The purpose of education viewed from a sociological perspective.

The purpose of education viewed from a sociological perspective.

"Sociology is the study of societies and the way that they shape people's behaviour, beliefs, and identity." (Fulcher and Scott, 2001, p.4) Within sociology, there are three main theoretical perspectives; the conflict perspective, the structural-functionalist perspective and the symbolic interactionist perspective. Through these varying outlooks of society, we are given an understanding of the "different perspectives with which to view our social world." (Mooney et al, 2012, p.8). However, the concept of society socialising individuals into the norms and values of the wider society, is a complex issue, as socialisation is a process that occurs in many different environments. It could be argued that the education system is one of the most important agents of socialisation, as in today's society, the schooling system is mandatory and therefore experienced by all children. This essay will seek to explore the conflict view of society, paying particular attention to how a proponent of the conflict theory would view the purpose of the education system. However, before exploring the purpose of education in more detail, it is important to first establish what the conflict perspectives are.

The conflict theory, originating from Karl Marx, is a macro sociological theoretical perspective; a perspective which "analyses the structure of different positions in a population and their constraints on social relations." (Alexander et al. 1987, p. 71) A macro sociological perspective therefore places the emphasis on external limitations within society and the effect that this has on the members within it. However, unlike the macro sociological perspective of structural functionalism, which views society as unprejudiced and one that "operates based on meritocracy" (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p.12), the conflict theory places the emphasis on an individual's position within the social system and the "ability of dominant groups to impose their will on subordinate groups through force, co-optation and manipulation" (Sadovnik, 2007, p.6). Conflict theorist, Karl Marx, viewed society as a two class system; the capitalist bourgeoisie and the working class proletariats. Marx initially developed this theory of class differences through a frustration he felt upon witnessing "the treatment of poor peasants denied firewood by wealthy landowners." (Matthewman et al,

Page 1 of 7

2007, p.133) He would therefore argue that the bourgeoisie, or the ruling class, are the dominant within society, and maintain the greatest amount of power through their ownership of means of production (Fulcher and Schott, 2001, p.605). They then use this power to "oppress and exploit the class of non-owners" (Fulcher and Schott, 2001, p. 605), also referred to as the working class, or proletariats. As Fulcher and Scott recognise, this oppression is due to the way in which the proletariats can only earn their money through obtaining employment from the bourgeoisie, which maintains this cycle of division, thus enforcing inequality.

One could argue that the conflict model of an elitist society can be applied to education. As stated by Ballantine and Spade, "a major Issue for sociologists of education in the conflict tradition is the role education plays in maintaining prestige, power and social and economic position of the dominant groups in society." (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p. 2) Whilst it is difficult to confine education to a comprehensive definition, for the purpose of this essay, it is important to understand education in a narrow sense, whereby through the formal education system, "knowledge, character and behaviour of the young are shaped and moulded" (Prof. Drever, quoted in Singh, 2008, p.7.). Through recognising this idea that the education system `shapes' or `moulds' a child's behaviour, it is important to apply the implications of the conflict theory, as the underlying messages that are being given to children through the formal education system will contribute to the way in which their personalities are shaped and their contribution to society as a whole.

Conflict theorists would argue that the purpose of the education system is to preserve and maintain class based inequalities and oppression within society. As Meighan and Harber recognise, school "preserves class-based inequality, without the foundation of this inequality being brought into serious debate; it both preserves and legitimates this inequality" (Meighan and Harber, 2007, p.313.) In our seemingly democratic society, where education is intended to be a path to equal opportunity, regardless of a child's socio-economic background (Department of Education, 2015), it could be argued that rather than reducing inequality, the

Page 2 of 7

education system reinforces it. The conflict perspective argues that the education system is structured to serve the interest of the dominant classes in society, and disadvantage those that are lower on the socio- economic hierarchy. This can be recognised through the existence of public and state schools within British education. One could argue that the presence of this variation in schools is an elitist system in itself, as it is determined primarily by wealth and social status. If the department of education is focussing prominently on creating a society in which "opportunity is equal for children and young people" (Department of Education, 2015), then the argument remains as to why fee-paying public schools remain, as places within these schools are based purely on economic wealth, rather than meritocracy. This argument of education serving the needs of an elitist society is supported through recent statistics outlining that "54 per cent of Conservatives MPs attended fee paying schools... This compares to just seven per cent of people in the country at large." (Garner, 2010) This clearly demonstrates how individuals within prestigious job roles, and have the power to influence the progression of society, are primarily from upper class backgrounds, and will therefore represent the needs of the powerful, dominant groups within society, thus supporting the idea that the education system serves the needs of the elite.

Whilst acknowledging that the structure of the education system arguably reflects that of a capitalist society, conflict theorists pay particular attention to the structure of the curriculum within schools themselves and the portrayal of class- based inequality in both the formal and hidden curriculum. The term `hidden curriculum' was first acknowledged by Philip Jackson in 1968, whereby he "explored what he saw as the disconnect between what is overtly taught in educational institutions and what pupils actually learn." (Bailey et al, 2013, p.192) Therefore, conflict theorists would argue that the hidden curriculum is used as a method of instilling the acceptance of hierarchy in society and preserving elitism. However, whereas structural functionalists would argue that this presence of hierarchy is required to "facilitate the smooth functioning of society" (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p.9), conflict theorists recognise that instilling this acceptance of hierarchy through education is merely a way to

Page 3 of 7

justify "an ideology that serves the interests of the rich and instills in students a sense of `false consciousness'" (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p. 12). The Marxist idea of `false consciousness' underpins the idea that proletariats are made to feel that the hierarchical differences within society are based on merit, rather than predetermined class related differences. When applying this to education, Karl Marx would argue that "students in schools learn to accept the myth of meritocracy, that all have an equal chance of achieving" (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p.12). It could be argued that this presence of "false consciousness" is prominent not only within the hidden curriculum, but preserved through the formal curriculum also.

The theories of the conflict sociological perspective can arguably be recognized through the formal school curriculum. As acknowledged by Bernstein, "associated with the organization of particular social groups are distinct forms of spoken language." (Bernstein, B, 2003, p.46) Bernstein argued for the existence of an `elaborative' and `restricted' code that is present among speech patterns of individuals. Whereas the elaborative code "facilitates the verbal elaboration of subjective intent" (Bernstein, B, 2003, p.46), the restricted code refers to a "limited form of language-use" (Bernstein, B, 2003, p.46). This means that within the language used by society, there are "social codes" (Ballantine and Spade, 2007, p.21) that effect progression of individuals from a certain socio-economic backgrounds. Bernstein argued that education systems within Britain communicate the curriculum in a way that disadvantages working class students and places middle to upper class students at an immediate advantage, through the use of the elaborative code in which they have acquired through communicating with their parents (Bernstein, B, 2003, p.111). When applying this to modern day education, an example of Bernstein's code theory could be through the acknowledgement of language used in the classroom. The way in which educators communicate the curriculum could arguably reflect the language of those who have acquired the elaborative code which disadvantages those who are lower in the socio-economic hierarchy. To further support this, research outlined in the guardian identified that "a fifth of

Page 4 of 7

children in Britain qualify for free school meals. Just one in 100 of those children get to go to either Oxford or Cambridge University." (Dorling, 2014) This statistic demonstrates how children who are lower in social class, and have acquired the `restricted code', are therefore disadvantaged in terms of their academic achievement and as a consequence are not able to progress within academia as much as those who are from a higher socio-economic background. Bernstein's argument of social codes ultimately supports the conflict perspective of society as it argues that the purpose of education is to place the elite within society at an advantage within the education system, which then allows them to progress to the more prestigious roles within society and thus contribute to the reproduction of class inequalities. To conclude, this essay has explored the concepts of the conflict sociological perspective, and recognised how society creates and maintains hierarchy with the intention to uphold an elitist and capitalist society. It has also demonstrated the ways in which a proponent of the conflict perspective would view the purpose of education as a way of preserving these class based inequalities in order to put the upper classes within society at an academic advantage, so to lead them to the most prestigious societal roles.

Word Count: 1645

Page 5 of 7

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download