DQ13
ettevs
R11-4.pdf
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
R
E V I E W
S
I N
A D V A
N C
E
Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools James Collins Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009. 38:33–48
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085242
Copyright c© 2009 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/09/1021-0033$20.00
Key Words
language, social class, social inequality, education, ethnographies, multilevel analysis
Abstract Social reproduction theory argues that schools are not institutions of equal opportunity but mechanisms for perpetuating social inequalities. This review discusses the emergence and development of social repro- duction analyses of education and examines three main perspectives on reproduction: economic, cultural, and linguistic. Reproduction analy- ses emerged in the 1960s and were largely abandoned by the 1990s; some of the conceptual and political reasons for this turning away are addressed. New approaches stress concepts such as agency, identity, person, and voice over the structural constraints of political economy or code, but results have been mixed. Despite theoretical and method- ological advances—including new approaches to multilevel analysis and alertness to temporal processes—the difficult problem remains to un- derstand how social inequality results from the interplay of classrooms, schools, and the wider society.
33
Review in Advance first posted online on June 12, 2009. (Minor changes may still occur before final publication online and in print.)
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
INTRODUCTION
Concern with the processes whereby societies and cultures perpetuate themselves has an an- cient pedigree, traceable back to Aristotle’s (1959) analysis of the domestic economy in political orders. Researchers have suggested that scholastic institutions were important sites of cultural reproduction in classical Greece (Lloyd 1990), imperial Rome (Guillory 1993), medieval Europe (Bloch 1961), and modern France (Durkheim 1977). Overt concern with social reproduction is, however, a product of post–World War II social dynamics, especially the political and intellectual ferment of the 1960s. It is a product of concern with inequal- ity. As a framework of inquiry, it draws from diverse disciplines but is typically rooted in dia- logue with Marxist traditions of social analysis.
Early studies of social reproduction in edu- cation emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, Britain, and France. Founda- tional works include Bowles & Gintis’s (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America (United States), Willis’s (1977) Learning to Labor (Britain), and Bourdieu & Passeron’s (1977) Reproduction in Education, Culture, and Society (France). Al- though these works differed in regard to the- orization, scope of analysis, and methodology, each attempted to trace links between economic structures, schooling experience, and modes of consciousness and cultural activity. Their anal- yses responded to debates concerning central contradictions of these postwar societies. In each country, public education was officially un- derstood and presented as a meritocratic insti- tution in which talent and effort alone predicted outcomes, but by the post–World War II period considerable evidence indicated otherwise (e.g., Coleman 1966, Jencks 1972).
The basic reproductionist argument was that schools were not exceptional institutions promoting equality of opportunity; instead they reinforced the inequalities of social structure and cultural order found in a given country. How they were understood to do so depended on the theoretical perspective of analysts, the sites they prioritized for study, and a varying
emphasis on top-down structural determina- tion versus bottom-up agency by individuals or small groups. Early research on educational reproduction provided structuralist accounts, identifying systematic features of language, cul- ture, and political economy, which were re- flected in the conduct and organization of class- rooms and curricula and assigned a causal role in perpetuating linguistic, cultural, and eco- nomic inequalities (Bernstein 1975, Bourdieu & Passeron 1977, Bowles & Gintis 1976). The economic perspective on reproduction (Bowles & Gintis 1976) attracted criticism for its treat- ment of culture as secondary to economics and politics. “Cultural reproduction” analyses, when they emerged, often attempted to in- tegrate class analyses with analysis of race or gender formation and to investigate the social practices of small groups. An early, influential and highly controversial argument about class and education focused on the role of language (Bernstein 1960, 1964). It was quickly taken up for criticism and exploration by sociolinguistic and anthropological researchers in the United States but with an emphasis on ethnicity and culture and a focus on situated communication, especially in classrooms (Cazden et al. 1972).
Although the reproductive thesis is simple to state in academic terms, it has been and continues to be quite unpalatable to many of those who work in schools or educational sys- tems more generally (Rothstein 2004). This is probably because it presents a direct chal- lenge to meritocratic assumptions and seems to dash egalitarian aspirations. Early arguments and analyses of reproduction were also of their era, the 1960s and early 1970s, when economic and social stability seemed more secure than it has in recent decades. They were also formu- lated with a structuralist intellectual confidence that has not survived the intervening decades of reflexive, postmodern uncertainty (Bauman 1997). By the early 1990s, there was a turning away from arguments about social reproduction and education, whether focused on economic, cultural, or linguistic dimensions. This is puz- zling in some respects because the problem of
34 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
inequality remains a central feature of the con- temporary world, within nations and on a global scale (Henwood 2003; Stiglitz 2002), and the centrality of straightforward economic factors in school performance appears little changed over more than 40 years (Coleman 1966, U.S. Dep Educ. 2001).
This review surveys studies developing eco- nomic, cultural, and linguistic perspectives on social reproduction in classrooms and schools. After examining work using each lens, it then discusses why the reproduction framework was largely abandoned, exploring the conceptual and political dilemmas that seem to have moti- vated the turn to new approaches and assessing the achievements and limitations of subsequent efforts. Last, it takes up the question of “What now?,” arguing that the issue of social repro- duction in education and society remains highly relevant but that its study requires new concep- tual tools as well as a reworking of old find- ings and insights. Two central theses inform the overall argument. The first is that to understand social reproduction we have to consider multi- ple levels of social and institutional structure as well as microanalytic communicative processes and cultural practices. The second is that social class matters profoundly but that analysts strug- gle to understand its protean nature, including its intricate interplay with other principles of inequality, such as race and gender.
