WordPress.com



APPLYING MATERIAL FROM ITEM A AND YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT ‘WHILE MARXIST AND FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES FOCIS ON SIMILAR ISSUES, THEY REACH VERY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION’ (30 MARKS)As the item correctly points out, Marxist and Functionalist sociologists, (both structural approaches), focus on the way in which the education system functions to pass on a set of values - consensual and capitalist values. Functionalists see the education system as a largely positive force for individuals and society, whereas Marxists generally see the education system as exploitative and negative.To start with, functionalist sociologists have been useful in identifying the role the education system plays in selecting and preparing people for work. For example, Durkheim identified the role of education in creating social solidarity and teaching specialist skills. He argued that the education system helped to transmit a society’s culture- its shared values and norms- from one generation to the next. For example, studying a country’s history creates a sense of shared heritage which reinforces a commitment to the wider social group. Also, education acted as a ‘society in miniature’ preparing pupils for life in wider society. Part of that preparation includes teaching individuals the specialist knowledge and skills they need to take part in their social division of labour. Parsons drew on Durkheim’s ideas, arguing that the school was the ‘focal socialising agency’ which acted a ‘bridge’ between the family and wider society. He argues that this bridge is necessary because particularistic standards judge the child but in contrast, school, and society judge everyone by the same universalistic and impersonal standards. For example, in society, the same laws apply to everyone and in school all pupils sit the same exams. This was, he argues, the education system is meritocratic and prepares its pupils to function in society as society is based on the same meritocratic principles.However, feminist, and Marxist sociologists have challenged the functionalist idea of meritocracy. This is because they believe meritocracy to be a ‘myth’ because success isn’t only achieved in the education system by effort but achievement is often influenced by a variety of factors- class, gender, ethnicity, and labelling (although interpretivists would stress labelling more than other factors).Other functionalists Davis and Moore argued that the education system was a device for selection and role allocation but they focus more on the relationship between education and social inequality. They argue that inequality is necessary in a society because it ensures that the most talented people occupy the most important jobs. For example, it is would be inefficient to have less than able people as surgeons or pilots.However, as the item says, Marxist sociologists reach different conclusions about the functions of education. Structuralist Marxist Althusser for example, argued that the education system was an ISA, a tool used by the ruling class to transmit an ideology which states that capitalism is reasonable and just, whilst preparing pupils for their future role in the workforce. It trains them to accept future exploitation as their educational qualifications match their future work roles. So the future politicians and managers are trained to control the workforce and this legitimises their positions of power in society. Other Marxists Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle illustrated the way in which the school reflected relationships in society. For example, the fragmentation of knowledge into separate subjects reflects the work is fragmented through the division of labour into small meaningless tasks. Also, the extrinsic satisfaction from grades rather than genuine interest in the subjects studied reflects the extrinsic satisfaction from pay rather than doing the job itself. They argue that the education system, through the correspondence principle produces passive, docile workers who do what they are told.Additionally, Marxist sociologists show the way that the education system legitimises and reproduces inequality in society. For example, Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital (the knowledge, values, and norms of the middle class that give them an inbuilt advantage in middle class controlled education system), provides an explanation for the underachievement of the working-class which legitimises and reproduces inequality. For example, national testing gives the illusion of the ‘level playing field’ and the better results of the higher classes justifies their position at the top of society.A strength of the Marxist view of the function of education is that it is useful in highlighting the possible ideological function of education which functionalism doesn’t recognise. However, having said that, the traditional Marxist view has been criticised for being too deterministic. This is because it assumes that all pupils passively accept the hidden curriculum. But Willis’ ethnographic study of the 12 lads showed this to be untrue. He found that the 12 lads rejected both the formal and hidden curriculum and were more concerned with having a ‘laff’ than conforming to the mainstream values of the school. Obviously, people have more free will than traditional Marxists are willing to admit.Also, feminist sociologists criticise Marxists and functionalists for ignoring the role of the education system in passing on patriarchal values which limits the opportunity of girls and helps to produce the next generation of male business leaders.In conclusion, the view in question is one that is highly convincing. This is because it considers the similarities between Marxist and Functionalist approaches and it identifies where they differ. However, Postmodernists would challenge both views of education because they are metanarratives. This is because they argue that the education system transmits one set of values. However, post modernists argue that no one dominant set of values exist in society because social life is largely fragmented so both theories are out of date. However, this criticism is only valid if we are in a postmodernist society. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download