By now you should have read several chapters in Annette Lareau’s Unequal Childhoods. We’ve discussed Lareau’s basic approach: an examination of 5th graders in two different schools, a basic framework of differences she notices in the children and their families/households, and two distinctive patterns of childrearing that emerge from her observational research, ‘concerted cultivation’ and ‘natural growth’. We’ll discuss some of the underlying assumptions and theoretical implications later in the course. There is also the comparisons of differences in the different households that allowed Lareau and her team of graduate researchers into their lives (Garrett, Tyrec, Katie, Alexander).

Now first. These patterns observed by Lareau and her research team are not polar. In other words, few households pristinely fit into ‘concerted cultivation’ or ‘natural growth.’ They are tendencies toward one kind of household experience and another. So Lareau identifies dimensions along with these tendencies might vary:

• Interaction between adults and children–how they talk to each other, how discipline is meted out, how much reasoning between parents and children affects their views of authority and discipline
• The level of structure or organization that characterizes everyday life
• The extent to which the life of the household revolves around the children and their activities, the level of involvement of parents/guardians in those activities
• The level of emphases placed on interaction with adults, especially professionals (in education, health care) and the adult world
• How language is used, whether children are encouraged to consider their capacity with language as a means to persuade, resolve differences, seek advantage
• How the outcomes, based on these general tendencies for how children are raised in households, can vary along class lines, with racial intersection, and affect children’s life chances and opportunities in an adult world where middle class professionals play prominent roles in the functioning of pervasive, bureaucratic institutions

So in class we have discussed how social welfare is most accurately considered, in the spectrum of the human condition, from cradle to grave. At different stages of the life course, the kinds of welfare supports and services from which people might benefit will obviously vary. But Lareau focuses on 5th graders because they’re still young enough to expect parents to play a more prominent role in their lives–they are not fully socialized or capable of living independently, either functionally or legally. Not that parents would kick 10 year-old children out of the household if they were, mind you.

So think about social welfare. In Oregon, the government has placed great emphasis on ‘early learning hubs’ and providing more resources to children where they are most likely to be found, supported, and receptive–public schools. There are more school-based health centers, school-based counselors, behavioral specialists and therapists. We know that ACEs–adverse childhood experiences often translated as trauma–can make it exceedingly difficult for children to succeed or even keep up academically in school. We have a Head Start program that is designed to help those mostly likely to already be behind by kindergarten. We know that for children to make a smooth transition into adulthood, it is crucial to provide trauma-informed care and teaching to give those who have or are experiencing ACEs the best chances for a ‘normal’ life free from higher risks of mental and physical health problems.

And we can suspect that the ‘natural growth’ households may be less trusting of the bureaucracies that populate the social landscape of modern society. And yet, if those children as adults are less equipped with skills and fluencies to deal with this complex adult world and an economy that produces high rates of inequality, they may be the most likely to benefit from some of the forms of social capital that present themselves as, say, welfare agencies or bureaucracies. If colleges seem intimidating and foreign, will students have the same opportunities to succeed and learn as those who have been prepped since pre-adolescence for these eventualities?

Don’t discount the fact that those benefits that Lareau describes of the ‘natural growth’ pattern of child-rearing–especially the freedom to just be a kid, to have unstructured play time or friendships that aren’t the result of sports travel teams or dance class or music lessons–do not seem to lead to the same rewards in adulthood, as far as economics and employment are concerned. The households were less likely to see childhood as a time where parents ‘invest’ in a preparatory and enriching and often highly-structured activities that will prepare these children to be competitive and successful in the labor market. Lareau’s follow-up, though much less rigorous, provides some validity to her general conclusions. The complexities are many, and one can begin to speculate on some of the intersections of race and gender and sexuality, but … it’s a big topic (for instance, delaying marriage and childbirth is likely to affect girls more than boys in these distinctions, especially in terms of work and formal education).

Are the children from one type of household–remembering these are ‘types’, and no household fits perfectly into a mold–more happy or well-adjusted? That’s beyond the scope of Lareau’s research. But keep the bumper sticker in mind: Money can’t buy happiness, but it allows you choose your own form of misery.

And keep in mind as well how the welfare system works, who it serves, and how important our early years are in setting a course for a transition into adulthood and beyond.