ECONOMIC REPRODUCTION
Althusser’s (1971) essay on “Ideological State Apparatuses” was an early and influential argu- ment about education and social reproduction. It conceptualized the school as an agency of class domination, achieving its effects through ideological practices that inculcated knowledge and dispositions in class-differentiated social subjects, preparing them for their dominant or dominated places in the economy and society. The foundational work on economic reproduction, however, was Schooling in Capitalist America (Bowles & Gintis 1976). In this account, classroom experience, and school knowledge more generally, emphasized
discrete bits of knowledge and discipline for those bound for blue-collar occupations, alongside more synthetic, analytic knowledge and self-directedness for those destined for middle-class professions. It provided a straight- forward argument in which school curricula and classroom procedure reflected the organi- zation of class-differentiated adult dispositions, skills, and work experiences and transmitted similar dispositions and skills to subsequent generations. The argument quickly attracted criticism, in part because it maintained consid- erable distance conceptually and empirically from actual schools and classrooms (Giroux 1983). However, the basic thesis that schooling as a system rations kinds of knowledge to class- and ethnically-stratified student populations has been empirically confirmed by a number of studies (Anyon 1981, 1997; Carnoy & Levin 1985; Oakes 1985). Published in translation at about the same time, Reproduction in Education, Culture and Society (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977) dealt with France. It provided a more nuanced analysis, both in its framework, which related forms of symbolic value (economic, cultural, and social “forms of capital”) to economic and political arenas, and in its attention to forms of pedagogic discourse, which hypothesized systemic miscommunication in classrooms (1977, Chapter 2). It also attracted many critics of its “determinism” (Giroux 1983, Levinson & Holland 1996) because it argued that class-based differences in material resources were ultimate causes in the reproduction of cultural and educational inequality.
According to critics, a primary deficiency in all the early formulations was their neglect of the problem of agency and change (Giroux 1983, MacLeod 1987). Instructive criticism in this regard is provided by Apple (1982). As does Schooling in Capitalist America, this work takes as its starting point that certain shared principles govern the organization of schooling and work. It argues that in essence schooling is organized to provide individuated, technical knowledge to select strata of consumer-workers (largely white, middle class, and compliant). The abstract and schematic treatment of
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 35
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
social dynamics and the education process is enriched, however, by Apple’s argument that “cultures and ideologies” are “filled with con- tradiction” and “produced . . . in contestation and struggle.” (pp. 24, 26). In support of this argument, Apple turns to sociological case studies and educational ethnographies. The first of these address adults in work situations and show, for example, male factory workers and female salespeople as they slow down, disrupt, and otherwise exert informal control over work processes. Such studies document how class-situated practices of resistance subvert the formal procedures and control mechanisms of the workplace bureaucracy (see also Scott 1998, pp. 310–11).
The ethnographic studies Apple discusses focus on class conflicts in society and in re- lation to school. One of these, Willis’s Learn- ing to Labor (1977), is a classic because of its detailed observation of peer group behav- ior and its provocative theorization of cultural agency and reproduction. The study examines how working-class English lads penetrate the school’s meritocratic ideology. Through peer group solidarities analogous to their fathers’ shop-floor tactics for controlling the flow of factory work, they disrupt classroom procedure with humor and aggression, ubiquitously call- ing into question the classroom social contract whereby compliance is exchanged for knowl- edge and grades. They celebrate masculine sol- idarity and power through partying, fighting, and “having a laff”; they also oppress girls, de- ride ethnoracial minorities, and fail in school. Another study is McRobbie’s (1978) “Working Class Girls and the Culture of Femininity.” It is an ethnographic analysis of both class and sexu- ality, theorized as structures of domination that are lived as partially autonomous cultural for- mations, zones of practice and meaning wherein working-class girls assert femininity and sexual- ity against the prudish compliance expected of good girls in school. Like their working-class mothers, these girls form bonds of self and soli- darity through gender expression, but they also disengage from schooling and its prospects of
social mobility and enact self-limiting rituals of sexual subordination.
In these two studies, rather than reproduc- tive processes that involve congruence across multiple levels of organizations and actors (e.g., by parents, teachers, and education bureaucra- cies), we instead find oppositional practices that nonetheless reproduce social relations. We have sophisticated accounts of how the winner loses. Adolescent class- and gender-based solidarities draw from parental legacies of class and gender struggles, and the students building these sol- idarities develop considerable insight into the selective, class-biased nature of school curricu- lum and normative classroom conduct. They disrupt the logic of schooling, but their group- and practice-based insights are limited “pene- trations” (Willis 1977, chapters 5 and 6) because their class expressions also reinforce ethnora- cial antagonism, gender oppression, and edu- cational failure.
Carnoy & Levin (1985) share Apple’s em- phasis on education as a site of class conflict and social contradiction, and they emphasize the role of the state. They argue that school- ing serves primarily as an instrument of class domination but that it is also a site of struggles for equality. As does Apple, they also turn to ethnographies to understand reproductive pro- cesses, focusing on comparative ethnographic studies of schools serving upper- and lower- middle-class communities in California. Ana- lyzing teacher beliefs and classroom practices regarding work-relevant knowledge and dispo- sitions, parental views of schooling, their chil- dren, and their occupational futures, and state education criteria for adequate and nonade- quate performance on core subjects, they find a lockstep pattern of teacher and parental beliefs, classroom practices, and state performance cri- teria that “reinforce the differential class struc- ture in preparing the young for future occupa- tional roles” (p. 141).
Lareau’s Home Advantage (1989) provides a further perspective on class conditions and school experiences, focusing especially on fam- ilies. It comparatively analyzes how working
36 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
and middle class adults with elementary-age children view education and interact with school, thus influencing their children’s school experiences. Lareau finds that what might be called work process shapes families’ tacit theo- ries of the home/school relation. Does parents’ office work come home with them? If so, expect (middle-class) parents and children to perceive and enact many home/school connections. Does parental work end at the factory gate or retail shop door? If so, expect (working-class) parents and children to perceive and enact a clear separation of home and school, viewing school as the place for schooling and home as a needed respite. The study reports a salient home advantage: Middle-class parents, especially mothers, are avid and effective school minders. When well-resourced, school- confident women set the standard for normal parenting, their blue-collar counterparts inevitably lag behind. School personnel often view working-class parents as insufficiently involved in their children’s education (Freeman 2004, Luttrell 1997, Thompson 1995).
