,QYLVLEOH,QHTXDOLW\6RFLDO&ODVVDQG&KLOGUHDULQJLQ%ODFN)DPLOLHVDQG:KLWH)DPLOLHV
$XWKRU V $QQHWWH/DUHDX
6RXUFH$PHULFDQ6RFLRORJLFDO5HYLHZ9RO1R 2FW SS
3XEOLVKHGE\American Sociological Association
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088916 .
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY:
SOCIAL CLASS AND CHILDREARING
IN BLACK FAMILIES AND WHITE FAMILIES
ANNETTE LAREAU
Temple University
Although family life has an important impact on children's life chances, the mechanisms through which parents transmit advantages are imperfectly understood. An
ethnographic data set of white children and black children approximately 10 years
old shows the effects of social class on interactions inside the home. Middle-class
parents engage in concerted cultivation by attempting to foster children's talents
through organized leisure activities and extensive reasoning. Working-class and
poor parents engage in the accomplishment of natural growth, providing the conditions under which children can grow but leaving leisure activities to children themselves. These parents also use directives rather than reasoning. Middle-class children, both white and black, gain an emerging sense of entitlement from their family
life. Race had much less impact than social class. Also, differences in a cultural
logic of childrearing gave parents and their children differential resources to draw
on in their interactions with professionals and other adults outside the home.
Middle-class children gained individually insignificant but cumulatively important
advantages. Working-class and poor children did not display the same sense of entitlement or advantages. Some areas offamily life appeared exempt from the effects
of social class, however.
In recent decades, sociological knowledge
about inequality in family life has increased dramatically. Yet, debate persists,
especially about the transmission of class
advantages to children. Kingston (2000) and
others question whether disparate aspects of
family life cohere in meaningful patterns.
Direct correspondence to Annette Lareau, Department of Sociology, 756 Gladfelter Hall,
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
(annette.lareau@temple.edu).An early version of
this article was issued as a working paper by the
Center for Working Families, University of California, Berkeley. I benefited from audience comments on earlier drafts presented at the American
Sociological Association annual meeting in 2000,
the University of California (Berkeley, Davis,
and San Diego), University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, and Temple University.
Patricia Berhau, Anita Garey, Karen Hanson,
Erin McNamara Horvat, Sam Kaplan, Michele
Lamont, Karen Shirley, Barrie Thorne, Elliot
AMERICAN
Pointing to a "thin evidentiary base" for
claims of social class differences in the interior of family life, Kingston also asserts that
"class distinguishes neither distinctive
parenting styles or distinctive involvement
of kids" in specific behaviors (p. 134).
One problem with many studies is that
they are narrowly focused. Researchers look
at the influence of parents' education on parWeininger, and Julia Wrigley made helpful suggestions, as did the ASR reviewers. For funding,
I thank the Spencer Foundation, Sloan Foundation, ASA/NSF Grantsfor the Discipline, Temple
Grant-in-Aid, and Southern Illinois University. I
am indebted to the project's research assistants,
particularly Wendi Starr Brown, Gillian Johns,
Caitlin Howley-Rowe, Greg Seaton, and Mary
Woods, all of whose field notes appear in the article. I thank Nikki Johnson who assisted in production of the manuscript, and M. Katherine
Mooney for editorial assistance. Errors are my
responsibility.
SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2002,
VOL. 67 (OCTOBER:747-776)
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
747
748
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ent involvement in schooling or at children's
time spent watching television or at time
spent visiting relatives. Only a few studies
examine more than one dynamic inside the
home. Second, much of the empirical work
is descriptive. For example, extensive research has been done on time use, including
patterns of women's labor force participation, hours parents spend at work, and mothers' and fathers' contributions to childcare
(Hertz and Marshall 2001; Jacobs and
Gerson 1998; Menaghan 1991). Time parents spend with children also has been examined (Bianchi 2000; Bianchi and
Robinson 1997; Marsiglio 1991; Presser
1989; Zick and Bryant 1996), as well as patterns of children's time use (Hofferth and
Sandberg 2001b; Juster and Stafford 1985;
Sandberg and Hofferth 2001). But these
works have not given sufficient attention to
the meaning of events or to the ways different family contexts may affect how a given
task is executed (but see Daley 2001; Rubin
1976; Thorne 2001).
Third, researchers have not satisfactorily
explained how these observed patterns are
produced. Put differently, conceptualizations
of the social processes through which fami-
lies differ are underdeveloped and little is
known about how family life transmits advantages to children. Few researchers have
attempted to integrate what is known about
behaviors and attitudes taught inside the
home with the ways in which these practices
may provide unequal resources for family
members outside the home. A key exception
is the work by Kohn and colleagues (e.g.,
Kohn and Schooler 1983), where the authors
arguethat middle-class parentsvalue self-direction while working-class parents place a
premium on "conformity to external authority." These researchers did not investigate,
however, how parents go about translating
these beliefs into actions.
Fourth, little is known about the degree to
which children adopt and enact their parents'
beliefs. Sociologists of the family have long
stressed the importance of a more dynamic
model of parent-child interaction (Skolnick
1991), but empirical research has been slow
to emerge (but see Hess and Handel 1974).
Ethnographers' efforts to document children's agency have provided vivid but highly
circumscribed portraits (Shehan 1999;
Waksler 1991), but most of the case studies
look at only one social class or one ethnic
group. Moreover, ethnographerstypically do
not explicitly examine how social class advantages are transmittedto children.
I draw on findings from a small, intensive
data set collected using ethnographic methods. I map the connections between parents'
resources and their children's daily lives. My
first goal, then, is to challenge Kingston's
(2000) argument that social class does not
distinguish parents' behavior or children's
daily lives. I seek to show empirically that
social class does indeed create distinctive
parenting styles. I demonstrate that parents
differ by class in the ways they define their
own roles in their children's lives as well as
in how they perceive the nature of childhood. The middle-class parents, both white
and black, tend to conform to a culturallogic
of childrearingI call "concertedcultivation."
They enroll their children in numerous agespecific organized activities that dominate
family life and create enormous labor, particularly for mothers. The parents view these
activities as transmittingimportantlife skills
to children. Middle-class parents also stress
language use and the development of reasoning and employ talking as their preferred
form of discipline. This "cultivation" approach results in a wider range of experiences for children but also creates a frenetic
pace for parents, a cult of individualism
within the family, and an emphasis on children's performance.1
The childrearing strategies of white and
black working-class and poor parents emphasize the "accomplishment of natural
growth."2These parents believe that as long
I In a study of mothers' beliefs about childrearing, Hays (1996) found variations in how
working-class and middle-class mothers sorted
information, but she concluded that a pattern of
"intensive mothering" was present across social
classes. My study of behavior found class differences but, as I discuss below, in some instances
working-class and poor parents expressed a desire to enroll their children in organized activities.
2 Some significant differences between the
study's working-class and poor families (e.g.,
only the poor children experienced food shortages) are not highlighted here because, on the dimensions discussed in this paper, the biggest dif-
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
as they provide love, food, and safety, their
children will grow and thrive. They do not
focus on developing their children's special
talents. Compared to the middle-class children, working-class and poor children participate in few organized activities and have
more free time and deeper, richer ties within
their extended families. Working-class and
poor parents issue many more directives to
their children and, in some households, place
more emphasis on physical discipline than
do the middle-class parents. These findings
extend Kohn and Schooler's (1983) observation of class differences in parents' values,
showing that differences also exist in the behavior of parents and children.
Quantitativestudies of children's activities
offer valuable empirical evidence but only
limited ideas about how to conceptualize the
mechanisms through which social advantage
is transmitted. Thus, my second goal is to
offer "conceptualumbrellas"useful for making comparisons across race and class and
for assessing the role of social structurallocation in shaping daily life.3
Last, I trace the connections between the
class position of family members-including children-and the uneven outcomes of
their experiences outside the home as they
interact with professionals in dominant institutions. The pattern of concerted cultivation encourages an emerging sense of entitlement in children. All parentsand children are
not equally assertive, but the patternof questioning and intervening among the white and
black middle-class parents contrasts sharply
with the definitions of how to be helpful and
effective observed among the white and
ferences were between middle-class and nonmiddle-class families. See Lareau (forthcoming)
for a more elaborate discussion as well as
Lamont (2000) for distinctions working-class
families draw between themselves and the poor;
see McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) regarding
family structure and children's lives.
3 Case studies of nonrandom samples, such as
this one, have the limitation that findings cannot
be generalized beyond the cases reported. These
examples serve to illustrate conceptual points
(Burawoy et al. 1991) ratherthan to describe representative patterns of behavior. A further limitation of this study is that the data were collected
and analyzed over an extended period of time.
(see the "Methodology" section).
749
black working-class and poor adults. The
pattern of the accomplishment of natural
growth encourages an emerging sense of
constraint. Adults as well as children in
these social classes tend to be deferential
and outwardly accepting in their interactions
with professionals such as doctors and educators. At the same time, however, compared
to their middle-class counterparts,white and
black working-class and poor family members are more distrustful of professionals.
These are differences with potential longterm consequences. In an historical moment
when the dominant society privileges active,
informed, assertive clients of health and educational services, the strategies employed by
children and parents are not equally effective across classes. In sum, differences in
family life lie not only in the advantagesparents obtain for their children, but also in the
skills they transmit to children for negotiating their own life paths.
METHODOLOGY
STUDY PARTICIPANTS
This study is based on interviews and observations of children, aged 8 to 10, and their
families. The data were collected over time
in three research phases. Phase one involved
observations in two third-grade classrooms
in a public school in the Midwestern community of "Lawrenceville."4After conducting observations for two months, I grouped
the families into social class (and race) categories based on information provided by
educators. I then chose every third name,
and sent a letter to the child's home asking
the mother and father to participate in separate interviews. Over 90 percent of parents
agreed, for a total of 32 children (16 white
and 16 African American). A black graduate
student and I interviewed all mothers and
most fathers (or guardians) of the children.
