It has been almost three decades since the countries of Central and Eastern Europe started the dramatic transition from socialist authoritarian regime to democracy and market economy. As the first generations of children, whose educational trajectories evolved and reached the final stage during the intensive period of societal changes, have come of age, we ask to what extent their educational attainment has been shaped by the parental cultural capital and how the transmission of educational advantage in the family is related to gender.
Sociological literature is rich in exploring how the parental cultural capital translates into educational advantage in the children’s generation. Recent extensive summary of the research on the cultural capital and educational success [
1] shows the overall positive effect and the findings are consistent despite the diversity of methodological approaches to measure the cultural capital or the educational outcomes. However, only very few studies consider multiple forms of cultural capital [
2]. In addition, the issue of the gendered heterogeneity of the way cultural capital is reproduced in the families only very recently appeared on the research agenda [
3,
4]. Besides, the existing evidence predominantly covers North American or Western European countries, while cultural reproduction issues in Central and Eastern European countries are very sparsely documented (for the exception, see [
5,
6]).
In this paper, we address the gendered effect of the cultural capital on the final educational attainment of children born in 1970–1984. Our study focuses on one country of Eastern Europe–Lithuania, which in the past three decades, has undergone a transition from socialism to capitalism, which is characterized as a radical neo-liberal form [
7]. The cohort under study completed education in the 1990s and early 2000s, thus, during the most intense period of the capitalist transition. It was accompanied by a dramatic deterioration of the living standards, rising inequalities, normative chaos, and the re-structuring of educational systems. Thus, what was the role of parental cultural resources in social reproduction during the period of societal turmoil? Did economic resources gain importance? Are there gender-specific channels related to how parental cultural resources have contributed to the transmission of educational advantage? We answer these questions based on the representative Families and Inequalities Survey of 2019 by covering the birth cohort of 1970–1984.
Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we consider the multiple forms of cultural capital in the transmission of the educational advantage. Although the cultural capital is often considered in the studies on educational attainment or academic success, most of the studies employ a reductionist approach and examine it partially [
2]. Second, there is much research on educational attainment across family structures, but very little studies concerning mechanisms of social reproduction such as parenting style. In this study, we try to bridge this gap by looking at the experienced parenting style as a form of the embodied cultural capital. Third, we examine the gender heterogeneity in the reproduction of social advantage in the families, which is sparsely covered in the literature [
4]. Fourth, countries of Central and Eastern Europe are generally absent from the studies on stratification [
8] and the existing evidence on the processes of social mobility is far from abundant. Fifth, our research is based on a very recent dataset and gives the opportunity to grasp the social reproduction of the transitional cohort born between 1970 and 1984 whose educational trajectories evolved in an intense period of societal changes.
1.1. Cultural Capital
The theoretical framework of the paper is derived from Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction [
9], which explains the role of the parental cultural capital in transmission of social advantage and in the social reproduction of the class. Along with the economic and social capital, the cultural capital plays an important role in shaping the life chances of children. In contemporary societies with expanded educational systems, cultural capital becomes a key instrument in passing on the social advantage and in maintaining the social dominance. Parents with higher levels of cultural capital enhance their children’s skills, habits, behavior, reasoning and communication strategies and all these factors in turn help children to advance in educational but also in workplace contexts [
6,
10].
There are three states of cultural capital denoted by Bourdieu: institutionalized, embodied and objectified [
11]. An institutionalized state refers to a parent’s educational and academic credentials. The objectified state relates to the possession of cultural objects like books, paintings, musical instruments etc. The embodied state refers to “the long lasting dispositions of the mind and the body” [
11] (p. 243), which are acquired and accumulated in the lifelong process of socialization.
Although the concept of cultural capital is widely used in research, the operationalization of it is not without shortcomings. Many studies employ a strategy of partial operationalization, leading to the arbitrary selection and empirical testing of one or two states, but claiming to represent the concept in total [
2,
12,
13]. In addition, even if there is a wider consensus in the operationalization of the institutionalized and the objectified states, the embodied state of cultural capital is empirically tested employing conceptually diverse indicators. Some focus on the highbrow cultural activities [
2]. Others, inspired by Lareau’s ideas [
10], focus on parenting, patterns of parent–child relationships, communication practices [
12], which reflect the broader family environment and internalized skills related to reasoning, language use, psychological dispositions such as autonomy, goal setting and parental support.
