The Marxists perspective originates from the works of Karl Marx (1818-1883) who was a German sociologist and philosopher. Marx collaborated with Friedrich Engels to work on the theory of capitalism. Both were subject to deportation for their work. Marx and his family lived in extreme poverty as they were forced to relocation financially crippled him. There are many variations of Marxism and many within Marxism do have contrasting views, but the ideology of social equality is universal.
The very first form of socialisation one would encounter would be within the family. Curtain behaviours are promoted and curtain behaviours are not. Social control is created by the guardian or parent in order for the child to be accepted into society. If a child where to deviate from the norms created by their parents they may be punished, informal control is the only form of control a child may understand. Some children may be enrolled onto a nursery or playgroup to help the child to socialise. However, in the UK the first form state funded education is the ‘foundation years’ this is also the first two years of compulsory education. The foundation years are where the child would first socialise outside the family.
From a functionalist perspective, socialisation in education helps the child develop social norms to create a value consensus. Socialising in schools helps a child to be integrated into society. From Marxists perspective socialisation in education is idealistic and that divisions in social class would be represented in peer groups. Middle class children would only socialise with other middle class children. Value consensus according to the functionalist teaches children norms and values but Marxists would argue the ruling class creates the norms and values taught. The working class are shown there place through value consensus according to the Marxist. Factionalist view of socialisation suggests there are no influences with who children socialise with and all children disregard social class. However, there is a large correlation with bullying and social class this contradicts the functionalist ideology of unity (Due, 2008). Robert Merton an American sociologist referred to this by-product as a ‘latent dysfunction’ and that the function of socialisation had negative effects on society (1949). Marxists views contradicts that of the functionalist, socialisation in education is where the working class are shown there place as obedient workers. The functionalist theory suggests that socialisation in education is fair, but the conflict theory suggest social class will dictate socialisation.
A varying contrast of careers exist in society, sociologist have long debated how careers are distributed. Functionalist Davis and Moore (1967) argue education helps isolate the most talented; the highest paid jobs are often ones that require the most talent. This form of role allocation is fair as all high paid jobs act as an incentive, more people will complete for them resulting with the most talented succeeding. Marxists argue that ‘role allocation’ maintains social divisions, the ruling class decide who gets what job. Marxists contradicts the functionalist because they argue roles allocated are unfair, it is used to create a subservient workforce. Cultural sociologist Paul Willis studied 12 working class male students and found that they were not obedient but in fact, they had created their own counter culture (1977). Willis found social mobility was non-existent with the students he observed. However, Willis ignored how culture and gander could affect ones role allocation. Functionalist say role allocation is fair and necessary, Marxists say it is a means to control social mobility.
Many highly paid jobs require curtain educational training; a general practitioner would need to complete 5 years of medical schooling before working. The Office of National statistics found that people with degrees earned £12,000 more per year than those without (2011). According to Functionalist, the education system is fair; if an individual works hard they have earned better jobs. American sociologist Talcott Parsons whom developed on Durkheim’s views, suggest that education is a part of a meritocracy (1961). Parsons argues that education implements values of competition, supports individualism and equality; people who do not work hard do not deserve better jobs. Marxists disagree and call meritocracy a ‘myth’. Children from working class families tend have similar jobs as their parents. Marxists Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that meritocracy is an illusion of opportunity and equality. Bowels and Gintis found that meritocracy did not reflect on IQ results (1976). Statistics from the National Pupils Database found that pupils eligible for free school meals where less likely to achieve five or more GCSE’s (NPD cited in Poverty 2009/10); this study suggest schooling may not be equal and fair. Bowles and Gintis suggest that capitalistic society needs a ‘reserved army of skilled labour’; this is in order for the ruling class to maintain superiority. This is because the ruling class can treat the working class as disposable and replicable. Functionalists believe the inequalities in society exist because people have not tried hard enough however, Marxists says the ruling class creates the inequalities in society.
What is taught in school is heavily debated; currently the compulsory national curriculum in the UK consists of English, Maths and Science at GCSE. One could enrol upon many curriculum areas. The national curriculum consists of many vocational courses but many vocational courses require a lower entry requirement then academic courses. Functionalists believe vocationalism is necessary, as someone must fill jobs within those criteria. Marxists have been critical of vocational schemes as they promote the idea that the ruling class receive an education and the working class receive training.
Functionalists believe norms and values of society are implemented implicitly through the ‘hidden curriculum’. Lessons that are taught that are not formally intended fall under the umbrella of the hidden curriculum. Pupils can be punished for poor punctuality; functionalists suggest this informal control prepares students for the work place, as punctuality is a paramount pillar for a functioning society. Marxists Bowles and Gintis argue that the hidden curriculum produces a subservient workforce that not just promotes hierarchy but encourages acceptance of hierarchy. Students are told what to do by the ruling class to prepare the working class for the work place. Functionalists disagree because if order is not maintained it creates anarchy, so some form of discipline must exist. Bowles and Gintis (1976) suggest the hidden curriculum creates passive docile students that are ‘rewarded externally’. They use the ‘jug and mug’ analogy as students have knowledge poured into them reducing interest in schooling. According to Bowles and Gintis, the hidden curriculum assists the ruling class in creating passive docile students. A study by Paul Willis suggests this is true, the 12 working class students he observed shown lack of interest in education and were motivated by external rewards (1977). Functionalists argue that the hidden curriculum is essential as it creates value consensus but Marxists say it prepares pupils to be subordinate to the ruling class.
Marxists and Functionalists contradict another in many ways. Marxists explain how the world should function and point out the negatives. Functionalists see how the world is and say the world will sort out its own issues. Much critique is placed on the lack of evidential studies that lack biased opinions. Both do explain society in a structural view and do not explain the huge contrast in individualism. Functionalists viewpoint is considered to be conservative and Marxists are considered to be liberal. As both theories lack substantial evidence or studies, they lack validity so there for both theories can only be classes as a sociological viewpoint.
Reference Index
-
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
-
Davis, K & Moore, W. (1945) Some Principles of Stratification. American Sociological Review, Vol. 10
-
Due, P (2008) Socioeconomic Inequality in Exposure to Bullying During Adolescence: A Comparative, Cross-Sectional, Multilevel Study in 35 Countries, vol. 99, no.5, APHA Press
-
Office of National Statistics (2011) Graduate earnings over the last decade. Available: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/graduate-earnings-over-the-last-decade/2011/graduate-earnings-over-the-last-decade.html. Last accessed 19th November 2012.
-
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
-
The Poverty Site. (2010) Educational attainment at age 16. Available: . Last accessed 19th November 2012.
-
Merton, R. (1949) Manifest and Latent Functions California: California Press
- Parson, T. (1961) Theories of society: foundations of modern sociological theory. vol 2. Michigan: Free Press of Glencoe.