Unequal Childhoods, Chs. 6 and 7, examine differences in language use and development through the prism of two black boys. One is the son of two wealthy professionals, the other that of a single mother in a housing project. It's an interesting (and understated) demo of "intersectionality" that might be worth using to illustrate the idea for people who aren't sure what that's all about.
It's also well worth reading just for its more direct insights:
"The positive aspects of Harold's upbringing -- the ease he displays with his peers, his resourcefulness in creating games and organizing his own time, his respectful attitude toward adults, his deep connection to family members -- are rendered nearly invisible in the "real world" of social institutions.
Educators, health-care professionals, employers, and others accept (and help to reproduce) an ideology that values, among other things, reasoning and negotiating skills, large vocabularies, facility in speaking and working with strangers, and time management -- the very attributes [that middle-class children] like Alexander develop in their daily lives [via continually being treated as a conversational equal, encouraged and challenged regarding his opinions, and taught new vocabulary and argument techniques in the course of daily life.]
[Over time, these] institutional preferences evolve into institutionalized inequality, as differences come to be defined as deficits."
But back to the intersectionality bit:
The professional couple is very conscious about educating their son in the realities of race, but also in guiding that education to maximize his advantages. His mother takes pains to ensure that he's never the only black kid in any given class or organized activity; she never puts him in a position to be isolated or bullied without someone else at his side. However, at the same time, his parents ensure that he spends lots of time around "cultured" white people, so that he becomes accustomed to and comfortable in their company and social activities.
By contrast, race is seldom or never overtly discussed in the poor kid's life, and he lives in an extremely segregated world where he basically never sees white people who aren't either in the projects to score drugs or government employees checking in on the residents. While he encounters white children and their parents at school, and sees them in the stores and on public transportation that his family frequents, he has no occasion to interact with them socially and is never exposed to upper-middle-class white people or given a chance to develop comfort with their norms.
It doesn't take much squinting to see how that difference in interacting with the people in power is likely to play out when these kids are adults.
Also, I appreciated the author noting that the poor kid's mom does not work and is on welfare. Lareau is careful to show, however, that Ms. McAllister is a dedicated and loving mother who is extremely responsible and hardworking, and the reason she can't work is because she has to look after a whole house full of kids: her own two minor children, plus the children of relatives who are either (at one extreme) lost to drug addiction, or (at the other) striving to break free of poverty by moving to locations that offer more opportunity, but where they can't easily bring their kids.
While there are other relatives who drift in and out and help when they can, it's clear that this mom is the one holding together an extended web of people who depend on her. So I thought that was a nice (and hopefully eye-opening, although it's somewhat underplayed in the text and so might not strike people as hard as it should) example of how sometimes being on welfare is the most positive and responsible choice a person can make. If this mom goes to work, not one but three families lose their emotional center and the warm but watchful guidance that's their kids' best chance to make it out of this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment