# How preschool education perpetuates social inequality: An ethnographic study of the practical conditions of symbolic violence

Jean-claude Croizet, Mathias Millet

► To cite this version:

Jean-claude Croizet, Mathias Millet. How preschool education perpetuates social inequality: An ethnographic study of the practical conditions of symbolic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 2024, Society in the Classroom: Multilevel Perspectives on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Education, 80 (4), pp.1345-1378. 10.1111/josi.12654. hal-05225882

HAL Id: hal-05225882

https://hal.science/hal-05225882v1

Submitted on 1 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# How preschool education perpetuates social inequality: An ethnographic study of the practical conditions of symbolic violence

Jean-Claude Croizet<fnref n="1" /> ID

Mathias Millet<fnref n="2" />

## Correspondence

Jean-Claude Croizet, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Université Clermont Auvergne & CNRS, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Email: j-claude.croizet@uca.fr

Mathias Millet, Groupe de Recherches Sociologiques sur les Sociétés Contemporaines, Université de Poitiers, F-86000, France.

Email: mathias.millet@univ-poitiers.fr

Jean-Claude Croizet and Mathias Millet contributed equally to this work.

## Funding information

Agence Nationale de la Recherche; ANR-22-CE28-0022

## Abstract

This article presents an ethnographic study conducted in French pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms, investigating how education establishes and reinforces relations of sociocultural dominance. Building on Bourdieu and Passeron's concept of symbolic violence, we seek to uncover the mechanisms through which school socialization encourages the acceptance of the hierarchies it generates. The data suggest that this persuasion relies on set of interrelated processes: Schools organize the unequal profitability of family cultural practices and knowledge, obscure the realities of learning, and foster a merito-cratic myth that naturalizes these inequalities. Moreover, children actively participate in their own subordination without realizing it. By documenting these processes, the study provides critical insights into how everyday school-ing practices not only perpetuate social inequalities but also shape early on the idea that students form of them-selves as both students and individuals and intensify concerns about self-worth.

How members of a society or culture make sense of, or assign sense to, their environment over time is central to the persistent problem of how social order is possible (Cicourel, 1974, p. 43).

CITATION: Croizet, J.-C., & Millet, M. (2024). How preschool education perpetuates social inequality: An ethnographic study of the practical conditions of symbolic violence. *Journal of Social Issues, 80*(4), 1345–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12654

<footnote n="1">¹Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Université Clermont Auvergne & CNRS, Clermont-Ferrand, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Groupe de Recherches Sociologiques sur les Sociétés Contemporaines, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France</footnote>
# INTRODUCTION

The idea that education contributes to the reproduction of social stratification is not new (Baudelot & Establet, 1971; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1979; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). There is now strong evidence in sociology and social psychology documenting how educational contexts can contribute to inequalities (e.g., Bernstein, 1996; Bonnéry, 2007; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Easterbrook & Hadden, 2021; Lahire, 1993; Millet & Thin, 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). From the moment they enter school and beyond the adverse effects of structural inequalities—such as impoverished communities, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, and limited access to education (Kozol, 1991)—students from historically dominated backgrounds face several psychological barriers that undermine their academic outcomes. Social psychologists have highlighted that identity—the understanding students have of who they are and how it shapes their academic prospects—lies at the heart of these challenges (Easterbrook et al., 2019). For students from dominated groups, this sense of identity is often complicated by experiences that may lead them to feel that their ways of speaking, thinking, and knowing are misaligned with educational success—a phenomenon known as identity incompatibility (Easterbrook et al., 2019; see also Iyer et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2012; Walton & Cohen, 2007; Yilmaz et al., 2024). Additionally, these students may fear that struggling academically or receiving poor grades will reinforce stereotypes suggesting that people from their background are inherently less suited to meet academic demands, a form of social identity threat (Easterbrook et al., 2019, see Browman et al., 2017; Croizet & Claire, 1998). While the connection between such school experiences and a diminished sense of self, as well as the link between perceived competence and academic performance, is now well established (for a theoretical synthesis see Goudeau et al., 2024), the question remains how this understanding—of self-worth, competence, and the value of others—is formed, reinforced, and propagated with such lasting influence. This is the central objective of the present research.

We focus on school socialization—the process through which schools instill the dispositions (i.e., ways of doing and thinking), knowledge, behaviors, and cultural norms necessary to navigate the dominant forms of social relationships. Our aim here is to document a specific aspect of socialization, how school culture and practices, over time, influence students’ experiences, self-perception, and understanding of classroom dynamics in a way that legitimize the social order. To address this issue, we designed an ethnographic study examining how the school system, through its daily classroom practices and discourses, instills the belief that academic judgments reflect students’ personal, moral, and intellectual worth—a process known as symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). While the concept of symbolic violence in educational settings is well established, the mechanisms by which it operates in the everyday life of classrooms—emerging as a set of unquestioned beliefs and perceptions about individual behavior—remain insufficiently explored and warrant further investigation.

## How symbolic violence contributes to making the social order possible

Symbolic violence, a concept developed by Bourdieu and Passeron (1990), explains how social inequality is perpetuated through the process of socialization in the French educational system. Initially formalized in 1970, the concept was further refined in Bourdieu's later work (Bourdieu, 2000). At its core, symbolic violence emphasizes that ideological control is crucial to the reproduction of inequality, aligning with other classic theories (Gramsci, 1988; Jackman, 1994; Marx
& Engels, 1970; Weber, 1978). It refers to the subtle, often unnoticed forms of coercion and domination embedded in everyday social practices within institutions—a “soft” violence as opposed to physical force. Indeed, unlike physical violence, symbolic violence fosters acceptance of domination by imposing meanings and social norms that shape individuals’ perceptions and beliefs about the world (Jackman, 1994). Its contribution to the reproduction of inequalities therefore lies in their legitimization.

What makes the framework of symbolic violence particularly unique is that it explains how the dominated consent to their own domination. According to Bourdieu and Passeron (1990), the primary vehicle for symbolic violence is pedagogical action. Pedagogical action refers to the transmission of cultural and social values, norms, and knowledge from one generation to the next. These authors argue that this process inherently involves a power dynamic, where figures of authority—such as teachers, parents, or institutional agents—determine what is considered valuable knowledge, how it should be taught, how it should be assessed, and above all, leads to selecting among cultural content those that are deemed worthy of interest (Delpit, 2006). The meanings and values chosen to be taught are not universal but *arbitrary*—“they cannot be deduced from any universal principle, whether physical, biological or spiritual” (1990, p. 8)—reflecting the interests of dominant groups or classes. Bourdieu and Passeron contend that all pedagogical actions are symbolically violent because they impose the dominant culture’s values and norms on all students in ways that are subtle and often go unrecognized as coercive. By presenting certain types of knowledge and ways of thinking as superior or more legitimate, schools contribute to the normalization of certain cultural content at the expense of others, and in doing so, the inequalities in familiarity with these contents (see Delpit, 2006; Stephens et al., 2014; Stephens et al. in press).

It is precisely because symbolic violence operates through subtle, almost invisible forms of domination that the established order can perpetuate itself so easily, despite its inherent privileges and injustices (Jackman, 1994; Mauger, 2012). The dominated are compelled to consent to their own domination because they are led to interpret reality using the very instruments of knowledge that uphold the dominant order, thus recognizing its legitimacy. By acting on ways of perceiving reality, symbolic violence allows the established order to justify its existence as it is, given that no power can simply exist “as a brute force, entirely devoid of justification” (Bourdieu, 2006, p. 265).

While Bourdieu and Passeron’s sociology of social reproduction theorizes the processes underlying symbolic violence, it paradoxically offers little empirical insight into how pedagogical communication—the core of symbolic violence—concretely imposes relationships of meaning. Although the concept of symbolic violence has been enriched over several decades by research showing how schools rely on mechanisms like the production of sociocognitive misunderstandings (Bonnéry, 2007; Horne, 2018; Lahire, 1993), labeling and stigmatization (Good et al., 2018; Link & Phelan, 2001), or processes of medicalization and psychologization (Conrad, 2007; Gillborn, 2008; Morel, 2014; Pinell & Zafiropoulos, 1976), the specific ways classroom interactions over time foster adherence to the social order and affect student achievement have not been thoroughly examined.

To explore how the social order is transmitted and internalized in education, we decided to study this process at its earliest stage—when children first enter the educational system, that is, before inequalities and educational differentiations become crystallized. Our focus, therefore, turned to a segment of education that is rarely investigated (but see Tobin et al., 2009): prekindergarten and kindergarten education, known in France as * ecole maternelle* (see Millet & Croizet, 2016).
# Preschool education: A particular segment of the French education system

The power of imposition of school is understood by the fact that schooling is compulsory (starting at age 3 in France), and no path can escape it. From this perspective, school presents itself to young children as an unquestioned, objective reality, marked by a sense of obligation and legitimacy. This reality becomes central to their early lives, shaping the time they devote to it, their social development, and their identification with broader social roles (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). In France, children's introduction to this educational reality begins with *école maternelle* (prekindergarten and kindergarten), a foundational and distinctive segment of the French public education system. Before transitioning to *école primaire* (elementary school), children spend three preparatory years in *école maternelle*, divided into 2 years of pre-kindergarten (*petite section* and *moyenne section*) and one year of kindergarten (*grande section*).

Public *école maternelle* enrolls all children from the age of 3 (France. Ministère de l'Éducation et de la Jeunesse, 2023), reflecting its integral role in early childhood development. Admission is free and based on residential zoning, with assignments following strict geographic criteria unless specific exemptions are granted. As the first formal educational setting, *école maternelle* aims to initiate fundamental learning, with a strong emphasis on socialization—teaching children the rules of communal living, fostering discovery, and preparing them for the more structured environment of elementary school. It provides an essential educational and cultural framework that lays the groundwork for children's future academic and social development. According to the French National Official Instructions:

> [The] mission [of *école maternelle*] is to inspire children to attend school with a desire to learn, to affirm and develop their personalities, and to nurture their curiosity about the world, all while respecting each child's individual pace of development. By demonstrating that every child is capable of successful learning in various situations, pre-school fosters confidence in their ability to act, think, and achieve success both in school and beyond. Additionally, by teaching children to collaborate with others, particularly through play, socialization is emphasized as one of the fundamental skills to be developed (France, Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, 2021)

*École maternelle* marks a pivotal moment in a child's development, generally serving as their first experience of socialization beyond the family. It introduces them to the school environment, including the roles of the teacher, the structure of the classroom, institutional time, and the organization of learning. These foundational socializing processes play a crucial role in shaping a child's academic trajectory, as well as the early and therefore decisive nature of the socialization effects they produce in shaping children's dispositions toward action and perception (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Darmon, 2023). This underscores the importance of studying these dynamics closely.