CULTURAL REPRODUCTION
Lareau uses the concept of cultural capital to an- alyze cultural knowledge as class advantage in educational areas. This concept, from Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1984, Bourdieu & Passeron 1977), has been applied in numerous studies of so- cial advantage and classroom processes (e.g., Collins 1999a, Heller 1994, Nespor 1987). Key extended works on cultural reproduction fo- cused on the relative autonomy of cultural forms and practices vis-à-vis political economy, investigating the interplay of class with other significant social relations, especially those of gender and race. They often analyze how so- cial relations are produced and reproduced in encounters between adolescents and their peers in a variety of school settings, including classrooms.
Foley’s (1990) Learning Capitalist Culture proposes to show “how schools are sites for popular cultural practices that stage or reproduce social inequality” (p. xv). It reports
on a south Texas town and high school in the ferment of 1970s civil rights reforms. Inves- tigating the dynamics of class in relation to other axes of inequality, it analyzes the staging and reproducing of class and racial hierarchies at multiple sites: football games, the dating scene, beer parties, and classrooms. Foley argues that class relations take priority over ethnic affiliations but that class is expressive rather than structural in the usual sense. More particularly, he argues that middle-class Anglo and Latino cohorts, of athletes and other popular cliques, share greater commonalities in their presentation of self (Goffman 1959, 1967), whether in classrooms or elsewhere, than they share with ostensible working-class counterparts, whether Anglo “shitkickers” or Chicano “vatos.” In this account, capitalist cul- ture is fundamentally “communicative action” (Habermas 1987), and class culture is a “situatal speech performance” (pp. 178–81, 192–94) en- acted and learned in many places, including the classroom; it crosscuts and informs the staging and reproduction of ethnic identities. Essen- tially, middle-class expressive culture is highly instrumental: Middle-class kids, whether Anglo or Chicano, play the classroom “game,” appearing interested while discreetly mocking teacher authority and school knowledge. Working-class expressive culture is less strate- gic for various reasons: Working-class kids do not play the classroom game as well; they are either passive and exclude themselves from classroom interaction or openly defiant and likely to provoke confrontations with teachers.
What adds additional substance to Foley’s ethnography of social reproduction is its com- panion analysis From Peones to Politicos (Foley 1988), a historical treatment of the chang- ing political economy of the town and region in which the more detailed school/community study is situated. This study analyzes the broad movement of adult Chicanos from field laborers to civil rights advocates, as the region’s economy transforms over an 80-year period from feudal- ized ranching to modern capitalist agriculture. It shows the space made for an expanded Latino middle class, investigates the role of public
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 37
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
institutions such as schools in class-stratified ethnic social mobility, and provides the broader compass for the social scenes, institutional pro- cesses, and face-to-face conduct explored in Learning Capitalist Culture.
Despite its strengths, Foley’s analysis of cap- italist culture gave short shrift to questions of gender (Collins 1992). Other studies have addressed this lack; a pair by Weis is partic- ularly valuable. Working Class Without Work (Weis 1990) takes up issues of gender, race, and aspiration in the context of identity, so- cial movements, feminism, and class restruc- turing. It examines how white high-school stu- dents in “Freeway,” a working-class suburb of Buffalo, New York, in the throes of late 1980s deindustrialization and job loss, phrase their as- pirations, behave in classrooms, and relate to each other on the basis of their gender and race. The study calls for attention to the production of class identities, rather than the reproduction of class conditions. It argues that social move- ments of feminism and New Right populism inform female and male responses to the loss of traditional working-class livelihoods, deeply influencing the meaning of school and pro- viding alternative, conflicting paths of identity formation. In particular, girls are analyzed as proto-feminists, aspiring to education and so- cially mobile work independent of the patriar- chal domination endured by their mothers and grandmothers; they do not have the resentment of institutional authority that boys have. Boys, for their part, seem more attuned to a social conservative agenda; they aspire to a restora- tion of their fathers’ world of good wages and good jobs with the women at home, and they avoid and resist schoolwork and teacher author- ity. Working Class Without Work portrays class formation in a time of uncertain transition (the late 1980s), arguing that class legacies of un- derachievement in schooling can be reshaped by social movements that speak to gender and racial as well as class identities.
Class Reunion (Weis 2004) is a follow-up investigation conducted with many of the women and men originally studied as students at Freeway High. The heart of Class Reunion is
an analysis of class in relation to both gender and race dynamics in an era of global economic reconstruction. Talking with earlier research participants about their adult lives, Weis finds predictable outcomes as well as instructive surprises. Few of the men have successfully pursued tertiary education; with the ongoing loss of industrial work, most make livings in lower-wage service-sector jobs. Many of the women have completed college and hold white- collar jobs, challenging assumptions that family background simply predicts educational attain- ment. Weis finds—unexpectedly—that many men have given up their aspirations to the patri- archal authority and privilege embedded in an earlier white, working-class masculinity. They have opted of necessity for domestic partner- ships in which economic resources are shared along with domestic work, including child care. But this kinder, gentler domestic realm shows a harsher face to the outside world: These men and women forge new domestic alliances as whites, protecting “their communities” from African Americans and “Arabs” (Weis 2004).
Those “Arabs,” who Weis’s research partic- ipants see as racial others, are predominantly of Yemeni origin. Yemeni immigrants are also the subjects of Sarroub’s (2005) All American Yemeni Girls, a study of high-school girls who are members of a working-class immigrant community in Dearborn, Michigan. The con- trasts of site and study are instructive. Sarroub finds very different gender dynamics in this working-class community. In the 1990s, there appears to have been plenty of factory work in Dearborn, supporting a multigenerational Yemeni community that is devoutly Islamic and starkly patriarchal. In Sarroub’s analysis, school-focused, society-wide cultural repro- duction of the sort proposed by Bourdieu & Passeron (1977) is rejected. Schools are not the site of social reproduction; instead classrooms are “an oasis” where talk flows relatively freely between girl and boy, Yemeni and native-born American, and where educational achieve- ment is sought and aspirations flower. Home and community are where diasporic Yemeni identities are reinforced through transnational
38 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
marital strategies; a locally construed Muslim faith entails a very close monitoring of female dress, speech, and conduct; and achievement in school is appreciated but firmly subordinated to marriage and family. Documenting “the religious and cultural traditions that are in fact reproduced and reconstructed within the Yemeni family, and by the girls,” Sarroub convincingly shows that “cultural tools and traditions may have little bearing on learning and achievement [in school] but may serve the purpose of easing cultural or religious tensions as home and school worlds collide” (p. 12). Some outcomes of that collision—desperation as high-school graduation approaches, flight from family, and ostracism from community for girls who do choose education and jobs over submission to patriarchal authority—are sober reminders that identity can be anguished as well as reassuring and that the meanings of class, gender, and race vary widely.
