Role of Education in Shaping Social Structures - Essay Example

Role of Education in shaping Social Structures Name Institution Role of Education in shaping Social Structures Many scholars have made numerous attempts to determine how education affects social structures over time. Different researchers have come up with varying opinions but mostly they all point to one thing that education whether acquired formally or informally changes the experiences of the people. The system that the subjects undergo redirects their modes of perception and by extension enable them test the limits of opportunities (Meyer, 1978). But how fairly the benefits of education are distributed to the society is a different issue altogether. One may pose a question, “when a group gains out of this noble system does it have a detrimental effect on another and if yes to what extent? And if the same group gains mileage of the system is it possible for the merits to trickle down to the community at large?” In the words of economists, it is difficult to tell if education bores positive or negative externalities to those who do not acquire it. The write up herein tries to evaluate this proposition, by basing it on the context of how social structures are subconsciously formed. The specific basis of reference shall be the role education has played in defining and redefining the social structures. Then, a proposition will be formulated in a professional manner based on reviewed literature on whether education has helped to close the gap in social inequality or it has operated to widen that gap. The protagonists of the traditional view approach the subject matter by paying attention to socialization that education exposes certain members of the society to. Based on this position a number of explanations are put forward. They argue that those who attend schools gain new forms of orientation. In this regard, this group of people has a better bargaining power to reach higher positions as opposed to their counterparts who do not attend schools. This view does not go deep into the details of the kind of school attended nor the kind of training gained and the effect it has on the social competencies gained. What it purports is that a person who has participated in the school set up has certain attributes that are distinguishable from those who have not. The expectations of such a person automatically get a notch higher and the societal view on his/her stature is changed once and for all. He/she becomes a person identifiable to a different class from one he/she subscribed to before undergoing the education system. Such uniqueness creates social classes based on inequality features brought about by the learning process (Jenks et al. 1972). The process is replicated in the family line in that a child born of educated parents automatically subscribes to a class that is different from that of its counterpart who hails from an uneducated couple. The opportunities of the later are much limited and the chances of shifting classes are limited by other inherent factors such as scarce resources since uneducated parents have few alternatives of access to wealth and property. Researchers of the traditional socialization model have also applied the tools of economists to study the effect of individual education to the society in general. According to economic theory of market externalities the act of one person can have an impact on other players in the system even though they did not participate directly in the act. Where the impact is beneficial that is classified to be a case of positive externality (Shogren, & Taylor, 2008). For example, a farmer may have a very beautiful orchard. His neighbours will enjoy looking at the beauty at no cost on their side and at no detriment on the side of the owner – positive externality. On the other hand the impact can be harmful to the third parties and this is a case of negative externality. In view of this model, the competence of the person participating in education system can be evaluated against the progress of the society. Though little study has been directed to this view, there is still enough evidence to suggest lack of willingness from the educated to guide social progress. There is little correlation between a changed people and a transformed social structure. Instead pundits have highlighted that overly educated people in a society create anarchy and the society becomes unstable politically, socially and even economically. Rather than being the initiators of the entire modernization process of the society they become ‘kings’ with their self acclaimed kingdoms and demand high status treatment from the lesser exposed members of the society (Stinchcombe, 1968). It is simple then, to point out to some form of negative externality originating from education. Sadly the uneducated suffer intimidation and contempt out of a system they did not participate. Another proposition of the traditional socialization model examines the relationship that subsists between early exposure to knowledge and the status finally acquired by the person in adulthood. The difficulty with this approach is centered at the conditions that for it to hold any water in analyzing social structure then, first, the socialization experience acquired must pass the test of time. And two, the competencies so acquired must be reflected in the effectiveness with which the person executes duties and responsibilities at later stages of life (Michel, 1971). However, research studies suggest otherwise. Numerous empirical studies have persistently indicated that the attributes gained at the early participation to education programs do not have much say in the occupational success of the beholder. Low correlation has been reported between education level and status at adulthood. Many people have been unable to replicate their heroic success in education with practical success in their areas of specialization. This suggests that the many socialization outcomes that are eminent in the short-run fail to stay long enough to shape life and status in the long-run. In other words mere participation to the schooling system is not a passport to social and economic prowess. In light of this argument therefore, this theory contradicts the previous two (Berg, 1971). On its part it tries to water down the role of education in producing inequality in the society. But, even with this kind of an explanation there is still preponderance of arguable evidence to suggest that once social classes are created at early stages of societal development, such are likely to remain in the long-run. People whether or not capable of demonstrating their academic abilities will still want to stamp authority to what they know over and above the rest. This is a class of a minority superior. Educated people will in most of the times if not always stand a better chance of social prosperity than their unlearned counterparts and the degree of such prowess could go in proportion to the level of education attained. Theorists of functionalism on the other hand argue that for a society to develop in all attributes then differentiation is integral. Today’s industrial society requires members of the society to assume different roles as provided by the society but must again do so in solidarity in order to promote the stability of the society through their contributions (Rasool, 2004). This view has, however, been subjected to criticism from conflict theorists. They argue that the dominant group in each society is propelled by its own interests to become elevated to more valued roles. The modern society has classified careers as valuable and less valuable. The former category is desirable by majority but attained by minority and the later is accorded low opinion and hence less admired. Due to this classification, there exists certain competition for the professions that are held in high regard. The desire of people to take up certain roles is misinterpreted to mean interests of the society. Consequently, different careers are subjected to different levels of remuneration. This state of affairs brings further stratification to the society. The economic power becomes unevenly distributed and the trend is passed from one generation to the other as people continue perceiving some career options as being more rewarding than others. We end up living in a society where people fight to take control of the system of education. People do this under the ‘false’ umbrella of satisfying the diverse needs of the society (Meyer, 1978). The functionalist theory therefore is reluctant to recognizing formal schooling as a rational means of preparing members of the society for varying professions necessary to maximize the societal production capacity. In contrast, it asserts that the system comes in only to magnify the already existing inequality gaps in the society. In conclusion it is easy to note from the discussion how education is influential in determining the social destiny of an individual. The sole use of education to rate and rank people is the tone of the day. Employers solely rely on level of education and type of training in the worker selection process. To this end people with no education do not stand a chance to noble jobs. Semi-trained persons take up the class of the average members of the society while the elites concur communities. The educated fail to respond to the noble call of initiating the process of societal transformation and instead demand specialized treatment from the commoners. There exists the unfortunate phenomenon of goal displacement where people pursue careers to pursue their own high status rather than to serve the societal needs. In the end we have an education system that creates social gaps in inequality levels and where this inequality is already in existence, the entire process propagates it further. The classes created henceforth become the basis of social structures and is passed on to the next generation whereby a child who hails from a family of the educated stands a higher chance of acquiring knowledge and the opposite is true. Education has failed to fulfill the utilitarian goal of being the vector of mutual benefit to the beholder of knowledge and the society at large (Rasool, 2004). There is no better way to demonstrate the inequality traits the system has instilled amongst people. References Berg, I. (1971). Education and Jobs. Boston, Beacon. Jencks, C., et al. (1972). Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America, New York, Basic. Meyer, J.W. (1978). The Effects of Education as an Institution, American Journal of Sociology, 89(1) 55-67. Mischel, W. (1971). Introduction to Personality, New York, Rinehart & Winston. Rasool, N. (2004). Language and Communicative competence in the Twenty-first Century: Examining the Role of Education, language policy, planning and practice, Karachi, Aga Khan University, Oxford University press. Shogren J. & Taylor L. (2008). On Behavioral-Environmental Economics, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2, 26-44. Stinchcombe A. (1968). Construting Social Theories, New York, Harcourt. Read More