High Price

studying twelve families, comparing middle-class blacks and whites to poor people of both races. Families were visited twenty times in a month for three hours per visit. The researchers found that middle-class parents—again, both black and white—focused intensely on their children.
    In a parenting style that Lareau labeled “concerted cultivation,” these families built and scheduled their lives around activities aimed at “enriching” the children’s experience—organized sports, music lessons, extracurricular activities linked to school, and so on. Parents constantly spoke to their children and paid attention to their responses, encouraging them to ask questions if they felt anything was unclear or if they were simply curious. Discipline did not involve corporal punishment and was almost exclusively conducted through verbal exchanges: the main idea was to teach moral reasoning, not just obedience.
    In fact, children were encouraged to see themselves as worthy of having an opinion in adult conversations and to interact with authorities as though they deserved to be respected as equals (or at least, future equals). They were urged to express their opinions and argue their positions even in disciplinary matters—and these were arguments that they might, by making a particularly strong case, actually win. But their daily life was also highly scheduled and exhausting, at the cost of time spent with relatives or friends.
    Life in working-class families like mine was very different. Lareau called their parenting style “the accomplishment of natural growth,” and it was based on different assumptions about children. The idea was not to “perfect” children and ensure that their talents were discovered and honed. Rather, children were seen as naturally growing into what they would become, without a constant need for adult direction.
    Consequently, children were not the main focus of adult attention. As in my family, children were expected to learn by watching and doing; verbal explanation was not especially important. One of MH’s favorite admonishments was “Get out of grown folks’ business!” She didn’t see herself as a guide introducing us to that world; it was a separate sphere we would figure out how to enter soon enough. So, when we got attention, it was usually for doing something wrong. Then, physical punishments were often meted out.
    The use of corporal punishment during my childhood began after the divorce. At that time, we were disciplined harshly and with little chance for appeal or excuses—that was “back talk” or being “hardheaded,” not moral reasoning. And it could make it all worse if you tried it while you were on the receiving end of a beating. We got whipped with belts, tree branches, and the cord on the iron. This was a common occurrence until I was about fourteen and started threatening to hit my mother back. But long before that point, it was made clear that in our world, obedience was what mattered and was valued.
    Children where I grew up and in Lareau’s working-class sample spent most of their time outside of school in unstructured activity, usually playing with cousins and siblings outdoors. Older children were expected to care for younger ones. And adults and other authorities were seen as sources of power, to be respected and feared, not confronted. If we were going to disobey, we learned rapidly to cover our tracks.
    Both of these parenting styles have their advantages, Lareau found (although I should note that she did not look at families that used corporal punishment as severe as in my family after my parents split). The middle-class way was not, as some might expect, superior all around. The working-class children were often happier and better behaved. They were much closer to their extended families and were full of energy. They mostly did as they were told. They knew how to entertain themselves and were rarely bored. They were more adept at relationships.
    The middle-class youth, however, were much more prepared for school and far better situated to deal with adult authorities. They could speak up for themselves and use well-crafted arguments to come to conclusions more skillfully. This elaborated way of thinking also helped them better make plans that required multiple steps. Essentially, they were more prepared for success in the American mainstream than the working-class children were. And this was true regardless of whether they were black or white.