Marx and functionalist role of education

Explain the similarities and differences on Functionalist and Marxist perspectives on the role of education.

In this essay I will be explaining the similarities and differences between the perspectives Functionalist and Marxist’s have on the role of education.

A Functionalist perspective on the role of education sees education as contributing in several ways to the continued stability of society. Education has numerous functions (A term used by functionalists to describe the way in which a social institution contributes to the survival and well-being of society. McNeil 2003). These functions include:

The passing on of norms and values to the next generation.
The sharing of culture, creating a sense of identity within a community or society.
The distribution of people to different roles within society.

There is a ‘meritocracy’ where the rewards go to the people with talent and ability and the ones who work for the rewards. Social background is not seen as important, it is accepted as fair by most people because of the teaching of a shared value system. This system lets ‘social mobility’ happen, this is when there is movement between the social classes.

The Functionalist sociologist Parsons (1950s) sees school as an important unit of secondary socialisation, taking over from the family as children grow older. He argues schools provide a bridge between the ‘particularistic’ values, (this is when children are treated as special individuals, and judged differently by every one else outside of the family.) and the ‘universalistic’ values where the same rules apply to everyone.

The Marxist perspective would look at the ways in which schools impress upon a common values system, and would see this as the imposition of a set of ideas that suit the ruling class otherwise ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Marxist perspective would look at the ways in which schools impress upon a common values system, and would see this as the imposition of a set of ideas that suit the ruling class otherwise known as an ideology. Children are taught a set of values that will make them ‘excellent’ workers for the capitalist system. A lot of this is completed through the ‘hidden curriculum’ - the ways in children learn norms and values other than through the national curriculum, e.g. school rules prepares them for rules at work when they are adults. Marxists think that schools and work are linked through the hidden curriculum.

Althusser (1971) saw the main role of education in the capitalist society as the reproduction of a obeying labour force. He believed that this involved two aspects, the reproduction of the necessary technical skills and the reproduction of ruling class ideology.

Another Marxist Paul Willis (1977), recognised that at most secondary schools the students do not obey to school rules, they don’t listen to teachers and that they can be disruptive and challenge the school.

There are similarities between the Marxist and Functionalist perspectives on the role of education. One similarity is that both see schools as playing a role in the justification of social inequality. They are both ‘macro’ theories, they both take into account the structural relationship between education and other parts of the social system like social inequality and class. Marxist and Functionalist theories both see education as accepting to the needs of a capitalist and/or industrial society.

And the last similarity is they both see that the education system has an influence on students, making sure they conform to society’s values and norms.

Both Functionalist and Marxist views are very different too, Functionalists believe education serves the needs of an industrial society whereas Marxists believe education serves the needs of a capitalist society divided into social classes.

Marxist think education serves the needs of capitalism by socialising children into ruling class ideology, leading to an obeying workforce and a stable capitalist society. But Functionalists think education serves the needs of the social system by transmitting shared norms and values to the new generations, leading to social harmony.

Functionalists also believe that education provides a means for meritocracy. However Marxists argue that education influences the reproduction of present class inequalities among generations, and does not create a means of meritocracy for most people.

Another difference between the Functionalist and Marxists views on the role of education is that , functionalists think that education justifies social inequality, as roles are allocates according to meritocratic criteria such as educational qualifications like GCSEs. Whereas Marxists think education explains social class inequality by persuading working class people to accept their lack of potential and control at work and in society as a whole is because of their lack of academic ability, effort and achievement.

To conclude Functionalist and Marxist views on the role of education share some similarities like they both see education as an influence on students to conform to society’s values and norms. And they both have different views on education, functionalists believe education provides a meritocracy among classes whereas Marxists believe there is no meritocracy.

I think Functionalism tries to create a more stable view of education, that it can create meritocracy and that education serves the needs of the social system by teaching shared norms and values to the new generations, leading to social harmony. Whereas Marxism sees that capitalism and the ruling class use education to make others conform to how they want society to be, and creating obedient members of society to conform to the ruling class ideology and therefore helping a capitalist society survive.

WORDS: 867