Macrosystem

The macrosystem influences the nature of interaction within all other levels of the ecological model. It includes social organisation, belief systems, and ideologies that underlie particular cultures and subcultures (Bronfenbrenner, 2005a). The

macrosystem also incorporates the impact of events or transitions over the course of an individual’s life (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Elements that are particularly reflected in this level of Bronfenbrenner’s model include resources, lifestyles, opportunity structures, and life course options that are embedded in a particular culture at a particular time (Bronfenbrenner, 2005b). In respect to the current research, these aspects could be seen as those that shape the wider context in which an individual is able to develop his or her talent. The macrosystem also promotes the behavioural blueprints and societal attitudes that define social class, and the opportunities and challenges associated with socioeconomic status.

Societal values, perspectives, and attitudes shape conceptions of giftedness and, in this sense, giftedness is widely viewed as a social construct (Borland, 1997; Sapon- Shevin, 1996). This conception posits that what is valued by a particular culture at a particular time determines what constitutes giftedness and talent (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Sternberg, 2007; Subotnik et al., 2003). Borland (2003) states that giftedness is invented not discovered, outlining that this phenomenon is not a pre-existing entity. He argues that concepts of giftedness acquire their properties through social

interaction rather than the accumulation of facts. What is seen as eminence is decided upon by those who judge the product, and the realisation of gifted potential is reliant on the support of the social milieu (Albert, 1992; Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). Sapon-

Shevin (2003) states that the line of definition is drawn around aspects such as values, beliefs about children, intelligence, education, and the cultural and economic context.

In relation to minority or disadvantaged groups, Clark (2013) suggests that the views and beliefs of society about what constitutes giftedness or talent can be restrictive. The way that giftedness is conceptualised greatly influences who is given

opportunities to succeed and who will have greater and lesser opportunities to contribute to future society. There are long standing views that gifted programmes are more accessible for the wealthy or well positioned, and that schools recognise and favour middle class values (Sapon-Shevin, 1996; Thrupp, 2008). This results in gifted education maintaining unfair cultural advantages (Ambrose, 2002; Sapon- Shevin, 1996).

Adding to this, different cultures evaluate their own members and members of other cultures in terms of their own conceptions of intelligence (Sternberg, 2007). What one culture values as intelligence or giftedness may not be valued as highly in another culture. Subordinate groups within the wider society can also be viewed as having their own specific cultures, and this includes individuals and families who fit into different socioeconomic brackets. Talented but disadvantaged individuals could well remain unrecognised as long as we insist on identifying and cultivating only those whose talent types are valued by the dominant, advantaged culture, or who reflect dominant group identity and ideology. Sternberg (2007) claims that when cultural context is taken into consideration the recognition and support for talented

individuals is improved. However, with the gap between socioeconomic groups in New Zealand widening (Ministry of Social Development, 2010; St. John & Wynd, 2008), it is likely that people will be increasingly socialised into specific roles and to develop mindsets based around socioeconomic groupings.

Bourdieu (1997) provides a useful framework for considering the acceptance of individuals into professional and social elites with his theory of cultural capital. According to Bourdieu, cultural capital comprisesa person’s knowledge of or access to cultural resources. Capital consists of values held by families that are handed on to their children over generations, much like an inheritance (Brooker, 2002). These may exist as beliefs that shape goals, attitudes, and development, and are influenced by economic, symbolic, cultural, and social factors. Capital can be representative of levels of ‘power’, ultimately used for ‘negotiating a place’ in social contexts (Gibbons, 2002). The sometimes unfamiliar or threatening capital those from low socioeconomic circumstances bring with them can result in others positioning them at the lower end of this scale. Likewise, their own perceptions can have an effect on where they fit in terms of this assumed power in new social contexts.

Coleman (1988) outlines the concept of social capital, which emphasises the nature of social ties and community values. Social capital exists within families,

neighbourhoods, and communities and is linked with social ties and networks that set the norms for behaviour within these settings (Bourdieu, 1997; Brooker, 2002;

Coleman, 1988). Social norms are created out of the social structure of a community, and these norms in turn reinforce the social structure (Renzulli, 2003). The social structure and level of social capital in low socioeconomic communities may not be as cohesive as that in more wealthy communities for a variety of reasons. As a result, gifted individuals from lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods may not be explicitly encouraged by their immediate communities to develop or utilise their talents for the good of the greater community. This may differ amongst different cultural groups, however. For example, as mentioned earlier, Bevan-Brown (2011) argues that there is an expectation within Māori culture that gifted individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status, should ‘give back’ to their respective communities.

Ambrose (2002) believes that larger sociopolitical frameworks allow socioeconomic deprivation to prevail, and that this results in discrimination for gifted young people who live in these conditions. He states that the segregation and stigmatisation of lower class groups produce consistent patterns of anxiety and defeatist beliefs, which lead to a general recognition of inferior status. Thrupp (2008) highlights the need to recognise that low-income families typically hold an inferior social class position within society. The perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and power relations prevalent in class culture outweigh issues such as a lack of material resources and other factors that add to lower achievement amongst individuals from these circumstances. Barriers embedded within sociopolitical frameworks suppress the ability to develop aspirations and, as a result, actual talent potential can remain unrealised.