Introduction
Nelson Mandela once said, “Education
is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” But how are
we supposed to change the world when our school systems fail to offer the
possibility to be creative, to question matters or to encourage social change? The
purpose of this article is to describe the link between prominent sociological
theories and the school system. I will start by giving a short historical background
and will introduce the functionalist theory on stratification. Second, I will contrast that model with the
works of theoreticians such as Collins, Bourdieu, Bowles and Gintis, and
finally Bernstein. In this section, I will discuss the key message of their theories,
how they differ or relate to each other, and what types of criticisms they have
received. Lastly, I will demonstrate how the socialization process affects
school-work, school achievement and the social status of the individual. For
that, I will focus on Mead’s Socialization Theory and show how it relates to
the other theorists mentioned above. In this segment, I will also present a
real-life example to illustrate how all the different social models presented
in this article affect schooling till this date.
1945, one of the worst wars in our world’s
history has ended. New prosperity returns; It’s time for a new life, new homes,
new families, new beginnings. Soldiers are coming back home and hope is being
restored and. Birth rates peak from the late forties to the fifties: The baby-boomers
have arrived. As economic expansions arise, changes in society and in education
follow. Indeed, the high numbers of
children that are born need to go to school. Governments, churches and the
community in general have to find space for all of them: Mass education is
created.
Although school was open to all,
success was not necessarily possible for all. Functionalism became the accepted form of social standard. This
meant that only limited numbers of students could be well-trained to be able to
have successful careers. The Functionalist theory was concerned with stability
rather than social change. It viewed society like the human body (Strawn,
2009). It has different organs and each plays a certain role so that the whole
system works to maintain health. Hence, according to functionalists, school and
society had to have that type of objective too. School will teach children a
certain knowledge and value so that they have a specific place in society when
they grow up. Then, as adults, they shall function based on that knowledge they
acquired. This way, a stable and healthy society is maintained (Strawn, 2009). The
functionalist theory of education is built upon Davis and Moore’s general
theory of stratification which claims that one need a particular kind of talent
to hold a professional position and that position can only be filled by
individuals who have the required training or people that are skilled by nature
(Davis and Moore, 1945). Therefore, individuals with low skills will have low
jobs and people with high skills will have better careers. Only a few people in
society can attain high positions since it requires more talent, more training,
and thus more time. Therefore, people that manage to get this preparation
should be entitled to gain rewards that pay back for their sacrifices (Davis
and Moore, 1945).
The Functionalist theory has been
widely criticized throughout the years. Many theorists view it as a system that
only benefits a few—mostly the upper class—and promotes social inequality. In
an attempt to counterattack this, theorists like Collins, Bourdieu, Bowles/Gintis,
and Bernstein have condemned this concept. Let us look at the focus of their
theories and the differences between each.
This is the end of part 1. Now, check out Part 2.
All references will be added on part 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment