's school and other development and frequently intervene on their children's behalf.
"There are signs that middle-class children benefit, in ways that are invisible to them and to their parents, from the degree of similarity between the cultural repertoires in the home and those standards adopted by institutions." (p. 237)
I had never looked at the world in this way. I think the concept that we all start the race with different levels of a head start is true. Some people are born knuckleheads, but have a rich dad, and they can just become president.
mwatts168's review against another edition
5.0
Coming back write the review this book rightfully deserves.
I NEED EVERYONE TO READ THIS BOOK!!
Before I read this, I was aware of the impact a child's class has on them. However, Lareau brought so many new things to light and went DEEP beyond the surface. One of the most interesting discoveries of Lareau was the child rearing differences between upper-middle-class families and working class/low-income families. The middle-class children were raised with concerted cultivation which then creates the sense of entitlement in those kids. The WC kids were raised in an accomplishment of natural growth. She explains how institutions favor the middle-class rearing methods and reinforce inequalities. Lareau explains how schools are one of the worst at reinforces inequalities.
I saw a lot of her findings in my own life, which may have made this book more powerful. I live in a working-class family, and according to Lareau, my parents would use more directives rather than reasoning. The working class families establish a belief that clear boundary of "I am the parent, you are the child, and that doesn't change." She also explained how the differences in class and the value of education. The WC families saw education as a tool/ step while middle-class families see it with more value of learning.
Lareau also compares her findings to Pierre Bourdieu who found the differences in taste among classes which is another can of worms.
I NEED EVERYONE TO READ THIS BOOK!!
Before I read this, I was aware of the impact a child's class has on them. However, Lareau brought so many new things to light and went DEEP beyond the surface. One of the most interesting discoveries of Lareau was the child rearing differences between upper-middle-class families and working class/low-income families. The middle-class children were raised with concerted cultivation which then creates the sense of entitlement in those kids. The WC kids were raised in an accomplishment of natural growth. She explains how institutions favor the middle-class rearing methods and reinforce inequalities. Lareau explains how schools are one of the worst at reinforces inequalities.
I saw a lot of her findings in my own life, which may have made this book more powerful. I live in a working-class family, and according to Lareau, my parents would use more directives rather than reasoning. The working class families establish a belief that clear boundary of "I am the parent, you are the child, and that doesn't change." She also explained how the differences in class and the value of education. The WC families saw education as a tool/ step while middle-class families see it with more value of learning.
Lareau also compares her findings to Pierre Bourdieu who found the differences in taste among classes which is another can of worms.