According to Lareau [
10], middle class parents adopt the cultural logic of concerted cultivation, which is distinct through parent-child discussions, organized activities, and academic engagement. The cultural logic of the concerted cultivation gives the children an advantage; it fosters their academic success and thus establishes inequalities already at the early stages of life.
This is evidenced in many studies focusing on school-aged children in Western and Northern Europe and North America [
6,
12,
13,
14]. However, the role of the parental cultural capital for the final educational attainment of the children is covered in the research to a lower extent [
2,
15].
In this study, we consider multiple forms of cultural capital, thus we examine the institutionalized and objectified states. The embodied state of cultural capital is operationalized as the highbrow cultural activities performed with parents, but also as the parenting practices experienced in childhood.
1.2. Gender and Cultural Capital
The transmission of cultural capital is embedded within the dense net of the everyday interactions between children and parents in the family. As family interactions are gendered, one could expect that the transmission of cultural capital, and in turn, the effect of cultural capital on the educational attainment, are shaped by gender. Thus, even if sons and daughters are exposed to the same institutionalized and objectified cultural capital in the parental home, the embodied cultural capital might be mediated through the gender expectations of parents towards their children. Consequently, there could be not only class, but also gender differences in the transmission of the cultural capital. However, as was mentioned, gender is very infrequently considered in the research on social reproduction [
3,
8].
The sparse evidence suggests that parenting logic related to concerted cultivation is more pronounced in relation to daughters than sons [
16,
17,
18]. However, other studies prove significant gender differences only in relation to some components of concerted cultivation, for example, school engagement [
19]. Why is concerted cultivation parenting more pronounced in relation to girls? Overall, the explanation is linked to the gender identity building process in the family and in the school. Despite the general changes in gender relationships, stereotypical gender identities still have the influence on the expectations parents have towards their children. Boys are viewed as competitive, aggressive, dominating, and girls as conciliatory and cooperative [
20]. Thus, boys tend to have more freedom from parental supervisions [
21], while daughters are more compliant to parental directives and influence than sons are [
22]. In addition, in some contexts, masculinity, at least in young age, embraces resistance to school, hard academic work [
20], while the stereotypical notion of femininity supports school work, pro-school orientation [
23]. Compliance to masculinity and femininity at least partly explains the gender gap in academic achievement [
20]. Girls are more engaged in the outside school structured activities than boys [
16]. Gender expectations shape children’s out-of-school activities as well: girls are much more involved in organized cultural activities than boys, while the gender gap in sports activities is not as large [
19].
Parent–child discussions, which are an important component of concerted cultivation parenting, are also embedded in the psychological dynamics of gendered dyads in the family. Mothers in many families are still the primary caregivers, thus girls in their gender identification process have ongoing relationships with their mothers and develop more affective relationships [
24], which in turn might be beneficial for the development of verbal communication skills.
1.3. Lithuanian Context
Destratification of the Eastern European societies during the communist period was believed to reduce the educational inequalities and improve opportunities for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds to move upwards [
25]. However, there is sound evidence that, in communist societies, parental family background profoundly affects the educational attainment of children and especially the transition to secondary academic or tertiary education [
26,
27]. The expansion of secondary education during the communist period secured access to it for almost everyone; yet, the transition to tertiary education remained stratified. Thus, the ‘communist affirmative action policies’ failed and this is documented for various socialist countries [
26,
28,
29,
30,
31]. Moreover, the role of social origin intensified over the communist period; at least in some countries [
27,
32].
Several theories explain the persistence of educational inequalities in communist countries. The theory of trajectory maintenance [
31] suggests that professionals and administrators possessed correspondingly cultural and social capital and used it to secure the educational credentials of the children and to maintain the social status across generations. Quota policies introduced in the initial stages of the communist period did not eradicate advantages related to social origin. Counterselection theory [
28] argues that in the initial stages of the communist rule the quota policies reduced the origin-based inequalities. However, the new cadre class, which emerged and was consolidated in the latter stages of the communist period, used their social connections and other privileges to secure the educational success of their children [
28,
33]. Kreidl, in his research on Czechoslovakia, proved that both theories ‘might be valid in one country with a tracked educational system’ [
26] (p. 137).
