Parenting practices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (May 2008)
This article covers a very specific parenting practices associated with social class in the broader field of social stratification. For more general information refer to Parenting.

In social stratification (a specific area of study in sociology) different parenting practices lead children to have different upbringings. Differences in child rearing are identified and associated with different social classes.

The two types of child rearing that are introduced by Dr. Annette Lareau (sociologist and professor at the University of Maryland) are concerted cultivation and natural growth. Concerted cultivation parenting is associated with those parents who have traditionally white collar jobs and those considered to be part of the middle class. Natural growth parenting is associated with blue collar workers of the working class. Parenting practices do not apply exclusively to social classes, but they are highly correlated[1]. It is important to understand that the only defining factor as to how a child is raised is the amount of money that his or her parents have. There is not a complete correlation between money and child rearing practices; however, wealth and income are the most significant defining factors as to which child-rearing practice will be used.


Contents

[edit] Critical Overview

The techniques of child rearing that a parent uses when raising a child ultimately have a great effect on the child and how he or she develops. The difference between the two types presented by Annette Lareau is that concerted cultivation will in most cases provide a child with skills and advantages over natural growth children in the classroom and eventually in their careers. This is where parenting practices play into a larger social inequality issue. Social inequality results from a lack of educational and employment opportunities as well as the lower social status for the poor. This creates various difficulties for the poor and there are fewer opportunities to provide attentive care for their children. The natural growth parenting style arises under these disadvantaged circumstances. Natural growth is then perpetuated because these children will not be as well suited for the work force, and therefore, will make less money, and will most likely not be able to give their children a concerted cultivation upbringing. The critical issue is the difference in opportunities. Children of concerted cultivation, along with their upbringing, are typically provided with connections from their parents, friends, and activities that give them a step up in life. These advantages are perpetuated and inequality continues to exist[2].


[edit] Concerted Cultivation

American middle class parents engage in concerted cultivation parenting by attempting to foster children's talents through organized leisure activities, which teach them to respect authority and how to interact in a structured environment[3]. Learning how to interact in a structured environment much like a classroom gives students a head start in school because they are identified as intelligent or 'good' students. Other aspects of concerted cultivation include emphasis on reasoning skills and language use. Parents challenge their children to think critically and to speak properly and frequently, especially when interacting with adults. These skills also set the child apart in academic settings as well as give them confidence in social situations. By learning these traits, they are advancing themselves in their surroundings. Another difference is the involvement parents have in their children's lives. Parents are much more involved in following their children's academic progression. Through this process children from a concerted cultivation upbringing will feel more entitled in their academic endeavors and will feel more responsible because the know that their parents are highly involved. This sense of entitlement becomes important in institutional settings because American middle class children question adults and consider them relative equals.

[edit] Natural Growth

Parents in the working class (and typically with lower incomes) engage their children in the accomplishment of natural growth. Children usually have more unstructured time and therefore create their own activities to occupy themselves. This environment does not prepare children to survive in settings that are very structured, such as schools. [4]. In working class households, the parents have less time to spend with children and do not have the money to hire help. Accompanying the strain on time, working class parents are left with less time to get involved with their children's schooling and activities, therefore they leave this up to the professionals. The parents do not do this on purpose but frequently have jobs that are less lenient with their hours and they have difficulties making it to meetings with teachers. This frequently leaves parents frustrated with a feelinging of powerlessness and the children do not receive the sense of entitlement and support that comes with concerted cultivation. Having less time outside of jobs can also lead to less congruency between parents in their child-rearing practices. Having less consistency can cause the child to become more inhibited and reserved[5].

[edit] Race Differences in Parenting

Though there is evidence that race is linked to class, in parenting, race has a much lesser impact on a child's development than social class[6]. Social class, wealth, and income have a much more of an effect on what child rearing practices will be used, rather than the race of the parents or children. The correlation between race and social class comes from the perpetuated inequality in the distribution of wealth in America. The lack of money is the defining factor in the style of child rearing that is chosen, and minorities are more likely to have less wealth or assets available for use in their children's upbringing. Wealth and connections among middle class parents also defines how these children enter the labor market, with or without help in finding jobs[7].

[edit] Inequality

Inequality exists in the opportunities that lead to different child-rearing practices but they also cause many other differences, such as the quality of schools, as a result of differences in wealth, income, and assets. The schools in the wealthier neighborhoods have more money to hire better teachers, staff, and materials that improve education. In addition to having better teaching and materials, the schools have more money to make renovations, have a better appearance, and the children develop a sense of confidence and entitlement because they feel that they are learning in an environment of excellence. The quality of the parents work life varies dramatically as well, and this plays into how much time and energy parents have to spend engaging their children. If inequality was not such a powerful force in America, resources, funds, and schools would be distributed more evenly[8].

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Lareau 2003
  2. ^ Lareau 2003
  3. ^ Lareau 2003, p. 11-12
  4. ^ Lareau 2003, p. 14-32
  5. ^ Block, Jeanne H., Jack Block, and Andrea Morrison (2002) "Parental Agreement-Disagreement on Child-Rearing Orientations and Gender-Related Personality Correlates in Children." in Child Development 52: 965-974.
  6. ^ Lareau, Annette (2002) "Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families." in American Sociological Review. 67: 747-776.
  7. ^ Lamont, Michele (2000) "Meaning-Making in Cultural Sociology: Broadening Our Agenda." in Contemporary Sociology. 29: 604.
  8. ^ Lareau 2003, p. 28-32
  • Lareau, Annette (2003), Unequal Childhoods, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-23590-4 
 This article is uncategorized.
Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles. (May 2008)