Discuss Marxist approaches to the role of contemporary education

S133848

Education has been a topic widely prevalent in political rhetoric in the late twentieth century. The impact of education on societies of the western world had been widely recognized after the Second World War, when political aspirations of moulding different post-war societies had developed. With this, a focus on the direct influence of education on the future of any economy had come to the forefront of public interest (Sarup, 1982).

Although Marx and Engels themselves did not broadly discuss education, they did form a perspective that has since been widely applied to it. Their perspective offered both a criticism and an explanation of modern capitalist societies (Burke, 2000).

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels (1848) did briefly touch upon education, putting forward the view that a lack of education for working class members of society would inevitably lead them to a laborious, unfulfilling, and unhappy existence. Marx argued for a society which allows its members attainable access to education, and free time in which to pursue it, in order to allow them to become part of the more advanced social organization that he was advocating for (Marx, 1845, cited in Kellner, 2003). Marxist theories that emerged later suggest that education on its own does not prevent inequality and lack of fulfilment for working class people in a capitalist society.

The exclusion of education as a key component in Classical Marxism had later been disparaged. However, the presence of criticism did create a progression of Marxist school of thought, in which Marxists and neo-Marxists refined and amended Marxist theories that recognised the importance of, and influenced, education (Kellner, 2003). In conjunction, education had, since Marx’s time, been recognised as a vital influential factor in class struggle, stressing that is the Capitalist class that moulds and controls the system of education in order to create a workforce that suits its own requirements (Taylor et al., 2000).

Bowles and Gintis (1976), heavily influenced by Marx’s work, found a strong correspondence between social behaviour seen in school and the social structures and behaviours identified in the world of work. Schools socialize children for their future roles in the labour society in that they “immerse children in a structure of rewards and sanctions” (Bowles and Gintis, 2002). Bowles and Gintis (1976) identified that school, like work, is structured in a way that creates dissatisfaction for the people acting within it. Children are then socialized into learning to persevere through unfulfilling occupations for the promise of an eventual reward. Salary, bonus and promotion are examples of rewards in the world of work. Similarly, in school it is the promise of qualifications that constitutes the reward, by assuring its holders better job-opportunities; thus paving a path into the world of work and completing a capitalist-society cycle (Haralambos et al., 2004). Similarly, “wages, grades, and the threat of expulsion all impose external rather than internal motivational systems for work and learning” (Swartz 2003, p.6); the ‘sanctions’ that Bowles and Gintis (2002) refer to.

Bowles and Gintis (1976) propose that there is a ‘hidden curriculum’ within the education system. They identify a covert process in which the system sought to train pupils not only within an academic sphere, but also to internalize ideas and attitudes such as discipline and obedience to authority. They claimed that schools use authority to impose beliefs, ideas, and attitudes onto pupils, thereby disallowing the pupils to take interest in these of their own volition. Taylor et al. (2000) state that the subversive manner in which Capitalism passes its ideologies to children is far more effective than methods such as strict dictatorship, use of force or threats. The ideologies passed on to children by schools in a capitalist society contain within them a justification of the continuous unfairness of capitalist society. Through these ideologies, not doing well in school (and later in work) is to be taken as a personal failure, rather than a result of inadequacies and flaws in the education system and society. By creating the illusion that society and the systems within it really are just and fair, Capitalism ensures the reproduction of its labour power (Taylor et al., 2000).

Bowles and Gintis (1976) detail their perception of the way in which the ‘hidden curriculum’ moulds the personality traits of its future workforce, explaining that the education system rewards certain personality traits over others, and does not, as is implied, reward academic achievement or intelligence. “…low grades were related to creativity, aggressiveness and independence, while higher grades were related to perseverance, consistency, dependability and punctuality” (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004, p. 699).

“What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral. They are determined by the existing relations of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral. They are determined by the existing relations of production, by the economic structure of society” (Burke, 2000). Louis Althusser (cited in Burke, 2000) discusses the concept of knowledge in a capitalist society as a reflection of whatever the ruling class might benefit from at the time. He sees education as one of the ‘Ideological State Apparatuses’: key institutions in society such as (primarily) education, family, and religious establishments that propagate the ideologies of the ruling class to the masses (Althusser, 2001). Burke (2000) claims that the way in which knowledge is shaped to suit Capitalism is not ‘intentionally plotted by the ruling class,’ but rather ‘a natural effect of the way in which what we count as knowledge is socially constructed.’ In this way Capitalism reproduces its own workforce by creating a cooperative army of labour and then shaping it to suit the purpose of the capitalist economy (Burke 2000, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004).

