Читать книгу The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development - Группа авторов - Страница 97

On both sides of the Atlantic there is a growing recognition of the effects of poverty and disadvantage on children’s social and academic socialization, and the need for systemic changes to reduce socioeconomic disparities. In their 2017 report, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH, 2017) in the United Kingdom found that poverty impacts upon children’s developmental, cognitive, educational, and long‐term social, health, and behavioral outcomes. Socialization is directly shaped by financial inequality. This is particularly relevant considering that 1 in 5 children in the United Kingdom live in conditions of poverty and this figure is projected to rise (Hood & Waters, 2017).

We live in an era of austerity, as a political project, when health care, affordable housing, and food security, clean air and water are compromised. The market has monetized human interactions and has created unbridled inequality in that the state is no longer the guarantor of people’s social, political, and economic rights. For the last decade, in the United Kingdom and other postindustrial societies, we have seen a shift in public debates on social class and poverty from being tied to societal structures to being attributed to individual choices and behaviors. In the same vein, social problems have mostly relocated in the private sphere of families. Poverty and disadvantage are seen as lifestyle choices and cultural practices rather than structural problems. The language of moralization in family policy, such as “Every Child Matters” or Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), has privatized social problems by locating them within the family and has also shut down debates about inequality and the role of social class in defining patterns of child development and socialization. With ACEs, for example, defined along the lines of childhood abuse and household dysfunction (i.e., physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; parental separation; exposure to domestic violence; and growing up in a household with mental illness, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or incarceration) no references are made to their original sources, such as food insecurity, unaffordable housing, societal marginalization, and a decrease in living standards (Hartas, 2019). It is thus accepted that child socialization and its future outcomes are shaped by these adverse experiences which are thought to emanate from lack of care and nurturing within the family (Bellis et al., 2014) while socioeconomic differences in health across the life course are systematically ignored.

The shifting of social policy focus on what parents do at home to ameliorate the effects of poverty and marginalization sets a worrying trend by suggesting that child socialization is just a matter of parent behavior changes and parents doing the “right” thing. Children are approached not as active agents but passive recipients of adversity who are not adequately protected by their family. This promotes a culture of blame for parents for exposing their children to intergenerational disadvantage, essentially, blaming them for systemic inequality and reduced social mobility (Hartas, 2019). Adversity goes beyond household and socialization is the product not only of children’s immediate environment but also of material resources and opportunities, particularly reduced in the era of the “gig” economy. Child socialization should not be confined in families but supported through collective efforts such as social networks (e.g., friends, extended family members, civic/faith groups) and fit‐for‐purpose public services (e.g., child care).

Inequality shapes the institutions and agents of child socialization. Deficit assumptions about families, especially those in poverty, disrupt patterns of child socialization in terms of how confident parents and other family members are to raise children, build emotional bonds with them, and offer them linguistic, cognitive, and social opportunities for enrichment and learning. They also disrupt family privacy which has been redefined along socioeconomic lines in that families in poverty are more likely to be subjected to scrutiny about their parenting and child socialization practices. Families’ structural problems become privatized and the onus is placed on individual parents to overcome inequality and tackle child poverty. As Furlong and Cartmel (2007) reflected, the perception of personal agency has increased, while perceptions of social structure and social class barriers have become diminished or obscured, resulting in placing unrealistic expectations on parents and children, leading to frustration and disappointment. It has become apparent that socialization practices and choices remain bounded by families’ social background and access to social and cultural capital and this requires political solutions to change.

Social class differences are enacted in families and schools and children’s socialization differs depending on the structural constraints and affordances that surround their life. Children’s social development, learning, and well‐being are influenced by parenting practices such as attitudes and emotional warmth, communication and cultural practices, and forms of control and discipline that all form what Archer et al. (2014) termed “family habitus.” Certain aspects of the family habitus, such as those that encourage dialogic interactions between parents and children, support children’s socialization; however, family habitus is a reflection of social class. Children’s social and academic socialization relies on their families’ social positioning and social reproduction.

Lareau’s (2003) original differentiation in parenting and socialization practices between middle‐class and working‐class parents showed a clear divide between middle‐class parents who practice “concerted cultivation” through the provision of education, cultural resources and access to service and those who support their children through “accomplishment of natural growth” by offering them the necessities to sustain life such as shelter and food. This differentiation now seems somewhat crude in that the differences in parenting and socialization patterns have also been found between different fractions of middle‐class parents (Aarseth, 2018; Ehenreich, 1989). Parents with economic capital have been found to be anxious and competitive about social reproduction, experiencing a “fear of falling” regarding their children’s social position (Ehenreich, 1989; Vincent & Ball, 2007). Educated parents with intellectual and cultural capital, on the other hand, reported a “fear of fading,” fearing their children will be ordinary and not fulfil their potential (Aarseth, 2018). Parents with economic capital are more instrumental and goal‐oriented, placing an emphasis on homework and grades whereas parents with cultural capital are emotionally closer to their children, encouraging them to pursue their interests and fulfil their potential.

Furthermore, more recent research since Lareau’s 2003 study has shown that the gap in socialization practices such as parents’ involvement with their children’s education and learning and high‐educational aspirations has narrowed between parents in poverty and those who are economically better off. Specifically, findings from studies such as the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in the United Kingdom have shown that most parents practice what looks like concerted cultivation in that they are involved in their children’s education and learning and have high aspiration, pointing to a continuum of parenting and child socialization practices rather than a polarization (Gregg & Washbrook, 2011; Hartas, 2014). This shows parents to have internalized notions of the “good” parent as someone who is involved with their children and invests time and effort for their future advancement. As such, academic socialization has become the primary goal of good parenting.

Academic socialization involves “communicating parental expectations for education and its value or utility” and “making preparations and plans for the future” (Hill & Tyson, 2009, p. 742). Child academic socialization differs along family income. Children from low‐income families tend to spend more time online (e.g., games, TV, video, social networking) whereas those from wealthier families spend time on learning activities (e.g., Rideout et al., 2010). The differences in children’s academic socialization are typically discussed along a “time‐wasting gap” between poor and economically better off children and is considered to be a reflection of poor parenting rather than a manifestation of social class. For families in social margins, academic socialization, although prominent in child–parent interactions, may take forms that are less visible and recognizable in schools.

Child socialization patterns differ between families practicing concerted cultivation and accomplishment of natural growth. In the former, children were observed to develop better vocabularies and tended to engage in negotiation and reasoning with their parents who offer them choices and encourage them to express themselves, with language use being nondirective. Children in middle‐class families engaged in enrichment activities and accessed more educational resources in the form of material resources and paid‐for tutoring as well as participation in cultural and sporting activities. The nature of social networks they build was also different in that middle‐class parents were more likely to build “horizontal” (e.g., partnerships with professionals and institutions) rather than “bonding” (e.g., extended family members) networks to gain influence and maximize their children’s advancement, whereas working‐class children spent more time with family and friends (Lareau, 2003).

Concerted cultivation aligns closely with the social investment model where parents are encouraged to invest in educational services and resources to give their children a head start. The different parenting and socialization practices across social‐class groups highlight the extent to which parenting and expressions of care are class based. These differences are not simply between middle‐ and working‐class parents but also across families who possess different forms of capital, e.g., economic, intellectual, and cultural. For example, concerted cultivation through facilitating a culture of learning at home that is less instrumental and school driven has been found to be more likely in families with educated parents (Hartas, 2014). A culture of learning is supported by parent–children social interactions and conversations, organization of family time, and children’s play in terms of structured and unstructured activities, the type of relationships parents build with institutions (e.g., school) and the nature and intensity of their social networks. Although desired and practiced across socioeconomic groups, concerted cultivation may be compromised in low‐income families due to lack of educational resources and not because of cultural deviance in socialization practices. The social‐class gaps in patterns of child socialization stem from lower levels of financial, social, and cultural capital rather than from different conceptions of child development.

The persistent gap in children’s socialization and well‐being points to unequal distribution of various forms of capital and the lack of recognition and respect poverty and disadvantage ensue. In Honneth’s theory of recognition, human agency flourishes during socialization practices that “validate and acknowledge personal existence” (Houston & Dolan, 2008, p. 459). Recognition and respect are compromised for children living in poverty and their parents whose social marginalization is seen as personal failure. Human agency mutates into economic agency and parents’ and children’s rights are exercised as long as they are compatible with maximizing investment. In this context, the social contract does not seem to apply to those who are thought to suffer from self‐inflicted marginalization and poverty, the often‐called “undeserving” poor. When social and economic rights and the ethics of care are disrupted by the forces of the market and rising inequality, children’s emotional development and well‐being are compromised.