Social mobility: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 1 edit by 129.126.40.132 (talk) to last revision by HudecEmil
Tag: Reverted
Line 31:
===Class cultures and social networks===
 
These differing dimensionsdimensionsof of social mobilitysocialmobility can be classified in terms of differing types of capital that contribute to changes in mobility. [[Cultural capital]], a term first coined by French sociologist [[Pierre Bourdieu]] distinguishes between the economic and cultural aspects of class. Bourdieu described three types of capital that place a person in a certain social category: [[Capital (economics)|economic capital]]; [[social capital]]; and [[cultural capital]]. [[Capital (economics)|Economic capital]] includes economic resources such as [[cash]], [[credit (finance)|credit]], and other material [[assets]]. Social capital includes resources one achieves based on group membership, networks of influence, relationships and support from other people. Cultural capital is any advantage a person has that gives them a higher status in society, such as [[education]], skills, or any other form of knowledge. Usually, people with all three types of capital have a high status in society. Bourdieu found that the culture of the upper social class is oriented more toward formal reasoning and abstract thought. The lower social class is geared more towards matters of facts and the necessities of life. He also found that the environment in which a person develops has a large effect on the cultural resources that a person will have.<ref name=Bourdieu>{{cite book |last=Bourdieu |first=Pierre |title=Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste |year=1984 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-0-415-56788-6 }}{{page needed|date=January 2020}}</ref>
 
The cultural resources a person has obtained can heavily influence a child's educational success. It has been shown that students raised under the concerted cultivation approach have "an emerging sense of entitlement" which leads to asking teachers more questions and being a more active student, causing teachers to favor students raised in this manner.<ref name="Lareau2003">{{cite book|title=Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life|url=https://archive.org/details/unequalchildhood00lare|url-access=registration|publisher=University of California Press|last1=Lareau|first1=Annette|year=2003}}</ref> This childrearing approach which creates positive interactions in the classroom environment is in contrast with the natural growth approach to childrearing. In this approach, which is more common amongst working-class families, parents do not focus on developing the special talents of their individual children, and they speak to their children in directives. Due to this, it is rarer for a child raised in this manner to question or challenge adults and conflict arises between childrearing practices at home and school. Children raised in this manner are less inclined to participate in the classroom setting and are less likely to go out of their way to positively interact with teachers and form relationships. However, the greater freedom of working-class children gives them a broader range of local playmates, closer relationships with cousins and extended family, less sibling rivalry, fewer complaints to their parents of being bored, and fewer parent-child arguments.<ref name="Lareau2003"/>