Previous research has offered significant insights into the way early childhood education reflects and perpetuates the dominant cultural repertoire of a given society (see Tobin et al., 2009 for a comparison between China, Japan, and the USA). In our study, we narrow this focus, concentrating specifically on the socialization to the social order as it begins in school. We examine how children are initially introduced to—and gradually internalize—the norms, values, and hierarchies that structure the school environment, shaping their self-perception and understanding of
their place within the school system. Our goal is to reveal the mechanisms by which school practices subtly convey power relations, imposing meanings that lead students to accept the legitimacy of academic rankings and the social distinctions these ranking create. We aim to unveil the role of symbolic violence in reinforcing domination, primarily through social class dynamics. However, we recognize that other factors, such as race, immigration status, and gender, may also intersect with these dynamics. Social class is therefore central yet operates alongside multiple overlapping forms of domination that may shape children's school experiences differently. The ways in which this symbolic violence materializes in everyday classroom interactions remain largely underexplored. How does pedagogical communication drive students and teachers alike to accept school judgments as the primary measure of their personal and intellectual value? And through what socio-cognitive processes do these perceptions evolve into a social stratification of academic performance? These are precisely the questions our ethnographic study seeks to address. To capture these dynamics, we conducted a series of classroom observations and interviews (see Millet & Croizet, 2016).

## METHOD

To unveil the concrete way this persuasion process operates among 3–5 aged children, we relied on qualitative methodology. Ethnographic methodology enabled us to repeatedly enter classroom activities, to gain access to the details of school interactions, to make prolonged observations, and to interview children and teachers. Such a methodology is uniquely suited to provide a holistic understanding of how inequality is embedded within the routine practices and social relations that characterize school life.

### Schools and participants

A total of 75 half-days of direct observation were conducted in 7 preschools and within 10 classrooms. The preschools were located in two big French cities and in a medium size regional town. Three pre-schools were located in poor and urban neighborhoods and as such part of the “Priority Education Network” (REP)<fnref n="1" /> These schools concentrated a majority of children from minority and lower-class backgrounds. The four remaining preschools were attended by a majority of children from intermediate and privileged backgrounds. A total of 179 students, all native French speaker participated in the study (100 girls-79 boys, 51 working class, 53 upper class, 39 middle class, and 36 unspecified). The percentages of lower-class students, relative to those from intermediate and privileged backgrounds, across the seven classrooms were as follows, in ascending order: 7%, 15%, 17%, 37%, 38%, 70%, and 90%. Due to legal restriction, race data could not be collected (not authorized in France) though race and class were obviously intertwined and matches class most of the time. We also conducted 20 in-depth interviews with teachers or other institutional agents. Data were anonymized and pseudonyms were assigned to children in a culturally congruent manner.

<footnote n="1">¹ The priority education national policy aims at correcting the impact of social and economic inequalities on educational success by increasing teaching and educational resources in schools and establishments in areas facing the greatest social difficulties.</footnote>
## Data sources

To gather data on how school socialization imposes interpretive frameworks that promote acceptance of the social order, we combined direct classroom observations and teacher interviews. Using pre-defined protocols, we aimed to capture both overt and subtle interactions that reveal school-based hierarchies and their impact on the behaviors of teachers and students. Additionally, parental occupation data, provided by the schools, serves as a proxy for social class.

## Data collection protocol

Our research focused on teachers’ categories of perception regarding learning and learning difficulties, particularly how these classifications essentialize students’ behaviors and performances, framing them as fixed rather than viewing learning as a process. We employed direct semi-structured observations and interviews based on specific guides. Detailed observations were collected from each class, alongside at least one interview with the teacher. To avoid influencing the interviews with preconceived questions, observations were always conducted first, allowing the researchers to reference specific classroom examples during the interviews. Each class was observed for about a week, with researchers positioned unobtrusively, sometimes moving to different spots to better capture various interactions, all while taking handwritten notes without interfering in the lessons. Initially, the whole classroom environment was observed, followed by a closer focus on particular students who stood out—either as teacher resources or as those struggling. Each classroom observation resulted in a detailed file, including the activity’s objective, classroom layout, key participants, and a thorough description of the lesson’s progression. The observation process followed three steps: first, notes were taken in real-time or immediately afterward; second, the notes were revised and clarified; and finally, a polished draft was produced, accompanied by an interpretive summary highlighting key aspects, preliminary analyses, and interpretive suggestions or intuitions. This structured approach ensured thorough documentation and allowed for deeper insights into classroom dynamics.

## Classroom observations

We examined teachers’ perceptions—through their actions, practices, and ongoing development—of learning and difficulties, with a focus on how academic classifications shape student behavior and performance. We analyzed both positive and negative feedback to understand how these categories become fixed labels. Our attention extended beyond formal educational activities, recognizing that school learning also involves self-regulation, adherence to rules, time management, and the development of metadiscursive skills. Observations included non-academic moments, such as recess, where students either conformed to or deviated from school socialization processes. We closely examined how certain students became visible through praise or reprimand, shaping perceptions of classroom dynamics. This visibility, or lack thereof, often reflected how students were categorized in the classrooms—some were seen as high achievers, while others remained “discreet” or overlooked. Special attention was given to these “invisible” students, who are disengaged, avoid, in other words, directly resist school norms.

## Teacher interviews

The interview guide was designed to explore teachers’ perceptions of student learning, difficulties, and behaviors. It addressed key areas such as the educational objectives of different grade
levels (*petite, moyenne, grande sections*), pedagogical practices, and how teachers assess student progress. We focused on how teachers differentiate between students in terms of both academic achievement and behavior, and how they address learning difficulties. The guide sought to capture teachers' explicit and implicit categorizations of “success” and “failure,” as well as their explanations for disparities in student performance. Teachers were asked to describe specific behaviors indicating ease or difficulty in learning and the steps they took to support students facing challenges. We also gathered information on the interventions teachers employed, including referrals to external specialists, and how these were communicated to parents. Additionally, the guide explored broader classroom socialization processes, teacher-parent interactions, and how family background shaped student outcomes.

## Data analysis

Collected materials were systematically reviewed and refined. Observation notes were revised for each session, and whenever possible, immediately after each observation to minimize information loss. All interviews were fully transcribed. The data were then subjected to a thematic analysis. We opted against standardized thematic coding procedures typically used in structured interviews or questionnaires, as these methods would not yield the same depth of insight. Instead, we employed a flexible yet guided analytical approach. This flexibility allowed for adaptation to the complexities of the cultural context under study. Initially, each interview and observation was processed individually, with themes drawn from the guides but also conceived in a more inductive manner, grounded in field data, opened to the emergence of patterns that may not have been initially anticipated (see Emerson et al., 2011). This involved identifying elements related to classroom functioning (e.g., activity timelines, material organization, and task content) and key aspects of learning and difficulty, whether observed in interactions (e.g., feedback, student posture, task success, or failure) or discussed during interviews (e.g., essentializations and psychological explanations). Analysis was structured around key themes such as differences in achievement between students, perceptions and feedback, factors affecting learning, interpretations of challenges and successes, and efforts toward remediation. Other themes included socio-academic profiles, the socialization of categories, and how naturalizations impacted school practices. The analysis also covered classroom hierarchies, student reactions to evaluations, and levels of participation. After processing each observation and interview, the data were reanalyzed across themes to identify patterns, variations, and underlying principles.

## FINDINGS

### Unveiling the mechanisms driving symbolic violence

A school that organizes the unequal profitability of family socialization and knowledge

Previous research has shown that, despite its appearance of equality, education tends to favor activities that align more closely with the cultural habits of dominant groups, often through a *hidden curriculum* that subtly promotes these norms and values (Bernstein, 1971, 1996; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lareau, 2003; Paris, 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). However, our observations reveal
that the unequal value attributed to family culture or capital is not solely a matter of cultural distance from school culture. Rather, it stems from a pedagogical structure that organizes activities in ways that closely engage with family knowledge and practices, creating conditions where their legitimacy is assessed through a school-based lens.

In *école maternelle*, it is commonly accepted that education should begin with what children already know and who they are, rather than imposing knowledge imposed from above in a top-down manner. This approach, which emphasizes individualism and personal experience, echoes the pedagogical practices observed in US kindergarten classrooms, where the focus is often on fostering self-expression and autonomy (Tobin et al., 2009). The activities proposed in the classrooms often draw from out-of-school life experiences—such as speaking, drawing, cooking, smelling, and playing—and are frequently organized into separate workstations (e.g., writing, computers, crafts, and geometric shapes) or rituals where children are asked to share what they have done or observed. A significant emphasis is placed on students’ personal thought processes. Each day, rituals like gathering around the teacher and the organization of activities into workstations prompt teachers to engage children in skills and dispositions—linguistic, bodily, and cultural—that are acquired outside of school and unevenly distributed across families. These include the ability to participate in group discussions, verbalize experiences in front of peers, narrate stories, and draw on objects, practices, and knowledge that may or may not align with family practices. Children’s ability to succeed in school activities is directly influenced by how culturally valued their family’s dispositions and practices are within the school setting. For instance, presenting a book of paintings that highlights a family member’s work tends to attract more attention than describing a drawing made by an older sibling. Similarly, discussing a family winter ski vacation and depicting green or black slopes in a drawing on the theme of vacation carries more weight than drawing a bedroom door to recount a game of hide-and-seek in an apartment with one’s father on a summer day. These early school experiences represent a child’s first encounter with educational and cultural inequalities, where what one does and knows is subject to evaluation. It is also an initial point of self-identification, as students begin to be labeled as “good students” or “students in difficulty.”

