How Does Marxism Explain the Role of Education in Society?
How does Marxism explain the role of education in society? The sociology of education is the study of how public institutions and individual experiences affect education and its outcomes. It is most concerned with the public schooling systems of modern industrial societies, including the expansion of higher, further, adult, and continuing education. Education has always been seen as a fundamentally optimistic human endeavour characterised by aspirations for progress and betterment.
It is understood by many to be a means of overcoming handicaps, achieving greater equality and acquiring wealth and social status (Education and Sociology 1992). Education is perceived as a place where children can develop according to their unique needs and potential. It is also perceived as one of the best means of achieving greater social equality. Many would say that the purpose of education should be to develop every individual to their full potential and give them a chance to achieve as much in life as their natural abilities allow (meritocracy).
However some take a particularly negative view, arguing that the education system is designed with the intention of causing the social reproduction of inequality and creating a workforce for society. One of the main sociological approaches that use theory to explain the role of education is Marxism. The Marxist perspective is critical of the educational system, arguing that it is unfair, and serves to coerce people into accepting their “roles” in an unequal society. The concept of the ‘hidden curriculum’ is key in the understanding of the Marxist perspective.
Order custom essay How Does Marxism Explain the Role of Education in Society? with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
The aim of the hidden curriculum is to socialise young people into accepting the role assigned to them by the capitalist class. It is argued the teachers subconsciously deliver this ‘hidden curriculum’ making pupils aware of the respect and obedience that should be given towards the established organisation [Karl Marx, 1983]. As well as this, subtle skills such as time keeping and organisation are taught. In introducing these skills from a young age, society will accept them as norms and not question there status in society.
The correspondence principle is a theory used by Marxists to explain how much of what we learn in school is preparation for our future roles as workers is in capitalist society. Many sociologists who support this principle argue that education is just a means of maintaining social class boundaries. Many argue that schools in capitalistic societies are geared toward giving children different types of education based solely on their social standing rather than by their inherent skills. Under this principle schools are believed to give lower class children a different type of education compared to their upper class counterparts.
Typically, it is said that lower class children are put on an educational track that will prepare them for ‘blue collar’ jobs. It is thought that the education of lower class children is different because it prepares them to enter the work force directly after secondary school. Schooling teaches working class children to sit quietly at their desk, obey the teacher’s authority, and also acquaints them with becoming familiar with repetitive tasks. Similarly, the education of upper class children is thought to be geared toward upper class or ‘white collar’ professions.
With upper class children, instead of focusing on preparing them to enter the workforce, there is added emphasis is on preparing them to move on to four year colleges and universities after secondary school. Here they are trained to be professionals and capitalists by teaching them how to think critically and instilling in them a sense of responsibility and authority [Frank M Howell 1982] Louis Althusser was a structural Marxist who, through the influences of Karl Marx, introduced the concept of an ‘ideological state apparatus’.
He argued that economic relations structure education so as to reproduce these same economic values into teaching. He went on to state that education is part of the system of the reproduction of labour power. Schools work to ensure that those who are to do the work will do so co-operatively, out of the belief that the situation is just and reasonable. From this point of view, the failure of so many pupils in schools is not a failing of the system but actually what the schooling system is designed to do. Working class children, who opt out, fail, or find schools alien, are indications that schooling is working successfully.
Thus, education is not designed to develop human potential, but to limit it. The correspondence principle (Bowles and Gintis 1976) takes this point further stating that education introduces the acceptance of hierarchy and motivation by external rewards. For example; teacher says, pupil does; boss says worker does. Hierarchy comes into place in the form of the teachers roles e. g. head, deputy head, head of year, head of department etc. Many pupils are not interested in the subject knowledge they are taught are school, the only reason that have for going to school is to get exam passes i. e. an external reward.
This prepares us for the world of work where we do not work for the love of the job but for the wage. Thus what happens at school corresponds to what happens at work. There are several examples present in today’s society that support Marxist theories of education. The introduction of the Youth Training Schemes (YTS) in 1983 [online] is one of these. Known as ‘on-the-job training courses’, these YTS represented ‘working class’ and job specific qualifications for the needs of capitalism. Another example of such schemes are General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQ’s) which are now know as NVQ’s.
Such courses are said to favour the working classes as the structure is mainly coursework based. Many of the courses involve hands on learning which again, teach the hidden disciplines needed to work for the capitalist society and prepare a skilled work force. The Class biased system of education is shown by league tables and examination results and the principle of student loans represents the way in which the disadvantaged (working classes) are ‘priced’ out of the system. In conclusion of the Marxist perspective, it is clear they take a very critical approach on the education system.
The promotion of ruling class ideologies through institutions such as the education system is seen to supress the working classes keeping them conformed to the norms and values of society. The teaching of these values at a young age means fewer questions are likely to be asked and the capitalist society can continue to work as it does, for the benefit of the economy. A second sociological perspective that takes a different view on education is that of functionalism. This is, in contrast to Marxism, a non-conflict approach. Functionalists believe that the education system has three main functions.
Firstly it socialises young people into key cultural values such as equality of opportunity, competition and religious morality. Education is said by functionalists (especially Durkheim) to emphasise moral responsibilities in society that people should have towards each other [Education and Sociology 1922]. If these norms were not passed down through generations then there would be a tendency for individualism (where people believe that they are more important than social groups). An example of how education goes about promoting these values is through the subjects that are taught.
Citizenship and religious education were introduced as compulsory subjects in schools to see that young people did things with thought for the society. The second function is to do with the skills that education teaches children, from literacy and numeracy to more job-specific skills. Occupational jobs are becoming more specialised and this in turn will lead to more years in education. The final function of education, according to functionalists is the allocating of roles of young people in society. Examinations and qualifications are said to allocate people for their most suited job.
The equality of opportunity took place and so higher talented people are given the most functionally important jobs for the society. Emile Durkheim is one of the main influential and well known functionalists. He stated that ‘society can survive only if there exists among all its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child, from the very beginning, the essential similarities that collective life demands’ [Education and Sociology 1922]. Homogeneity is defined as the quality or state of being of the same or similar nature having a uniform structure throughout [online].
Durkheim saw sociology as a science and concentrated on the study of social facts rather than what motivates the actions of individuals. He argued that education has many functions; to reinforce social solidarity in subjects such as history (learning about individuals who have done good things for the many makes an individual feel insignificant) and through the pledge of allegiance in America (making individuals feel part of a group and therefore less likely to break rules); to maintain social role (school is a society in miniature. It has a similar hierarchy, rules, and expectations to the "outside world. It trains young people to fulfil roles); and to maintain division of labour (school sorts students into skill groups, encouraging students to take up employment in fields best suited to their abilities) [Education and Sociology 1922]. Although many of these points are similar to that of Marxism, the functionalists look at the positives of such class divisions. Two more perspectives that challenge the views of Marxism are Interactionism and Feminism. Interactionists take a micro approach looking at what happens in the classroom environment, specifically pupil and teacher interaction.
They also concentrate on the way teacher expectations and perceptions of pupils can affect the life chances and educational chances of pupils. Whereas Marxists and Functionalists tend to focus on the structural sides to society, interactionists examine the relationships between the education system and the individual. This sociological group place a strong emphasis on labelling theology. Hargreaves, Hester and Mellor (Deviance in Classrooms 1975) studied how pupils became typified and classified. They conducted their study in two schools by interviewing teachers and observing in class.
They found that teachers have a limited knowledge about their pupils when they first arrive at school, so they speculate, using the information that they already have, such as the pupils’ appearance, how far they conform to discipline, and their enthusiasm for work. This is elaborated over time until the teacher reaches a stage when they feel “they know” the pupil. It is therefore a gradual process that changes over time. Through this process the teacher can have an important influence on the progress of their pupils.
It can affect the attention and encouragement a pupil can receive. The self-fulfilling prophecy follows on from the stereotyping and subsequent labelling of pupils. This theory argues that predictions made by teachers about the future success or failure of their pupils will tend to come true. The teachers’ interaction with their pupils will be influenced by the labels that they have attached. If a pupil has been labelled by their teacher as a potentially bright student they may receive extra encouragement to attain the higher marks.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) tested the validity of self-fulfilling prophecy. They discovered that teachers’ expectations could significantly affect their pupils’ performance The feminist perspectives generally focus on how education promotes patriarchy and a ‘male dominated’ society. There are many different branches within feminism such as liberal, radical and Marxist feminists however they all share the view that the education system is very male orientated and that women are socialised to conform to this dominance thus supressing them.
Some of the more radical approaches go as far to say that ‘patriarchy will only end when women are freed from the physical and emotional violence inflicted by men in the classroom and the playground’ [online] In conclusion, the Marxist approach takes a very critical view of the education system arguing that is merely reinforces inequalities in society. They go on to state that in teaching a ‘hidden curriculum’, the system is only in place to create a dominant and trained work force to work for and fit the needs of the capitalist society.
From a young age children begin to be shaped to fit these societal needs and are made to believe that their place in society is already decided for them through norms and values. In conforming to what they believe is normal, societies avoid anomie and complete social collapse as well as keeping the social classes from rising above their stations or asking questions. In contrast to such a negative outlook on the education system, functionalists look at how the teaching of norms and values creates social solidarity where shared beliefs bring together all classes.
Interactionists take yet another view exploring the concept of pupil to teacher interaction and how labelling can shape behaviour. Finally, feminists take the view that the education system works in favour of males in giving them a higher status in the economical market thus justifying the suppression of women. References -Bottomore, Tom; Goode, Patrick [1983] ‘Readings in Marxist Sociology’ Clarendon Press (London) -Durkheim, Emile [1895] ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’ 8th edition, trans.
Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964 edition) -Durkheim, Emile [1956] ‘Education and Sociology’ Macmillan Publishing Co. , inc. & Collier Macmillan Publishers (London) -Howell, Frank M. ; McBroom, Lynn W. (1982), SOCIAL RELATIONS AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE, 55, American Sociological Association -http://socyberty. com/education/the-functions-of-education-according-to-functionalists-and-marxists/#ixzz1HN8LoWUv [accessed on 13. 3. 2011] -http://socyberty. com/education/the-functions-of-education-according-to-functionalists-and-marxists/#ixzz1HNLMioDC [accessed on 9. 03. 2011] -http://www. educationforum. co. uk/sociology_2/functionalist. htm [accessed on 9. 03. 2011] -http://www. le. ac. uk/education/resources/SocSci/zoe. html [accessed on 9. 03. 2011] -http://www. marxists. org/glossary/people/a/l. htm [accessed on 9. 03. 2011] -http://www. thestudentroom. co. uk/showthread. php? t=185151 [accessed on 13. 03. 2011]
Cite this Page
How Does Marxism Explain the Role of Education in Society?. (2016, Dec 19). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/how-does-marxism-explain-the-role-of-education-in-society/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