Each interview lasted 90 to 120 minutes, and
all took place in 1989-1990.
4 All names of people and places are pseudonyms.The Lawrencevilleschool was in a white
suburbanneighborhoodin a universitycommunity a few hoursfrom a metropolitanarea.The
studentpopulationwas abouthalf white andhalf
black; the (disproportionately
poor) black childrenwerebusedfromotherneighborhoods.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
750
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Phase two took place at two sites in a
northeasternmetropolitan area. One school,
"Lower Richmond," although located in a
predominantly white, working-class urban
neighborhood, drew about half of its students from a nearby all-black housing
project. I observed one third-grade class at
Lower Richmond about twice a week for almost six months. The second site, "Swan,"
was located in a suburban neighborhood
about 45 minutes from the city center. It was
90 percent white; most of the remaining 10
percent were middle-class black children.5
There, I observed twice a week for two
months at the end of the third grade; a research assistant then observed weekly for
four more months in the fourth grade.6 At
each site, teachers and parents described
their school in positive terms.7The observations took place between September 1992
and January1994. In the fall of 1993, I drew
an interview sample from Lower Richmond
and Swan, following the same method of selection used for Lawrenceville. A team of research assistants and I interviewed the parents and guardiansof 39 children. Again, the
response rate was over 90 percent but because the classrooms did not generate
enough black middle-class children and
white poor children to fill the analytical categories, interviews were also conducted with
17 families with children aged 8 to 10. (Most
of these interviews took place during the
summers of 1996 and 1997.)8 Thus, the total
5 Over three-quartersof the students at Lower
Richmond qualified for free lunch; by contrast,
Swan did not have a free lunch program.
6 At both sites, we attended school events and
observed many parent-teacherconferences. Also,
I interviewed the classroom teachers and adults
involved in the children's organized activities.
These interview data are not presented here.
7 Both schools had computer labs, art programs, and music programs, but Swan had many
more resources and much higher average
achievement scores. Graffiti and physical confrontations between students were common only
at Lower Richmond. At these two sites and in
Lawrenceville, white faculty predominated.
8 I located the black middle-class parents
through social networks; the white poor families
were located through flyers left at welfare offices
and social service programs, and posted on telephone poles. Ten white poor families (only) were
paid $25 per interview.
number of children who participated in the
study was 88 (32 from the Midwest and 56
from the Northeast).
FAMILY OBSERVATIONS
Phase three, the most intensive research
phase of the study, involved home observations of 12 children and their families in the
Northeast who had been previously interviewed (see Table 1).9 Some themes, such as
language use and families' social connections, surfaced mainly during this phase. Although I entered the field interested in examining the influence of social class on
children's daily lives, I incorporated new
themes as they "bubbled up" from the field
observations. The evidence presented here
comes mainly from the family observations,
but I also use interview findings from the
full sample of 88 children where appropriate. 1o
Nine of the 12 families came from the
Northeastern classroom sample. The home
observations took place, one family at a
time, from December 1993 to August 1994.
Three 10-year-olds (a black middle-class
boy and girl and a white poor boy) who were
not part of the classroom sample were ob-
9 Of 19 families asked to participate in the intensive study, 7 declined (a response rate of 63
percent). I tried to balance the observational
phase sample by gender, race, and class, and to
"mix and match" the children on other characteristics, such as their behavior with peers, their relationships with extended family, and their parents' level of involvement in their education. The
aim was to lessen the chance that observed differences in behavior would reflect unknown variables (e.g., church attendance or parents' participation at school). Last, I deliberately included
two families (Irwins, Greeleys) who had some
"middle-class" traits but who lived in a workingclass and poor area, respectively. Including these
unusual families seemed conceptually important
for disentangling the influences of social class
and environment (neighborhood).
10I analyzed the data for the study as a whole
in two ways. I coded themes from the interviews
and used Folio Views software to help establish
patterns. I also relied on reading the field notes,
thinking about similarities and differences across
families, searching for disconfirming evidence,
and re-reading the field notes.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
751
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Children in the Study by Social Class and Race
White
Black
Total
18
(GarrettTallinger)
(Melanie Handlon)
18
(AlexanderWilliams)
(Stacey Marshall)
36
14
(Billy Yanelli)
(Wendy Driver)
12
(Tyrec Taylor)
(Jessica Irwin)c
26
Workingclass b
12
(KarlGreeley)
(Katie Brindle)
14
(HaroldMcAllister)
(TaraCarroll)
26
Poor d
44
44
88
Social Class
Middle class a
Total sample
Note: The names in each cell of the table indicate the childrenselected to take place in the family-observation phase of the study.
a Middle-class children are those who live in households in which at least one parentis employed in a
position that either entails substantialmanagerialauthorityor that draws upon highly complex, educationally certified skills (i.e., college-level).
b Working-classchildrenare those who live in householdsin which neitherparentis employedin a middleclass position and at least one parentis employed in a position with little or no managerialauthorityand that
does not draw on highly complex, educationallycertified skills. This category includes lower-level whitecollar workers.
c An inter-racialgirl who has a black fatherand a white mother.
d Poor children are those who live in households in which parentsreceive public assistance and do not
participatein the laborforce on a regular,continuousbasis.
served in their homes during the summer of
1995.11
The research assistants and I took turns
visiting the participating families daily, for
a total of about 20 visits to each home, often
in the space of one month.12The observations went beyond the home: Fieldworkers
followed children and parents as they participated in school activities, church services
and events, organized play, visits to relatives, and medical appointments. Observa-
IIRecruitmentto complete the sample was difficult as children needed to be a specific age,
race, and class, and to be part of families who
were willing to be observed. The white poor boy
was recommended by a social service program
manager; the black middle-class children were
located through extended social networks of
mine.
12 We did 12 to 14 observations of the Handlon
and Carroll families before settling on the 20visit pattern. In Alexander Williams's case, the
visits occurred over a year. To observe unusual
events (e.g., a family reunion), we sometimes
went back after formal observations had ended.
tions typically lasted three hours, but sometimes much longer (e.g., when we observed
an out-of-town funeral, a special extended
family event, or a long shopping trip). Most
cases also involved one overnight visit. We
often carried tape recorders and used the audiotapes for reference in writing field notes.
Writing field notes usually required 8 to 12
hours for each two- or three-hourhome visit.
Participating families each were paid $350,
usually at the end of the visits.
We worked in teams of three. One fieldworker visited three to four times per week;
another visited one to two times per week;
and I visited once or twice per week, except
for the two families for which I was lead
fieldworker. The research teams' composition varied with the race of the family. Two
white graduatestudents and I (a middle-aged
white woman) visited the white families; for
the black families, the teams included one
white graduate student, one black graduate
student, and me. All black families with
male children were visited by teams that included a black male fieldworker. A white
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
752
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
male fieldworker observed the poor family
with the white boy; the remaining white
fieldworkers were female. Team members
met regularly to discuss the families and to
review the emerging analytic themes.
Our presence altered family dynamics, especially at first. Over time, however, we saw
signs of adjustment (e.g., yelling and cursing increased on the third day and again on
the tenth). The children, especially, seemed
to enjoy participating in the project. They
reported it made them feel "special." They
were visibly happy to see the fieldworkers
arrive and reluctant to let them leave. The
working-class and poor black boys were
more comfortable with the black male fieldworkers than with the white female ones, especially at first.13 Overall, however, family
members reported in exit interviews that
they had not changed their behavior significantly, or they mentioned very specific alterations (e.g., "the house got cleaner").
A NOTE ON
CLASS
I undertook field observations to develop an
intensive, realistic portraitof family life. Although I deliberately focused on only 12
families, I wanted to compare children
across gender and race. Adopting the finegrained differentiationscharacteristicof current neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian empirical studies was not tenable.14 Furtherlimitations were imposed by the school populations at the sites I selected. Very few students were children of employers or of selfemployed workers. I decided to focus exclusively on those whose parents were employees. Authority in the workplace and "credential barriers"are the criteria most commonly
used to differentiate within this heterogeneous group. I assigned the families to a
working-class or middle-class category
13 Families
developed preferences, favoring
one fieldworker in a team over another. But these
preferences were not stable across families, and
the field notes did not differ dramatically between fieldworkers. Notes were much more similar than they were different.
14Wright (1997) uses 12 categories in his neoMarxist approach. Goldthorpe, a neo-Weberian,
operationalizes his class schema at levels of aggregation ranging from 3 to 11 categories
(Erikson and Goldthorpe 1993:38-39).
based on detailed information that each of
the employed adults provided about the
work they did, the natureof the organization
that employed them, and their educational
credentials. I also included a category traditionally excluded from class groupings:
families not involved in the labor market. In
the first school I studied, many children
were from households supported by public
assistance. Omitting them would have restricted the scope of the study arbitrarily.15
The three class categories conceal important internal variations. The Williams family (black) and the Tallinger family (white)
have very high incomes, both in excess of
$175,000; the median income among the
middle-class parents was much lower.16 Income differences among the middle-class
families were not associated with differences in childrearing methods. Moreover,
no other data in the study showed compelling intraclass divisions. I consider the use
of one term-middle class-to be reasonable.
CONCERTED CULTIVATION AND
NATURAL GROWTH
The interviews and observations suggested
that crucial aspects of family life cohered.
Within the concerted cultivation and accomplishment of natural growth approaches,
three key dimensions may be distinguished:
the organization of daily life, the use of language, and social connections. ("Interventions in institutions"and "consequences"are
addressed later in the paper.) These dimensions do not capture all important parts of
family life, but they do incorporate core aspects of childrearing (Table 2). Moreover,
our field observations revealed that behaviors and activities related to these dimensions dominated the rhythms of family life.
15
Here "poor" refers to the source of income
(i.e., government assistance versus labor market)
rather than the amount of income. Although
lower class is more accurate than poor, it is
widely perceived as pejorative. I might have used
"underclass," but the literature has defined this
term in racialized ways.