In these conditions, some children—often from middle- and upper-income families—begin to reap the benefits of speaking up early in their school careers and enjoy the gratification of being recognized, such as having their contributions highlighted on the blackboard. These children are presented with opportunities to discover the value of what they do and who they “are” within the school context. One routine activity that exemplifies this is the “what’s up?” exercise (*quoi de neuf*?), where children sit in a circle in front of the teacher and share something they experienced over the weekend with the group. Two key findings emerged from the observations. First, nearly all children quickly recognized that the “what’s up?” exercise was an important moment for gaining recognition, making them eager to participate. Second, children also rapidly realized that not all shared experiences were valued equally by the group.

> The teacher has gathered the children and is waiting for everyone to be seated before starting the activity. While waiting, William (mother works in after-school care) asks "Do hunters eat rabbits?"

> The teacher: "Yes, hunters eat rabbits."
William: “And wolves too?”

Alexia (father research engineer, mother schoolteacher): “In *Peter and the Wolf*, there’s a wolf.”

The teacher (to the rest of the class): “Listen: (encouragingly) in *Peter and the Wolf*, there’s a wolf... Is it a cartoon?”

Alexia: “No, a film.”

The teacher: “Oh, so is a cartoon different from a film? Would you like to explain, Alexia?” (Then the teacher explains the difference.)

Alexia adds that she watched cartoons when she went to Paris with her mom.

Jonas (father baker, mother hotel worker) speaks up quietly, mentioning the TGV* (Train Grande Vitesse, high-speed Train)

The teacher: “Are you talking about the TGV because Alexia mentioned a train? Who has taken the TGV before?”

Several students, including Alexia, raise their hands eagerly to share their experiences of traveling on the TGV. The teacher follows up with, “Where did you go on the TGV?” Notably, the mere fact of traveling by TGV is clearly valued, and the concept of the TGV itself is never explained, as if its significance is universally understood.

Meanwhile, Abdoullah (non-working mother) who is seated separately from the others, fidgets in his chair before turning around and saying, “What about me?” The teacher responds, “Yes, you, but I can’t let you speak because you are not in the circle with us.” Abdoullah then moves into the circle and remains standing in the middle. The teacher prompts him, “Sit down, Abdoullah, if you want to share something. You know what you have to do if you want to tell us something”—indicating that he should raise his hand. Abdoullah, in a somewhat unclear manner, explains that his mother bought him toothpaste. The teacher responds in a slightly mocking tone, “Your mom bought you pasta, is that it? Oh?!?” The ensuing exchange clarifies that Abdoullah meant “toothpaste,” and the teacher has him repeat it, all the while wink-ing at the interviewer. Later, the teacher explains to the interviewer that she often encourages students to talk about their weekends because “there is always something
happening and worth sharing,” adding with a touch of irony and raised eyebrow directed at the interviewer, “Even if it’s just, ‘Mom bought some toothpaste.’”(field notes, observation of a pre-kindergarten class, 3-year-old children and interview with the teacher)<fnref n="2" />

Since these pedagogical activities draw on personal knowledge and experiences, students’ ability to succeed in such social interactions is directly tied to the outcomes of their family socialization. This, in turn, makes differences in cultural legitimacy stemming from family dispositions and practices an implicit principle of assessment and evaluation within the school even when the connection to family background is overtlyacknowledged.

So Oscar, [...] he has... an intellectual level, he's constantly analyzing, understanding... well, he's... it goes a long way! But at the same time, these kids come from... hyper-rich backgrounds... (...) You've got kids who, uh... (silence) (...) They're curious about everything! (...) At the same time, they know a lot of things, but at the same time... you can feel that there's an appetite for learning (moved)... you can feel that... it gives them pleasure [...] You see Oscar arrives with his book of... about... artists or museums, well (admiringly) you can tell he really likes it [...] there's a real... a real intellectual life, you see! But even I'm... I'm impressed by it (field notes, interview with a teacher of a mixed level pre-kindergarten/kindergarten class, children aged 4-5).

On the other hand, other children, more often from low-income backgrounds, experience the same situations in a very different way—that of disqualification, through an accumulation of negative feedback, unsuccessful attempts at interaction, moments of solitude in the face of the teacher’s questions or during a passage on the blackboard.

Coraly (unemployed mother) stands at the board and says, “I’m presenting my boat” (made in the craft workshop; it includes cork figures representing students in the class, whose names she mentions). “I’ve put straws for the smoke that blows inside... ”.

Visibly annoyed, the teacher responds, “No, no! If you’re not articulate and don’t look at us, we don’t understand a thing. Stop it, we don’t understand a word of your story!”

Coraly sits down, sucking her thumb (field notes, observation in a mixed-grade class, children aged 4–5)

These observations demonstrate that the issue at hand extends beyond the unequal proximity between family culture and school culture. The unequal value placed on family knowledge or dispositions within the school context is largely, if not primarily, a consequence of a pedagogical structure which organizes student and class activities in such a way that family experiences and knowledge are put in a position to be evaluated. How is it that these realities, which seem clear

<footnote n="2">² All field notes reported in this article are translated from French.</footnote>
enough from an external perspective, go unnoticed by teachers? How is it that these differences in personal and family knowledge go unrecognized for what they are—variations in alignment with school norms—and are instead interpreted as individual traits or innate qualities, even when they are clearly linked to family backgrounds, as in the case of Oscar (see above)? In other words, what mechanisms drive the silent imposition of meanings called symbolic violence? What causes both children and teachers to accept the social order as legitimate, transformed into individual merit, without recognizing that this acceptance is the result of coercive forces?

## The transformation of cultural conformity into individual merit: Unpacking symbolic violence

If different family socializations provide varying degrees of alignment with school activities, resulting in disparities in academic performance whenever the school draws on external knowledge, it becomes essential to understand how both children and teachers nonetheless accept the school's judgments. To do so, we must explain the mechanism by which the school obscures its objective reality, creating the illusion that these differences are deserved. Based on our observations, this masking process involves three interconnected mechanisms.

First, *le maternelle* establishes a setting that conceals the social origins of the disparities in how well children's backgrounds prepare them for school culture. Learning is structured in such a way that both teachers and students overlook or forget these underlying differences. In Bourdieu's terms, schools create the conditions for an *amnesia of genesis*, where the social roots of classroom behaviors—largely shaped by different socialization experiences—are forgotten (Bourdieu, 2000; Lareau, 2003). This forgetting paves the way for the second process: the creation of a mythology, the “inside story” (Plaut & Markus, 2005). Differences in children’s behavior are understood not as a reflection of how well they adjust to the arbitrary standards of the school, but as inherent differences in their nature. In Bourdieu’s terms, this leads to the production of a *theodicy*—an ideology that legitimizes the very reality it creates. Finally, these two processes set the stage for the third: the active participation of children in their own cultural domination. In addition to organizing the unequal value placed on family socialization and knowledge, and fostering an amnesia of learning, the school imposes an essentialist mythology that encourages children’s participation. This participation draws out the active complicity of students in their own subordination. Bourdieu describes each “field”—in this case, education—as a “game” in which participants, equipped with varying amounts of capital, have no choice but to play. In the classroom, part of this game is about participation, and the desire to engage in it—what Bourdieu calls *illusio*. *Illusio* is what drives both teachers and students to invest in the game. In the following sections, we will examine each of these processes in turn.

*The production of a genesis amnesia: learning is forgotten as learning.* Students do spend their time in school engaging in exercises and studying, but they often do so unconsciously, as the organization of school activities places them in learning situations that are taken for granted. In a now-famous text, Basil Bernstein demonstrates how what he calls “invisible pedagogy” is built on a tacit theory of learning and a particular vision of childhood development (Bernstein, 1975). This pedagogy, by emphasizing self-fulfillment, student autonomy, and spontaneity in knowledge acquisition, promotes a view of school learning as a flexible, unobtrusive process. It offers students considerable freedom to construct their own knowledge, aligning with dominant cultural values of individualism and self-expression (Tobin et al., 2009). These “invisible” pedagogies aim to reveal the child’s “unique nature,” defining a flexible framework where the teacher’s role is more to facilitate than to directly instruct.
In *école maternelle*, school activities are structured around daily rituals, alternating between “group time” with the teacher and small-group workstations designed to encourage children’s self-expression and creativity. At these workstations, the teacher takes a more supportive role, offering guidance and feedback while remaining in the background. The classroom space reflects this approach: Instead of rows of desks, there are several tables that divide students among different activities outside of the “large group” moments.

During our classroom observations, we found that only in rare instances were activities accompanied by explanations of their broader educational objectives. The teacher’s comments tended to focus more on the practical aspects of the tasks—what to do and how to do it—rather than on the underlying learning goals or knowledge being developed. As a result, students engage in activities such as running, painting, cutting, tracing, and playing, often without a clear explanation or understanding of the cognitive aims behind their actions.

In a class of middle and upper kindergarten, the teacher asks the students to be quiet (“Shh!”) while they choose their activity, encouraging them to consider the tasks they completed on previous days. Some students stand in front of the “activity board,” which indicates the types of activities available at each workstation.

Sophie — “What is the crafting station for?”

Teacher — “Whatever you want, but be careful—next to you, your friends are painting with string, so try not to get dirty...”

Lilian lowers his paper, and the teacher suggests he go to the “market game” (counting station).

Lilian — “Oh no!”

Teacher — “Yes, but it’s a required workstation... Tarama? Fatima? Delio?” (they are encouraged to choose their workstation, or, if they don’t, they are directed to an activity). “Ciana, you’ve already done the computer. Sophie, you go instead. Mia, Ciana, Marie-Céline, you haven’t finished the beadwork...”

Marie-Céline — “I’ve already finished the puzzle.”

Teacher — “Oh! But there’s no more space at the crafting station.”

Eventually, the workstations settle. Mia, Asya, Farah, and Coraly are at the beadwork station. The teacher approaches to get the station started.
Teacher — (To Farah) “Look closely at the model: green, green, yellow. Farah, after yellow...?”

Farah — “Green.”

Hervé, Marie-Céline, and Ciana are at the puzzle station. Sophie and Bachir are at the computer. Fatima, Lilian, Tarama, and Delio are at the store role-play station. Charline, Dao Son, and Nazir are at the crafting station, making objects with straws and toilet paper rolls (field notes, observation of a mixed-grade class, with children aged 4–5).

Behind this organization of activity-based learning lies the concept of immersion—the idea that simply exposing students to a pleasurable activity or knowledge is sufficient for learning to occur. Children are not explicitly told they are learning; rather, they engage in “doing activities,” as they themselves describe it. They “read a story,” “play games,” “draw,” “cut,” “sing,” “discover the taste of food,” and so on. Students choose from a list of activities, deciding which one they will participate in. However, these activities are seldom connected to clear learning objectives, and students are rarely made aware that they are actually being taught to acquire new skills or knowledge.

