an emphasis on homework and grades whereas parents with cultural capital are emotionally closer to their children, encouraging them to pursue their interests and fulfil their potential.
Furthermore, more recent research since Lareau’s 2003 study has shown that the gap in socialization practices such as parents’ involvement with their children’s education and learning and high‐educational aspirations has narrowed between parents in poverty and those who are economically better off. Specifically, findings from studies such as the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in the United Kingdom have shown that most parents practice what looks like concerted cultivation in that they are involved in their children’s education and learning and have high aspiration, pointing to a continuum of parenting and child socialization practices rather than a polarization (Gregg & Washbrook, 2011; Hartas, 2014). This shows parents to have internalized notions of the “good” parent as someone who is involved with their children and invests time and effort for their future advancement. As such, academic socialization has become the primary goal of good parenting.
Academic socialization involves “communicating parental expectations for education and its value or utility” and “making preparations and plans for the future” (Hill & Tyson, 2009, p. 742). Child academic socialization differs along family income. Children from low‐income families tend to spend more time online (e.g., games, TV, video, social networking) whereas those from wealthier families spend time on learning activities (e.g., Rideout et al., 2010). The differences in children’s academic socialization are typically discussed along a “time‐wasting gap” between poor and economically better off children and is considered to be a reflection of poor parenting rather than a manifestation of social class. For families in social margins, academic socialization, although prominent in child–parent interactions, may take forms that are less visible and recognizable in schools.
Child socialization patterns differ between families practicing concerted cultivation and accomplishment of natural growth. In the former, children were observed to develop better vocabularies and tended to engage in negotiation and reasoning with their parents who offer them choices and encourage them to express themselves, with language use being nondirective. Children in middle‐class families engaged in enrichment activities and accessed more educational resources in the form of material resources and paid‐for tutoring as well as participation in cultural and sporting activities. The nature of social networks they build was also different in that middle‐class parents were more likely to build “horizontal” (e.g., partnerships with professionals and institutions) rather than “bonding” (e.g., extended family members) networks to gain influence and maximize their children’s advancement, whereas working‐class children spent more time with family and friends (Lareau, 2003).
Concerted cultivation aligns closely with the social investment model where parents are encouraged to invest in educational services and resources to give their children a head start. The different parenting and socialization practices across social‐class groups highlight the extent to which parenting and expressions of care are class based. These differences are not simply between middle‐ and working‐class parents but also across families who possess different forms of capital, e.g., economic, intellectual, and cultural. For example, concerted cultivation through facilitating a culture of learning at home that is less instrumental and school driven has been found to be more likely in families with educated parents (Hartas, 2014). A culture of learning is supported by parent–children social interactions and conversations, organization of family time, and children’s play in terms of structured and unstructured activities, the type of relationships parents build with institutions (e.g., school) and the nature and intensity of their social networks. Although desired and practiced across socioeconomic groups, concerted cultivation may be compromised in low‐income families due to lack of educational resources and not because of cultural deviance in socialization practices. The social‐class gaps in patterns of child socialization stem from lower levels of financial, social, and cultural capital rather than from different conceptions of child development.
The persistent gap in children’s socialization and well‐being points to unequal distribution of various forms of capital and the lack of recognition and respect poverty and disadvantage ensue. In Honneth’s theory of recognition, human agency flourishes during socialization practices that “validate and acknowledge personal existence” (Houston & Dolan, 2008, p. 459). Recognition and respect are compromised for children living in poverty and their parents whose social marginalization is seen as personal failure. Human agency mutates into economic agency and parents’ and children’s rights are exercised as long as they are compatible with maximizing investment. In this context, the social contract does not seem to apply to those who are thought to suffer from self‐inflicted marginalization and poverty, the often‐called “undeserving” poor. When social and economic rights and the ethics of care are disrupted by the forces of the market and rising inequality, children’s emotional development and well‐being are compromised.
Inequality and Child Well‐being
It is reasonable to think that children’s well‐being mirrors the social and economic conditions in their life. The relationship between well‐being, mental health, and poverty is strong and far from being resolved (Hartas, 2019; Lund et al., 2010). In a study by Hartas (2019), mental health and well‐being were found to decrease for children in families with low income and parent education. Thoughts, behaviors and emotions are socialized primarily in the family environment; there is a direct influence between emotional development and well‐being and the kind of family to which children belong. Families shape emotions according to risk factors in relation to housing and socioeconomic status and these issues directly affect children’s feelings (Shaffer et al., 2012). Social life is organized in ways that the focus is on human relationships where relations and practices of care are an integral part of everyday ethics (Held, 2006). However, the ethics of care, concerned with fostering interdependency, social bonds, and reciprocal responsiveness to need across individual and wider social scales, are gradually replaced by economic rights. Globalization, initially presented as an international project that was equitable, working towards creating a level‐playing field for all, has brought divisions to the fore, outsourcing everything from products and services to care relationships, creating near slavery conditions, affecting low‐paid carers, predominantly women, and the care and socialization they offer to their children (Ehenreich, 1989).
Children and adolescents are the age groups most likely to live in poverty, with their families having increasingly reduced access to educational opportunities, decent housing, and food security (Hirsch, 2015). In a UK study funded by the Rowntree Foundation, of the 12 million working‐age adults and children in poverty, 8 million live in families where at least one person is in work. Employment no longer leads to lower poverty and further reductions of the incomes of low‐income families through rising inflation, changes to benefits and tax credits, and high housing costs continue to reduce the incomes available for families in poverty (JRF Analysis Unit, 2017). Inequality is thought to impact on well‐being and mental health via two related mechanisms. First, inequality causes direct stress due to social comparisons where less well‐off parents and children develop feelings of shame, moral failure, and “social defeat” when comparing themselves with economically better‐off people. Second, inequality erodes social trust and social cohesion, “leading to social fragmentation and leaving people vulnerable to psychosocial stressors” (Burns, 2015, p. 110). Both mechanisms shape socialization processes in that children grow up internalizing the causes and effects of disadvantage, resulting in feelings of shame and a sense of failure.
Trends in mental ill health have changed over time, manifesting themselves earlier, during childhood, and becoming increasingly gendered. Since the 1990s, traditional patterns of mental ill health appear to be reversed with the rates of depression increasing faster among children at younger and younger ages while rates of depression among people over 40 have remained stable (Zahn‐Waxler et al., 2008). Over the last 5 years, research has shown a growing gender divide in young people’s mental health and wellbeing (Finch et al., 2014; Hartas,
