Page 193 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 193
book review
cial biases remain powerful, but they would, he claims, represent less bur-
densome obstacles today than they did in the 1950s. The basic narrative of
Putnam’s book is undeniably true – “the gap between rich and poor kids
in America is getting more severe on all sorts of dimensions” (cf. Eisen-
berg, 2015: p. 292), but this reading of the situation could be – I think –
backed up by mentioning other axes of marginalization as intersections
are so powerful at marginalization that they need to be taken into ac-
count: not only merely summarizing the effects of one, two or three op-
pressive categories, but acknowledging how these categories can mutually
strengthen or weaken each other (see e. g. Winker and Degele, 2011). Gen-
der for example is not put out as a very defining determinant for upward
mobility – which works in Putnam’s conceptual framework where gender
equality or feminist theoretizations of it are hardly on the radar.4
The book consists of two different perspectives. One is personal narra-
tives or interviews with youngsters and their families from different back-
grounds and geographical parts of the USA in order “to help reduce the
perception gap”, which adds a different view, gives voice to the ones here-
to unheard.5 The other is statistical data and its interpretation. Both fo-
cus on class divisions which translate, as it seems, to the division between
parents with or without college education. The controversial part, for me
at least, is the interpretative frame of the areas where inequality is most
strongly visible. These are, as identified by the author: families and par-
enting styles,6 schooling and community support. Of course, these areas
are not controversial per se, but become such after Putnam has put them in
his interpretative frame in which he is reading statistical data at face val-
ue. Putnam claims, basing his claim on previous research, that “children
4 He, however, does acknowledge that feminist revolution transformed gender and marital
norms. But I think that certain feminist insights and/or rethinkings simply cannot be ig-
nored any more in the building of critical knowledge.
5 Personal narratives need to be carefully read, of which the author is aware, see e. g. the part
about the “golden memories of yesteryear”, but perhaps not quite enough since such nar-
ratives are not reports, but my be veiled by childhood nostalgia (for what never was?). The
description given by many of his 1959 class respondents “We were poor, but we didn’t know
it” could be debatable in this light.
6 One of them being (over-)involvement of parents or over-parenting (aka helicopter par-
ents and Tiger Moms) in school work and affairs, which, in my opinion, only widens the
class gap – the “entrance” of parents into schools and virtually all areas of school activities
does not necessarily prove a good thing (as can be illustrated by the Slovenian case with
its over-involvement of parents to the point of absurdity). One dimension of over-parent-
ing approach in America is that “parents in upscale communities also demand a more ac-
ademically rigorous curriculum”. It may be true that parental engagement with schools
encourages (could encourage?) higher performance especially among socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth, but are those parents able, have time etc. to intensively parent? Put-
nam is aware that questions about causality are not easy to answer.
191
cial biases remain powerful, but they would, he claims, represent less bur-
densome obstacles today than they did in the 1950s. The basic narrative of
Putnam’s book is undeniably true – “the gap between rich and poor kids
in America is getting more severe on all sorts of dimensions” (cf. Eisen-
berg, 2015: p. 292), but this reading of the situation could be – I think –
backed up by mentioning other axes of marginalization as intersections
are so powerful at marginalization that they need to be taken into ac-
count: not only merely summarizing the effects of one, two or three op-
pressive categories, but acknowledging how these categories can mutually
strengthen or weaken each other (see e. g. Winker and Degele, 2011). Gen-
der for example is not put out as a very defining determinant for upward
mobility – which works in Putnam’s conceptual framework where gender
equality or feminist theoretizations of it are hardly on the radar.4
The book consists of two different perspectives. One is personal narra-
tives or interviews with youngsters and their families from different back-
grounds and geographical parts of the USA in order “to help reduce the
perception gap”, which adds a different view, gives voice to the ones here-
to unheard.5 The other is statistical data and its interpretation. Both fo-
cus on class divisions which translate, as it seems, to the division between
parents with or without college education. The controversial part, for me
at least, is the interpretative frame of the areas where inequality is most
strongly visible. These are, as identified by the author: families and par-
enting styles,6 schooling and community support. Of course, these areas
are not controversial per se, but become such after Putnam has put them in
his interpretative frame in which he is reading statistical data at face val-
ue. Putnam claims, basing his claim on previous research, that “children
4 He, however, does acknowledge that feminist revolution transformed gender and marital
norms. But I think that certain feminist insights and/or rethinkings simply cannot be ig-
nored any more in the building of critical knowledge.
5 Personal narratives need to be carefully read, of which the author is aware, see e. g. the part
about the “golden memories of yesteryear”, but perhaps not quite enough since such nar-
ratives are not reports, but my be veiled by childhood nostalgia (for what never was?). The
description given by many of his 1959 class respondents “We were poor, but we didn’t know
it” could be debatable in this light.
6 One of them being (over-)involvement of parents or over-parenting (aka helicopter par-
ents and Tiger Moms) in school work and affairs, which, in my opinion, only widens the
class gap – the “entrance” of parents into schools and virtually all areas of school activities
does not necessarily prove a good thing (as can be illustrated by the Slovenian case with
its over-involvement of parents to the point of absurdity). One dimension of over-parent-
ing approach in America is that “parents in upscale communities also demand a more ac-
ademically rigorous curriculum”. It may be true that parental engagement with schools
encourages (could encourage?) higher performance especially among socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth, but are those parents able, have time etc. to intensively parent? Put-
nam is aware that questions about causality are not easy to answer.
191
