exploring the role of the implicit curriculum, school culture or teachers’ practices in moulding their students’ dispositions towards learning and their place in society. While the discussion in chapter 5 sets the broader context, Chapters 6, 7 embark on a more specific and elaborate analysis of the identities of the academically-successful male teenagers. Ingram’s interviews with them substantiate her proposed typology of habitus interruptions. As a result of interactions between their primary habitus and the field of school, multiple types of identities are produced by students, which are manifested in their newly-formed habitus. One example is the ‘reconfirmed habitus’, developed by boys who reassert their working-class masculine identities as they do not fit well into school despite their academic success. Others are conflicted in their negotiation between their neighbourhood and school, resulting in a ‘destabilised habitus’. Yet the habitus of some is fully aligned with that of the school, and their ‘laddish’ performance of masculinity, contrary to common expectations, helps them to build good relations with teachers that maintain their academic success. The range of habitus supports Ingram’s main argument, which is reiterated in the concluding chapter, that the boys’ relations with schooling are diverse and complicated, and their working-class identities cannot be simplistically reduced to any archetypes. In addition, the framework of habitus interruptions may be useful for other scholars working on youths’ educational aspirations and school-to-work transitions, as their entry to new fields can present challenges to their existing habitus. Although Ingram claims that the primary habitus is generated within the family, the voices of parents or siblings are mostly absent in the book. Their perspectives are instead conveyed through interviews with students. This results in some assumptions being made, such as ‘their parents appear to be very supportive of their children’s education’ (p. 136) and ‘it is probable that his mother’s aspirational attitude . . . ’ (p.164, both italics mine). Hence, it is unclear how the familial space affects the initial working-class identities constructed by the boys, or its effects on their habitus towards schooling and academic success. Nevertheless, Ingram’s book is a valuable work in helping sociologists of youth and education to understand the different habitus of working-class students as they navigate places which devalue their cultures. Researchers may think deeper about how some schools do give weight to working-class students’ cultures. Finally, scholars may be interested in Ingram’s innovative visualmethods (such as getting students to create plasticinemodels and self-directed videos) to analyse youths’ presentations of selves in ways meaningful to them, which can complement the traditional methods of interviews and observations.

中文翻译：

---

美国和俄罗斯的童年和教育：社会学和比较的观点

探索隐性课程，学校文化或教师实践在塑造学生的学习倾向和社会地位中的作用。尽管第5章中的讨论提供了更广泛的背景，但第6、7章对学业成功的男性青少年的身份进行了更加具体和详尽的分析。英格拉姆对他们的采访证实了她提出的习惯性打扰的类型学。由于他们的主要习性和学校领域之间的相互作用，学生产生了多种类型的身份，这在他们新形成的习性中得到了体现。一个例子是“重新确认的习惯”，由男孩重新确立了他们的工人阶级男性身份，因为尽管他们在学业上取得了成功，但他们还不能很好地适应学校生活。其他人在社区和学校之间的谈判中发生冲突，导致“不稳定的习惯”。然而，有些人的习惯与学校的习惯完全一致，他们的男性气概的“过时”表现与普遍的期望相反，有助于他们与保持学业成功的教师建立良好的关系。在最后一章中重申，惯性的范围支持英格拉姆的主要论点，即男孩与学校的关系是多种多样和复杂的，他们的工人阶级身份不能简单地简化为任何原型。此外，由于惯常情况的进入对于新的领域可能会构成挑战，因此，惯常中断的框架可能对从事青年人的教育愿望和从学校到工作过渡的其他学者很有用。尽管英格拉姆声称主要习性是在家庭内部产生的，但本书中大多没有父母或兄弟姐妹的声音。相反，他们的观点是通过与学生的访谈传达的。这导致做出了一些假设，例如“他们的父母似乎非常支持子女的教育”（第136页）和“母亲的抱负态度很可能”。。。（第164页，均为斜体）。因此，尚不清楚家庭空间如何影响男孩们最初建立的工人阶级身份，或其对他们上学和取得学业成功的习惯的影响。尽管如此，英格拉姆的书还是一项有价值的著作，可以帮助青年和教育的社会学家了解工人阶级学生在他们的文化贬值的地方旅行时的不同习惯。研究人员可能会更深入地思考一些学校如何重视工人阶级学生的文化。最后，学者们可能对英格拉姆的创新视觉方法（例如，让学生创建橡皮模型和自我指导的视频）感兴趣，以对年轻人有意义的方式分析年轻人的自我表现，从而可以补充传统的访谈和观察方法。