This variation and its challenges for so- cial analysis are central issues in Bettie’s (2003) Women Without Class. Studying Latina and Anglo adolescents, Bettie documents that working-class style and demeanor were both sexualized and racialized. School personnel judged working-class Anglos and Latinas as overly sexualized; both girls and school person- nel saw upwardly mobile Latina girls as “acting white” (pp. 83–86). Theoretically focused on the interplay of class, gender, and race, Bettie argues that class should be understood as both performance and performative. It is perfor- mance because there is an indirect fit between background and style: Some working-class and middle-class “performers” depart from family origins. It is performative because family and community origins constrain the class expres- sions with which people are comfortable: Class expressivity is “an effect of social structure” (pp. 49–56). Examining working-class Latinas’ expressivity, she explores how class is deflected into sexuality, negatively judged by school per- sonnel, feeding into curriculum tracking pro- cesses that lead these “class performers” to working-class futures (chapter 3).
LINGUISTIC REPRODUCTION
Language pervades formal education as the pri- mary means of teaching and learning (Cazden 2001). As shown by the fields of sociolinguis- tics and linguistic anthropology, as well as some of the work on cultural reproduction just re- viewed, language is also a primary means of expressing social identities, affiliating with cul- tural traditions, and building relations with others (Gee 2001, Harris & Rampton 2003, Schieffelin & Ochs 1986). A third major ap- proach to social reproduction has focused on language and communication conduct in and out of schools, and with such studies we see the emergence of research into public debates about schools and society, often with unin- tended consequences.
Bernstein provided the major early theoret- ical and empirical work arguing for the role of class and language in social reproduction (Bernstein 1960, 1964, 1975). Briefly, he argued that the experience of work process reinforces kinds of family role relations, themselves real- ized as discursive identities that are carried by “elaborated” and “restricted” codes (1964). The codes are seen as the “genes of social class,” the semiotic-communicative sources of identities that are congruent with or disjunctive from the expressive styles required in school (Bernstein 1986, p. 472). Because of its schematic formula- tion of relations between classes and codes and its uptake in American debates about “cultures of poverty” and “linguistic deficit,” Bernstein’s account attracted much criticism (see Atkinson 1985, Collins 1988, Edwards 1976 for reviews).
Bernstein’s early work on language and class had been picked up in the 1960s by American researchers who argued that poor people, es- pecially poor African Americans concentrated in cities, performed inadequately in school be- cause they were linguistically or culturally de- prived (Bereiter & Englemann 1966, Deutsch 1967). This began the first iteration of con- troversies over linguistic deprivation explana- tions for educational failure. Anthropologists and other critics of the deficit model argued that minorities did poorly in school not because
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 39
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
of their language per se but because they were treated differently in schools (Leacock 1969, 1971; Rist 1970).
Functions of Language in the Classroom (Cazden et al. 1972) is an influential response to the deficit arguments in which linguis- tic anthropologists, socially minded psychol- ogists, sociologists, and educators investigate the relationships between group-based com- municative styles and classroom interactional dynamics that might lead to poor educational outcomes. Among the contributors, Bernstein (1972) criticizes facile notions of compensatory education, and Hymes (1972) argues for the need to investigate community-specific “com- municative competencies” underlying language use that might be perceived as deficient in classroom settings. Some contributions ana- lyze ethnically grounded preferences for col- laborative approaches to socializing and learn- ing, including Hawaiian-American traditions of “talk story” (Boggs 1972) and Native American preferences for peer-based “participation struc- tures” (Philips 1972); others explore stigmatiz- ing assumptions about Standard English ver- sus other languages (Spanish) or varieties (Black English), which result in differential treatment in classrooms (Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez 1972, Mitchell-Kernan 1972). The volume es- tablished a standard for arguments about com- municative differences, which departed from middle-class white and school-based practice but had an underlying logic or rationale. Many findings led to additional research and analy- sis, either confirming and elaborating the orig- inal phenomena (Au 1980, Erickson & Mohatt 1992, Philips 1983) or applying concepts to new domains, such as literacy learning (Michaels 1981) and mathematics instruction (O’Connor & Michaels 1996).
The major contribution in this tradition, however, is Heath’s (1983) Ways With Words. It melds Bernstein’s concerns with work, socialization, language, and schooling and the linguistic anthropological concerns with community-based differences in communica- tive style that appeared to influence classroom processes and learning outcomes. The book
painstakingly analyzes three different commu- nities in the Carolina Piedmont: a mixed-race middle-class cohort of “Townspeople”; a black working-class neighborhood of “Trackton”; and a white working-class neighborhood of “Roadville.” It documents striking differences in language and literacy socialization among the three groups, relates these differences to expec- tations about language held by classroom teach- ers and embedded in school curriculum, and compellingly argues that ethnographic inquiry by research participants (children and teach- ers) can lessen the mismatch between home and school. Despite its strengths, the book is cir- cumspect about the perpetuation of race and class inequalities clearly implied by its find- ings, perhaps in part owing to methodologi- cal modesty, but also in part because it ignores power relations, in particular, the larger state- level political forces that roll back the classroom reforms, which are only mentioned in a final Postscript (Collins & Blot 2003, chapters 3 and 5; de Castell & Walker 1991).