16 Dollar figures are from 1994-1995, unless
otherwise noted. Income was not used to define
class membership, but these data are available
from the author.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
753
Table 2. Summary of Differences in Childrearing Approaches
ChildrearingApproach
ConcertedCultivation
Accomplishmentof NaturalGrowth
Dimension Observed
Key elements of each
approach
Parentactively fosters and assesses
child's talents, opinions, and
skills
Parentcares for child and allows
child to grow
Organizationof daily life
Multiplechild leisure activities are
orchestratedby adults
Child "hangsout"particularlywith
kin
Languageuse
Reasoning/directives
Child contestationof adult
statements
Extendednegotiationsbetween
parentsand child
Directives
Rarefor child to question or
challenge adults
Generalacceptanceby child of
directives
Social connections
Weak extended family ties
Child often in homogenousage
groupings
Strongextendedfamily ties
Child often in heterogeneousage
groupings
Interventionsin institutions
Criticismsand interventionson
behalf of child
Trainingof child to interveneon
his or her own behalf
Dependenceon institutions
Sense of powerlessnessand
frustration
Conflict between childrearing
practicesat home and at school
Consequences
Emergingsense of entitlementon
the partof the child
Emergingsense of constrainton
the partof the child
Conceptually, the organization of daily life
and the use of language are crucial dimensions. Both must be present for the family to
be described as engaging in one childrearing
approach rather than the other. Social connections are significant but less conceptually
essential.
All three aspects of childrearing were intricately woven into the families' daily routines, but rarely remarked upon. As part of
everyday practice, they were invisible to
parents and children. Analytically, however,
they are useful means for comparing and
contrasting ways in which social class differences shape the characterof family life. I
now examine two families in terms of these
three key dimensions. I "control" for race
and gender and contrast the lives of two
black boys-one from an (upper) middleclass family and one from a family on public assistance. I could have focused on almost any of the other 12 children, but this
pair seemed optimal, given the limited number of studies reporting on black middleclass families, as well as the aspect of my
argument that suggests that race is less im-
portant than class in shaping childrearing
patterns.
DEVELOPING ALEXANDER
WILLIAMS
Alexander Williams and his parents live in a
predominantlyblack middle-class neighborhood. Their six-bedroom house is worth
about $150,000.17 Alexander is an only
child. Both parents grew up in small towns
in the South, and both are from large families. His father, a tall, handsome man, is a
very successful trial lawyer who earns about
$125,000 annually in a small firm specializing in medical malpracticecases. Two weeks
each month, he works very long hours (from
about 5:30 A.M. until midnight) preparingfor
trials. The other two weeks, his workday
17 Mr. and Ms. Williams disagreed about the
value of their home; the figure here averages
what each reported in 1995. Housing prices in
their region were lower-and continue to be
lower today-than in many other parts of the
country. Their property is now worth an estimated $175,000 to $200,000.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
754
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ends around 6:00 P.M. He rarely travels out
of town. Alexander's mother, Christina, is a
positive, bubbly woman with freckles and
long, black, wavy hair.18A high-level manager in a major corporation, she has a corner
office, a personal secretary,and responsibilities for other offices across the nation. She
tries to limit her travel, but at least once a
month she takes an overnight trip.
Alexander is a charming, inquisitive boy
with a winsome smile. Ms. Williams is
pleased that Alexander seems interested in
so many things:
Alexanderis a joy. He's a gift to me. He's
very energetic,very curious,loving, caring
person, that, urn ...
is outgoing and who,
uh, reallyloves to be with people.Andwho
loves to explore,andloves to readand ...
just do a lot of fun things.
The private school Alexander attends19
has an on-site after-school program. There,
he participates in several activities and receives guitar lessons and photography instruction.
ORGANIZATION OF DAILY LIFE. Alexanderis busy with activities during the week
and on weekends (Table 3). His mother describes their Saturday morning routine. The
day starts early with a private piano lesson
for Alexander downtown, a 20-minute drive
from the house:
It's an 8:15 class. But for me, it was a
tradeoff.I am very adamantaboutSaturday
morningTV. I don't know what it contributes. So . . . it was . . . um . . . either stay at
home and fight on a Saturday morning
[laughs] or go do something constructive....
Now Saturday mornings are pretty
bookedup. You know,the pianolesson, and
then straightto choirfor a couple of hours.
So, he has a very full schedule.
18
Alexander'smothergoes by ChristinaNile
at work,butMrs.Williamsat church.Someother
mothers' last names also differ from their
children's.HereI assignall mothersthe samelast
namesas theirchildren.
19 I contacted the Williams family through social networks after I was unable to recruit the
black middle-class families who had participated
in the classroom observation and interview
phase. As a result, I do not have data from classroom observations or parent-teacherconferences
for Alexander.
Ms. Williams's vehement opposition to
television is based on her view of what
Alexander needs to grow and thrive. She objects to TV's passivity and feels it is her obligation to help her son cultivate his talents.
Sometimes Alexander complains that "my
mother signs me up for everything!" Generally, however, he likes his activities. He says
they make him feel "special," and without
them life would be "boring." His sense of
time is thoroughly entwined with his activities: He feels disoriented when his schedule
is not full. This unease is clear in the following field-note excerpt. The family is
driving home from a Back-to-School night.
The next morning, Ms. Williams will leave
for a work-related day trip and will not return until late at night. Alexander is grumpy
because he has nothing planned for the next
day. He wants to have a friend over, but his
mother rebuffs him. Whining, he wonders
what he will do. His mother, speaking
tersely, says:
You have piano and guitar. You'll have
some free time. [Pause] I think you'll survive for one night. [Alexander does not respond but seems mad. It is quiet for the rest
of the trip home.]
Alexander's parents believe his activities
provide a wide range of benefits important
for his development. In discussing Alexander's piano lessons, Mr. Williams notes
that as a Suzuki student,20Alexander is already able to read music. Speculating about
more diffuse benefits of Alexander's involvement with piano, he says:
I don't see how any kid's adolescence and
adulthood could not but be enhanced by an
awareness of who Beethoven was. And is
that Bach or Mozart? I don't know the difference between the two! I don't know Baroque from Classical-but he does. How can
that not be a benefit in later life? I'm convinced that this rich experience will make
him a better person, a better citizen, a better
husband, a better father-certainly a better
student.
20 The Suzuki method is
labor intensive. Students are required to listen to music about one
hour per day. Also, both child and parent(s) are
expected to practice daily and to attend every lesson together.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
755
Table 3. Participation in Activities Outside of School: Boys
Activities Organized by Adults
Informal Activities
Garrett Tallinger (white)
Soccer team
Traveling soccer team
Baseball team
Basketball team (summer)
Swim team
Piano
Saxophone (through school)
Plays with siblings in yard
Watches television
Plays computer games
Overnights with friends
Alexander Williams (black)
Soccer team
Baseball team
Community choir
Church choir
Sunday school
Piano (Suzuki)
School plays
Guitar (through school)
Restricted television
Plays outside occasionally with
two other boys
Visits friends from school
Billy Yanelli (white)
Baseball team
Watches television
Visits relatives
Rides bike
Plays outside in the street
Hangs out with neighborhood kids
Tyrec Taylor (black)
Football team
Vacation Bible School
Sunday school (off/on)
Watches television
Plays outside in the street
Rides bikes with neighborhood
boys
Visit relatives
Goes to swimming pool
Karl Greeley (white)
Goes to swimming pool
Walks dogs with neighbor
Watches television
Plays Nintendo
Plays with siblings
Harold McAllister (black)
Bible study in neighbor's
house (occasionally)
Bible camp (1 week)
Visits relatives
Plays ball with neighborhood kids
Watches television
Watches videos
Boy's Name/Race/Class
Middle Class
WorkingClass
Poor
Ms. Williams sees music as building her
son's "confidence" and his "poise." In interviews and casual conversation, she stresses
"exposure." She believes it is her responsibility to broaden Alexander's worldview.
Childhood activities provide a learning
ground for importantlife skills:
Sportsprovidegreat opportunitiesto learn
how to be competitive.Learnhow to accept
defeat,you know.Learnhow to acceptwinning, you know, in a graciousway. Also it
gives himthe opportunity
to learnleadership
skills and how to be a team player. ...
Sportsreally providesa lot of really great
opportunities.
Alexander's schedule is constantly shifting; some activities wind down and others
start up. Because the schedules of sports
practices and games are issued no sooner
than the start of the new season, advance
planning is rarely possible. Given the sheer
number of Alexander's activities, events inevitably overlap. Some activities, though
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
756
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
short-lived, are extremely time consuming.
Alexander's school play, for example, requires rehearsals three nights the week before the opening. In addition, in choosing
activities, the Williamses have an added concern-the group's racial balance. Ms. Williams prefers that Alexander not be the only
black child at events. Typically, one or two
other black boys are involved, but the groups
are predominantly white and the activities
take place in predominantly white residential neighborhoods. Alexander is, however,
part of his church's youth choir and Sunday
School, activities in which all participants
are black.
Many activities involve competition. Alex
must audition for his solo performancein the
school play, for example. Similarly, parents
and children alike understandthat participation on "A," "B," or "All-Star"sports teams
signal different skill levels. Like other
middle-class children in the study,Alexander
seems to enjoy public performance.According to a field note, after his solo at a musical
production in front of over 200 people, he
appeared "contained, pleased, aware of the
attention he's receiving."
Alexander's commitments do not consume
all his free time. Still, his life is defined by a
series of deadlines and schedules interwoven
with a series of activities that are organized
and controlled by adults ratherthan children.
Neither he nor his parentssee this as troublesome.
LANGUAGE USE. Like other middle-class
families, the Williamses often engage in
conversation that promotes reasoning and
negotiation. An excerpt from a field note
(describing an exchange between Alexander
and his mother during a car ride home after
summer camp) shows the kind of pointed
questions middle-class parents ask children.
Ms. Williams is not just eliciting information. She is also giving Alexander the opportunity to develop and practice verbal skills,
including how to summarize, clarify, and
amplify information:
As she drives, [Ms. Williams] asks Alex,
"So,how was yourday?"
Alex: "Okay.I hadhot dogs today,but they
wereburned!Theywere all black!"
Mom:"Oh,great.You shouldn'thave eaten
any."
Alex: "They weren't all black, only half
were. The rest were regular."
Mom: " Oh, okay. What was that game you
were playing this morning? ...
Alex: "It was [called]'Whatcha doin?"'
Mom: "How do you play?"
Alexander explains the game elaboratelyfieldworker doesn't quite follow. Mom asks
Alex questions throughout his explanation,
saying, "Oh, I see," when he answers. She
asks him about another game she saw them
play; he again explains....
She continues
to prompt and encourage him with small
giggles in the back of her throat as he elaborates.
Expressions of interest in children's activities often lead to negotiations over small,
home-based matters. During the same car
ride, Ms. Williams tries to adjust the dinner
menu to suit Alexander:
Alexander says, "I don't want hot dogs tonight."
Mom: "Oh? Because you had them for
lunch."
Alexander nods.
Mom: "Well, I can fix something else and
save the hot dogs for tomorrow night."
Alex: "But I don't want any pork chops either."
Mom: "Well, Alexander, we need to eat
something. Why didn't you have hamburgers today?"
Alex: "They don't have them any more at
the snack bar."
Mom asks Alexander if he's ok, if he wants
a snack. Alexander says he's ok. Mom asks
if he's sure he doesn't want a bag of chips?
Not all middle-class parents are as attentive to their children's needs as this mother,
and none are always interested in negotiating. But a general pattern of reasoning and
accommodating is common.
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS. Mr. and Ms. Wil-
liams consider themselves very close to their
extended families. Because the Williams's
aging parents live in the South, visiting requires a plane trip. Ms. Williams takes
Alexander with her to see his grandparents
twice a year. She speaks on the phone with
her parents at least once a week and also
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
calls her siblings several times a week. Mr.
Williams talks with his mother regularly by
phone (he has less contact with his stepfather). With pride, he also mentions his niece,
whose Ivy League education he is helping to
finance.
Interactions with cousins are not normally
a part of Alexander's leisure time. (As I explain below, other middle-class children did
not see cousins routinely either, even when
they lived nearby.) Nor does he often play
with neighborhood children. The huge
homes on the Williams's street are occupied
mainly by couples without children. Most of
Alexander's playmates come from his classroom or his organized activities. Because
most of his school events, church life, and
assorted activities are organized by the age
(and sometimes gender) of the participants,
Alexander interacts almost exclusively with
children his own age, usually boys. Adultorganized activities thus define the context
of his social life.
Mr. and Ms. Williams are aware that they
allocate a sizable portion of time to
Alexander's activities. What they stress,
however, is the time they hold back. They
mention activities the family has chosen not
to take on (such as traveling soccer).
SUMMARY. Overall, Alexander's parents
engaged in concerted cultivation. They fostered their son's growth through involvement in music, church, athletics, and academics. They talked with him at length,
seeking his opinions and encouraging his
ideas. Their approachinvolved considerable
direct expenses (e.g., the cost of lessons and
equipment) and large indirect expenses (e.g.,
the cost of taking time off from work, driving to practices, and foregoing adult leisure
activities). Although Mr. and Ms. Williams
acknowledged the importance of extended
family, Alexander spent relatively little time
with relatives. His social interactions occurred almost exclusively with children his
own age and with adults. Alexander's many
activities significantly shaped the organization of daily life in the family. Both parents'
leisure time was tailored to their son's commitments. Mr. and Ms. Williams felt that the
strategies they cultivated with Alexander
would result in his having the best possible
chance at a happy and productive life. They
couldn't imagine themselves not investing
757
large amounts of time and energy in their
son's life. But, as I explain in the next section, which focuses on a black boy from a
poor family, other parents held a different
view.
SUPPORTING THE NATURAL GROWTH OF
HAROLD MCALLISTER
Harold McAllister, a large, stocky boy with
a big smile, is from a poor black family. He
lives with his mother and his 8-year-old sister, Alexis, in a large apartment.Two cousins often stay overnight. Harold's 16-yearold sister and 18-year-old brother usually
live with their grandmother,but sometimes
they stay at the McAllister's home. Ms.
McAllister, a high school graduate,relies on
public assistance (AFDC). Hank, Harold and
Alexis's father, is a mechanic. He and Ms.
McAllister have never married. He visits
regularly, sometimes weekly, stopping by after work to watch television or nap. Harold
(but not Alexis) sometimes travels across
town by bus to spend the weekend with
Hank.
The McAllister's apartmentis in a public
housing project near a busy street. The complex consists of rows of two- and three-story
brick units. The buildings, blocky and
brown, have small yards enclosed by concrete and wood fences. Large floodlights are
mounted on the corners of the buildings, and
wide concrete sidewalks cut through the
spaces between units. The ground is bare in
many places; paper wrappersand glass litter
the area.
Inside the apartment,life is humorous and
lively, with family members and kin sharing
in the daily routines. Ms. McAllister discussed, disdainfully, mothers who are on
drugs or who abuse alcohol and do not "look
after" their children. Indeed, the previous
year Ms. McAllister called Child Protective
Services to report her twin sister, a cocaine
addict, because she was neglecting her children. Ms. McAllister is actively involved in
her twin's daughters'lives. Her two nephews
also frequently stay with her. Overall, she
sees herself as a capable mother who takes
care of her children and her extended family.
ORGANIZATION OF DAILY LIFE. Much of
Harold's life and the lives of his family
members revolve aroundhome. Project resi-
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
758
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
dents often sit outside in lawn chairs or on
front stoops, drinking beer, talking, and
watching children play. During summer,
windows are frequently left open, allowing
breezes to waft through the units and providing vantage points from which residents
can survey the neighborhood. A large deciduous tree in front of the McAllister's
apartment unit provides welcome shade in
the summer's heat.
Harold loves sports. He is particularly
fond of basketball, but he also enjoys football, and he follows televised professional
sports closely. Most afternoons, he is either
inside watching television or outside playing ball. He tosses a football with cousins
and boys from the neighboring units and organizes pick-up basketball games. Sometimes he and his friends use a rusty, bare
hoop hanging from a telephone pole in the
housing project; other times, they string up
an old, blue plastic crate as a makeshift
hoop. One obstacle to playing sports, however, is a shortage of equipment. Balls are
costly to replace, especially given the rate at
which they disappear-theft of children's
play equipment, including balls and bicycles, is an ongoing problem. During a field
observation, Harold asks his mother if she
knows where the ball is. She replies with
some vehemence, "They stole the blue and
yellow ball, and they stole the green ball,
and they stole the other ball."
Hunting for balls is a routine part of
Harold's leisure time. One June day, with the
temperature and humidity in the high 80's,
Harold and his cousin Tyrice (and a
fieldworker) wander around the housing
project for about an hour, trying to find a
basketball:
We head to the otherside of the complex.
On the way . .. we passed four guys sitting
on the step. Theirages were 9 to 13 years.
They had a radioblaring.Two were working intentlyon fixing a flat bike tire. The
othertwo weredribblinga basketball.
Harold:"Yo!What'sup, ya'll."
Group:"What'sup,Har.""What'sup?"Yo."
They continued to work on the tire and
dribbletheball.As we walkeddownthehill,
Haroldasked,"Yo,couldI use yourball?"
Theguy responded,lookingup fromthetire,
"Naw,man.Ya'll mightlose it."
Harold, Tyrice, and the fieldworker walk
to anotherpart of the complex, heading for a
makeshift basketball court where they hope
to find a game in progress:
No such luck. Harold enters an apartment
directly in front of the makeshift court. The
door was open.... Harold came back. "No
ball. I guess I gotta go back."
The pace of life for Harold and his friends
ebbs and flows with the children's interests
and family obligations. The day of the basketball search, for example, after spending
time listening to music and looking at baseball cards, the children join a water fight
Tyrice instigates. It is a lively game, filled
with laughter and with efforts to get the
adults next door wet (against their wishes).
When the game winds down, the kids ask
their mother for money, receive it, and then
walk to a store to buy chips and soda. They
chat with anotheryoung boy and then amble
back to the apartment,eating as they walk.
Another afternoon, almost two weeks later,
the children-Harold, two of his cousins,
and two children from the neighborhoodand the fieldworker play basketball on a
makeshift court in the street (using the
fieldworker's ball). As Harold bounces the
ball, neighborhood children of all ages wander through the space.
Thus, Harold's life is more free-flowing
and more child-directed than is Alexander
Williams's. The pace of any given day is not
so much planned as emergent, reflecting
child-based interests and activities. Parents
intervene in specific areas, such as personal
grooming, meals, and occasional chores, but
they do not continuously direct and monitor
their children's leisure activities. Moreover,
the leisure activities Harold and other working-class and poor children pursue require
them to develop a repertoireof skills for dealing with much older and much younger children as well as with neighbors and relatives.
LANGUAGE USE. Life in the workingclass and poor families in the study flows
smoothly without extended verbal discussions. The amount of talking varies, but
overall, it is considerably less than occurs in
the middle-class homes.21 Ms. McAllister
21 Hart and Risley (1995) reported a similar
difference in speech patterns. In their sample, by
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
jokes with the children and discusses what
is on television. But she does not appear to
cultivate conversation by asking the children
questions or by drawing them out. Often she
is brief and direct in her remarks. For instance, she coordinates the use of the apartment's only bathroomby using one-word directives. She sends the children (there are
almost always at least four children home at
once) to wash up by pointing to a child, saying one word, "bathroom,"and handing him
or her a washcloth. Wordlessly, the designated child gets up and goes to the bathroom
to take a shower.
Similarly, although Ms. McAllister will
listen to the children's complaints about
school, she does not draw them out on these
issues or seek to determine details, as Ms.
