Literature Review

Introduction / Literature Review / Data and Analysis / Conclusion / Sources

The socioeconomic class that children grow up in dictates certain aspects of their lives including their access to education, need to work, spending money, leisure time, and social acceptance. Race, family structure, parental income, and housing situations also influence childhood experiences. While examining different scholarly sources and researching the impacts of socioeconomic class on children of different races and family structures, the most prominent themes were child labor, urban living income compared to rural, and spending money for families. For families of lower classes, spending money and leisure time is more scarce than for children of higher classes, which can lead to feelings of envy and decreased socialization when compared to families of higher classes. Families of lower socioeconomic classes with less income are likely to rent their homes, have less spending money, and are more likely to send their children into the labor force which all decrease childhood experiences.

Child Labor and Education

In the early 1900s, some children from families of lower socioeconomic classes were sent to work if another source of income was needed. Children in the labor force were more likely to miss school and fall behind because they needed to work. Families that rented their homes were more likely to be from lower socioeconomic classes, have lower incomes, and children under these circumstances were needed in the labor force as an additional source of income. Some lower-class families sent their children to orphanages or other families to work if they weren’t fully able to support them (Birk, 2019). These placed-out children were sometimes used as servants for upper-class families to substitute chores and work of their biological children, giving them more opportunities for socialization and education (Birk, 2019). This improved the childhood of the biological children while decreasing the access of lower-class children to the ‘ideal’ childhood.

Alongside the harsh conditions some child laborers faced, these placed-out children were deprived of proper educational and social opportunities that would have enhanced their perception of childhood and their experiences. Middle and upper class children attended more school and worked less while these children working on farms lacked “middle-class attributes” and refuted the reputation of farm homes being “stable and morally sound.” (Birk, 2019). Although child labor may increase the well-being of the family because the extra source of income is necessary, it is often detrimental to the child. For the lower class, this forced a strenuous decision on families when deciding whether or not the additional income from their child was worth the setbacks they may experience.

Urban and Rural Income Differences

In the early 1900s, the gap between rural and urban wealth was widening due to industrialization. This generated a higher demand for industrial goods and “skilled labor,” which decreased the need for agricultural work, lowering the wages of rural families with less access to urban areas (Steckel & Moehling, 2001). This led to an expansion of service jobs and the middle class became predominantly white-collar. Often, married women didn’t have to work if their husbands brought in enough income to support their families. For those of higher socioeconomic status, mothers didn’t have to work and could spend more time focusing on and shaping the experiences of their children. Some mothers from lower socioeconomic classes had to work to provide for their families, even if their children were neglected. This was often because they were posed with the difficult decision of food and clothing or adequate supervision of their children.

Children of higher classes were “sheltered” from financial stresses, “freed” from the need to work, and “protected from social competition and status anxieties” that other children had to be concerned with (Matt, 2002). Children not concerned with working and financial struggles were better able to socialize and conform in society, increasing their childhood experience. These factors decrease child welfare of lower classes, while “preserving [the] idealized vision of childhood” and keeping the “purity” of upper class children (Matt, 2002). Families of higher classes were better able to support their children financially and emotionally, which increased their ability to socialize with other children and bond as a family.

Spending Money

In the early 1900s, professionals stated that parents should buy their children playthings and clothes they desired to minimize envy and ensure social acceptance because consumerism and materialistic culture was rapidly growing (Matt, 2002). As children were exposed to more advertisements and materialism, they began to recognize higher-end clothing and toys and associate them with societal status. This was partly because advertisements were directed toward children, with intentions to develop their “commercial unconscious” and view of the child as a consumer and salesperson (Jacobson, 2004, p.28). Child experts also stated that toys and consumer goods might “aid children’s character development” because they feel pride and accomplishment and recognize the status breakdown of desired items (Matt, 2002). Social acceptance is a key factor in childhood experiences because it aids in making friends and feeling a sense of validation and reward.

It was believed that children became envious when they didn’t have things they desired and to minimize the feelings of envy, parents should get them everything they wanted (Matt, 2002). Some children of higher class status were given spending allowances or gifts from their parents, allowing them to buy desired items and decrease their tendencies to be envious. However, children of lower class standings were less likely to receive an allowance because the money was needed elsewhere, so they were more likely to be envious of other children and develop feelings of low self-worth because they could recognize the differences between their clothes or toys with children of higher classes.  However, some other professionals stated that a “child that has never had beautiful toys to play with may be happier with her old rag doll than the rich child is with her more expensive French dolls.” (Matt, 2002). The poorer child lives contently with her life of few luxuries because she knows no other. Although this may be true, they also state that all people “acquainted with pleasures and luxuries” will soon become discontent and envious, striving for better things (Matt, 2002). Children of lower classes were often left with “feelings of inferiority” and “a sense of deprivation” because their families had lower incomes and less spending money, which in turn impacted childhood and social acceptance. 

A study by Princeton University outlines state estimates on family consumption of goods such as food, clothing, domestic service, toys, and education. The total personal consumption from 1920-1930 was highest in New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois and lowest in Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Idaho (Lebergott, 1996). This data correlates with the map displaying owned versus rented homes as seen in the Data and Analysis, because states with higher percentages of owned homes had higher consumption and spending totals. New York and Pennsylvania spent the most money on toys and domestic service of all the states while Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Mississippi spent the least amount (Lebergott, 1996). According to child experts, families spending less money on toys and domestic services are more likely to have children doing more chores and enjoying less leisure time, leading to lower socialization and stunting overall child experiences (Matt, 2002). 

These scholarly sources outline that children in families of lower socioeconomic classes have fewer opportunities to prosper than those of higher classes, which can alter their childhood experiences. Families with higher incomes can provide more education, more spending money, and more leisure time to their children which improves their social acceptance and feelings of pride and validation. They also allow for better living and working conditions for their families, increasing their livelihood and overall family structure.

Introduction / Literature Review / Data and Analysis / Conclusion / Sources