Drawing on the now-established school/home mismatch framework, a series of studies in the 1980s and early 1990s closely examined teacher-student and student-student interaction to demonstrate disadvantages faced by working-class African American students in standard classroom literacy lessons (Collins 1986; Gee 1996; Michaels 1981, 1986) and the advantages of classroom innovation (Foster 1987, Lee 1993). Others drew similar con- clusions from analyses of community-based “funds of knowledge” possessed by working- class Latino students but larger ignored by public schools (Gonzalez et al. 2005, Moll et al. 1992). Few studies in this period explicitly thematized the reproductive aspects of class- or race-inflected classroom encounters with literacy (Bigler 1996; Collins 1988, 1989).
In early 1997, however, a second iteration of the linguistic deprivation debate occurred after the Oakland Unified School District proposed to treat Ebonics (African American Vernacular English) as a classroom language resource. In making sense of the firestorm of protest this proposal unleashed, analysts
40 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
drew on the Functions of Language tradition of trying to understand community-based ways of speaking as resources for learning (Delpit & Perry 1998). They also pointed to the larger cultural-political processes that systematically devalued African American Vernacular (i.e., working-class) ways with words (Baugh 2000). Some explicitly treated it as an ideological conflict that revealed the reproductive nature of standard school language hierarchies and procedures in the United States (Collins 1999b) and internationally (Long 2003).
In recent years, the ways in which linguistic differences correlate with class differences have been getting renewed attention because of de- bates about school reform and the failure of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind man- dates and programs (No Child Left Behind Act 2001). This is an ambitious national interven- tion in public education that was supposed to change long-standing patterns of educational inequality but has not done so (Rothstein 2007, Tough 2006). In the search for explanations and alternative, research making linguistic differ- ence or deficit arguments is being considered in policy discussions and schools reforms. This development has largely escaped published dis- cussion in anthropology (but see Bomer et al. 2008).
Two studies are relevant for our discussion because of the substance of their claims and the way they have been picked up in policy debates. Both studies provide accounts of class-based differences in language and interactional dispo- sitions and argue why they matter for school- ing. Hart & Risley’s (1995) Meaningful Differ- ences is a study of child socialization, based on a substantive, longitudinal sampling of language use in family settings. It makes strong claims about social class and language use, and it has had influential uptake in discussions of com- pensatory literacy programs for poor children. The book is explicitly cast as a dialogue with Bernstein’s claims about class and code, and the analysis concentrates on the amount of vocabu- lary, specific sentence types, and specific inter- actional features of talk directed to children in “professional,” “working-class” and “welfare”
homes during their infant, preschool, and early primary years. Hart & Risely argue that the cumulative vocabulary differences they found have direct effects on early literacy. Although no commentators seem to have noticed, the spe- cific literacy measures they study do not support their claim, nor do their findings show a regu- lar class distribution. Compounding the prob- lem of the flawed analysis of class and language, Hart & Risley subsequently simplified their re- sults and promoted them in policy discussions as a “catastrophic” linguistic disadvantage for the poor (Hart & Risley 2003), and this version of findings has been used to justify strict ped- agogical regimes aimed at the inner-city poor (Brook-Gunn et al. 2003, Tough 2006).
Lareau’s (2003) Unequal Childhoods is a more measured work investigating child-rearing practices among poor, working-class, and afflu- ent, professional white and black families living in Philadelphia and its suburbs. It supports and elaborates Bernstein’s and Heath’s arguments about class and language socialization, showing a disjuncture between poor and working-class language practices and those expected in public arenas such as school or the (white-collar) workplace. It also explores how the differences in child-rearing are rooted in class-based cultural models that unite ideas about parents, children, and learning. Middle-class families believe in “concerted cultivation,” whereas their working-class counterparts view child de- velopment as akin to “natural growth” (Lareau 2003, chapter 1; see Heath 1983, chapters 3 and 7 for evidence of similar beliefs). The professional patterns go together with school achievement, the working-class patterns do not, and these class differences supersede oth- erwise notable white/black differences. Lareau is frank about the “power of class” (Chapter 12) in shaping child language socialization, schooling experiences, and life chances, and although her findings are not part of a deficit argument, they have been picked up in the same commentary as those of Hart & Risley.
There is reason to take Meaningful Differ- ences (Hart & Risley 1995) seriously. Stripped of its alarmist rhetoric and read closely, the
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 41
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
study reports findings commensurable with those of Lareau (2003) and Heath (1983) and the body of work in England supporting Bernstein’s early arguments (Cook-Gumperz 1973, Hawkins 1977). The recurrent depriva- tion debates, which have not ended, are an in- dication of the difficulties of understanding the dynamic interactions among racial formations, class conditions, and language. The fact that the most recent iteration of the debate has attracted little attention from sociolinguists or linguistic anthropologists calls to mind Hymes’s (1972) observation regarding Bernstein in the 1970s:
Bernstein is in the complex, difficult position of defending a kind of communication he calls a “restricted code” and of insisting on its lim- itations. His position will please few. Those who defend children by placing all blame on the schools, and those who explain the failures of schools by the language of the children, will both be offended. (p. xlvi)
THE TURN FROM REPRODUCTION AND THE CURRENT SCENE
The “difficult position” to which Hymes refers has largely been abdicated. Although there are exceptions, by the late 1980s efforts to un- derstand social reproduction in classrooms and schools had largely been abandoned. This was not because social inequality had lessened in the latter part of the twentieth century; in- deed, as numerous analysts have demonstrated, it has increased in the United States and in- ternationally since the early 1970s (Henwood 2003, Kuttner 2007), but concern with repro- duction as a conceptual focus was set aside in favor of other approaches. Instead analysts have given priorities that emphasize individ- ual or group initiative—”agency,” “identity,” “person,” and “voice”—over the structural con- straints of political economy or linguistic code. Economic reproduction models, the first for- mulated, were also the first criticized, most pointedly for neglecting the role of ethnora- cial formations and gender relations in capitalist
political economies and class relations (Bettie 2003, Foley 1990, Weis 1990).
