Assess the Marxist view on the role of education in society

by col111 (student)

Marxists have many different theories on the role of education in society. These theories are the ‘hidden curriculum’ which was found by Bowles and Gintis (1970), reproducing the working class workforce which was studied by Willis and that education is a Ideological State Apparatus which was found by Athusser. However, each of these theories can be criticised for factors such as being unable to generalise the study, feminist’s beliefs and disregard of gender ethnicity and culture, etc.

One way in which Marxists believe the role of education in society is to teach pupils the ‘hidden curriculum’. This is where pupils are informally taught things such as norms, values and beliefs. This was found by Bowles and Gintis (1970) through their study ‘Schooling in capitalist America’. The hidden curriculum is said to teach motivation to pupils by trying to encouraging achieving good grades. This is then used when the pupils leave school as they are motivated to work hard to attain a wage. It also teaches people to accept the hierarchy. It does this by teaching the pupils about authority and power relationships. This then leads to the pupils believing that they should follow the instructions of a person with more authority them such as the police. Also, the hidden curriculum teaches Subservience. This is where pupils follow instructions for a authority figure without any questions and then rewarding or punishing them for good and bad behaviour. This leads to pupils behaving in an acceptable way as they will be rewarded for it. However, this theory has been criticised as due to the ‘hidden curriculum’ not being taught formally there is no proof that it actually exists. Also, it could also be criticised as the study that they did was only a representation of America so therefore does not take into account gender, ethnicity, culture, etc.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Marxists also believe that the role of education in society is to reproduce working class workers. This was found through Willis’ (1970) study ‘Learning to Labour’. In this study he followed 12 working class male students, which he named the ‘Lads’. He used observations and unstructured interviews to do this. From this study he found that the ‘Lads’ had a counter school culture. This is where the values and beliefs held by the ‘Lads’ on subservience, motivation and acceptance of hierarchy were completely opposite to those held by the school and capitalism. It also showed that the ‘Lads’ purposely failed their exams so they could land the jobs that they had always wanted manual labouring in a factory with their old school friends with very little responsibility. The conclusion of this study was that education may not always offer perfect workers for capitalism but does not however mean that the education system has failed them as it has produced the working class workforce. This view is criticised as the study could have had the Hawthorne effect as the ‘Lads’ could have lied on the interviews and acted differently whilst they were being observed. Also, as the sample cannot be generalised as the sample is small. Feminist may also argue that the study is unrepresentative as Willis ignores females so is more a study of gender rather than working class.

They also believe that education is an Ideological state apparatus, which is where the ruling class control the way that the working class think by using these apparatus, such as religion and education to pass on ruling class beliefs. Athusser (1970) took on a non research based approach towards the study to help argue this. He was then led to believe that education has become a large part of society and replaced religion on its importance to society. He also argued that the working class were forced to fail so that they would then take on working class jobs with low pay and status. He also believes that the ruling class He also believes that the ruling class He also believes that the ruling class are instantly taken on at universities where they are then trained to take on their ruling class roles in society. In conclusion he found that all of these factors led to the reproduction of social class inequalities. However, Athussers study could be criticised as being unreliable due to it only being theory work and therefore lacking in evidence.

Although some Marxist views on the role of education in society, Bowles and Gintis (1970) belief of the ‘hidden curriculum’, Willis’ belief of reproducing the working class and Athussers belief that education is a ideological state apparatus, share the idea that it is in place to benefit the ruling class by.

Emily Cole