Working Class Children Must Learn to be Middle Class to Get on in Life (2/18-20)

Working class children must learn to be middle class to get on in life

When thinking of poor and working class individuals in light of Unequal Childhoods a serious institution to consider in the socialization of children is the school. When thinking on this subject I happened across the article I have attached. In this article the Education Secretary of Great Brittain, Michael Gove, argues in a pretty similar line of reasoning to Annette Lareau. Both insist that the lower classes lack cultural capital. Lareau offers examples of shaking the hand of an adult male and Gove discusses the fact that lower class children are as comfortable in common business settings such as restaurants. Both the article and the book both address the fact that often people are unappreciative of how and why these inequalities are taking place. As the article discusses near the end this unawareness can lead to false assumptions on how to deal with the problem.  These factors culminate in unsuccessful policies and prejudice views of the lower classes, not to mention severe inequality.  To seriously address these problems, we as a society must further study these inequalities and push for implementation to amend them as swiftly as possible.

My Unequal Childhood (2/11-13)

Annette Lareau's "Unequal Childhoods" presents many ideas on how individual's socioeconomic status effects their socialization process.  Lareau argues that children from the poor and working classes practice what she has termed "Accomplishment of Natural Growth" this is where children have more control over the structuring of their free time, and a more plentiful supply of free time for that matter.  Lareau found in her research that these families also often had closer ties and stronger bonds with relatives, such as cousins.  Though these things may be good in general for children Lareau says that they do not line up with the ideas of greater society, especially its various institutions into which children are to be assimilated.  In Unequal Childhoods it is contended that middle class families offer a form of child rearing that is more parallel to these institutions ideal way of operating.  Lareau dubbed this parenting style "Concerted Cultivation".  This way of rearing children is comprised of a rigid structure consisting of a (un)healthy amount of extracurricular activities, from soccer to piano lessons.  Lareau asserts that by associating children with these institutions and subjecting them to a rigid structure they will be better prepared for grappling with institutions later in life, a major part of the socialization  process.  Along with this children also learn to interact with adults in many situations and to have open dialogue with them.  In addition they learn important social cues such as eye contact and shaking hands.

When I attempt to overlay my childhood with that of this book I can see some similarities and some differences.  While I don't necessarily disagree with Lareau's statements I would be apprehensive to say that they apply perfectly in every situation.  I can think of instances where I obtained many elements of both of these styles of socialization.  From when I was in 5th grade to when I graduated high school I was involved in band, multiple sports (football, basketball, golf), academic bowl, when I turned 16 I began working.  So I have had many structures associated with "Concerted Cultivation".  Another example of this is my frequent contact and discussion with adults.  This was due in large part because my Dad is a pastor and often I would be approached  by adults wanting to talk to me and was of course obliged to act "like a model child", I learned to shake hands and use eye contact.  This is where my flirtation with "Concerted Cultivation" ended however.  As I mentioned my Dad was a pastor, I didn't mention that for most of that time we lived in a town of around 150 people, my dad would say "including cats and dogs", and after we lived in a town of around 350.  These two facets of my reality resulted in a lower income family.  This is not to say that we were excessively wanting, in many ways we lived as a middle class family, though we did live in a "double-wide" for some time (I was going to post a picture of this but you cannot get a street view in the town because apparently Google refused to drive through), we generally had two cars and presents on Christmas.  We also did not have much connection with our relatives, again this is not to say that there was no connection, just more of a Christmas and Thanksgiving get together thing due to great distances separating all of us.  In addition, especially in elementary school, I had a lot of free time after school and was pretty much allowed to do as I pleased as long as I told my parents where I was going, or a rough idea.  This allowed me time to explore and create different games with my friends.  I can see Lareau's point in her book about how these ideas come to influence children's socialization process.  I do think however that we must realize that often, as in my case, children are subjected to varying degrees of these strategies, with differing results.

Socializing the Sexes (2/4-6)

From our earliest memories, most people could probably remember a time when they had gender roles imparted on them.  I would bet that if we could go back to our birth their would almost certainly be some article displaying gendered language, such as "It's a girl!".  It seems at birth an individual has no worthwhile characteristics, at least in societies minds, besides gender, in fact some individuals have not even been named yet.  Unfortunately, farther reaching memories such as ones birth and early childhood are often irretrievable or murky at best.  An easy and common experience that was part of my childhood was Disney movies.  The movie video attached shows a plethora of examples of gendered terms, attire, cultural expectations, gender roles, to name a few.  The dialogue focuses on men which, as a male both in biological sex and how I recognize myself, resonates with me more.  However, even just looking at the clips it can be seen that women are the "damsels in distress" or must be unrealistically attractive, or else as the Emperor says "Let me guess, you must have a great personality.".  When watching this video for the first time one clip of the films used as an example that struck a memorial nerve was Hercules.  I remember watching that movie in the theater as a young child with my mom.  I also distinctly remember that in the parking lot after the movie she explained to me that this was just a movie and was not reality.  I think she helped me to open up my thinking in some ways by doing this and showing me that not everything that I saw on TV was reality.  I think this is important for children to understand.  Another thing that came to mind when watching this clip was in relation to Thorne.  Both the clip and Thorne discuss the role of aggression, in regards to boys.  I think that the profuse male violence with male characters young males learn that this is normal behavior for their gender and should act accordingly.  As Thorne points out this behavior is often aggravated by authority figures passiveness, offering responses such as "Boys will be boys" and "The kids were just teasing".  Exposing youth to such stringent roles and ideas and encouraging such with adult indifference or outright endorsement causes misunderstanding and confusion for youth in our society and I believe we need to begin to be honest and educate them.

[Self Titled] (1/28-30)

When meditating on the word "child", or "childhood", from a sociological perspective many initial emotions and questions arise.  Not the least of these is,"Why were children been marginalized for years of sociological research and thought?".  Its seems people before me such as William Corsaro and Jens Qvortrup have thought about this exact question.  Corsaro even answers this question by stating that "Children are marginalized in sociology because of their subordinate position in societies and in theoretical conceptualizations of childhood and socialization.".  When a group is bound within a rigid structure and defined withing acute parameters their voice and potential impact on society is greatly limited.  This can be seen in a hodgepodge of differing situations children find themselves in.  From defining strict gender roles onto children from birth, to limiting their knowledge on subjects, and even legally restricting them in some instances, children are certainly prevented from participating in a lot of common activities in society.  Their voice, when not in accordance with strict ideas of what a child should think or be allowed to know, is often unnoticed or rejected as "childish", but almost certainly will be seen as less important than an adults, or even a young adult.  While I wouldn't argue that no barriers should be placed on children, however I do think that children should be consulted and considered much more in our day and age.  

One way I think we could begin to become a more inclusive society for children would be to not only simply consult them as to their thoughts on their involvement in society, but they should also be included in research regarding themselves.  This point is touched on by Michael Wyness.  While, as he says, children have been involved with creating and carrying out some sociological studies, their involvement has been too limited in my opinion.  Children should feel more free to create their own studies and should be not only verbally encouraged, but also assisted in funding their projects so they can create real research and express their honest voice to society.  I believe this is a big step in allowing children to both claim and create their space in society.