The Lithuanian educational system became part of the Soviet Union system after the second occupation in 1944. It experienced a significant expansion during the communist period [
34]. As in other parts of the Soviet Union, the state provided free education, developed the educational infrastructure and supported the ideology of equal educational opportunities. The obligatory lower secondary education of seven grades was introduced in 1949. The general eleven grade secondary education expanded and by the mid-1970s was declared universal [
27]. University-educated population grew fastest in the 1960s and 1970s [
35]. The first-generation Soviet university graduates were mainly of peasant and working class origin. Pre-war Lithuania’s elite were almost totally eradicated due to the political terror, deportations after the Soviet occupation, or due to the forced emigration during or after WWII [
36]. Thus, the empty social field in the upper social strata and demand for highly qualified labor force in the period of rapid industrialization created unprecedented opportunities for upward educational mobility. In this period in Lithuania, it might be assumed that the role of cultural capital in final educational attainment was marginal [
37].
Proliferation of the secondary education increased the demand for higher education, yet the supply remained more or less stable. Thus, as in other communist countries, family background gained importance in defining the educational opportunities of children [
34,
38]. Parents focused on the cultural capital, because in the context of small economic inequalities, material wealth was not transmitted to the offspring [
32]. Cultural resources of university-educated parents shaped the children’s preferences, taste and dispositions relevant for academic achievement and pursuing a university education. However, enrolment in highly prestigious and competitive university programs was secured by using the social networks to access those in power and paying bribes [
39]. Parental financial resources were also used to prepare children for the entry exams and hiring the tutors. Belonging to the elite families secured a place in the special secondary schools [
38] and better chances to enter the university. Thus, even if cultural capital was important, social and economic capital were relevant, at least for some educational tracks.
Educational mobility was gender-specific and women outperformed men in the university education already in the late 1980s in Lithuania [
40]. The feminization of university education could be related to several developments. The politically motivated compression of earning scales lowered wage returns from education in the Soviet Union [
41]. Besides, by the late 1980s, the Soviet economy experienced a decline and the average wages of manual and non-manual work were very similar [
42]. This limited the attractiveness of university education for men, who culturally were still seen as being the main breadwinner of the family [
43]. Women’s choices for university education have been possibly affected by the marriage returns from higher education [
44,
45], meaning that entry into university increased their chances of marrying a partner with the same educational level and to maintain the social status of the family. In addition, for women, higher education secured employment places, which provided opportunities to better balance employment, childcare and household duties. Although the majority of Lithuanian Soviet women were employed, the formal childcare institutions became en masse available only in the late 1970s, but the quality of services were not satisfactory [
43]. Professional occupations gave women the opportunity to queue for deficit consumer goods during working hours or establish valuable networks, which secured access to everyday life commodities like clothes, shoes or household appliances unavailable in shops [
46].
Transition to market capitalism unleashed manifold inequalities, including the socio-economic ones [
47]. The educational system went through massive changes conditioned by the shortage of resources and low salaries of the educational personnel [
48]. In the 1990s, Lithuania, as with the two other Baltic countries, went through very radical and rapid neo-liberal economic reforms. The initial stages of the transition were marked by a dramatic economic decline, de-industrialization, and inflation. However, very rapid market reforms, privatization, and financial policies resulted in macroeconomic stabilization, recovery and spectacular economic growth in the subsequent decade [
49].
Some studies show that the intergenerational educational reproduction intensified in the Baltic countries during the post-communist transition [
50]. In a recent study, including pooled data from 24 Central and Eastern European countries, Gugushvili [
8] argues that parental education played a more salient role in social mobility than the parents’ occupation and that the disadvantage of low parental education intensified for transitional cohorts of 1972–1987. Others argue that the role of parents’ economic capital for the intergenerational mobility increased in the post-communist period in Central and Eastern Europe [
51].
The post-communist transition affected the gender patterns in educational attainment, at least in some countries. For example, Russia in the early 1990s witnessed a decrease in men’s enrollment in tertiary education, and this could largely be explained by gender differences in the returns from tertiary education, which increased for women, but not for men [
29]. Besides, as some note, the character of the economic reforms in Russia catalyzed the form of capitalism, in which the highest rewards were obtained from trading, speculating, short-term profit making and other economic activities not requiring a university education [
29,
42].