Often, children spontaneously identify and pursue other goals during these tasks, particularly because many of the activities are presented as games. The modalities of these games are, at worst, detached from any clear educational purpose (e.g., what is this activity helping them learn?), and at best, associated with playful goals that obscure the true learning objectives. For example, advancing pawns, rolling dice, arriving first, or winning can overshadow the actual educational content or skills intended by the activity. As illustrated by these two observations:

In a kindergarten classroom, at the end of a dominoes workshop, the teacher addresses the children:

> Teacher: “Souad won, but you all played very well. That’s good.” (field notes, mixed-grade class, children aged 4–5.)

In another mixed-grade classroom, the teacher explains the rules of a sound game intended to aid phonemic identification, but neither the occurrence of learning nor the learning objective is explicitly mentioned.

> Teacher: “It’s a picture game where you need to listen for the sound [f]. So, you take a pawn and move based on the roll of a dice. The words are: ‘dog,’ ‘chocolate,’ ‘narcissus,’ ‘umbrella.’ The player with the most coins wins. The goal is not to finish first, but to land on a square with the sound [f] and collect a coin.”
A student rolls the dice, gets a 3, and moves forward three squares. The square she lands on a square that doesn't feature a word with the [ʃ] sound. The teacher intervenes:

Teacher: “What’s the goal of the game?”

A student replies softly:

Student: “Whoever has the most coins.”

The teacher corrects her and adds:

Teacher: “When does the game end?”

The students remain silent.

Teacher: “The game ends when everyone has reached the end, but remember, it’s not a race!” (field notes, observation in mixed-grade class, children aged 4–5).

As explained by Chamborédon and Prévot (1973), recognizing the deeper significance of these formative children's games—beyond simply viewing them as 'childishness'—requires a sophisticated level of cultural understanding. These learning games are often grounded in a scholarly grasp of the psychological processes that underpin learning. Consequently, young students—who generally lack the cultural skills to critically distance themselves from these activities—find themselves expressing joy when they win or shedding tears when they lose. For them, these games are not framed as opportunities for academic learning, but rather as competitions where the primary goal is to win.

“I’m going to take some of you to the long table to play a card game. While you’re waiting for me, you can set up the cards. You already know how to do it.”

She assigns four boys and two girls to the table where the game Oudordodo<fnref n="3" /> is set up. After placing the cards on the table, the teacher says:

<footnote n="3">³ Literally “Where’s Dodo?” is a card game where each card represents a house, distinguished by its color and/or additional elements (such as a sun, cat, or mouse). Multiple cards may depict the same red house but can be differentiated by whether they include elements like a sun or a mouse. One card in the deck features a character, a teddy bear named Dodo. To play, the host lays out all the house cards and secretly hides the Dodo card under one of them. Players take turns asking a single question to locate Dodo. For example, “Is Dodo hidden in a blue house?” If Dodo is indeed under a blue house, all the</footnote>
Teacher: “Everyone close your eyes while I hide Dodo.”

She reminds the students that they are already familiar with the game and doesn't explain the rules further. Laris (prekindergarten level, father a shopkeeper) asks the first question.

Laris: “Is Dodo hidden in a blue house?”

Teacher: “Yes, he is. Laris understood. So, we can remove all the yellow houses.”

Idabel (prekindergarten level, father a mechanic, mother a cashier) asks the same question as Laris.

Teacher: “Laris already asked that question. To find Dodo, you need to ask different questions.”

Mahmoud (prekindergarten level, father a consular agent) asks, “Is Dodo in a house with stripes?”

Teacher: “Mahmoud asks a good question. He asks if Dodo is in a house with stripes. No. So, we remove the houses with stripes.”

She turns all the cards with striped houses face down on the table.

Another student asks, “Is Dodo in a house where there’s sunshine?”

Teacher: “No, so we take those away.”

She turns all the cards with suns face down.

Another boy asks if Dodo is hidden in a blue house. The teacher explains that all the remaining houses are blue. She then adds that there are houses with mice and
others with cats. Mahmoud asks again about the blue house. The teacher reminds him that he has already asked that question. A girl then asks if Dodo is in a house with a chicken. The teacher says no and removes the card with the blue house and chicken. With only three cards left on the table, the teacher looks at the researcher and says:

> Teacher: “It’s not the first time we’ve played this game, but it’s not easy.”

As the teacher starts a second round, the interviewer notices that Mahmoud is crying because he didn’t find the teddy bear during the first game (field notes, observation of a mixed-grade class, children aged 3–4).

By failing to make the process of knowledge acquisition a conscious effort, the school obscures the learning objectives and creates the conditions for what Bourdieu calls an *amnesia of genesis*—or, in this case, an amnesia of learning. This masking of the learning process has significant consequences: the effort required for acquisition, as well as the learning goals, become unrecognizable. As a result, children whose family dispositions and practices are less culturally aligned with the school’s expectations due to their social class and ethnic backgrounds face greater difficulties in meeting academic standards. These difficulties, however, cannot be attributed to the fact that they are still in the process of learning, because the learning itself is rendered invisible and forgotten.

*The imposition of particular meaning or theodicy: The inside story.* By creating the illusion of unlearned skills, amnesia of genesis fosters the naturalization of the competencies expected in *école maternelle*, attributing their origins to students’ inherent character and abilities. This shift toward internal dispositions is further reinforced by the school’s practice of grouping students based on a seemingly “natural” and equalizing factor—age—and organizing standardized conditions for performance, such as providing the same teacher and activities for all students. This arrangement, often presented as “equal opportunity,” is known to be a powerful catalyst for the causal attribution of behavior to individual dispositions—such as ability or emotional maturity—consistent with classical attribution models (Kelley, 1967). Our observations confirmed that children are consistently exposed to a discourse that personalizes their performance, framing it in terms of fictional internal attributes like ability, character (Beauvois & Dubois, 1988; Elias, 1991; Goudeau & Cimpian, 2021; Plaut & Markus, 2005). This often leads to the essentialization of their social and cultural backgrounds, where a strong and known alignment between family cultural practices and those of the school is reinterpreted as an inherent quality of the child (Bisseret, 1974; Rangel & Keller, 2011).

“This year, I had a lot of what I call ‘good elements’—children who are really invested in learning, who are curious and take initiative. They’re autonomous in their work and understand why they’re at school. They’re motivated, have a strong work ethic, and, in addition, they tend to display good behavior. They’re more attentive to others. I’m thinking in particular of one student, Maxence (father a business engineer, mother a receptionist). He had a very good level of language and comprehension, graphic fluency, and a solid understanding of numbers. He was really ready for first grade. He had a supportive environment at home—his parents were from a higher social background, and they took him to museums and libraries. He was always
immersed in books, asking lots of questions, and had a good relationship with his peers. So, yes, he had a bit of everything (laughs).

"Then there were students like Lamine (father a cab driver, mother a house cleaner), who had behavioral difficulties but was incredibly bright. He needed nurturing and pushing to reach his full potential. You could feel his curiosity about going to CP [first grade]—a real desire to learn. These are children who are motivated, actively engaged in the classroom, interacting with the teacher and their classmates, and not just passively enduring school. For them, I think school is definitely more enjoyable. And for the teacher too, of course (laughs). Some children just get it, while for others, it's more challenging. But the ones I'd call 'brilliant' are those who catch on quickly, work independently, and make connections between what they've learned. They reinvest what they've learned in new contexts. Some of them are quite remarkable in how they recall things they've already experienced."

Question: "Can you give me a concrete example?"

Teacher: "Well, for example, with understanding books, it's clear. Some children, without any prompting from us, will say, 'That's a funny story, it reminds me of another one,' because it's the same character, the same story structure, or the same setting. These are children who are lively, intelligent in a way. But there's a distinction to be made between academic intelligence and something that goes beyond the academic framework. You can see it in children who are diligent, conscientious, and want to do their work well. They understand what the teacher expects of them. But as soon as we get into things that are less academic, they might struggle a bit or not apply as much common sense." (interview with the teacher of a mixed-grade class, children aged 3-4).

The personalization of difficulty shifts the responsibility for learning challenges away from school situations, attributing them instead to the students' (perceived) inherent nature or the particularities of their backgrounds. Across our numerous hours of observation, difficulty was almost never referred to the learning situation itself. From the earliest years, it seems there is a prevailing notion that difficulty in learning stem from inappropriate behavior, rather than considering that such behavior may result from challenges in mastering the school's form of learning. The classroom is presumed to offer an equal opportunity for success, which leads to an interpretation of difficulties as anomalies. This perspective helps explain why teachers sometimes view learning struggles as "impertinent"—both out of place and inappropriate. On one hand, these difficulties manifest in behaviors that disrupt the normal flow of classroom activity (interruption, interference, restlessness, etc.). On the other hand, they are seen as stemming from attitudes that teachers find culpable: lack of academic rigor, insufficient investment, inattentiveness, or refusal to engage in learning.

This reading of classroom realities creates a paradox in which learning difficulties become not only a source of frustration but also subject to moral judgment. Difficulties are first dismissed or diminished, seen as simple errors. Next, they are criticized as faults, implying personal failure.
Finally, the focus shifts from the difficulty itself to the child, who is increasingly viewed as the source of the problem, effectively stigmatizing the student rather than addressing the structural causes behind the struggle.

The teacher calls Théophile (graphic designer father, shopkeeper mother) to the blackboard.

Teacher. - Théophile, I'm going to call you back to find the word "we" [a sentence is written on the board].

Théophile stands up, stares at the board, then looks sheepishly at the teacher, shrugging his shoulders. The teacher then calls Ambre (father a computer technician, mother a customer advisor) for help and has her read the sentence word for word. Théophile stands up again, looks at the sentence, but doesn't point to any words.

The teacher. - "Don't you know?"

Théophile remains silent, looking sheepish.

The teacher asks Gabrielle (father a boilermaker, mother a sales assistant) to repeat the sentence word by word. She quickly does so, and the teacher takes her back.

The teacher. - If you go too fast, he won't understand a thing.

But at this point, Théophile points to the board for the word "does"(field notes, observation of a mixed-grade class, children aged 4–5).