The difficulties of formulating multifaceted accounts of race, class, and gender in relation to schooling have been formidable, however, and the new directions are informative both for their achievements and their limitations. Weis (1990) argued for a shift away from analyzing class reproduction to analyzing identity forma- tion, and her subsequent study (2004) supports the earlier argument that schools are not sim- ply about reproducing class relations to edu- cation. However, it does not show that social movements posited in 1990 as sources of iden- tity formation do in fact serve such a role; the discussion of ideology and consciousness is the weakest part of the latter work. The collection in Levinson et al. (1996) represents an anthro- pological option, arguing against cultural re- production models as too deterministic and for the priority of the “cultural production of per- son” in schools, with a wider diversity of kinds of person than is allowed by the broad social cat- egories of class, race, and gender. It is not clear, however, whether their project of studying the schooled production of persons has continued. Bettie (2003) explicitly analyzes class in rela- tion to gender and race, and her conceptualiz- ing class as “performance” and “performativity” moves forward the study of class-as-expression (see also Rampton 2006). However, although she argues against reproductionist accounts, she reports outcomes of class-expressive be- havior very similar to Willis’s and McRobbie’s findings—that is, while dismissing reproduc- tion models, she presents straightforward re- productive outcomes (Bettie 2003, chapter 3).
On the language front, there has been a dra- matic turning away from models of structure and code (Rampton et al. 2008), and this has left a troubling situation. On the one hand, there are currently very sophisticated accounts of practice, semiosis, and indeterminacy in the relation between language and social order; on the other hand, the new approaches would ap- pear to have little to say about the substan- tive projects, just discussed, that report strong links between class background and language
42 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
use. This aversion to social reproduction anal- ysis can be seen in a recent Annual Review es- say. Wortham (2008) presents a cogent account of the “Linguistic Anthropology of Education.” What is notable in his treatment of this field is the emphasis on the contextual indetermi- nacy of language use, on the constructed, con- tested nature of language ideologies, and in general on the creative, flexible aspect of social life in educational settings. This is not so much wrong as it is one sided. He presents a “com- positionist” view of social orders (Kontopoulos 1993), acutely aware of language use by per- sons and creativity in small group processes, but inattentive to the nature of institutions and vague about hierarchy or power. Thus stud- ies addressing ethnic inequalities are lauded for avoiding “simple reproductionist accounts” (Erickson & Schultz 1982) and for not arguing “simply that minority languages are devalued” (Rampton 1995) (Wortham, 2008, p. 42). Re- search that deals with language ideologies that organize nation-state hierarchies of language, class, and ethnorace (Blommaert 1999, Heller 1999), is euphemistically described as showing that “language policies. . .differentially position diverse populations” (Wortham 2008, p. 44). Discussing an analysis of narrative and iden- tity among Latino dropouts in an alternative school in Southern California (Rymes 2001), Wortham stresses the speakers’ narrative cre- ativity but omits any mention of the author’s sobering discovery that despite rich hybrid nar- ratives, alternative schools can be quickly shut down by higher administrative powers (Rymes 2001, chapter 9). In brief, this linguistic anthro- pology of education is attuned to the perfor- mative dimensions of language use, but not to structural constraint or social conflict.
CONCLUSION
A federally commissioned study in the 1960s sought to determine the influence of schools in educational attainment and occupational out- comes. It found that differences among schools mattered much less than assumed and that family socioeconomic status was the strongest
influence on a child’s educational achievement and life chances (Coleman 1966). More than four decades later, that generalization still holds (Jencks & Phillips 1998, Kingston 2000, U.S. Dep. Educ. 2001); furthermore, this pattern is found in most nations (Lemke 2002). This is a sobering feature of our world, and efforts to un- derstand such enduring social and educational inequality have occupied a wide range of schol- ars. The Marxian paradigm of social reproduc- tion provided one angle on the question but arguably proved both too narrow (excluding gender and race) and too rigid (failing to ac- count for agency or identity). But efforts to go beyond this framework—studying class iden- tity as a result of social movements, drawing on performance theory, or stressing the contextual creativity of language in educational settings— have not provided comprehensive accounts that enable us better to understand the gross dis- tribution of class-linked statuses and resources. Although this is a stalemate, there are lessons to be learned. Here are two worth thinking about.
First, it is necessary to conceptualize and study multiple social levels to understand mech- anisms that might produce such large-scale structural inequality. The need to move beyond a micromacro dichotomy of individual and soci- ety has been long-established (Bourdieu 1977, Ortner 1993); there are now sophisticated, the- oretically and empirically robust accounts of “heterarchical structures” (Kontopoulos 1993) that presume neither bottom-up construction of the social world by aggregate individual ac- tion nor top-down determination by large-scale entities but allow instead for emergence over time and complex feedback among structures and processes. Such approaches are needed to understand the internal ecologies of edu- cational systems or the external relations be- tween schools and other social institutions, such as families. Regarding the internal ecolo- gies, heterarchical models can help formulate the place of classrooms and schools in larger educational systems, as a structured but not predetermined process, shedding light on stud- ies of schools as sites of innovation and resis- tance that can quickly be reversed by higher
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 43
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
bureaucratic levels, as both Heath (1983) and Rymes (2001) discover. Such models can also provide insight into organizational and interac- tive processes that produce class-differentiated curricula, which have such inegalitarian out- comes (Anyon 1981, 1997; Carnoy & Levin 1985, Leacock 1969, Oakes 1985). Regarding the external relationships between schools and other social institutions, such as families, het- erarchical models are needed to analyze the in- terplay between schools and social-class-based dispositions to intervene in schools (Lareau 1989, 2003); between such class-based disposi- tions and the disabling stigma of working-class parents, especially mothers (Freeman 2004, Luttrell 1997, Thompson 1995); or between the class-specific, family-inculcated gender ex- pressivity and school tracking decisions (Bettie 2003, Luttrell 1996).
