Coming from a working class, single-parent family based in the estates of Wolverhampton, it is obvious that Willis’ personal commitments and empathy for the ‘lads’ are a definite influence on his work. Do they negatively influence or perhaps, limit his work though? Bessett and Gualtieri in their article ‘Paul Willis and the Scientific Imperative: An Evaluation of Learning to Labour (2002)’, assess the strengths and weaknesses of the in-depth ethnographic approach. Paul Willis’s work has its criticisms. ‘One comes from the subfield of sociology of education (Macleod 1987)(p.74)’. ‘Jay Macleod argues that Willis’s sampling prevents him from isolating the structural forces such as educational tracking, the structure of vocational training and limited opportunities for social mobility, in the reproduction of class. Because Willis focuses mainly on the ‘lads’, his abstract acknowledgement of institutional forces at work pales in comparison to his detailed account of cultural production (p.74)’. Macleod is saying that Willis should have included in his investigation accounts of other groups within the educational institution such as girls or conformist sub-groups who were more proficient in academic achievement to provide a well-rounded and neutral look at the advantages of the different forms of education. Macleod believes that Willis’s weakness is his focus. Bessett and Gualtieri counter with ‘because of the trade-offs that a between-groups comparison would require (sacrificing depth for a comparative case due to financial and time limitation, potential loss of access to the ‘lads’), and because he is able to show the importance of culture through the use of the ‘lads’ alone, he chooses to forego this kind of explicit between-group comparison (p.76)’. It could be suggested that the Macleod argument is somewhat shallow and misguided. Willis involved himself with the sub-culture of the ‘lads’ not to scrutinize the education system specifically, but rather, to grasp the reasoning behind the construct of the ‘counter-culture’ within the outer educational framework.
Paul Willis overcame his social class restrictions via education. It is also evident in his writing that there is the possibility of escape from social class. Willis adopts a typical Marxian view when analysing social class and education. It is an optimistic view. However, there are conditions. One must conform to the required behaviours and norms that are expected and posted by authoritative figures amongst the institutional culture of education and schooling. Understandably, the role of the teacher carries a great deal of weight in the utilization and effective achievement of educational outcomes. In ‘A Sociology of Educating (2007)’, Meighan and Harber say ‘Paul Willis (1977) argues that the authority of teachers is not merely a consequence of their being given control over pupils by the state, but must be seen as part of a collection of assumptions about what education entails, an educational paradigm. Teachers control use of space, property and time, dictate the rules of interpersonal relationships, and, most importantly, see and represent themselves as controllers of what is implied to be the scarce and valuable commodity of knowledge (p.330)’. There is the possibility of being a severe culture clash between teachers and pupils in a classroom setting, hence, the creation of the ‘counter-culture’ which will be summarized in the next theme of this essay. The conformity to school rules and regulations is an absolute necessity. Of course, a relationship such as this is fluid in its structure in both directions as pointed out by Meighan and Harber: ‘Man can, and classical Marxists are quite clear on this point, affect his development and his surroundings as well as being affected by them (p.333)’.
It is the role of the teacher to bridge the gap between an individual pupil’s background and social experience and that of the doctrines of the educational institution. Although ‘Willis has a serious allegiance to progressive causes and a preoccupation with male defined needs (Mcfarland & Cole, 1988, p.199)’, he is not necessarily seeking to alter the existing educational system, but rather, to investigate why certain sub-cultures are failing, and more specifically, why they voluntarily fail. Willis could be considered an expert on the subject, due to his own lived experiences and his research based ‘penetrations’ into the ‘counter-culture’ construct. Armaline & Farber (2000) consider this in their article ‘Reconsiderations’: ‘this ‘penetration’ into the ideology of schooling efficacy and the deep structure of socio-economic functioning was not so much a conscious insight as a lived experience, a felt, sensed experience reinforced by working-class culture in general and family and neighbourhood life in particular (p.164)’. Further on in their writing, Armaline & Farber display an objective of rectifying the role of the schooling system applying, even somewhat manipulating, the teachings of Paul Willis to their advantage: ‘We think the messages of Willis and Weis can be used to conceptualize reform beyond mere reintegration of students into an objectifying and dehumanizing social enterprise devoid of social vision rooted in the concern for participatory political and economic democracy. We also believe it is our responsibility as educators and citizens to engage in this reform debate by infusing the insights of the likes of Willis and Weis not only into our own writing and teaching, but also into the broader public discourse (p.167)’. On the other hand, they do note that Paul Willis is concerned with the role of the teacher within the educational context of social relationships and delivery of information: ‘Willis saw the authority of the teacher based on an exchange, a trade-off of official knowledge for respect, guidance of control (Willis, 63-64). Within that exchange, the teacher (any teacher) was seen to occupy a higher position due to superior knowledge and held the key to a series of other exchanges in which the student was supposed to take part (p.163)’. To venture a guess, Paul Willis may have come across some exceptional teachers in his rise through the educational ranks.
