Randall Collins is one of the most well-known critics of the functionalist theory of education. He blames the functionalists for bringing stratification in schools in the form of Status Groups (Collins, 1977). Status groups are associational cohorts in which individuals share the same culture, value or background (language, religion, tastes in styles for instance). The concept of status had previously been introduced by Karl Marx who saw a capitalist class (dominant) and a working class (dominated), and Max Weber who mentioned the conflict and struggle between status groups. Based on the inputs of these two sociologists, Collins points out the weakness of functionalism. He refers to the conflict theory to emphasize the inequality of social groups, especially when it comes to education (Collins 2004). Conflict theory looks at why and how conflicts exist in our society and what effect it has (Collins, 1993). Collins argues that school teaches status culture in its hidden curriculum because schools are controlled by the dominant group that expects its values and views to be accepted by students. In addition, since formal education (training is school) is considered for job-related placement, employers use those standards to hire their staffs (Collins, 1977). Consequently, only those who are able to be in that dominant status group at school have a chance to hold high positions in the future.
Although Collins adequately describes status culture and its inequality in society, he does not communicate how schools actually teach status culture. Additionally, he mentions a type of ‘hidden’ curriculum but he fails to explain what it means precisely and how it affects students. These are a few limitations in Collins’ theory. Let us now look at another concept that was introduced by Bourdieu.
The French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu also rejects the functionalist theory. Like Collins, he sees a dominant and dominated society. However, he does not believe that schools reflect the dominant society (Bourdieu, 1973). For him, schools are relatively autonomous and do not follow the power of the dominant elite. It is more subtle than that. He states that schools are institutions—among many others—where social, cultural, economic and even academic matters are reproduced to symbolize what he calls cultural capitals (Bourdieu, 1973). He presents three fundamental types of capital: Economic capital, Cultural capital, and Social Capital. For him, all these three capitals can be convertible into money/economy and be institutionalized in different ways. Economic capital can be institutionalized in the form of property rights, cultural capital in the form of educational qualification, and social capital in the form of title of nobility (Bourdieu, 1973). Bourdieu believes that school success is based on the cultural capital that we receive from our family and not necessarily by individual talent or achievement. In other words, we all have capitals. It is like a baggage we carry with us. Some have more capitals than others (based on what their family exposed them to), and thus, they have higher capitals. Therefore, they probably have a higher chance of succeeding in school (Bellamy, 1954).
Bourdieu (1973) adds that Cultural capital can occur in three states: the embodied state (like long lasting dispositions), the objectified state (such as cultural goods), and the institutionalized state (like education qualification). In any case, he strongly believes that this cultural capital is transferred by schools through instruction methods such as meritocracy and the curriculum design (Bourdieu, 1973). Collins had mentioned the hidden curriculum a bit, but Bourdieu is the one who explains it in more detail by illustrating how schools teach the superiority of a particular form of high culture (distribution of knowledge, classroom interaction, and process of educational experience). Overall, Bourdieu’s main ideology is that the institutionalized forms of cultural capitals found in schools help reproduce social relations outside it. If that is the case, critics of his theory have a hard time understanding how he can claim that schools are autonomous.
Let us now move to a concept that sees things a bit differently. Gintis and Bowles (1981) propose a correspondence theory that presents a link between the school system and the nature of work. They claim that aspects of work correspond to features of the education system. For instance, the way discipline is taught in schools is similar to what is expected at work. Self-image or social class identification are some examples for this (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In addition, the relationship between members of schools is similar to the relationship between members of a workplace (the faculty is organized by hierarchy, teachers have authority over students, older students are seen as superior than younger ones). Furthermore, the division of labor found in school is also reflected again as a rule by employers. Those who did not do well in school will have lower levels of work with little responsibly where they will do simple repetitive tasks. On the other hand, those who did well will have higher levels of work (Gintis & Bowles, 1981). This aspect comes back to what Collins explained: formal education is considered for work placement. Gintis and Bowels go further by explaining how not only is educational training considered for job placement, but it is even expected to mirror the same standards.
The principal of contradiction is worth mentioning when talking about Bowles and Gintis’ concept of correspondence theory. Indeed the failure of correspondence between schools and the production of capitalism may be observed. For example, the situation of people who get higher education but fail to find jobs illustrate this contradiction. The two social theorists also mention that there is a site of social practice. It is basically a unified place of social life characterized by social structures (Gintis & Bowles, 1981) and they are “all sites in capitalist social formation” (p. 49).
Bowles and Gintis were deeply criticized. They wanted a more equal society but did not seem to think that school could change society. Although they both criticized the system where school reproduced class inequality, they were both part of the system since they were graduates of Harvard University. In addition, their theory was considered too determinist because they saw teachers to be the means of capitalism and students to be victims of the system; but in reality all teachers and all students do not fall in this category. Moreover, as opposed to what they claimed, it is argued that formal education does not necessarily mirror what is expected in the job market. In fact, there are complaints about how school does not teach the required skills that are needed for jobs.
Another renowned theorist in the field of school and society is Basil Bernstein who is at the macro-level analysis. He illustrates the importance to look at the way children interact and speak in order to view socialization at its best. He therefore focused on speech and presented the difference between elaborated codes and restricted codes (Bernstein, 1973). Elaborated codes are usually used by middle and upper class families where mothers (or the significant other) focus on both the speech and the act of what the child has done. On the other hand, restricted codes only focus on the act of the child: for example a parent from a working class will say “don’t do that!” to his/her child who did something wrong, but will not explain why. According to Bernstein, family is the primary socialization agency. Therefore, children who have access to elaborated codes at home will do better in school because that is the code used there. In order to resolve this, Bernstein proposes to give more resources (such as books, computers, or funds) to schools in poor areas so that they can inculcate an elaborated code. One can criticize that this would not help much since the children will go back home anyways, where they will be exposed to restricted codes. Another criticism that Bernstein received is how he does not really describe who the parent/significant others is. In addition, the way he sees working class children as deficit system of society is critiqued. Also, he talks about working class and middle class but he does not describe what class is exactly. All we know is the he sees those classes as two standardized groups, but is everyone in a class the same?
This is the end of part 2. Now, check out Part 3.
All references will be added on part 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment