Self-help books and positive-thinking manuals have led many people to believe that we are all responsible for our own success, that everyone has equal opportunities in life, and that any given person must bear the responsibility for their own failure, since it can be taken as a result of not making the best use of their time and resources. This attitude is especially true in the United States, where the American Dream puts even more pressure on people to achieve success.
According to the author, however, this mindset is not only extremely blinkered but also deeply flawed, as shown by research conducted on a group of 12 children, aged around 10. The children came from families of different social backgrounds, and more specifically, from the middle and working classes. The group was selected from within a larger sample of 88 children coming from two American schools: Swan, whose pupils are predominantly middle class, and Lower Richmond, which is attended mostly by children from working class families. The researchers asked permission to observe the children and their families as they went about their daily lives, in order to analyse events, behaviours, and conversations both within the family, with other people and with representatives of the schools and institutions.
The results showed that certain underlying behaviours, emotions, and experiences are common to all families, regardless of their class, but they also highlighted several key differences in how the children in these families are raised, which have an impact on the child’s future. In particular, the parents’ behaviour and attitude towards their children, schools, and money ultimately leave an indelible mark on the child, affecting their future sense of security, especially when it comes to work, authority figures, and any kind of organisation or institution.
Based on these results, the author makes a clear distinction between two main parenting styles. She maintains that middle-class families follow what is known as ‘concerted cultivation’, whereby parents encourage their child’s development, by organising extra-curricular activities, getting involved in their child’s education and their school, and building relationships with professionals and adults in positions of authority. Families in the lower classes, on the other hand, tend to lean more towards a natural growth approach, giving their children more freedom and allowing them to organise their free time however they like. They tend to focus on the family and leave the child’s education up to the school.
The differences in these two parenting styles leads to inequality between children of the various social classes. At some point during the 20th century, educators came to the conclusion that the natural growth method was wrong, and only advocated the concerted cultivation approach. As a result, schools and institutions are now based on concerted cultivation, and families from the lower classes are often judged as being disinterested in the welfare and success of their children, who end up having fewer opportunities than those from the middle and upper classes.
The differences in social class and the two parenting styles influence three main elements of a child’s life: how their daily life is organised, the use of language, and their relationship with institutional figures, such as teachers or doctors.