Second, understanding reproductive pro- cesses requires alertness to patterns that be- come evident only over longer periods of time. Some patterns follow the school year. For exam- ple, classroom processes such as formal lessons show a structured interplay among immediate face-to-face exchanges, event-level topical co- herences, and such things as patterns of differ- ential response to vernacular speech or second languages that unfold over the course of a year (Bartlett 2007, Collins 1996); the acquisition of problematic identities in schools (as, say, “trou- blemaker” or “learning disabled”) is a process that occurs in face-to-face exchanges as they oc- cur over time and across multiple institutional domains (as Wortham 2008 insightfully dis-
cusses; see also Rogers 2003, Wortham 2006). Other patterns reveal themselves in what might be called the time of the life course. Weis’s (2004) discovery of the significance of gender both for working-class educational attainment and the reworking of family organization de- pended on a longitudinal research strategy that followed high-school students into their adult lives. It would be valuable to have such a per- spective on the life trajectories of Sarroub’s (2005) research participants, allowing us to see whether their plight is transitional or enduring. This question brings us to the issue of the tem- porality of more abstract political and economic processes as they bear on more tangible cul- tural dynamics. Heightened diasporization— as described by Sarroub—seems to be a char- acteristic of the contemporary globalization, now some three to four decades into its course (Friedman 2003). Foley’s (1990) study of repro- ductive class cultures derives its insight into in- terplay of class and ethnicity in school settings and other social arenas in part because of the companion study (Foley 1988) analyzing the community’s transitions over an 80-year period.
Attention to multilevel processes and alert- ness to differing time frames would show that reproductive processes need not be simple to be systematic, nor to be consequential over the long term. Despite theoretical and method- ological advances of work in the postreproduc- tion period, there is much to be done to un- derstand how social inequality results from the interplay of classrooms, schools, and the wider society.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to many people who contributed to this review: Greg Urban, who responded to an early prospectus, raising useful questions about scope; Laura Hallgren Flynn, who provided a number of stimulating references and insights into the changing nature of “linguistic reproduc- tion” in classroom contexts and wider educational arenas; Fiona Thompson, who listened to many
44 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
ideas-in-progress and carefully read a presubmission draft; and Rosa Collins, who provided valu- able (paid) clerical assistance compiling the large bibliography.
LITERATURE CITED
Althusser L. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy, pp. 127–86. New York: NLB
Anyon J. 1981. Social class and school knowledge. Curric. Inq. 11:3–42 Anyon J. 1997. Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform. New York: Teachers Coll.
Press Apple M. 1982. Education and Power. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Aristotle. 1959. Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Atkinson P. 1985. Language, Structure, and Reproduction: An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. London:
Methuen Au K. 1980. Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: analysis of a culturally
appropriate instruction event. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 11:91–115 Bartlett L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguist. Educ. 18:215–
31 Baugh J. 2000. Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Bauman Z. 1997. Postmodernity and Its Discontents. New York: Routledge Bereiter C, Englemann S. 1966. Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Pre-School. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall Bernstein B. 1960. Language and social class. Br. J. Sociol. 11:271–76 Bernstein B. 1964. Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences. Am. Anthropol.
66(No. 6, Part 2):55–69 Bernstein B. 1972. A critique of the concept of compensatory education. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 135–51 Bernstein B. 1975. Class, Codes, and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Bernstein B. 1986. A sociolinguistic approach to socialization; with some reference to educability. In Directions
in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. J Gumperz, D Hymes, pp. 465–97. New York: Blackwell
Bettie J. 2003. Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bigler E. 1996. Telling stories: on ethnicity, exclusion, and education in upstate New York. Anthropol. Educ. Q.
27:186–203 Bloch M. 1961. Medieval Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Blommaert J. 1999. State Ideology and Language in Tanzania. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag Boggs S. 1972. The meaning of questions and narratives to Hawaiian children. See Cazden et al. 1972,
pp. 299–327 Bomer R, Dworin J, May L, Semington P. 2008. Miseducating teachers about the poor: a critical analysis of
Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty. Teach. Coll. Rec. ID Number: 14591. http://www.tcrecord.org Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Bowles S, Gintis H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov P, Smith J, Duncan G, Lee K. 2003. The black-white test score gap in young
children: contributions of test and family characteristics. Appl. Dev. Sci. 7:239–52 Carnoy M, Levin H. 1985. Schooling and Work in the Democratic State. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Cazden C. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press Cazden C, Hymes D, John V, eds. 1972. Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers Coll.
Press Coleman J. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off. Collins J. 1986. Differential treatment in reading groups. See Cook-Gumperz 1986, pp. 117–37
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 45
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
Collins J. 1988. Language and class in minority education. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 19:299–326 Collins J. 1989. Hegemonic practice: literacy and standard language in public education. J. Educ. 171:9–35 Collins J. 1992. Review of Learning Capitalist Culture (Douglas E. Foley). Latin Am. Anthropol. Rev. 4:83–84 Collins J. 1996. Socialization to text: structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In Natural Histories of
Discourse, ed. M Silverstein, G Urban, pp. 203–28. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Collins J. 1999a. The culture wars and shifts in linguistic capital: for combining political economy and cultural
analysis. Int. J. Qual. Res. Educ. 12:269–86 Collins J. 1999b. The Ebonics controversy in context: literacies, subjectivities, and language ideologies in
the United States. In Language Ideological Debates, ed. J Blommaert, pp. 201–34. New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Collins J, Blot R. 2003. Literacy and Literacies: Texts, Power, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Cook-Gumperz J. 1973. Social Control and Socialization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Cook-Gumpertz J, ed. 1986. The Social Construction of Literacy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press de Castell S, Walker T. 1991. Identity, metamorphosis and ethnographic research: What kind of story is ‘Ways
with Words’? Anthropol. Educ. Q. 22:3–20 Delpit L, Perry T, eds. 1998. The Real Ebonics Debate: Power, Language, and the Education of African-American
Children. New York: Beacon Deutsch M, ed. 1967. The Disadvantaged Child. New York: Basic Books Durkheim E. 1977. The Evolution of Educational Thought: Lectures on the Formation and Development of Secondary
Education in France. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Edwards A. 1976. Language, Education, and Class. London: Heinemann Erickson F, Mohatt G. 1992. Participation structures in two communities. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling,
ed. G Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Erickson F, Schultz J. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Foley D. 1988. From Peones to Politicos: Class and Ethnicity in a South Texas Town, 1900–1987. Austin: Univ. Tex.
