Durkheim argues that in complex industrial societies, the school serves as a function, which cannot be provided either by family or peer groups. Membership of the family is based on kinship relationships and membership of the peer group is based on one’s personal choice. Being members of these two societies contribute to a very small part of the society as a whole. Durkheim feels that individuals must learn to cooperate with those who are neither their kin nor their friends (Haralambos and Heald, 1980). He saw modern society as composed of interdependent individuals specializing in particular tasks that required the individuals to maintain contractual relations with one another.
The school plays the role of providing the skills necessary for such interactions between individuals. In school, a student must interact with other members of the school community in terms of fixed set of rules. This experience prepares a child for interacting with members of the society as a whole in terms of society’s rules (van Krieken et al., 2000). Thus Durkheim was right in conceding that economic cooperation alone could not ensure a society’s stability; there also had to be some consensus about the society’s goals and how to achieve them (McNall and McNall, 1992). The school, according to Durkheim, played the role of imparting such knowledge to the students.
Finally, Durkheim debates that education teaches the individual specific skills necessary for his or her future occupation. Thus schools are seen as a major mechanism for role allocation, since they by evaluating students, match their talents and skills to the jobs they are best suited for. Thus there exists a specialized division of labor whereby various specialists combine to produce goods and services. Thus schools transmit both the general values which provide the necessary homogeneity for social survival and specific skills which provide the necessary diversity for social cooperation (Haralambos and Heald, 1980).
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis:
Bowles and Gintis were American economists who published their views about the nature of education in their popular book ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’. Unlike the functionalist approach taken by Durkheim, this theory is based on the view that groups within existing societies have fundamentally different interests. Bowles and Gintis argue that the major role of education in capitalist societies is the reproduction of labor power (van Krieken et al., 2000). They state that the economic role of education is not so much the reproduction of technical skills needed by the economy, nor the selection and grading of individuals in terms of their talents and abilities. Rather it is to relate its social structure to the forms of consciousness, interpersonal behavior and personality it reinforces and fosters in students (Haralambos and Heald, 1980).
Bowles and Gintis argue that social relationships in schools replicate the hierarchical division of labor in the work place. They propose that the student’s lack of control over work in school reflect his or her future situation in the workplace. Lack of personal involvement and fulfillment in schoolwork results in alienation from work in later life. Thus they conclude that individuals are prepared for their work roles by a close correspondence between the social relationships which govern personal interaction in the work place and the social relationships of the educational system (Haralambos and Heald, 1980).
Finally, Bowles and Gintis examine the relationships between education and occupational rewards. They reject the claim that higher qualifications result in an individual obtaining a highly paid job. They argue that the main factors accounting for occupational rewards are the individual’s class of origin, race, and sex. Thus, Bowles and Gintis conclude that the intellectual abilities developed or certified in school make little causal contribution to getting ahead economically (Haralambos and Heald, 1980).
Hence, Bowles and Gintis viewed educational system as a means of promoting inequality in the society. This is because educational attainment as well as occupational reward is based on merit. Education creates the belief that those at the top deserve their privilege and those at the bottom have only themselves to blame.
Having established the principles of the two theories, we can now compare and contrast them in relation to the above statement. Durkheim was of the view that education acts as an important agent which helps in the subsistence of social order. Education helps in the transmission of norms and values but many critics view these as norms and values of the ruling class and not those of a society as a whole (McNall and McNall, 1992). Durkheim was of the opinion that transmitting these norms and values will help promoting the students of the lower class to learn skills and values of the ruling class. Thus, this provides an opportunity for these individuals from the lower class to interact with those of the ruling class. This provides an opportunity for interaction of individuals from various backgrounds and this eventually results in social order.
However, Durkheim does not believe that this education can act as a base of promoting inequality among the society. Although the norms and values transmitted are those of the ruling class, by conveying these values, the gap is narrowed between the ruling class and the lower classes (Hebding and Glick, 1992). Thus, although Durkheim agrees with the first part of the statement, that education is necessary for the production and preservation of social order, it doesn’t agree with the latter part of the statement. This is because, Durkheim views education as a means of closing the gap between the ruling and other lower classes, thereby shattering the term “privileged” class. Although Durkheim considers education itself as a privilege by which an individual’s future job placement is decided, it is not to be maintained that the educated individuals are more privileged than the ones who are not. This is because Durkheim was of the view that an individual can be educated at any time and by the transmission of the norms and values of the ruling class, an individual from a lower class can also become a member of the ruling class.
In sharp contrast, Bowles and Gintis agree with the latter part of the above statement but are not very delightful about the first half of the statement. They agree that education paves the way for the way the society functions, but they do not necessarily agree that it is the best possible way for a society to persevere. Bowles and Gintis view education as a method of promoting inequalities in the society. They consider that this inequality based on race, gender and class which results from education is cleverly masked by the term “merit”. The illusion of meritocracy established in schools leads to the belief that the system of role allocation is fair and just. Thus the education system reduces the discontent that a hierarchy of wealth, power and prestige tends to produce. Thus they openly reject that education would provide a society of equals, and hence agree that education acts as an agent for the preservation of status of the privileged in the society. According to them, an average White male is more educated than an average Black male and this results in White male holding higher paid jobs than that of Black males.
They also argue that White males generally come from better family conditions than that of an average Black male, and this plays a major role in the level of attainment of education as well as jobs (Haralambos and Heald, 1980). Thus they conclude that although education plays a role in the maintenance of existing social conditions, where, we accept the inequalities that exist in the society, it is not necessarily the best way for a society to function. However, they agree that education does play a role in the division of the society based on wealth, power and education, thereby providing a platform for the survival of a status or class oriented society.
Thus, we have discussed two theories which consider the nature of Western schooling from very different perspectives. Durkheim’s approach was more functional whereas that of Bowles and Gintis took an approach from an economic perspective. Although both the theories are contradicting of each other in most aspects, they agree with one another in that education is a key element which plays a dominant role in shaping the society. Although Bowles’ and Gintis’ approach have attracted many criticisms, Durkheim’s theory is also not fully accepted. It is now accepted that education does produce inequalities among the members of the society, also, as Bowles and Gintis claim the inequalities exist due to one’s own actions. Thus, as Durkheim portrayed, any individual can attain education as long as he or she tries to attain it and thus ascend to the level of ruling class. Until this happens however, there will always be a fissure amongst those in the ruling class and those of other classes in the society.
Thus although education is not the only factor responsible for inequalities in our society, it plays a major role in distinguishing individuals from one another based on the level of education attained. Although several studies have been carried out by sociologists to understand the nature of education and schooling, it is not possible to conceive the nature of these with the help of a single theory. A number of theories must be reviewed carefully and future research is required to understand schooling and education completely. We reviewed a couple of such theories in this essay to try and comprehend what we can from them about education. Although there exists a number of differences between the two, both of them serve their purpose of providing a fair explanation about the nature of education and schooling.
Bibliography:
Allen, J., “Sociology of Education”, Social Science Press, 2001.
Giddens, A., “Sociology”, Polity Press, 1989.
Gittler, J. B., “Review of Sociology”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957.
Haralambos, M., & Heald, R., “Sociology Themes and Perspectives”, University Tutorial Press, 1980.
Hebding, D. E., & Glick, L., “Introduction to Sociology”, McGraw- Hill, 1992.
McNall, S. G., & McNall, S. A., “Sociology”, Prentice Hall, 1992.
Smelser, N. J., “Handbook of Sociology”, Sage Publications, 1988.
VanKrieken, R., Smith, P., Habibis, D., McDonald, K., Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M., “Sociology”, Longman, 2000.