So i'm not going to argue that it exists. I'll assume that it does and work from there. I'm referring, of course, to the sense of entitlement that Annette Lareau describes as being a part of "middle class" existence. (We'll leave out the part where she uses the term middle class loosely enough to include some obviously upper class families - unless someone can tell me how $200k household income can even possibly be considered to be average...) Moving right along - this sense of entitlement is held by middle class working people and passed on to their kids as just another part of the child-rearing process. It looks something like this: I exist, therefore i have the right to be listened to, i have the right to expect a good education, i have the right to challenge authority when i see fit - basically, i have the right to be catered to by society, and i have the right to be outraged when that doesn't happen. So my question to you: is this a bad thing? It sounds wrong, sure - maybe a little conceited. But....i mean, what's the big deal? I'm trying to wrap my head around this and i come up with the thought that, well, if it works, why change it. I'm sure i'm showing my Suburban roots right now, because some of you might be saying that it doesn't work in the projects, it doesn't work in the hood. Fair enough, i conceid that my experience does not allow me to speak to that point. But it does work where i come from, and let me tell you - sometimes having that sort of attitude allows you to go a lot further than by just having what Lareau calls a "sense of constraint" exhibited by lower and working class inhabitants, characterized by more of a do-as-your-told, complain-about-yet-feel- powerless-to-change-things attitudes when it comes to big organizations. Maybe having an i-can-do-anything attitude is a real positive thing, that can stem directly from an i-deserve-anything attitude. I don't know, maybe i'm just trying to be contrarian. Maybe what's really wrong with society is entitlement. I shall ponder this further and let you know what i decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do not think entitlement is intrinsically wrong, nor do I think Lareau would say it is wrong. As she continuously points out, she does not rate either child rearing strategy (concerted cultivation vs. the accomplishment of natural growth) as superior. Rather, she seems them as different; each having its own benefits as well as limitations.
The discrepancy, and where entitlement comes into question, is in the face of the institution. Because middle-class cultural values and practice are in line with institutional expectations, middle-class children are at an advantage. They use their sense of entitlement to have the institution accommodate to their needs. As we have already discussed extensively, the poor and working class children do not acquire this same sentiment, nor do they acquire the skills needed to interact with the institution in ways that are "appropriate" in the eyes of the institution.
I do think that giving children a hyper-sense of entitlement is harmful in that it can create spoiled, whiney children; but the overall idea behind entitlement is not evil in its own right. It works for the children who are privileged enough to be born into a home where entitlement is a part of the cultural practice of child-rearing. The problem is that children who grow up in different cultural settings do not receive this same sense of entitlement, nor the skills necessary to successfully manipulating the institution to their advantage. They are at a huge disadvantage when faced with institutional encounters later in life.
If we believe that we live in a free country where everyone has equal opportunity for success, this disadvantage is unacceptable, and needs to be addressed. The fault does not lie in either parenting strategy, as we have seen that both have ups and downs. I blame the inequality that exists in the structure of our institutions. Fixing this inequality is another issue in itself.
Post a Comment