Williams would. For instance, at the start of
the new school year, when I ask Harold
about his teacher, he tells me she is "mean"
and that "she lies." Ms. McAllister, washing
dishes, listens to her son, but she does not
encourage Harold to support his opinion
about his new teacher with more examples,
nor does she mention any concerns of her
own. Instead, she asks about last year's
teacher, "What was the name of that man
teacher?" Harold says, "Mr. Lindsey?" She
says, "No, the other one." He says, "Mr.
Terrene." Ms. McAllister smiles and says,
"Yeah. I liked him." Unlike Alexander's
mother, she seems content with a brief exchange of information.
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS. Children, especially boys, frequently play outside. The
number of potential playmates in Harold's
world is vastly higher than the number in
Alexander's neighborhood. When a fieldworker stops to count heads, she finds 40
children of elementary school age residing
in the nearby rows of apartments. With so
many children nearby, Harold could choose
to play only with others his own age. In fact,
though, he often hangs out with older and
younger children and with his cousins (who
are close to his age).
The McAllister family, like other poor and
working-class families, is involved in a web
about age three, children of professionals had
larger vocabularies and spoke more utterances
per hour than the parents of similarly aged children on welfare.
759
of extended kin. As noted earlier, Harold's
older siblings and his two male cousins often
spend the night at the McAllister home. Celebrations such as birthdaysinvolve relatives
almost exclusively. Party guests are not, as
in middle-class families, friends from school
or from extra-curricularactivities. Birthdays
are celebrated enthusiastically, with cake and
special food to mark the occasion; presents,
however, are not offered. Similarly, Christmas at Harold's house featured a tree and
special food but no presents. At these and
other family events, the older children voluntarily look after the younger ones: Harold
plays with his 16-month-old niece, and his
cousins carry aroundthe younger babies.
The importance of family ties-and the
contingent nature of life in the McAllister's
world-is clear in the response Alexis offers
when asked what she would do if she were
given a million dollars:
Oh, boy! I'd buy my brother,my sister,my
uncle, my aunt,my nieces andmy nephews,
and my grandpop,and my grandmom,and
my mom, and my dad, and my friends,not
my friends,but mostly my best friend-I'd
buy themall clothes...andsneakers.AndI'd
buy some food, and I'd buy my mom some
food, andI'd get my brothersandmy sisters
gifts for theirbirthdays.
SUMMARY. In a setting where everyone,
including the children, was acutely aware of
the lack of money, the McAllister family
made do. Ms. McAllister rightfully saw herself as a very capable mother. She was a
strong, positive influence in the lives of the
children she looked after. Still, the contrast
with Ms. Williams is striking.Ms. McAllister
did not seem to think that Harold's opinions
needed to be cultivated and developed. She,
like most parents in the working-class and
poor families, drew strong and clear boundaries between adults and children. Adults
gave directions to children. Children were
given freedom to play informally unless they
were needed for chores. Extended family networks were deemed important and trustworthy.
THE INTERSECTION OF RACE AND CLASS
IN FAMILY LIFE
I expected race to powerfully shape
children's daily schedules, but this was not
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
760
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
evident (also see Conley 1999; PattilloMcCoy 1999). This is not to say that race is
unimportant.Black parents were particularly
concerned with monitoring their children's
lives outside the home for signs of racial
problems.22 Black middle-class fathers, especially, were likely to stress the importance
of their sons understanding "what it means
to be a black man in this society" (J.
Hochschild 1995). Mr. Williams, in summarizing how he and his wife orient Alexander,
said:
[Wetryto] teachhimthatraceunfortunately
is the most importantaspectof our national
life. I meanpeoplelook at otherpeopleand
they see a color first.But thatisn't going to
definewhohe is. He will do his best.He will
succeed,despiteracism.AndI thinkhe lives
his life thatway.
Alexander's parentswere acutely aware of
the potential significance of race in his life.
Both were adamant, however, that race
should not be used as "an excuse" for not
striving to succeed. Mr. Williams put it this
way:
I discusshow raceimpactson my life as an
attorney,andI discusshow racewill impact
on his life. The one teachingthat he takes
awayfromthis is thathe is neverto use discriminationas an excuse for not doing his
best.
Thus far, few incidents of overt racism had
occurred in Alexander's life, as his mother
noted:
Those situationshave been far and few between....
I mean, I can count them on my
fingers.
Still, Ms. Williams recounted with obvious pain an incident at a birthday party
Alexander had attended as a preschooler.
The grandparentsof the birthday child repeatedly asked, "Who is that boy?" and exclaimed, "He's so dark!" Such experiences
fueled the Williams's resolve always to be
"cautious":
22 This
section focuses primarily on the concerns of black parents. Whites, of course, also
benefited from race relations, notably in the scattering of poor white families in working-class
neighborhoods rather than being concentrated in
dense settings with other poor families (Massey
and Denton 1993).
We've never been, uh, parents who drop off
their kid anywhere. We've always gone with
him. And even now, I go in and-to school
in the morning-and check [in]. . . . The
school environment, we've watched very
closely.
Alexander's parents were not equally optimistic about the chances for racial equality
in this country. Ms. Williams felt strongly
that, especially while Alexander was young,
his father should not voice his pessimism.
Mr. Williams complained that this meant he
had to "watch" what he said to Alexander
about race relations. Still, both parents
agreed about the need to be vigilant regarding potential racial problems in Alexander's
life. Other black parents reportedexperiencing racial prejudice and expressed a similar
commitment to vigilance.
Issues surroundingthe prospect of growing up black and male in this society were
threaded through Alexander's life in ways
that had no equivalent among his middleclass, white male peers. Still, in fourth grade
there were no signs of racial experiences
having "takenhold" the way that they might
as Alexander ages. In terms of the number
and kind of activities he participatedin, his
life was very similar to that of Garrett
Tallinger, his white counterpart (see Table
3). That both sets of parents were fully committed to a strategy of concentrated cultivation was apparentin the number of adult-organized activities the boys were enrolled in,
the hectic pace of family life, and the stress
on reasoning in parent-child negotiations.
Likewise, the research assistants and I saw
no striking differences in the ways in which
white parents and black parents in the working-class and poor homes socialized their
children.
Others (Fordham and Ogbu 1986) have
found that in middle school and high school,
adolescent peer groups often draw sharp racial boundaries, a patternnot evident among
this study's third- and fourth-grade participants (but sometimes present among their
older siblings). Following Tatum (1997:52),
I attribute this to the children's relatively
young ages (also see "Race in America," The
New York Times, June 25, 2000, p. 1). In
sum, in the broader society, key aspects of
daily life were shaped by racial segregation
and discrimination. But in terms of enroll-
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
ment in organized activities, language use,
and social connections, the largest differences between the families we observed
were across social class, not racial groups.
DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL
PRACTICES ACROSS THE TOTAL
SAMPLE
The patterns observed among the Williams
and McAllister families occurred among
others in the 12-family subsample and across
the larger group of 88 children. Frequently,
they also echoed established patterns in the
literature. These patterns highlight not only
the amount of time spent on activities but
also the quality of family life and the ways
in which key dimensions of childrearing intertwine.
ORGANIZATION OF DAILY LIFE
In the study as a whole, the rhythms of family life differed by social class. Workingclass and poor children spent most of their
free time in informal play; middle-class children took part in many adult-organized activities designed to develop their individual
talents and interests. For the 88 children, I
calculated an average score for the most
common adult-directed, organized activities,23based on parents' answers to interview
questions.24 Middle-class children averaged
4.9 currentactivities (N = 36), working-class
children averaged 2.5 activities (N = 26), and
poor children averaged 1.5 (N = 26). 25 Black
23
Activities coded as "organized" are Scouts/
Brownies, music lessons, any type of sports lesson (e.g., gymnastics, karate), any type of leagueorganized sports (e.g., Little League), dance lessons, choir, religious classes (excluding religious
primary school), arts and crafts classes, and any
classes held at a recreation center.
24 As other studies have found, the mothers in
my sample were far more knowledgeable than the
fathers about their children's daily lives and
spent more time caring for children (Crouter et.
al. 1999; Thompson 1999). Family observations
showed fathers playing a very important role in
family dynamics, however, especially by contributing laughter and humor (Lareau 2000b).
25 Some data are missing. The list of activities
was so long we sometimes shortened it to conserve time (we always asked respondents, how-
761
middle-class children had slightly more activities than white middle-class children,
largely connected to more church involvement, with an average of 5.2 (N = 18) compared with 4.6 activities for whites (N = 18).
The racial difference was very modest in the
working-class group (2.8 activities for black
children [N = 12] and 2.3 for white children
[N = 14]) and the poor group (1.6 activities
for black children [N = 14] and 1.4 for white
children [N = 12]). Middle-class boys had
slightly more activities than middle-class
girls (5.1 versus 4.7, N = 18 for both) but
gender did not make a difference for the other
classes. The type of activity did however.
Girls tended to participate in dance, music,
and Scouts, and to be less active in sports.
This patternof social class differences in activities is comparableto other, earlier reports
(Medrich et al. 1982). Hofferth and Sandberg's (2001a, 2000b) recent research using
a representative national sample suggests
that the number of children's organized activities increases with parents' education and
that children's involvement in organized activities has risen in recent decades.