What does Paul Willis say about the development of sub-cultures due to education? Focussing on the white working-class, Willis examines particular factors within an educational setting that carry an adverse effect and thus, cause the creation of non-conformist sub-cultures, represented by his term, the ‘counter-culture’. There is a general irony in the way in which the ‘lads’ relate the ‘shop-floor’ to school and rather than utilizing the latter to avoid the former, end up working in industrial, low-paying jobs. ‘The lads perceive themselves as having full control over their futures and existence. The observation that lies at the heart of ‘Learning to Labour’ is their resistance to conformity eventually leads them to the shop-floor, which paradoxically, is what they feel superior to (Gordon,1984, p.106)’. The source of the clash between authority and the ‘counter-culture’ are the lived contradictory elements of the institutional framework faced by non-dominant cultures. It is Willis’s ‘penetrations’ that measure the clash. Liz Gordon provides the definition: ‘Willis uses the term ‘penetrations’ that are impulses within a cultural form towards the penetration of the conditions of existence of its members and their position within the social whole (1984, p.108)’. Willis always alludes to the fact of the importance of social life, as in the life outside of school, and its relations to the lived life within the school. Once again, Meighan and Harber are at the forefront of Willis’s beliefs: ‘the important theoretical point that Willis establishes is that the exploration of pupils’ school experience cannot be made simply in mechanistic terms of their being conditioned and constrained by the system. Rather, it has to take into account a realization that attitudes and conduct in social life (including that of the school) are not mechanically reproduced but are the product of an interplay between: 1) The dominant ideologies and interests of institutions. 2) Those contradictory features and expectations associated with such institutions. 3) That degree of autonomy of individuals which has been created by their active engagement within or upon institutions and which arises from the consciousness that the individual carries from his or her own cultural setting into institutional life (2007, p.333)’.
The social consciousness of the ‘lads’ is another point of significance for Willis. Are they aware of their position within the social whole? ‘It is the fragmented and individualized ways in which young people construct their identities that is of key significance (Shildrick & MacDonald, 2006, p.127)’. The ‘lads’ reject the school system and relate it to a feminine existence, enhancing the masculine self-expression that they feel defines them. Of course, this contradicts with the ideologies of the school and thrusts them into a direct pathway of shop-floor and working-class culture, which, as mentioned before, they feel superior to. Walker writes in his article ‘Rebels with our applause? A Critique of Resistance Theory in Paul Willis’s Ethnography of Schooling (1985)’: ‘The members of the counter school group are thus prepared for the capitalist workplace in two ways: First, by rejecting the intellectual offerings of the school they identify their masculinity with manual as opposed to mental work, thus destining themselves for a blue-collar proletarian future. Secondly, by rejecting the authority of the school they prepare themselves for participation in working-class resistance to management in the workplace (p.64)’.
Unfortunately, the standard educational curriculum does not teach the workings of the ‘capitalist forces (Griffin, 2000, p.169),’ that constitute its inner framework. Such a lack of social insight on the part of the ‘counter culture’ leads to its ultimate demise in terms of career success for the members of the sub-culture. Willis’s emphasis on the social culture in parallel with the education system is based on this theory. Here is where the Marxist optimism surfaces, success, no matter how difficult to achieve, is down to the choice of the individual. ‘Instead of getting caught up in learning what is in the curriculum, students often spend their time, energy and concern handling face-saving interactions, or developing social identities and practices that are, paradoxically, both revolutionary and self defeating (Paradise, 1998, p.274)’.
There is no question that Paul Willis’s work has had a massive influence on education. The ways in which his research helped to connect a lost culture (white working-class boys) with the education system are second to none. Was Willis aware of this at the time of writing? Did he know that ‘Learning to Labour (1977)’ was going to be as groundbreaking and revolutionary as it has become? Personal motivation has certainly been a key characteristic of the Paul Willis personality. He almost seems to be searching for ways in which the individual, every individual, will take the responsibility of learning and achievement into their own hands. From reading his later work ‘The Ethnographic Imagination (2000)’, his writing seemed to appear as contrived or ‘over the top’, probably because there was not such a clear cut motivation for writing it. ‘Learning to Labour’, on the other hand, had an objective; a purpose; a mission: To provide an account for a group that had dropped out of the moral consciousness of society.
