Unequal Childhoods - Annette Lareau [99]
Still, social class seemed to make a difference in how parents, primarily mothers, managed children’s complaints about institutions. Middle-class mothers were often very interventionist, assertively intervening in situations. Sometimes parents were successful, and sometimes they were not. But in the process, they directly taught their children how to “not take no for an answer” and to put pressure on persons in positions of power in institutions to accommodate their needs. By contrast, working-class and poor parents tended to expect educators and other professionals to take a leadership role. This deference was not, it turned out, a stance they took up with other key service providers in their lives. Ms. Driver, for example, considered herself “hot tempered” and would fume about the latest antic of their landlord, but in the school situation, she was much more passive. Since the school was designed around a system of concerted cultivation, and teachers expected the parents to take a leadership role in schooling, the deference of parents such as Ms. Driver was problematic in terms of fostering school success.
Still, cultural resources did not automatically lead to profits. Despite assiduous efforts by the white middle-class mother Ms. Handlon to help her daughter Melanie in school, the experience was often difficult at home and of questionable benefit at school. In addition, it is important to look beyond the issue of individual personalities and look more broadly at the relationship of social patterns and social structures. Schools, despite their claims to be friendly places, have a legal obligation to turn parents in if they suspect child abuse or neglect. In this role, they are arms of the state. Working-class and poor parents, as I have shown, were less likely to use verbal reasoning as a form of discipline. Instead, many were likely to use physical punishment. As I will show with the case of Little Billy Yanelli, the use of a belt at home was in clear conflict with the patterns adopted by the school. In addition, the parents’ belief in the importance of Little Billy defending himself on the playground also collided with school rules. As a result, the Yanelli parents felt alternately defiant, scared, and powerless. They encouraged their son to hit, when they felt it was necessary, and, when necessary, he would be hit with a belt at home. But through their lives, there was a lurking concern that they, and other working-class and poor families shared: “the school” would suddenly turn them in for child abuse and “come and take my kids away.” By being in synch with the standards of school officials, the cultural logic of child rearing of concerted cultivation provided important, and largely invisible, benefits to the middle-class parents and children that the working-class and poor parents and children did not gain.
CHAPTER 8
Concerted Cultivation
in Organizational Spheres:
Stacey Marshall
Suddenly, the first day in [gymnastics] class, everything that Stacey did, you know, uh. . . . Even, even though she was doing a skill, it was like, “Turn your feet this way,” or . . . , “Do your hands this way.” You know, nothing was very, very good or nothing was good, or even then just right. She [Tina, the instructor] had to alter just about everything [Stacey did]. I was somewhat furious . . . The instructor had come to the door, Tina. So I went to her, and I said . . . “Is there a problem?” (Interview with Ms. Marshall)
All families interact with many different institutions. For middle-class mothers, the boundaries between home and institutions are fluid; mothers cross back and forth, mediating their children’s lives. When Ms. Marshall,