Press Foley D. 1990. Learning Capitalist Culture: Deep in the Heart of Tejas. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Foster M. 1987. “It’s cookin’ now”: a performance analysis of the speech events of a black teacher in an urban
community college. Lang. Soc. 18:1–29 Freeman M. 2004. Toward a rearticulation of a discourse on class within the practice of parental involvement.
Qual. Inq. 10:566–80 Friedman J. 2003. Globalizing languages: ideologies and realities of the contemporary global system. Am.
Anthropol. 105:744—52 Gee J. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies. London: Taylor & Maxwell Gee J. 2001. Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev. Res. Educ. 25:99–125 Giroux H. 1983. Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education. Harv. Educ. Rev.
53:257–93 Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday Goffman E. 1967. Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-to-Face Interaction. New York: Anchor Gonzalez N, Moll L, Amanti C, eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practice in Households, Communities,
and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Guillory J. 1993. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Gumperz J, Hernandez-Chavez E. 1972. Bilingualism, bidialectalism, and classroom interaction. See Cazden
et al. 1972, pp. 85–108 Habermas J. 1987. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. The Theory of Communicative Action.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press Harris R, Rampton B, eds. 2003. The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader. New York: Routledge Hart B, Risley T. 1995. Meaningful Differences. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Hart B, Risley T. 2003. The early catastrophe: the 30 million word gap by age 3. Am. Educ. 17:110–18 Hawkins P. 1977. Social Class, the Nominal Group and Verbal Strategies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Heath S. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press
46 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. New York: Mouton de Gruyter Heller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Henwood D. 2003. After the New Economy. New York: New Press Hymes D. 1972. Introduction. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. xi–lvii Jencks C. 1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books Jencks C, Phillips M, eds. 1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press Kingston P. 2000. The Classless Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Kontopoulos K. 1993. The Logics of Social Structure. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Kuttner R. 2007. The Squandering of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Lareau A. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention Elementary Education. New York: Falmer Lareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Leacock EB. 1969. Teaching and Learning in City Schools: A Comparative Study. New York: Basic Books Leacock EB, ed. 1971. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. New York: Simon & Schuster Lee C. 1993. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an African American
Discourse Genre. Urbana, IL: NCTE Lemke M. 2002. Outcomes of Learning. Results From the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment of
15-Year-olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy. NCES 2002–115. Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Off. Educ. Res. Improv.
Levinson B, Holland D. 1996. The cultural production of the education person: an introduction. See Levinson et al. 1996, pp. 1–54
Levinson B, Holland D, Foley D, eds. 1996. The Cultural Production of the Educated Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practice. Albany: State Univ. NY
Lloyd GER. 1990. Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Long M. 2003. Ebonics, language and power. In Language and Social Identity, ed. R Blot, pp. 147–70. Westport,
CT: Praeger Luttrell W. 1996. Taking care of literacy: one feminist’s critique. Educ. Policy 3:342–65 Luttrell W. 1997. Schoolsmart and Motherwise: Working-Class Women’s Identity and Schooling. New York: Rout-
ledge MacLeod J. 1987. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder, CO:
Westview McRobbie A. 1978. Working class girls and the culture of feminity. In Women Take Issue: Aspects of Women’s
Subordination, ed. Women’s Study Group. London: Hutchinson Michaels S. 1981. “Sharing time”: children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Lang. Soc.
10:423–41 Michaels S. 1986. Narrative presentations: an oral preparation for literacy with first graders. See Cook-
Gumperz 1986, pp. 94–116 Mitchell-Kernan C. 1972. On the status of Black English for native speakers: an assessment of attitudes and
values. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 195–210 Moll L, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach
to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Pract. 31:133–41 Nespor J. 1987. The construction of school knowledge: a case study. J. Educ. 169:34–54 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2002. Public Law No. 107–110 Oakes J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press O’Connor MC, Michaels S. 1996. Shifting participation structures: orchestrating thinking practices in group
discussion. In Discourse, Learning, and Schooling, ed. D Hicks, pp. 63–103. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ortner S. 1993. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. In Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. N Dirks, G Eley, S Ortner, pp. 372–411. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Philips S. 1972. Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 370–94
Philips S. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Highland Park, IL: Waveland
www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 47
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25
Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman Rampton B. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press Rampton B, Harris R, Collins J, Blommaert J. 2008. Language, class and education. In Kluwer Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, ed. N Hornberger, S May, pp. 71–81. New York: Springer Rist R. 1970. Student social class and teacher expectations: the self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education.
Harv. Educ. Rev. 40:411–51 Rogers R. 2003. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Family Literacy Practices: Power In and Out of Print. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum Rothstein R. 2004. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White
Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers Coll. Press Rothstein R. 2007. What schools can (and cannot) do. (Plenary lecture, Every Child Counts, NYSUT Symp. Albany,
NY, Oct. 27) Rymes B. 2001. Conversational Borderlands: Language and Identity in an Alternative Urban High School. New
York: Teachers Coll. Press Sarroub L. 2005. All American Yemeni Girls: Being Muslim in a Public School. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Schieffelin B, Ochs E, eds. 1986. Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press Scott J. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press Stiglitz J. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton Thompson F. 1995. An exploration of the use of cultural capital in home-school interactions around homework. PhD
thesis, Temple Univ. 323pp. Tough P. 2006. What it takes to make a student. New York Times, Nov. 26:27 U.S. Dep. Educ. 2001. The Condition of Education. Washington, DC: NCES Weis L. 1990. Working Class without Work: High School Students in a De-Industrialized Economy. New York:
Routledge Weis L. 2004. Class Reunion: The Remaking of the American White Working Class. New York: Routledge Willis P. 1977. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Teachers Coll.
Press Wortham S. 2006. Learning Identity: The Mediation of Social Identity through Academic Learning. New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press Wortham S. 2008. Linguistic anthropology of education. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 37:37–51
48 Collins
A nn
u. R
ev . A
nt hr
op ol
. 2 00
9. 38
. D ow
nl oa
de d
fr om
a rj
ou rn
al s.
an nu
al re
vi ew
s. or
g by
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y of
N ew
Y or
k -
A lb
an y
on 0
7/ 09
/0 9.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