All these claims had contrasted the way in which the education system in America was portrayed. According to Bowles and Gintis (1976, p.4) the expansion of higher education in America during the 1950s and 1960s was primarily due to its promise of better opportunities for individuals who chose to take the path of higher education. Linked in as part of the ‘American Dream’ this path promised equal opportunity for all. The ‘American Dream’ product prevalent in post-World-War-II America illustrated education as a path to developing talents, maximizing the individuals’ potential, promised a prosperous economic future for those prepared to pursue higher education, and promised equal opportunity for all. Bowles and Gintis (1976), however, believed that contemporary education, whilst propagating the notion of equal opportunities, does not actually deliver on its promise. They acknowledge a surplus of students brought about by a “new ideology of opportunity” (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p.3) inundated the higher-education sector, creating within it, among other things, an inability to deliver equal opportunity as promised.

The Marxist perspective Bowles and Ginties (1976) applied defines a Capitalist society as innately unequal. They thus held that while Capitalists are in charge of the way in which education is provided, they will continue to exploit the working class (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). They found there to be deep inequalities within the education system which predominantly disadvantaged the lower class (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). Bowles and Gintis (1976, cited in Taylor et al., 2000) suggested that this perpetual inequality was creating the attitude that success is attributed to upper class people, while failure to lower class. They conclude that this, in turn, exacerbates feelings of alienation for children, guaranteeing continuing exploitation of the future workforce. By shaping a subservient, obedient army of labour that does not question its authority, and by providing a legitimisation of a place at the bottom of the social structure for those who do not excel in school Capitalists create a ‘structured inequality (Haralambos et al., 2004).’

In ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ (1976) Bowles and Gintis offer within their evaluation a criticism of functionalist perspective on education (Swartz, 2003). Functionalism sees the education system as an essential part of society’s homogenizing mechanism: creating a social solidarity in its members for the purpose of preservation of society as a whole living system (Haralambos et al., 2000). Although, like Marxist perspective, Functionalism sees education as a tool of preparing children for their role within an unequal society, it differs in its supposition regarding the purpose of this preparation. Durkheim (1961, cited in Haralambos, 2000) believed that school provided a framework within which children learned to cooperate with other members of society that were not kin or friends, teaching them to interact in a similar way to how they would in greater society when they are older. Swartz (2003) explains that Bowles and Gintis (1976), in Marxist form, saw social class as the cause for divisions and inequality, rather than ‘Weberian status groups’ that functionalism puts forward. Durkehim (1961, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004) saw the education system as meritocratic in that it seeks to reward the best pupils by preparing and moulding them for better jobs. Marxism suggests that this meritocracy is an illusion to justify inequality and claims that education “transmit(s) a dominant culture which serves the interest of the ruling class rather than those of society as a whole” (Haralambos et al., 2000, p. 693).

The model that Bowles and Gintis put forward in ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ (1976) has been subject to much criticism following its publication. Chiefly, the implication that pupils are passive and unquestioning receptacles of the ideologies and ideas that they are taught is claimed, and later accepted by Bowles and Gintis (2002) to be flawed (Giroux, 1984). Paul Willis (1977, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004) took an interpretivist tack, and conducted a study in a school in which he tracked the behaviour and progress of 12 working class boys from the final 18 months of their schooling to several months into jobs. Willis (1977) showed that the group’s behaviour disproved the notion of passive acceptance, claiming that the boys realised that making an effort in school would be immaterial to their inevitable role in the future work-force, and therefore allowed themselves to break rules and make a mockery of authority, creating a ‘counter-school culture’. He found that this group had indeed shown there to be a correspondence between school and work, but in a different way to that supposed by Bowles and Gintis in 1976: Willis (1977) observed that this ‘counter school culture’ developed by the boys yielded contrary ideologies to those intended by the system. These ironically still proved useful for keeping them in working-class jobs (Taylor et al., 2000). Despite the boys’ eagerness to leave school and obtain full-time employment, once at a job their attitudes of disrespect for authority and calculated displays of it did not change (Willis, 1977, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004). This behaviour, according to Willis (1977, cited in Taylor et al., 2000), was a mechanism for maintaining a level of interest and fun in the monotonous and unrewarding jobs that the boys had been socialised for. Bowles and Gintis (1976, cited in Swartz 2003, p.173) had, however, briefly acknowledged that the education system can occasionally produce “misfits and rebels,” particularly encouraged by the rise of university participation in the 1960s.