In another class of medium and large sections, Barak (unemployed mother) poses a problem for the teacher. The repetition of his difficulties leads her to multiply her interventions, which often end in annoyance, a request to resume, and in this case, the destruction of the work done. Seeing Barak get up for the umpteenth time from the writing workshop where he was practicing tracing letters, the teacher intervened forcefully with her voice and gestures: "No, no, no!" She takes Barak's writing sheet (which doesn't correspond to her expectations), crumples it up and gives him a new, blank one. As she puts Barak back to face the writing table, she tells him curtly: "Put your feet under the table!" The children in the bead workstation, right next to the writing workstation, talk quite loudly about the beads they must string. Barak and Bachir lose concentration and turn their heads to observe the exchanges. The teacher takes Barak back: "You know, I've prepared lots of models (i.e. sheets with lines),
if need be, I'll redraw (your sheet) ... ". Immediately afterwards, she congratulates Bachir (parents' occupation unknown): "Very good Bachir, now the 'p' for 'papa.'" Barak applies himself to his paper.

A few moments later, the teacher takes Barak back, who has his eyes in the air: "You've still got things to do... ", then settles down at another workstation table. At the writing station, Barak writes, then erases his letters as he has done since the beginning. The teacher regularly glances at his work. Judging that his work is still poorly done, she grabs his sheet of paper, crumples it up and gives him a new one... Barak remains alone in the classroom during recess to finish his work (field notes, observation in a mixed-grade class, children aged 4-5).

Stigmatization also extends to students' difficulties with school tasks and their requests for help from teachers. When such requests become frequent or persistent, they are sometimes perceived as excessive or over-demanding. For some students, these requests signal an overreliance on "adult attention," while for others, they reflect a "lack of autonomy," a "refusal to work," or "immaturity." Even routine requests for assistance can seem burdensome to teachers.

School behaviors frequently lead to the construction of psychological profiles of students, defining their individual qualities, personal attributes, and personality traits, as well as their cognitive and sometimes even physical value. The content of these profiles is not random but often linked to students' social backgrounds. For instance, Marin (father an engineer, mother a nurse) is described as "very lively," "friendly," "intelligent," "a good student," "easy-going," interested in "many things," and even "physically magnificent." Clotilde (father an IT consultant, mother an insurance underwriter) is characterized by her teacher as "open-minded," "intelligent," and "curious about everything." Line (mother a marketing director) is seen as "a very good student" with "a positive attitude," "happy," "comfortable in her own skin," and "a pleasure to be around." In contrast, Paul-Antoine (father a logistics manager, mother a specialized medical delegate) is labeled as an "average student" who "lacks maturity," "only thinks about playing," "acts like a baby," and "isn't interested in school." Valérie (father a senior executive, mother an industrial property consultant) is described as "a tomboy" and "a baby," while Nathan (father an engineer, mother a teacher) is "fun," "living in his imagination," but also "a bit lazy." Solène (father a machinist, mother a trainer) is said to "not grow up," is "always late," and "slow." Nathalie (father an insurance executive) and Célina (mother an accountant) are considered "very good students," but are seen as "a bit formulaic," "smooth," and "perfect." Lastly, Syntia (father a delivery driver, mother a hairdresser) is viewed as a "shy girl" with "low confidence" and a "self-effacing character." In these descriptions, students are often evaluated more in terms of their personality than their relationship to learning. The focus of teachers' discourse shifts from academic performance to a fascination with students' psychological attributes, revealing a tendency to categorize students based on perceived personal traits rather than their engagement with the learning process.

At the end of an observation in a kindergarten class, the teacher, explaining the need for a framework for very young children who are otherwise quickly lost, and tells the researcher: "I'm worried about Ahmed (parents' occupation unknown). Then she explains: Ahmed still hasn't understood the rituals his classmates have been doing since the beginning of the year (we're in May). He still doesn't know how to situate himself in the "time chain" (the days, the activities of the day), even though these
dimensions are repeated day after day in the classroom (what day is it? what's the weather like? etc.) and some children no longer need them. The teacher mentions Tessa (father a laboratory technician, mother a librarian), Alexia (father a research engineer, mother a school teacher) and Aglaé (father a university librarian, mother a secretary at regional department of education), all three described as excellent students. She adds: "I wonder if there isn't a deficit, because after a year, he's not in it at all, he hasn't understood it at all. Children, after a year, by dint of repetition, assimilate." (field notes, observation in a mixed-grade class, children aged 4-5).

Further evidence, if needed, of these reifying conceptions is that many teachers view the differences between students as being established before schooling begins and as likely to persist or even intensify.

Teacher: "I find it hard to believe that... children like Ahmed (parents' occupations unknown) will ever catch up completely, meaning I don't think they'll ever become brilliant students. Well... I have trouble believing that. That said, I refuse to believe that all is lost right now. I mean, if I believed that, I would just quit (laughs)! So... I don't think we can predetermine everything... now, yes, academic difficulties are often decided early on, but it's not set in stone. I believe that the younger the child, the more room for growth we have, the more years of progress we still have. Well... I do think that the big gaps will stay." (...) Well... I don't think that children who are very bright this year will completely fall behind one day, except in the case of some external event... but, well, it's true that I find it hard to believe that children who are very, very struggling will one day be brilliant students. (field notes, interview with a prekindergarten teacher).

These observations further confirms that differences between students are understood both as purely individual differences and as relatively independent from the school learning process.

*The active participation of students to their cultural domination or illusion.* It is through participation that children internalize the values and rules of the educational game, reinforcing their involvement in a system that both reflects and reproduces cultural inequalities. Participation, therefore, is not just a passive process but an active complicity in the structures of the school's social order. In *école maternelle*, speaking in front of the group quickly becomes a significant moment in the life of a child, as they begin to experience the value of what they want to say on the school market. Participating generates and reinforces a system of expectations: wanting to be called on when a question is posed, being chosen to go to the blackboard, receiving per-mission to speak in front of the group, or having one's work validated by the teacher. Very soon, children learn that to "exist" on the school stage, they must contribute to discussions, be seen, and, crucially, desire to participate (Goudeau et al., 2023). Our observations revealed that nearly all students often raise their hands eagerly. Some children, in their effort to be noticed, use their other hand to prop up the one that is raised, only to grow tired of waiting, start chatting with their neighbors, or lose track of the teacher's ongoing discussion—all while their body language continues to signal their fervent desire to participate. Many children seek to be involved at all costs, sometimes raising their hand without knowing the answer, repeating ideas just presented, or even inventing stories simply to have something to say.
In a group situation, at the teacher's question, several students raise their hands impatiently to answer, including Albert (father, sales agent, mother kindergarten teacher student), who is finally designated to speak first.

- Teacher: "Albert, what are you going to make your character say?"

- Albert: "I don't know".

- The teacher: "Then don't raise your hand". And she adds that "you have to learn to raise your hand only when you have something to say". (field notes, observation of a mixed-grade kindergarten class, children aged 4–5)

The teacher calls on Tessa (father laboratory technician, mother librarian), who raises her hand to recite the days of the week. Standing at the blackboard, Tessa remains silent

Teacher: "So, Tessa?" (Silence) (More firmly) "Well, Tessa?! If you come to the blackboard, it's to try!" (Tessa still doesn't respond). (Annoyed) "So, Tessa, do you want to try or not? If you don't want to, just say so. It's fine, we can do it another day. Well?"

Tessa then recites the days correctly.

Teacher: "See? You did it! That's good!" (field notes, observation of a prekindergarten class, children aged 4).

Participating in the same way as others—raising a hand, being called on, and making oneself visible in the classroom—fosters in students a disposition to focus on themselves, to care about being noticed, heard, and recognized by both the teacher and their peers. This quest for visibility and validation becomes a central concern, diverting attention from the substance of academic learning. As a result, students develop a heightened ability to decode subtle social cues—such as tone, smiles, and attitudes from teachers and classmates—that help them gauge the value of their contributions and, by extension, their own self-worth.

## The contribution of symbolic violence to academic “success” and “failure”

Day after day, schools cultivate children's sensitivity to self-concern and self-worth. This is the process through which children gradually internalize school ideology, adopting it as a set of perceptual schemas and self-evident truths. From a very young age, students start to view themselves as either "good" or "bad" students, linking their academic performance to personal traits, which sets them on a path of seeking self-esteem. In *école maternelle*, some children, especially those from middle- and upper-income families, quickly gain the rewards of speaking up and actively participating from the beginning of their school experience. In these school settings, they find opportunities to showcase their value through their actions, knowledge, and experiences, drawing attention and recognition. Children like Alexia (father a research engineer, mother
schoolteacher), Tessa (father a laboratory technician, mother a librarian), and many others (see previous observations above), regularly serve as classroom resources, called upon by the teacher to model exercises, relay instructions, or assist struggling classmates. Over time, these students become role models in the eyes of their peers—those who “know” and can “show”—and their contributions reinforce their status as central figures in the classroom.

Conversely, other students—especially those struggling to find their place in the school environment—experience the same situations very differently. For them, school is not a source of personal gratification or recognition but rather a place of disqualification, where negative feedback, failed interactions, and moments of isolation accumulate. These students frequently face silence or even outright disapproval from their teachers, reinforcing their sense of inadequacy. While some children thrive on the praise and positive feedback they receive, others, like Tarama (mother a house cleaner) and Asya (parents unemployed), repeatedly encounter criticism for work that is deemed incorrect or incomplete. Comments like “set your sights slightly lower” or “you count all wrong” emphasize their failure to meet expectations. Similarly, students like Mia, Julien, and Abdel are told they “don’t know how,” while Paul is praised for his “impeccable” work. As a result, those who struggle with school tasks are likely to internalize their difficulties as personal failures, leading to a lasting sense of disqualification and stigma.

The categories of school judgment, whether expressed in explicit appraisals or in practice, have such a symbolic impact that, from the earliest grades, they affect the reputations of young children among their peers, making them unequally desirable in the eyes of the latter, and subject to mockery or derision.

At the coded coloring workshop, Ursul (parents' occupations unknown) glances at Mouloud's (father a sorting and distribution agent, mother a receptionist at the town hall) work before beginning to color his own sheet. He then says something to Mouloud that the investigator doesn't catch.

Mouloud responds:

— “Ursul, don’t ask me what color to use! You have a code!” He points to the key on Ursul’s sheet.

