Bowles and Gintis believe that education is not a meritocratic but class based system. They acknowledge that success is not totally related to intellectual ability. They believe that the pupils who adapt, conform and challenge the system are more likely to succeed. This is more often than not, the middle class white pupils.
Although Bowles and Gintis and Althusser raise very good points, they were criticised. The main criticism is that there was a lack of research. They were also criticised for not taking into consideration the misbehaviour in class. Foucault (1976) stated that the minority is controlling the majority. Bowles and Gintis were criticised for ignoring the formal curriculum and subjects such as sociology and the humanities which encourage all pupils to question the world around them and form opinions.
Paul Willis (1977) is an interactionist. He focuses on the individual in society and social action. He was not a Marxist but he conducted a study in 1977 ‘Learning to Labour’ which applied the Marxist theory. His study focused on two subcultures in the same school. ‘The Lads’ were a group of working-class boys aged 14-16 who wanted to do factory work when they left school. They wanted to work in a factory as they often had a number of relatives working there as well and they saw it as a satisfactory career. Their behaviour was often disruptive and unconformative. They had simple humours and were often abusive to girls. The second group of boys which Willis studied was ‘The Lobes’. These were boys of a similar age to ‘The Lads’. Willis named these boys ‘The Lobes’ because they listened attentively in class as they wished to become skilled and join apprenticeships. They were conformative, respectful and obedient. From this study, Willis observed that there was a division of culture being created, and different types of conformity existed. The behaviour of each subculture reflected their future employment.
Paul Willis criticised Bowles and Gintis and Althusser, saying their theories were both deterministic. He believed they both saw pupils as passive products of the educational system and failed to take in to account their ability to overcome problems. This supports Foucault’s criticism of the theories and highlights the existence of docile ‘teacher’s pets’.
Bourdieu (1977) is a neo Marxist. He opposed the functionalist view that all children entered education on a level playing field and came out of school through the ‘neutral sieve’. He believed they entered on different levels due to class. Bourdieu believed that people of the upper middle class acquire more capital culture. Capital culture is the opportunities that a child gets to pre-educate themselves before school. For example, visits to museums and access to books and the internet. Bourdieu believes that the higher your culture is at home, the easier you will integrate at school. He criticises this as he believes the ruling class try to keep the working class from achieving, by stereotyping capital culture as their own. This is most apparent with art galleries and museums. Although they are both free, it is seen as a day out or a trip for the ruling class only. This idea of capital culture works to the benefit of the ruling class through the education system. Bourdieu also highlights habitus. Habitus is the way in which the upper middle class would ‘play the game’. By this I mean, for example, a parent of an upper middle class child would use their grammar and education to make a good impression on the teacher. Whereas, a working class parent may be scared to meet the child’s teacher due to bad past experiences, therefore, a good impression would not be made. This would work to the ruling class’s advantage yet again.
Bernstein argues there are two types of linguistic culture, the elaborate and restricted codes of speech. He believes the middle class have the ability to use both codes. In school, a child may use the elaborate code but whilst with their peers, change their culture and use restricted codes such as nicknames etc. However, a working class child may only be able to use the restricted code of speech as they haven’t been educated to use the elaborate code. This puts the working class children to an unfair advantage. These two codes of speech act as an advantage to the ruling class.
By examining the Marxist theory and their studies, I believe that education does benefit the ruling class. This has been demonstrated by Althusser, Bowles and Gintis, Bourdieu, Bernstein and Willis. It has also been demonstrated through theories such as cultural capital, linguistic culture, habitus, and the ‘neutral sieve’. I agree with what most of the Marxist sociologists say as I also believe that the ruling class ideologies are filtered down through education, when things could be made more meritocratic.
