Do you think that the way you raise your children was special? Do you feel that you do it differently from the rest? How many different nurtures exist? Does it all reduce to Estivill-Rosa Jové? Natural breeding - "artificial"? And what about the rich and the poor?
It seems that they also have something to do with how to raise children. According to a study, There are only two ways to raise a child: with money or without money. The educational philosophy employed by parents regarding their children would only depend on their social class, whether they are middle class or lower class.
The sociologist Annette Lareau of the University of Maryland came to this conclusion: rich parents raised their children in one way, and the poor in another. And that no other feature of the families was important when determining the type of parenting.
Lareau was integrated into various families very differentiated from each other, trying to get families to act normally, as if she were not, and then I accompanied them everywhere: to the church, to football matches, to the doctor's office ... always with a recorder in hand and a notebook.
Rich parents, poor parents
The two educational philosophies he discovered, perfectly defined by social class and not by any other factor, were:
- Rich or middle class parents: they dedicate more time to their children's leisure, aiming at numerous extracurricular activities, such as swimming, music, etc. In addition, these parents get involved with teachers, coaches or teammates, and transfer their children from one activity to another personally. Parents listen more to their children, and they intervene in family decisions.
This style of education of the middle class Lareau calls it "concerted cultivation." It is an active attempt to "foster and evaluate a child's talents, their opinions and abilities", something that seems essential to me in dealing with our children (not so much "assessing" as empowering).
However, I know of middle-class and well-off parents who do not respond to these parameters, who do not worry about their children's free time, who leave them alone at home, or who “pack” them to activities that children detest, who do not they care about their education, neither the school one, nor do they maintain relations with the educational scepter. I know strict parents, permissive parents and passive or "non-existent" parents.
- Poor or lower or middle-lower class parents: There is no planning so intensive. Children entertain themselves by playing with their siblings or other children in the neighborhood. They live more apart from the adult world. They choose activities on their own initiative and move alone to attend them.
Poor parents tend to follow a strategy for achieving "natural growth." They consider it their responsibility to care for their children, but they tend to let them "cultivate" and develop themselves. Hence the distinction between "cultivation" for the style of rich parents and "growth" for the style (or lack of style?) Of the poor.
Note the adjective “natural” that the author grants to this modality, which does not seem to agree, at least not totally, with what is known to us as “natural upbringing”.
However, I know that low-class parents who care about their children's tastes, who make efforts so that they are not alone and maintain contact with the school. They are not the majority, but they are not rare cases either. I know strict parents, permissive parents and passive or "non-existent" parents.
What consequences do these two styles have on children?
Children from poor families complain less, are more docile, more creative when it comes to taking advantage of your time.
Poor and working-class children will be characterized by "an emerging sense of distance, distrust and constraint." They don't know how to get what they want.
But in practical terms, "concerted cultivation" has more advantages. The other philosophy of education allows the child to be exposed to more changing and cultivating experiences. Internalize the idea of "being entitled." Learn to work as a team and adapt to very structured environments.
In the words of Lareau:
These boys act as if they had the right to pursue their own individual preferences and to interact actively in institutional settings. They are comfortable in such environments; They are open to share information and to demand attention. (...) Among middle-class children it is common practice to change interactions to meet their preferences (using their knowledge of the rules). Already in the fourth year, middle-class children demonstrate autonomy to act in their own favor and gain advantages. Thus, they make special requests to professors and doctors to adjust the procedures to the accommodation of their wishes.
My experience with middle-upper and lower class children
What happens is that here it is being taken for granted that institutional or “structured” environments are the most suitable, when we know that this is not the case for many children (from whatever social stratum).
Anyway, those are the conclusions of this lady, although I do not share them. I do not say that both styles determine to a greater extent that children grow up with the indicated characteristics, but I don't think those styles are directly related to the economic level of families.
As a teacher in different educational centers I have met boys and girls of very different social status, and among the middle class I have seen everything, and among the lower class I have seen everything.
I do not believe that these children have been educated the same despite belonging to identical social classes, although there are certain characteristics that are repeated more frequently (not always). But there are carefree parents between the rich and the poor, with careless children. And attentive parents too.
Conclusions
I do believe that there are many ways to educate a child, even among the rich and the poor. We see it on the blog every day, with the opinions of parents who probably move in a similar spectrum of middle class: there are many nuances when it comes to dealing with the growth and development of our children, living with them and with the environment.
As I also believe that there are no absolute determinisms, and that although our social condition and our particular way of raising and educating our children will obviously constitute the basis of the future adult, their own personality, their circle of relationships, the rest of the family, the surroundings… they will influence what that boy or that older girl will be.
In fact, I think the biggest problem of studies like this is the want to radically separate different "styles", opposite parenting modes, and grant them absolute validity, with one in possession of good and truth and the other in the wrong and fatal way.
And one last objection to the study is that it is obviously restricted to our “first world,” but you will agree with me that, in one way or another, third world parents also have to raise their children, as they do in African tribes. or in certain Indian communities, without any comfortable way of life with which to compare, without school or institutions.
And I do not mean only the most disadvantaged societies, but also those that do not see happiness with our same prism, who need very little to live and raise happy children. Another question is whether we would trade for them.
I also doubt that the author of the study lived with really marginal and unstructured families, in which the situations of the children have little to do with those described (neither schools, doctors, football matches ...).
I don't know if you will think that The social class associated with the money you have is what determines our way of raising children, reducing parenting modes to two: with money and without money. And, above all, which one would be better?