A few seconds later, Ursul asks again:

— “What color?” gesturing toward Mouloud’s sheet.

Mouloud, clearly frustrated, replies:

— “You don’t get anything, it’s like you’re deaf and blind.” (field notes, observation of a mixed-grade classroom, children aged 4–5).
The above description illustrates the strong connection between a child's standing within the school—both in terms of the judgment passed on them and their sense of belonging—and their status among peers. Stigmatized by the school through frequent corrections or expulsions for behaviors deemed contrary to school expectations, these students also face exclusion in their social relationships. Their disqualification within the classroom tends to carry over into their friendships, further compounding their isolation. This dynamic serves as a reminder of the symbolic power and violence embedded in school classifications from the earliest age. These labels, far from being confined to the classroom, have far-reaching social consequences, extending beyond the school walls, as they claim a sense of universality in defining children's worth and social standing.

Naturally, children who struggle to find their place within the school setting and have difficulty displaying the expected knowledge and skills tend to internalize the mental categories subtly imposed by the institution. They often apply these labels to themselves:

Barak (5 years old, single mother, unemployed): "Simpleton, is that a bad word?"

Interviewer: "A little bit. . . but why do you ask? Did you call someone that? Or did someone call you that?"

Barak: "Yes, I say it to myself when I fail at something."

(Interview in a kindergarten classroom).

This exchange poignantly illustrates how self-perception is shaped by the implicit judgments of the school environment, with children adopting negative labels to explain their own struggles. This passage illustrates how students come to understand institutional reality through categories imposed by the school, with an influence strong enough to shape their desires, fears, anxieties, and ultimately their self-perception, including their sense of identity and self-efficacy (Douglas, 1986). When faced with difficulties, children often experience doubt, anxiety, shame, blushing, crying, and fear.

The teacher goes in front of the blackboard, sets up a small table on which she places a book ("The Three Little Pigs"), and a box of tokens. She then adds two chairs to the setup and sits on one of them. (The interviewer understands that she is preparing to individually assess the students while the rest of the class works at various activity stations talking and making noise.) She calls Ivan (father: artisan, mother unknown occupation, aged 5), who sits down on the chair facing the teacher. She shows him the book on the table and says to him:

"Do you remember this story?"

Ivan: "Yes."
The teacher, in a questioning tone: “So, can you tell it to me?”

Ivan remains silent.

The teacher, still in a questioning tone: “You don't remember anymore?”

Ivan: “No.”

The teacher: “Then can you tell me who the characters are?”

Ivan stays silent for a few seconds, then says softly: “There’s a house made of wood, one made of bricks.” Then he falls silent, not mentioning the straw house.

After a few seconds, the teacher asks: “And what is the third house made of?”

Ivan remains silent.

The teacher opens the book to help Ivan remember the material of the third house,
but he remains silent. She tells him that the third house is made of straw.

Teacher: “Which house does the wolf blow on first?”

Ivan stays silent.

Teacher: “Why does he blow on the straw house first?”

Ivan: “Because he’s mean.”

Teacher: “Because he’s mean, alright.”

Since the evaluation began, Ivan has been squirming in his chair, rubbing his palms
on his thighs, and whispering more than speaking. (field notes, observation of a
mixed-grade classroom, children aged 4–5).
However, such body manifestations are more than the emotional manifestations of the feelings of disqualification experienced by Ivan. According to Bourdieu, they are evidence of symbolic violence embedded in the body that “often take the form of bodily emotions—shame, humiliation, timidity, anxiety, guilt—or passions and sentiments—love, admiration, respect” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 38).

The incorporation of symbolic violence is particularly illustrated in the experience of Abdoullah. Aboullah (mother unemployed, father's occupation unknown), who is a 4-year-old student at the time of the study, is an immediately noticeable figure in the classroom for the researcher. From the very first observation session, he is frequently corrected for his behavior and learning conduct. He is regularly reprimanded by his teacher, scolded, and punished by being separated from the rest of the group or physically moved, sometimes placed right next to the teacher—a spot typically reserved for students who are restless or need an adult's proximity to stay calm. For instance, during the first session, by only 8:50 AM [school starts at 8:30 AM], while laughing and speaking loudly at his workshop table, his teacher says: “Abdoullah, quieter,” “Abdoullah, silence, this is for drawing!” By 9:10, after an argument with another student, she tells him, “You know you’re not allowed to do that, you’re not playing, you’re hitting, and I don’t agree with that!” She grabs him by the hand and places him next to her on a chair, holding him by the arm. At 9:20, the teacher, as she often does, pauses the free morning workstation activities with a musical interlude, during which Abdoullah lets out a shout. His teacher tells him, “Stop being silly,” and grabs him by the arm to sit him in the group area. A few minutes later, during a song with the students, Abdoullah is reprimanded several times for not participating and turning his back on the activity (looking sullen). His teacher, now irritated, says, “You watch what we’re doing,” and physically places him back on the bench facing the board. A bit later, the researcher hears her say sharply, “Don’t push!” This pattern continued throughout the morning and regularly in subsequent observations.

Abdoullah carries a bad reputation, not only for his behavior but also for his often unsuccessful learning attempts. This has clear effects on his relationships with his peers, who sometimes dis-credit or reject him, and his actions are regularly disqualified “you’re scribbling,” “what you’ve done isn’t pretty.” Faced with repeated negative remarks, exclusion, and devaluation, it seems Abdoullah eventually withdraws from school activities altogether. He becomes marginal to the class, resigning himself during moments of sadness that seem to overwhelm him. After being scolded repeatedly in front of the class, Abdoullah seems to refuse to participate.

For example, when the students are called to line up in the hallway to go to the motor skills room, Abdoullah remains seated, slouched on a bench, refusing to move. The classroom assistant comes to fetch him, speaking loudly in a tone that shows impatience and frustration. She physi-cally pushes him to stand up, but Abdoullah resists by going limp and letting himself hang. This scene lasts several minutes. Once in the motor skills room, Abdoullah stays disengaged, not par-ticipating in the activity. The teacher tells him, “If you don’t want to work, then you can watch!” When he refuses to hold the assistant’s hand for a motor skills exercise, he is scolded once again.

The following day, during another observation, after being reprimanded multiple times, Abdoullah remains alone in the classroom when the other children go to the restroom, lying on the floor with his arm draped over a bench in the group area. He does not move, appears dejected, and does not respond to instructions. Usually so lively, he remains completely silent, with a sad expres-sion. After a while, the teacher notices his absence and returns to get him. Abdoullah remains immobile, folding into his arms as if asking to be left alone. The teacher gently pulls him up by the arm, but he resists, letting his full weight hang down. One of his classmates, Hania, helps the teacher by taking Abdoullah’s hand, and he is eventually led to the restroom. Afterward, as the children line up in the hallway, Abdoullah stays inside the restroom, leaning against the wall
not coming out. He appears extremely sad. The classroom assistant calls him several times before going to fetch him. She takes his hand, and Abdoullah lets himself be led to the hallway, tears streaming down his face.

For Abdoullah, these repeated corrections seem to push him into a cycle of withdrawal and disengagement, as if he is internalizing the sense that he does not belong in school. This outcome aligns with the processes of symbolic violence discussed in the literature on school discipline, wherein students from dominated groups encounter a specific form of hidden curriculum embedded within a rule-focused disciplinary code (see Langhout & Mitchell, 2008). This code, through a series of punitive interactions, shapes students’ self-perception and reinforces their sense of exclusion from the school community At such a young age, Abdoullah’s encounters with this particular form of relationship could already be setting the stage for long-term disengagement, illustrating the impact of school practices on students’ identities and their sense of belonging in educational spaces, in other words, in the powerful and coercive nature of symbolic violence in the reproduction of inequality.

Altogether our findings suggest that the inculcation through incorporation of these school-based conceptions should be all the more effective, the earlier they intervene in the biographical order, from pre-kindergarten onwards. At such an early age, children possess fewer cultural and psychological resources to critically assess what the school conveys about them and their abilities.

## DISCUSSION

In this article, we seek to uncover the mechanisms through which school socialization in French prekindergarten and kindergarten actively contributes to the reproduction and legitimation of the social order. Our research aimed to highlight how social hierarchies are maintained through subtle forms of persuasion that instill specific cognitive frameworks or mental categories, naturalizing the privilege of dominant groups. This process, known as symbolic violence, involves the internalization of dominant norms and values by subordinate groups, leading them to accept their own subordination as natural. This process, known as symbolic violence, operates through several interrelated dynamics within the pedagogical relationship: A pedagogical arrangement that organizes the unequal profitability of family socialization and knowledge, the “amnesia” surrounding the learning process, and the imposition of an essentialist mythology that naturalizes student outcomes. Together, these factors ensure children’s active participation in their own subordination.

To investigate these dynamics, we relied on an ethnographic methodology, which is particularly well-suited for examining the nuanced, often imperceptible processes at play in symbolic violence and social reproduction in general. Unlike traditional surveys or experiments, qualitative methods such as ethnography allow for a deeper engagement with the lived experiences of participants, capturing the subtleties of behavior, language, and interaction that underpin the maintenance of social hierarchies. Through guided observations and semi-structured interviews, we tried to illuminate how seemingly benign pedagogical practices subtly instill mental categories that reinforce existing social structures by favoring students from privileged backgrounds.

Our study shows that the school practices we observed give rise to what Basil Bernstein called a “pedagogy of the invisible,” or, as Pierre Bourdieu described, a “pedagogy of silence,” which resonates with the notion of spontaneous learning. In these settings, where learning activities are implicit, the effort involved in acquiring knowledge is hidden from both students and teachers. This fosters the illusion that skills are naturally acquired rather than socially constructed, facilitating their naturalization. Consequently, differences in academic performance are attributed
to individual, essentialized traits such as motivation, intelligence, and personality. This essen-
tializing perspective deeply influences educators' judgments and practices, where attributes like
"success," "flawlessness," and "ease" are praised, while "failure," "fault," and "difficulties" are
disparaged. Paradoxically, the inherent challenges of the learning process are often perceived as
obstacles, leading to frustration and disapproval from teachers.