The dollar cost of children's organized activities was significant, particularly when
families had more than one child. Cash outlays included paying the instructors and
coaches who gave lessons, purchasing uniforms and performance attire, paying for
tournamentadmission and travel to and from
tournaments, and covering hotel and food
costs for overnight stays. Summer camps
also were expensive. At my request, the
ever, whether there were any activities their children had experienced that were not covered in the
list). On average, middle-class parents were not
queried concerning 2.5 of the approximately 20
items on the list; working-class parents were not
asked about 3.0 items; and poor parents were not
asked about 2.0 items. Since the sample is nonrandom, inferential procedures are not applicable. At a reviewer's request, I carried out a
Scheffe post hoc test of group differences and
found significant differences (at the p < .001
level) between the middle-class children and the
working-class and poor children. The difference
between working-class and poor children is nonsignificant (at the p < .05 level). Statistically significant differences do not occur across racial
groups or by gender; nor are there significant interactions between race or gender and class.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
762
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Table 4. Participation in Activities Outside of School: Girls
Girl's Name/Race/Class
Activities Organizedby Adults
InformalActivities
Melanie Handlon(white)
Girl Scouts
Piano
Sundayschool
Church
Churchpageant
Violin (throughschool)
Softball team
Restrictedtelevision
Plays outside with neighborhood
kids
Bakes cookies with mother
Swims (not on swim team)
Listens to music
Stacey Marshall(black)
Gymnasticslessons
Gymnasticteams
Church
Sundayschool
Youth choir
Watchestelevision
Plays outside
Visits friendsfrom school
Rides bike
Wendy Driver (white)
Catholiceducation(CCD)
Dance lessons
School choir
Watchestelevision
Visits relatives
Does housework
Rides bike
Plays outside in the street
Hangs out with cousins
Jessica Irwin (black father/
white mother)
Church
Sundayschool
Saturdayartclass
School band
Restrictedtelevision
Reads
Plays outside with neighborhood
kids
Visit relatives
Katie Brindle (white)
School choir
Fridayevening churchgroup
(rarely)
Watchestelevision
Visits relatives
Plays with Barbies
Rides bike
Plays with neighborhoodkids
TaraCarroll(black)
Church
Sundayschool
Watchestelevision
Visits relatives
Plays with dolls
Plays Nintendo
Plays with neighborhoodkids
Middle Class
WorkingClass
Poor
Tallingers added up the costs for Garrett's
organized activities. The total was over
$4,000 per year. Recent reports of parents'
expenditures for children's involvement in a
single sport (e.g., hockey) are comparably
high (Schemari 2002). Children's activities
consumed time as well as money, co-opting
parents' limited leisure hours.
The study also uncovered differences in
how much time children spent in activities
controlled by adults. Take the schedule of
Melanie Handlon, a white middle-class girl
in the fourth grade (see Table 4). Between
December 8 and December 24, Melanie had
a piano lesson each Monday, Girl Scouts
each Thursday, a special Girl Scout event
one Monday night, a special holiday musical performance at school one Tuesday
night, two orthodontist appointments, five
special rehearsals for the church Christmas
pageant, and regular Sunday commitments
(an early church service, Sunday school, and
youth choir). On weekdays she spent several
hours after school struggling with her home-
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
work as her mother coached her step-by-step
through the worksheets. The amount of time
Melanie spent in situations where her movements were controlled by adults was typical
of middle-class children in the study.
The schedule of Katie Brindle, a white
fourth-graderfrom a poor family, contrasts
sharply, showing few organized activities
between December 2 and 24. She sang in the
school choir. This involved one after-school
rehearsal on Wednesdays; she walked home
by herself after these rehearsals. Occasionally, Katie attended a Christian youth group
on Friday nights (i.e., December 3). Significantly, all her activities were free. She
wanted to enroll in ballet classes, but they
were prohibitively expensive. What Katie
did have was unstructuredleisure time. Usually, she came home after school and then
played outside with other children in the
neighborhood or, watched television. She
also regularly visited her grandmother and
her cousins, who lived a few minutes away
by bus or car. She often spent weekend
nights at her grandmother's house. Overall,
Katie's life was centered in and around
home. Comparedwith the middle-class children in the study, her life moved at a dramatically less hectic pace. This pattern was
characteristic of the other working-class and
poor families we interviewed.
In addition to these activities, television
provided a major source of leisure entertainment. All children in the study spent at least
some free time watching TV, but there were
differences in when, what, and how much
they watched. Most middle-class parents we
interviewed characterizedtelevision as actually or potentially harmful to children; many
stressed that they preferred their children to
read for entertainment.Middle-class parents
often had rules about the amount of time
children could spend watching television.26
These concerns did not surface in interviews
with working-class and poor parents. Indeed,
Ms. Yanelli, a white working-class mother,
26
Recent time-diary data suggest that middleclass parents' reports of how much time their
children spend watching television are significantly lower than their children's actual viewing
time (Hofferth 1999). There is no comparable
gap shown in national data for less educated parents.
763
objected to restricting a child's access to
television, noting, "You know, you learn so
much from television." Working-class and
poor parents did monitor the content of programs and made some shows off-limits for
children. The television itself, however, was
left on almost continuously (also see
Robinson and Godbey 1997).
LANGUAGE USE
The social class differences in language use
we observed were similar to those reported
by others (see Bernstein 1971; Hart and
Risley 1995; Heath 1983). In middle-class
homes, parents placed a tremendous emphasis on reasoning. They also drew out their
children's views on specific subjects.
Middle-class parents relied on directives for
matters of health and safety, but most other
aspects of daily life were potentially open to
negotiation: Discussions arose over what
children wore in the morning, what they ate,
where they sat, and how they spent their time.
Not all middle-class children were equally
talkative, however. In addition, in observations, mothers exhibited more willingness to
engage children in prolonged discussions
than did fathers. The latter tended to be less
engaged with children overall and less accepting of disruptions (A. Hochschild 1989).
In working-class and poor homes, most
parents did not focus on developing their
children's opinions, judgments, and observations. When children volunteered information, parents would listen, but typically they
did not follow up with questions or comments. In the field note excerpt below,
Wendy Driver shares her new understanding
of sin with the members of her white working-class family. She is sitting in the living
room with her brother (Willie), her mother,
and her mother's live-in boyfriend (Mack).
Everyone is watching television:
Wendy asks Willie: "Do you know what
mortalsin is?"
Willie:"No."
WendyasksMom:"Doyou knowwhatmortal sin is?"
Mom: "What is it?"
Wendy asks Mack:"Do you know what it
is?"
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
764
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Mack: "No."
Mom: "Tell us what it is. You're the one
who went to CCD [Catholic religious education classes]."
Wendy: "It's when you know something's
wrong and you do it anyway."
No one acknowledged Wendy's comment.
Wendy's mother and Mack looked at her
while she gave her explanation of mortal sin,
then looked back at the TV.
Wendy's family is conversationally cooperative, but unlike the Williamses, for example, no one here perceives the moment as
an opportunity to further develop Wendy's
vocabulary or to help her exercise her critical thinking skills.
Negotiations between parents and children in working-class and poor families
were infrequent. Parents tended to use firm
directives and they expected prompt, positive responses. Children who ignored parental instructions could expect physical punishment. Field notes from an evening in the
home of the white, working-class Yanelli
family capture one example of this familiar
dynamic. It is past 8:00 P.M. Ms. Yanelli, her
son Billy, and the fieldworker are playing
Scrabble. Mr. Yanelli and a friend are absorbed in a game of chess. Throughout the
evening, Billy and Ms. Yanelli have been at
odds. She feels Billy has not been listening
to her. Ms. Yanelli wants her son to stop
playing Scrabble, take a shower, and go to
bed.
Mom: "Billy, shower. I don't care if you cry,
screams."
Billy: "We're not done with the Scrabble
game."
Mom: "You're done. Finish your homework
earlier."That evening, Billy had not finished
his homework until 8:00 P.M. Billy remains
seated.
Mom: "Come on! Tomorrow you've got a
big day." Billy does not move.
Mom goes into the other room and gets a
brown leather belt. She hits Billy twice on
the leg.
Mom: "Get up right now! Tomorrow I can't
get you up in the morning. Get up right
now!"
Billy gets up and runs up the steps.
Ms. Yanelli's disciplinary approachis very
different from that of the middle-class parents we observed. Like most working-class
and poor parents we observed, she is directive and her instructions are nonnegotiable
("Billy, shower" and "You're done."). Using
a belt may seem harsh , but it is neither a
random nor irrational form of punishment
here. Ms. Yanelli gave Billy notice of her
expectations and she offered an explanation
(it's late, and tomorrow he has "a big day").
She turned to physical discipline as a resource when she felt Billy was not sufficiently responsive.27
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS
We also observed class differences in the
context of children's social relations. Across
the sample of 88 families, middle-class
children's involvement in adult-organized
activities led to mainly weak social ties. Soccer, photographyclasses, swim team, and so
on typically take place in 6 to 8 week blocks,
and participant turnover rates are relatively
high. Equally important, middle-class
children's commitment to organized activities generally pre-empted visits with extended family. Some did not have relatives
who lived nearby,but even among those who
did, children's schedules made it difficult to
organize and attend regular extended-family
gatherings. Many of the middle-class children visited with relatives only on major
holidays.28
Similarly, middle-class parents tended to
forge weak rather than strong ties. Most reported having social networks that included
professionals: 93 percent of the sample of
middle-class parents had a friend or relative
who was a teacher, compared with 43 percent of working-class parents and 36 percent
27 During an interview, Ms. Yanelli estimated
that during the previous two weeks, she had used
the belt twice, but she noted that her use varied
widely. Not all working-class and poor parents
in the study used physical punishment, but the
great majority did rely heavily on directives.
28 Interviews were open-ended; respondents'
varied answers preclude summarizing the data in
a single scale that would accurately measure differences in kinship ties by class. For details regarding social class and kin group contact, see
Fischer (1982).
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
of poor families. For a physician friend or
relative, the patternwas comparable (70 percent versus 14 percent and 18 percent, respectively).29Relationships such as these are
not as deep as family ties, but they are a
valuable resource when parents face a challenge in childrearing.
Working-class and poor families were
much less likely to include professionals in
their social networks but were much more
likely than their middle-class counterpartsto
see or speak with kin daily. Children regularly interacted in casually assembled, heterogeneous age groups that included cousins as well as neighborhoodchildren. As others have shown (Lever 1988), we observed
gender differences in children's activities.
Although girls sometimes ventured outside
to ride bikes and play ball games, compared
with boys they were more likely to stay inside the house to play. Whether inside or
outside, the girls, like the boys, played in
loose coalitions of kin and neighbors and
created their own activities.
Interactions with representatives of major
social institutions (the police, courts,
schools, and government agencies) also appeared significantly shaped by social class.
Members of white and black working-class
and poor families offered spontaneous comments about their distrust of these officials.