In their study ‘How Personality and Gender May Relate to Individual Attitudes Toward Caring for and About Others (2009)’, Ruf and Radosevich aim to ‘investigate whether there are identifiable innate differences beyond high intelligence among people who do or do not experience empathy and feelings of altruism toward people in need (p.207)’. They list Debrowski (1964) as an influence based on the suggestion that ‘a propensity for advanced moral development comes from a base of particular response patterns within the highly intelligent (p.207)’. Does this relate to Paul Willis? He most certainly displayed these characteristics in his work. As the authors note, ‘perhaps high intellectual level is important, but perhaps additional personal characteristics are necessary for a caring, altruistic or empathic approach to the needs of others (p.207)’. This insinuation would be the most relevant to Willis, as his personal motivation for this level of empathy in his work would have been due to the personal experiences in his social and educational upbringing.
To highlight the influence of Willis’s work, the following is a research article completed by Collier et al (2003) titled ‘Who Plans to go to University? Statistical Modelling of Potential Working-Class Participants’. The article looks at the influential factors that cause adults (16 – 30) from lower-middle and working-class families to attend university. ‘The study suggests that policies for widening participation in HE (higher education) may need to take more account of personal motivation, attitudes to university education and competing responsibilities (p.239)’. As previously shown, Paul Willis stresses the importance of outside factors in the study of the ‘counter-culture’. Interestingly, ‘there is no difference in plans for males and females, nor any age effect, nor any significant difference amongst the ethnic groups used (p.252)’ in plans to attend higher education. Willis believes that personal motivation needs to be encouraged, even raised from the individual by influences from within the social and cultural world. After all, he irrefutably targets the social relations and connections of the ‘counter-culture’ and the member’s peer groups, which are proved by the conclusion of Collier et al: ‘In addition to having appropriate educational qualifications for university entry, the profile of a ‘typical’ potential working-class participant would be a young person who believes he/she has the ability to pass a degree and is prepared to postpone earning money to go to university. They are likely to have received considerable encouragement, especially from their families (p.259)’.
‘The models imply that an effective strategy for widening participation in higher education may require rather more than increasing the number of available degree places for suitably qualified candidates. It points to the importance of earlier formative experiences, primarily in educational contexts but also within the family, in developing self-belief in one’s capacities and abilities, positive attitudes towards education and studying, and the fostering and encouragement of personal motivation to continue in education (Collier et al, 2003, p.260)’.
Just like the ‘lads’, I identified with Paul Willis. I hail from a similar background and upbringing and share many of his beliefs. Seeking to become a school teacher myself, I had a personal curiosity into the insights of Willis towards the subject matter displayed throughout the themes discussed in this essay. The themes of structure and institution, social class and the creation of sub-groups, all within the framework of Education Studies, link cohesively with the work and influence of Paul Willis. During the introduction, I challenged you, the reader to consider personal motivation throughout the key themes. By doing this, did it change your perspective at all? A high degree of personal motivation allows for an individual to conquer any hurdles they face in the achievement of their objectives. Paul Willis displayed a great deal of personal motivation to reach his goals. Can you now relate to his optimistic view of education?
Word Count: 3154.
Bibliography.
Armaline, B. & Farber, K. (2000) ‘Reconsiderations’, Book Review of Paul Willis’s “Learning to Labour”.
Bessett, D. & Gualtieri, K. (2002) ‘Paul Willis and the Scientific Imperative: An Evaluation of Learning to Labour’, Qualitative Sociology, 25(1).
Collier, T. Et al (2003) ‘Who Plans to go to University? Statistical Modelling of Potential Working-Class Participants’, Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(3) pp. 239-263.
Gordon, L. (1984) ‘Paul Willis – Education, Cultural Production and Social Reproduction’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(2) pp. 105-115.
Griffin, C. (2000) ‘Discourses of Crisis and Loss: Analysing the Boys Underachievement Debate’, Journal of Youth Studies, 3(2) pp. 167-188.
Mcfarland, J & Cole, M. (1988) ‘An Englishman’s Home is his Castle? A Response to Paul Willis’s “Unemployment: The Final Inequality”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(2) pp. 199-203.
Meigan, R. & Harber, C. (2007) A Sociology of Educating. 5th edn. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Paradise, R. (1998) ‘What’s Different about Learning in Schools as Compared to Family and Community Settings?’, Human Development, pp.270-278.
Ruf, D. & Radosevich, D. (2009) ‘How Personality and Gender may Relate to Individual Attitudes Toward Caring for and About Others’, Roeper Review, 31 pp.207-216.
Shildrick, T. & MacDonald, R. (2006) ‘In Defence of Subculture: Young People, Leisure and Social Divisions’, Journal of Youth Studies, 9(2) pp.125-140.
Walker, J. (1985) ‘Rebels with our Applause? A Critique of Resistance Theory in Paul Willis’s Ethnography of Schooling’, Journal of Education, 167(2).
Willis, P. (2000) The Ethnographic Imagination, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour. How Working Class Kids get Working Class Jobs, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Limited.