Our study highlights how essentialist views significantly shape students’ identities by encourag-
ing them to internalize labels like “good” or “bad” students. When children encounter difficulties
or fail to meet implicit school expectations, they often develop a painful sense of inferiority—a
form of symbolic violence that disproportionately affects students less familiar with the school sys-
tem, particularly those from working-class or marginalized ethnic backgrounds, as we observed.
This dynamic is further amplified by the school’s emphasis on individual worth, as classrooms
become powerful spaces where students’ self-worth or self-esteem need is socially constructed.
This preoccupation with self-worth leads children to seek validation from teachers, shifting their
focus away from the actual learning process. The emphasis on performance and achievement
drives students to showcase their strengths, while avoiding situations where they might fail
(Butera et al., 2024). Consequently, this concern for self-worth can become a significant obstacle to
genuine learning, as the fear of failure overshadows educational engagement. Children from priv-
ileged backgrounds, whose behaviors more closely align with school norms, can “spontaneously”
display expected behaviors. These “effortless successes” are often held up as models for the class,
reinforcing the idea that some students are “naturally gifted” while further marginalizing those
who struggle to meet academic expectations.

Symbolic violence frequently manifests physically, as we observe in behaviors like squirm-
ing in one’s chair, rubbing palms on thighs, thumb-sucking, adopting a submissive posture,
shoulder-shrugging, crying, acting out, or even withdrawing entirely. These responses are not
randomly distributed; they are more common among students who face challenges in meeting
school expectations—in other words those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our observations
align with existing literature that links certain physical responses, such as anxiety, to social class
and racial background (Zeidner, 1998) or shows that anxiety mediate as significant part of the
relationship between social class and academic performance (e.g., Claes et al., 2024). These phys-
ical manifestations, like stomach aches or anxiety, are often misinterpreted as individual “traits”
(Sarason, 1984; Zeidner, 1998) or personal failings—frequently labeled as “deficiencies,” “school
phobia,” or “school anxiety”—which obscures the underlying socio-cultural dynamics. However,
these bodily manifestations are not simply “mediators” or signs of “personal weakness” rather,
they represent how symbolic violence imprints itself on the body. They reveal the internal conflict
where children’s sense of self contends with dominant social structures that assign their perceived
worth (Croizet & Millet, 2012), a determined effort to preserve dignity and save face (Millet &
Croizet, 2016).

Our research builds on previous work highlighting the central role institutions play in repro-
ducing the social order, while offering a crucial contribution by documenting the specific
processes at work. It demonstrates how schools actively sustain social hierarchies by encouraging
both students and teachers to internalize categories of perception that frame cultural conformity
to school norms as differences in inherent individual traits. In doing so, schools transform adher-
ence to these norms into perceived personal merit, effectively concealing the social dynamics that
underlie educational inequalities. As stated by Douglas (1986):

Institution [...] starts to control the memory of its members; it causes them to for-
get experiences incompatible with its righteous image, and it brings to their minds
events which sustain the view of nature that is complementary to itself. It provides the categories of their thought, set the terms for self-knowledge and fixes identity. All this is not enough. It must secure the social edifice by sacralizing the principles of justice (p. 112).

By documenting the specific mechanisms behind symbolic violence, this research builds on existing sociological theories that propose that group domination does not only rely on intentional actions by those in power or explicit consent from the oppressed—it simply unfolds (DiMaggio, 2012; Jackman, 1994). Remarkably, we observed that as early as preschool among children aged 3–5, this domination unfolds through a subtle process of meaning imposition, with the active participation of the very students who are dominated. This early timing of socialization acts as a powerful and covert tool of persuasion, enabling the meanings imposed in the classroom to obscure more effectively the underlying structures of cultural domination that shape these interactions.

Our research resonates with existing social psychology literature, particularly studies on how teacher bias, the interplay of social identities and aspects of the educational context—such as cultural mismatch—contribute to reinforcing social inequality. Previous research has shown how teacher expectations, shaped by negative group reputations, can perpetuate disadvantages for students from historically dominated groups (Browman & Miele, 2024; Doyle & Easterbrook, 2024; Good et al., 2018). While teacher bias can certainly play a role in the reproduction of inequality within the classroom, our study shifts focus to a set of institutional dynamics that shape both teachers’ and students’ experiences—dynamics that operate independently of explicit group reputations or prejudice. Research has also shown that students from historically marginalized groups encounter significant psychological challenges, which manifest in identity negotiation, concerns about belonging, and struggles with self-worth (Easterbrook & Hadden, 2021; Spencer et al., 2016; Walton et al., 2023). Our study expands this body of work in two ways. First in line with sociocultural theory (Stephens et al., in press), our study provides further evidence from a specific cultural context—French prekindergarten and kindergarten—that education is far from a neutral institution. Rather, it actively shapes and reinforces the unequal value placed on different forms of family socialization, knowledge, and dispositions. Importantly, our findings reveal the concrete processes that underlie the mismatch between home and school cultures, shedding light on how these disparities emerge and impact students from their earliest experiences in the education system. Consistent with the identities-in-context model (Easterbrook & Hadden, 2021), our research suggests that symbolic violence is closely linked to psychological barriers affecting one’s sense of self and identity. Crucially, our findings reveal that the psychological concerns central to the struggles later experienced by students of dominated groups in high school and college emerge early in their academic journeys, rooted in school socialization processes that begin as early as preschool. These concerns are not incidental; rather, they are shaped by the symbolic violence embedded within the institutional framework of schooling. This symbolic violence influences students’ self-perception, sense of belonging, and self-esteem from a young age, imposing social and cultural hierarchies long before formal schooling reaches more advanced stages.

The concept of symbolic violence might appear to suggest an inevitable cycle of domination. However, students are not entirely passive within this framework. In our study, we did not observe explicit forms of resistance but simple mismatch with the school expectancies and implicit bodily reactions like fidgeting, withdrawal, or discomfort—responses that reflected the tension between their cultural backgrounds and the expectations of the school. This may likely be attributed to the specific context in which the study was conducted: prekindergarten and kindergarten settings.
Children, in general, and those aged 3 to 6 in particular, do not have yet the verbal and intellec-
tual tools to formulate—or rather, to conceive—alternative explanations to what is imposed upon
them. As Berger and Luckman (1966) pointed out, at this age, the world is not one possibility
among others, it is perceived as the only possible reality. Concerning teachers, early childhood
education environments are often designed and viewed as nurturing and supportive, making it
difficult to recognize the presence of symbolic violence. In such a context, even subtle signs of
discontent can be easily overlooked, masked by the overall expectation that kindergarten is a
benign space of care and development. In the study presented here, we did not examine parent-
school interactions in depth (but see Millet & Croizet, 2016), yet it was striking to observe that
parents from working-class backgrounds often avoided entering the classroom or engaging with
the teacher during morning drop-off, whereas this was very common among parents from more
privileged backgrounds. Previous ethnographic research reveals that parents of students who bear
the brunt of symbolic violence often avoid confrontation—not out of acceptance, but because,
shaped by their own experiences of symbolic violence in educational settings, they often feel they
lack the legitimacy to challenge the school’s judgments. This contrasts with parents from privi-
leged backgrounds, who are more likely to resist school judgments, as seen in other ethnographic
studies (see Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Millet & Croizet, 2016; Millet & Thin, 2012). Parents from
these backgrounds are equipped with the resources, knowledge, and confidence to advocate for
their children, challenging institutional decisions that they perceive as unfavorable or unfair. This
disparity further highlights how social inequality is perpetuated through unequal capacities for
resistance and self-authorization, dispositions that are often cultivated in school.

Symbolic violence thrives on the alignment of school norms with the cultural practices and dispositions of privileged groups, marginalizing students from historically dominated communities. Schools can reduce the impact of symbolic violence by legitimizing the cultural practices of marginalized groups and giving them space within the classroom. Research on the psychology of invisibility (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015a, 2015b; Laiduc & Covarrubias, 2022) highlights how marginalized students often feel “invisible” in educational settings when their cultural knowledge is excluded from the dominant curriculum. This invisibility or erasure leads to psychological distress, reinforcing feelings of alienation and inadequacy, a core aspect of symbolic violence. However, acknowledging and incorporating these students’ cultural practices into the classroom can alleviate these effects by affirming what students know and their identities thereby reducing the psychological burden that symbolic violence creates. The funds of knowledge framework, developed by Moll et al. (2006) and expanded by Rios-Aguilar et al. (2011), directly addresses this issue by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and incorporating the cultural assets of historically marginalized communities into educational practices. By treating these cultural practices as valuable resources rather than deficits, this approach redefines the traditional power dynamics within schools, creating a more inclusive and equitable learning environment. This framework not only fosters a sense of belonging but also challenges the hierarchical structures that privilege dominant cultural norms, thus mitigating the effects of symbolic violence.

Finally, our study underscores the importance of emphasizing the transformative power of teaching and knowledge transmission, especially for students who depend on school as their primary source of academic learning. Centering a de-dramatized approach to difficulty—understanding it as essential to intellectual growth rather than as a sign of personal failure—and offering ample opportunities for repeated practice can foster more positive outcomes (Autin & Croizet, 2012). By shifting from a deficit-based model to one that values the diverse knowledge students bring (Vale & Covarrubias, 2024), educators can cultivate classrooms where all students
feel seen, respected, and empowered, countering the exclusionary dynamics that perpetuate social inequality.

## Positionality statement

Jean-Claude Croizet is professor of social psychology at Université Clermont Auvergne and CNRS. In his research, he investigates the reproduction of social inequality in educational contexts with a special interest for the impact of symbolic violence on students' cognition. He grew up in France in a Portuguese immigrant and working-class family and was the first in his family to attend college. Unlike his four second-generation siblings and numerous cousins, he was lucky to survive much of the symbolic violence that marked the educational journey of his family. Mathias Millet is professor of sociology, and the head of the research center Groupe de Recherches sur les Sociétés Contemporaines. As a sociologist of socialization, school and the working classes, he studies the educational inequalities that are played out in the confrontation of modes of socialization and learning (at university, at school and in the family), and is interested in the contradictions linked to the schooling of the working classes and to the relationships of cultural domination. He grew up in the second French largest city and comes from an upper-class French family.

## AC KNO WLEDGMENTS

This work has been carried out within the framework of the ANR-22-CE28-0022 IMPROVE project supported by the French National Research Agency.