For example, one white working-class
mother described an episode in which the
police had come to her home looking for her
ex-husband (a drug user). She recalled officers "breakingdown the door" and terrifying
her eldest son, then only three years old. Another white working-class mother reported
that her father had been arrested. Although
by all accounts in good spirits, he had been
found dead in the city jail, an alleged suicide. Children listened to and appeared to
absorb remarks such as these.
765
Fear was a key reason for the unease with
which working-class and poor families approached formal (and some informal) encounters with officials. Some parents worried that authorities would "come and take
[our] kids away." One black mother on public assistance interviewed as part of the
larger study was outraged that school personnel had allowed her daughter to come
home from school one winter day without
her coat. She noted that if she had allowed
that to happen, "the school" would have reported her to Child Protective Services for
child abuse. Wendy Driver's mother (white
working-class) complained that she felt obligated to take Wendy to the doctor, even
when she knew nothing was wrong, because
Wendy had gone to see the school nurse. Ms.
Driver felt she had to be extra careful because she didn't want "them" to come and
take her kids away.30Strikingly, no middleclass parents mention similar fears about the
power of dominant institutions.
Obviously, these three dimensions of
childrearing patterns-the organization of
daily life, language use, and social connections-do not capture all the class advantages parents pass to their children. The
middle-class children in the study enjoyed
relatively privileged lives. They lived in
large houses, some had swimming pools in
their backyards, most had bedrooms of their
own, all had many toys, and computers were
common. These children also had broad horizons. They flew in airplanes, they traveled
out of state for vacations, they often traveled
an hour or two from home to take part in
their activities, and they knew older children
whose extracurricularactivities involved international travel.
Still, in some important areas, variations
among families did not appearto be linked to
social class. Some of the middle-class children had learning problems. And, despite
29
The overall sample included 36 middleclass, 26 working-class,and 26 poor families.
For the question on teachers, there were responsesfrom 31 middle-classparents,21 working-class parents,and 25 poor parents.For the
questionon doctors,the responsesby class numbered26, 21, and22. Similarresultswere found
for knowinga psychologist,familycounselor,or
lawyer(dataavailablefromthe author).Racedid
not influencethe results.
30 How misguided parents' suspicions might be
is hard to assess. The counselor at Lower Richmond, who regularly reported children to the Department of Human Services as victims of neglect, maintained that she did so only in the gravest cases and only after repeated interventions
had failed. The working-class and poor parents,
however, generally saw "the school's actions" as
swift, capricious, and arbitrary.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
766
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
their relatively privileged social-class position, neither middle-class children nor their
parents were insulated from the realities of
serious illness and premature death among
family and friends. In addition, some elements of family life seemed relatively immune to social class, including how orderly
and tidy the households were. In one white
middle-class family, the house was regularly
in a state of disarray.The house was cleaned
and tidied for a ChristmasEve gathering, but
it returnedto its normal state shortly thereafter. By contrast, a black middle-class
family's home was always extremely tidy, as
were some, but not all, of the working-class
and poor homes. Nor did certain aspects of
parenting, particularly the degree to which
mothers appearedto "mean what they said,"
seem linked to social class. Families also differed with respect to the presence or absence
of a sense of humor among individual members, levels of anxiety, and signs of stressrelatedillnesses they exhibited. Finally, there
were significant differences in temperament
and disposition among children in the same
family. These variations are useful reminders that social class is not fully a determinant
of the characterof children's lives.
IMPACT OF CHILDREARING
STRATEGIES ON INTERACTIONS
WITH INSTITUTIONS
Social scientists sometimes emphasize the
importance of reshaping parenting practices
to improve children's chances of success.
Explicitly and implicitly, the literature exhorts parents to comply with the views of
professionals (Bronfenbrenner1966; Epstein
2001; Heimer and Staffen 1998). Such calls
for compliance do not, however, reconcile
professionals' judgments regarding the intrinsic value of current childrearing standards with the evidence of the historical
record, which shows regular shifts in such
standards over time (Aries 1962; Wrigley
1989; Zelizer 1985). Nor are the stratified,
and limited, possibilities for success in the
broader society examined.
I now follow the families out of their
homes and into encounters with representatives of dominant institutions-institutions
that are directed by middle-class professionals. Again, I focus on Alexander Williams
and Harold McAllister. (Institutionalexperiences are summarizedin Table 2.) Across all
social classes, parents and children interacted with teachers and school officials,
healthcare professionals, and assorted government officials. Although they often addressed similar problems (e.g., learning disabilities, asthma, traffic violations), they
typically did not achieve similar resolutions.
The patternof concerted cultivation fostered
an emerging sense of entitlement in the life
of Alexander Williams and other middleclass children. By contrast, the commitment
to nurturing children's natural growth fostered an emerging sense of constraint in the
life of Harold McAllister and other workingclass or poor children. (These consequences
of childrearing practices are summarized in
Table 2.)
Both parents and children drew on the resources associated with these two childrearing approaches during their interactions
with officials. Middle-class parents and children often customized these interactions;
working-class and poor parents were more
likely to have a "generic" relationship.
When faced with problems, middle-class
parents also appearedbetter equipped to exert influence over other adults compared
with working-class and poor parents. Nor
did middle-class parents or children display
the intimidation or confusion we witnessed
among many working-class and poor families when they faced a problem in their
children's school experience.
EMERGING SIGNS OF ENTITLEMENT
Alexander Williams's mother, like many
middle-class mothers, explicitly teaches her
son to be an informed, assertive client in interactions with professionals. For example,
as she drives Alexander to a routine doctor's
appointment, she coaches him in the art of
communicating effectively in healthcare settings:
Alexanderasks if he needs to get any shots
today at the doctor's. Ms. Williams says
he'll need to ask the doctor... . As we enter
Park Lane, Mom says quietly to Alex:
"Alexander,you shouldbe thinkingof questions you mightwantto ask the doctor.You
can ask him anythingyou want. Don't be
shy. You can ask anything."
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
Alex thinks for a minute, then: "I have some
bumps under my arms from my deodorant."
Mom: "Really? You mean from your new
deodorant?"
Alex: "Yes."
Mom: "Well, you should ask the doctor."
Alexander learns that he has the right to
speak up (e.g., "don't be shy") and that he
should prepare for an encounter with a person in a position of authority by gathering
his thoughts in advance.
These class resources are subsequently activated in the encounter with the doctor (a
jovial white man in his late thirties or early
forties). The examination begins this way:
Doctor: "Okay, as usual, I'd like to go
through the routine questions with you. And
if you have any questions for me, just fire
away." Doctor examines Alex's chart:
"Height-wise, as usual, Alexander's in the
ninety-fifth percentile."
Although the physician is talking to Ms.
Williams, Alexander interruptshim:
Alex: "I'm in the what?" Doctor: "It means
that you're taller than more than ninety-five
out of a hundred young men when they're,
uh, ten years old."
Alex: "I'm not ten."
Doctor: "Well, they graphed you at ten ...
they usually take the closest year to get that
graph."
Alex: "Alright."
Alexander's "Alright" reveals that he feels
entitled to weigh-in with his own judgment.
A few minutes later, the exam is interrupted when the doctor is asked to provide
an emergency consultation by telephone.
Alexander listens to the doctor's conversation and then uses what he has overheard as
the basis for a clear directive:
Doctor: "The stitches are on the eyelids
themselves, the laceration?... Um ... I
don't suture eyelids . . . um. . .. Absolutely
not! . . . Don't even touch them. That was
very bad judgment on the camp's part....
[Hangs up.] I'm sorry about the interruption."
Alex: "Stay away from my eyelids!"
767
Alexander's comment, which draws laughter from the adults, reflects this fourth
grader's tremendous ease interacting with a
physician.
Later,Ms. Williams and the doctor discuss
Alexander's diet. Ms. Williams freely admits
that they do not always follow nutritional
guidelines. Her honesty is a form of capital
because it gives the doctor accurateinformation on which to base a diagnosis. Feeling
no need for deception positions mother and
son to receive better care:
Doctor: Let's start with appetite. Do you get
three meals a day?"
Alex: "Yeah."
Doctor: "And here's the importantquestion:
Do you get your fruits and vegetables too?"
Alex: "Yeah."
Mom, high-pitched: "Ooooo...
Doctor: "I see I have a second opinion."
[laughter]
Alex, voice rising: "You give me bananas
and all in my lunch every day. And I had
cabbage for dinner last night."
Doctor: "Do you get at least one or two
fruits, one or two vegetables every day?"
Alex: "Yeah."
Doctor: "Marginally?"
Mom: "Ninety-eight percent of the time he
eats pretty well."
Doctor: "OK, I can live with that...
Class resources are again activated when
Alexander's mother reveals she "gave up"
on a medication. The doctor pleasantly but
clearly instructs her to continue the medication. Again, though, he receives accurate information ratherthan facing silent resistance
or defiance, as occurred in encounters between healthcare professionals and other
(primarily working-class and poor) families.
The doctor acknowledges Ms. Williams's
relative power: He "arguesfor" continuation
rather than directing her to execute a medically necessary action:
Mom: "His allergies have just been, just
acted up again. One time this summer and I
had to bring him in."
Doctor: "I see a note here from Dr.
Svennson that she put him on Vancinace and
Benadryl. Did it seem to help him?"
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
768
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Mom: "Just, not really. So, I used it for
about a week and I just gave up." Doctor,
sitting forward in his chair: "OK, I'm actually going to argue for not giving up. If he
needs it, Vancinace is a very effective drug.
But it takes at least a week to start...."
Mom: "Oh. OK...."
Doctor: "I'd rather have him use that than
heavy oral medications. You have to give it
a few weeks...."
A similar pattern of give and take and questioning characterizesAlexander's interaction
with the doctor, as the following excerpt illustrates:
Doctor: "The only thing that you really need
besides my checking you, um, is to have,
um, your eyes checked downstairs."
Alex: "Yes! I love that, I love that!"
Doctor laughs: "Well, now the most important question. Do you have any questions
you want to ask me before I do your physical?"
only one. I've been getting
Alex: "Um....
some bumps on my arms, right around here
[indicates underarm]."