Further criticisms came from sociologists such as David Reynolds (1984, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004) who agreed that the correspondence between the base (economy) and superstructure (education as a part of) put forward by Bowles and Gintis (1976) is flawed, and added that (at the time) the state was not able to implement full control over individual educational establishments in Britain. This is because many schools had local autonomy, and due to the rise of ‘a large number of radicals […] attracted into teaching” (Reynolds, 1984, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004, p.701).

Rikowski (1997, cited, in Haralambos et al., 2004), however, scrutinizes Willis’ (1977) work by pointing to the lack of diversity within the subject group Willis studied. All members of the group were male, white, heterosexual and fully physically able, hardly representative of society as a whole. Further, Rikowski (1997, cited in Haralmbos et al., 2004) believes that education should be examined from Marx’s concept of labour commodities, in which an individual person’s ability to work is one of the highest commodities in the labour market. This is because of the high turnover of capital that human skill potentially provide for the capitalist class. Education, according to Rikowski (1997, cited in Haralambos et al., 2004), is a key determinant of the skills, attitudes and work-ethic that people will bring to the labour market.

Many offer the insight that it is not only the school’s supposed meritocratic system that determines people’s level of attainment in education and thus their future role in the labour market. Halsey et al. (1980, cited in Harrington et al., 2006) put forth an emphasis on people’s cultural background as an important factor in their achievement in school and work. He argued that the majority of working class children will be deprived of the type of knowledge that is encountered at school, and will therefore have less of an advantage than middle and upper class children that will have exposure to language and knowledge more in accordance with that of school. This, along with the higher likelihood of children receiving private education accounts for working-class children being more likely than middle and working class children to leave school by the age of 16 (Haralambos et al., 2004).

The irony of Marxist perspectives on education offered in the last 50 years is in its contradiction of Marx’s (1845) hope that education for the working classes would liberate them from a life of inequality and drudgery. Many more sociologists than mentioned in this essay have offered critiques of the education system, and of each other’s theories. This is because education and its role within society is ever changing, linking to the politics and economy of the time, offering hope that it will eventually be perfected to Marx’s aspiration.

Word count: 2,294 (including citations in brackets).

References:

Althusser, L. (2001) Lenin and Philosophy and other essays, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2002) ‘Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited’, Sociology of Education [online], Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 1-18, American Sociological Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3090251 [accessed 15th Jan 2010].

Burke, B. (2000) 'Karl Marx and informal education', the encyclopedia of informal education [online] www.infed.org/thinkers/et-marx.htm [accessed 20/01/09].

Giroux, H. A. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Haralambos, M., Holborn M. and Heald, R. (2004) Sociology themes and perspectives, London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.

Harrington, A., Marshall, B. L. and Müller, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of social theory, New York: Routledge.

Hickox, M. S. H. (1982), ‘The Marxist Sociology of Education: A Critique’, The British Journal of Sociology[online], Vol. 33, No. 4, London: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.jstor.org/stable/589362 [accessed January, 2010].

Kellner, D. (2003) ‘Critical Theory’ in Curren, R. R. (ed) A companion to the philosophy of education, Vol. 27, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848, 1992) The Communist Manifesto, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sarup, M. (1982) Education, state and crisis: a Marxist perspective, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Swartz, D.L. (2003) ‘From Correspondence to Contradiction and Change: Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited’, Sociological Forum, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 167-186

Taylor P., Richardson, J., Yeo, A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K. and Pilkington A. (2000) Sociology in Focus, 1st Edition, Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited.

Willis, P. E. (1977) Learning to labour: how working class kids get working class jobs, Farnborough: Saxon House.