## C ONFLIC T OF INTEREST S T ATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## ORCID

Jean-Claude Croizet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4964-462X

Mathias Millet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8429-5592

## REFERENCES

Autin, F., & Croizet, J.-C. (2012). Improving working memory efficiency by reframing meta-cognitive interpretation of task difficulty. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141*, 610–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027478

Baudelot, C., & Establet, R. (1971). *L'école capitaliste en France*. Maspero.

Beauvois, J.-L., & Dubois, N. (1988). The norm of internality in the explanation of psychological events. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 18*(4), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180402

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). *The social construction of reality: At treatise in the sociology of knowledge*. Anchor Books.

Bernstein, B. (1971). *Class, codes and control* (Vol. 1). Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. *Educational Studies, 1*(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569750010105

Bernstein, B. (1996). *Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique*. Taylor & Francis.

Bisseret, N. (1974). *Les inégaux ou la sélection universitaire*. Presses Universitaires de France.

Bonnéry, S. (2007). *Comprendre l'échec scolaire. Élèves en difficultés et dispositifs pédagogiques*. La Dispute.

Bourdieu, P. (2000). *Pascalian mediations*. Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1997).

Bourdieu, P. (2001). *Masculine domination*. Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1998).

Bourdieu, P. (2006). *The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power*. Polity Press. (Original work published 1989).

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1979). *The inheritors: French students and their relation to culture*. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1964).
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). *Reproduction in education, society and culture* (2nd ed.). Sage. (Original work published 1970).

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). *Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life*. Routledge.

Browman, A. S., Destin, M., Carswell, K. L., & Svoboda, R. C. (2017). Perceptions of socioeconomic mobility influence academic persistence among low socioeconomic status students. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 72, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.006

Browman, A. S., & Miele, D. B. (2024). Americans mentally represent low-ability students as low-SES, academically incapable, and undeserving of support. Extended abstract submitted for consideration at the Journal of Social Issues.

Butera, F., Dompnier, B., & Darnon, C. (2024). Achievement goals: A social influence cycle. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 75, 527–554. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-013123-102139

Chamboredon, J.-C., & Prevot, J. (1973). Le « métier d'enfant ». Définition sociale de la prime enfance et fonctions différentielles de l'école maternelle. *Revue Française de Sociologie*, 14(3), 295–335. https://doi.org/10.2307/3320469

Cicourel, A. V. (1974). *A cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction*. Free Press.

Claes, N., Smeding, A., Carré, A., & Sommet, N. (2024). The social class test gap: A worldwide investigation of the role of academic anxiety and income inequality in standardized test score disparities. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 116(6), 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000881

Conrad, P. (2007). *The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders*. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015a). The impact of self-relevant representations on school belonging for Native American students. *Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology*, 21, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037819

Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015b). The impact of cultural invisibility on marginalized students. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 107(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037144

Croizet, J.-C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 24(6), 588–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298246003

Croizet, J.-C., & Millet, M. (2012). Social class and test performance: From stereotype threat to symbolic violence and vice versa. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), *Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application* (pp. 188–201). Oxford University Press.

Darmon, M. (2023). *Socialization*. John Wiley & Sons.

Delpit, L. (2006). *Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom* (2nd ed.). The New Press.

DiMaggio, P. (2012). Culture and cognition. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), *Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction* (pp. 85–98). Russell Sage Foundation.

Douglas, M. (1986). *How institutions think*. Syracuse University Press.

Doyle, L., & Easterbrook, M. (2024). How victim blaming affects trainee teachers’ career choices. Extended abstract submitted for consideration at the Journal of Social Issues.

Easterbrook, M. J., & Hadden, I. R. (2021). Tackling educational inequalities with social psychology: Identities, contexts, and interventions. *Social Issues and Policy Review*, 15(1), 180–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12070

Easterbrook, M. J., Hadden, I. R., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2019). Identities in context: How social class shapes inequalities in education. In J. Jetten & K. Peters (Eds.), *The social psychology of inequality* (pp. 103–121). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28856-3_7

Elias, N. (1991). *The society of individuals*. Blackwell.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). *Writing ethnographic fieldnotes* (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. http://www.education.gouv.fr/RERS2023

France, Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale, de la Jeunesse et des Sports. (2021). Annexe: Programme d'enseignement de l'école maternelle. *Bulletin Officiel*, 25, 24-06-2021. https://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/21/Hebdo25/MENE2116550A.htm

France. Ministère de l'Éducation et de la Jeunesse. (2023). *Repères et références statistiques 2023: Enseignements, formation, recherche*. Direction de l'Evaluation et de la Prospective, et de la Performance. https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/159894/download
Gillborn, D. (2008). *Racism and education: Coincidence or conspiracy?* Routledge.

Good, T. L., Sterzinger, N., & Lavigne, A. (2018). Expectation effects: Pygmalion and the initial 20 years of research. *Educational Research and Evaluation, 24*(3-5), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548817

Goudeau, S., & Cimpian, A. (2021). How do young children explain differences in the classroom? Implications for achievement, motivation, and educational equity. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16*, 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620953781

Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Autin, F., Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., Croizet, J.-C., & Cimpian, A. (2023). Unequal opportunities from the start: Socioeconomic disparities in classroom participation in preschool. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152*(11), 3135-3152. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001437

Goudeau, S., Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., Darnon, C., Croizet, J.-C., & Cimpian, A. (2024). What causes social class disparities in education? The role of the mismatches between academic contexts and working-class socialization contexts and how the effects of these mismatches are explained. *Psychological Review, Advance online publication*. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000473

Gramsci, A. (1988). *Gramsci's prison letters: A selection*. Zwan Publications.

Horne, R. H. (2018). Linguistic inequities in the classroom: Social class and educational outcomes. *Journal of Educational Equity and Language Learning, 12*(1), 45-62.

Iyer, A., Jetten, J., Tsivrikos, D., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2009). The more (and the more compatible) the merrier: Multiple group memberships and identity compatibility as predictors of adjustment after life transitions. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 48*(4), 707-733. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X397628

Jackman, M. R. (1994). *The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations*. University of California Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. *Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15*, 192-238.

Kozol, J. (1991). *Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools*. Crown Publishers.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. *American Educational Research Journal, 32*, 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831203200346

Lahire, B. (1993). *Culture écrite et inégalités scolaires: Sociologie de l'échec scolaire à l'école primaire*. Presses Universitaires de Lyon.

Laiduc, G., & Covarrubias, R. (2022). Making meaning of the hidden curriculum: Translating wise interventions to usher university change. *Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 8*(2), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000309

Lareau, A. (2003). *Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life*. University of California Press.

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. *Sociology of Education, 72*(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673185

Langhout, R. D., & Mitchell, C. A. (2008). Engaging contexts: Drawing the link between student and teacher experiences of the hidden curriculum. *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18*(6), 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.974

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. *Annual Review of Sociology, 27*, 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). *The German ideology* (C. J. Arthur, Ed.). International Publishers (Original work published 1846).

Mauger, G. (2012). *Repères pour résister à la pensée dominante*. Savoir/Agir, 19, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.3917/sava.019.0011

Millet, M., & Croizet, J.-C (2016). *L'école des incapables: l'apprentissage de la domination à l'école maternelle*. La Dispute.

Millet, M., & Thin, D. (2012). *Ruptures scolaires: L'école à l'épreuve de la question sociale*. Presses Universitaires de France.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2006). *Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms*. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Morel, S. (2014). *La médicalisation de l'échec scolaire*. La Dispute.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. *Educational Researcher, 41*(3), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244

Pinell, P., & Zafiropoulos, B. (1976). Les étudiants en médecine et leur univers: Enquête dans une faculté de médecine. *Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2*(1), 3-29.
Plaut, V. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). The “Inside” story: A cultural-historical analysis of being smart and motivated, American style. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), *Handbook of competence and motivation* (pp. 457–488). Guilford Publications.

Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100*(6), 10561078. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022401

Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. *Theory and Research in Education, 9*(2), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776

Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46*(4), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.929

Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. *Annual Review of Psychology, 67*(1), 415-437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235

Stephens, N. M., Emery, L. F., & Townsend, S. S. M. (In press). Social class. Invited chapter to appear. In *Handbook of social psychology* (6th ed.). Wiley.

Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2012). Social class disparities in health and education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self-model of behavior. *Psychological Review, 119*(4), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029028

Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. *Annual Review of Psychology, 65*, 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143

Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). *Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States*. The University of Chicago Press.

Vale, I., & Covarrubias, R. (2024). A critical race, interdisciplinary approach to examining socioeconomic disparities in higher education. Extended abstract submitted for consideration at the Journal of Social Issues.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92*, 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. C., Logel, C., Yeager, D. S., Goyer, J. P., Brady, S. T., Emerson, K. T. U., Paunesku, D., Fotuhi, O., Blodorn, A., Boucher, K. L., Carter, R. E., Gopalan, M., Henderson, A., Kroeper, K. M., Murdock-Perriera, L. A., Reeves, S. L., Ablorh, T. T., Ansari, S., . . . Krol, N. (2023). Where and with whom does a brief social-belonging intervention promote progress in college? *Science, 380*, 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq6945

Weber, M. (1978). *Economy and society*. University of California Press.

Yılmaz, E., De Leersnyder, J., & Phalet, K. (2024). Putting cultural mismatch theory to the test: A cultural fit approach to self-construal in educational settings to predict student outcomes. Extended abstract submitted for consideration at the Journal of Social Issues.

Zeidner, M. (1998). *Test anxiety: The state of the art*. Plenum.

## AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Jean-Claude Croizet is a Professor of Social Psychology at Université Clermont-Auvergne, affiliated with the Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (UMR CNRS 6024). He earned his PhD in 1993 from the University of Grenoble (France) and his *Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches* in 2001 from University Blaise Pascal (France). His research focuses on the reproduction of social inequalities in educational contexts, with particular attention to how symbolic violence affects students' cognitive processes.

Mathias Millet is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Poitiers, where he directs the Groupe de Recherches Sociologiques sur les sociétés COntemporaines (GRESCO, UR 15075). He completed his PhD in 2000 at the University of Lyon (France) and his *Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches* in 2013 at the University of Poitiers (France). As a sociologist specializing in socialization, education, and working-class studies, his research addresses educational inequalities arising from the interaction of socialization and learning modes (in university, school, and family settings). His work also explores the complexities of working-class experiences within educational systems, examining the disciplinary frameworks of socialization (such as curricula, study tracks, and intellectual techniques) and the dynamics of cultural domination.