Doctor: "Underneath?"
Alex: "Yeah."
Doctor: "OK... .Do they hurt or itch?"
Alex: "No, they're just there."
Doctor: "OK, I'll take a look at those
bumps for you. Um, what about you-um..."
Alex: "They're barely any left."
Doctor: "OK, well, I'll take a peek....
Any
questions or worries on your part? [Looking
at the mother]
Mom: "No.
. .
. He seems to be coming
along very nicely." 31
Alexander's mother's last comment reflects
her view of him as a project, one that is progressing "very nicely." Throughoutthe visit,
she signals her ease and her perception of
the exam as an exchange between peers
(with Alexander a legitimate participant),
31 Not all professionals accommodated children's participation. Regardless of these adults'
overt attitudes, though, we routinely observed
that middle-class mothers monitor and intervene
in their children's interactions with professionals.
rather than a communication from a person
in authority to his subordinates. Other
middle-class parents seemed similarly comfortable. During Garrett Tallinger's exam,
for example, his mother took off her sandals
and tucked her legs up under her as she sat
in the examination room. She also joked casually with the doctor.
Middle-class parents and children were
also very assertive in situations at the public
elementary school most of the middle-class
children in the study attended. There were
numerousconflicts duringthe year over matters small and large. For example, parents
complained to one another and to the teachers about the amount of homework the children were assigned. A black middle-class
mother whose daughters had not tested into
the school's gifted program negotiated with
officials to have the girls' (higher) results
from a private testing company accepted instead. The parentsof a fourth-gradeboy drew
the school superintendentinto a battle over
religious lyrics in a song scheduled to be
sung as part of the holiday program.The superintendent consulted the district lawyer
and ultimately "counseled" the principal to
be more sensitive, and the song was dropped.
Children, too, asserted themselves at
school. Examples include requesting that the
classroom's blinds be lowered so the sun
wasn't in their eyes, badgering the teacher
for permission to retake a math test for a
higher grade, and demanding to know why
no cupcake had been saved when an absence
prevented attendanceat a classroom party.In
these encounters, children were not simply
complying with adults' requests or asking
for a repeat of an earlier experience. They
were displaying an emerging sense of entitlement by urging adults to permit a customized accommodation of institutional processes to suit their preferences.
Of course, some children (and parents)
were more forceful than others in their dealings with teachers, and some were more successful than others. Melanie Handlon's
mother, for example, took a very "hands-on"
approach to her daughter's learning problems, coaching Melanie through her homework day after day. Instead of improved
grades, however, the only result was a deteriorating home environment marked by tension and tears.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INVISIBLE INEQUALITY
EMERGING SIGNS OF CONSTRAINT
The interactions the research assistants and
I observed between professionals and working-class and poor parents frequently
seemed cautious and constrained. This unease is evident, for example, during a physical Harold McAllister has before going to
Bible camp. Harold's mother, normally boisterous and talkative at home, is quiet. Unlike Ms. Williams, she seems wary of supplying the doctor with accurate information:
Doctor: "Does he eat something each dayeither fish, meat, or egg?"
Mom, response is low and muffled: "Yes."
Doctor, attempting to make eye contact but
mom stares intently at paper: "A yellow
vegetable?"
Mom, still no eye contact, looking at the
floor: "Yeah."
Doctor: "A green vegetable?" Mom, looking
at the doctor: "Not all the time."
[Fieldworker has not seen any of the children eat a green or yellow vegetable since
visits began.]
Doctor: "No. Fruit or juice?"
Mom, low voice, little or no eye contact,
looks at the doctor's scribbles on the paper
he is filling out: "Ummh humn."
Doctor: "Does he drink milk everyday?"
Mom, abruptly, in considerably louder
voice: "Yeah."
Doctor: "Cereal, bread, rice, potato, anything like that?"
Mom, shakes her head: "Yes, definitely."
[Looks at doctor.]
Ms. McAllister's knowledge of developmental events in Harold's life is uneven. She is
not sure when he learned to walk and cannot
recall the name of his previous doctor. And
when the doctor asks, "When was the last
time he had a tetanus shot?" she counters,
gruffly, "What's a tetanus shot?"
Unlike Ms. Williams, who urged Alexander to share information with the doctor,
Ms. McAllister squelches eight-year-old
Alexis's overtures:
Doctor: "Any birth mark?"
Mom looks at doctor, shakes her head no.
Alexis, raising her left arm, says excitedly:
"I have a birth mark under my arm!"
769
Mom, raising her voice and looking stern:
"Will you cool out a minute?" Mom, again
answering the doctor's question: "No."
Despite Ms. McAllister's tension and the
marked change in her everyday demeanor,
Harold's whole exam is not uncomfortable.
There are moments of laughter. Moreover,
Harold's mother is not consistently shy or
passive. Before the visit begins, the doctor
comes into the waiting room and calls
Harold's and Alexis's names. In response,
the McAllisters (and the fieldworker) stand.
Ms. McAllister then beckons for her nephew
Tyrice (who is about Harold's age) to come
along before she clears this with the doctor.
Later, she sends Tyrice down the hall to observe Harold being weighed; she relies on
her nephew's report rather than asking for
this information from the healthcare professionals.
Still, neither Harold nor his mother
seemed as comfortable as Alexander had
been. Alexander was used to extensive conversation at home; with the doctor, he was at
ease initiating questions. Harold, who was
used to responding to directives at home,
primarily answered questions from the doctor, rather than posing his own. Alexander,
encouraged by his mother, was assertive and
confident with the doctor. Harold was reserved. Absorbing his mother's apparent
need to conceal the truth about the range of
foods he ate, he appeared cautious, displaying an emerging sense of constraint.
We observed a similar pattern in school
interactions. Overall, the working-class and
poor adults had much more distance or separation from the school than their middleclass counterparts. Ms. McAllister, for example, could be quite assertive in some settings (e.g., at the start of family observations, she visited the local drug dealer, warning him not to "mess with" the black male
fieldworker).32 But throughout the fourthgrade parent-teacher conference, she kept
her winter jacket zipped up, sat hunched
over in her chair, and spoke in barely audible
tones. She was stunned when the teacher
said that Harold did not do homework.
32 Ms. McAllister told me about this
visit; we
did not observe it. It is striking that she perceived
only the black male fieldworker as being at risk.
This content downloaded from 169.231.88.63 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:46:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
770
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Sounding dumbfounded, she said, "He does
it at home." The teacher denied it and continued talking. Ms. McAllister made no further comments and did not probe for more
information,except about a letter the teacher
said he had mailed home and that she had
not received. The conference ended, having
yielded Ms. McAllister few insights into
Harold's educational experience.33
Other working-class and poor parents also
appeared baffled, intimidated, and subdued
in parent-teacher conferences. Ms. Driver,
who was extremely worried abouther fourthgrader'sinability to read, kept these concerns
to herself. She explained to us, "I don't want
to jump into anything and find it is the wrong
thing."When working-class and poor parents
did try to intervene in their children's educational experiences, they often felt ineffectual.
Billy Yanelli's mother appearedrelaxed and
chatty in many of her interactions with other
adults. With "the school," however, she was
very apprehensive.She distrustedschool personnel. She felt bullied and powerless. Hoping to resolve a problem involving her son,
she tried to prepare her ideas in advance.
Still, as she recounted during an interview,
she failed to make school officials see Billy
as vulnerable:
Working-class and poor children seemed
aware of their parents' frustration and witnessed their powerlessness. Billy Yanelli, for
example, asserted in an interview that his
mother "hate[d]"school officials.
At times, these parents encouraged their
children to resist school officials' authority.
The Yanellis told Billy to "beat up" a boy
who was bothering him. Wendy Driver's
mother advised her to punch a male classmate who pestered her and pulled her ponytail. Ms. Driver's boyfriend added, "Hit him
when the teacher isn't looking."
In classroom observations, working-class
and poor children could be quite lively and
energetic, but we did not observe them try
to customize their environments. They
tended to react to adults' offers or, at times,
to plead with educators to repeat previous
experiences, such as reading a particular
story, watching a movie, or going to the
computer room. Compared to middle-class
classroom interactions, the boundaries between adults and children seemed firmer and
clearer. Although the children often resisted
and tested school rules, they did not seem to
be seeking to get educators to accommodate
their own individual preferences.
Overall, then, the behavior of workingclass and poor parents cannot be explained
as a manifestation of their temperaments or
of overall passivity; parents were quite energetic in intervening in their children's lives
in other spheres. Rather, working-class and
poor parents generally appeared to depend
on the school (Lareau 2000a), even as they
were dubious of the trustworthiness of the
professionals. This suspicion of professionals in dominant institutions is, at least in
some instances, a reasonable response.34The
unequal level of trust, as well as differences
in the amount and quality of information divulged, can yield unequal profits during an
historical moment when professionals applaud assertiveness and reject passivity as an
inappropriate parenting strategy (Epstein
2001). Middle-class children and parents often (but not always) accrued advantages or
profits from their efforts. Alexander Williams succeeded in having the doctor take his
medical concerns seriously. Ms. Marshall's
children ended up in the gifted program,
even though they did not technically qualify.
Middle-class children expect institutions to
be responsive to them and to accommodate
33 Middle-classparentssometimes appeared
slightly anxious during parent-teacherconferences, but overall, they spoke more and asked
educatorsmorequestionsthandid working-class
andpoorparents.
34 The higher levels of institutional reports of
child neglect, child abuse, and other family difficulties among poor families may reflect this
group's greater vulnerability to institutional intervention (e.g., see L. Gordon 1989).
Ms. Yanelli:I founda notein his schoolbag
one morningand it said, "I'mgoing to kill
you ... you'rea deadmother-f-er...." So,
I startedshaking.I was all readyto go over
there.[I was]preparedfor the counselor....
Theysaidthe reasonthey [theotherkids]do
what they do is becauseBilly makesthem
do it. So they hadan answerfor eve...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment